Scandalous Skating – Substances at the Heart of the Valieva Doping Scandal and Alternatives

The Olympic doping scandal surrounding Kamila Valieva is one of the darkest moments the Olympic movement has ever faced. The system is struggling to contain the intense anger generated in all of the clean athletes that come to the Olympics and compete alongside others from around the world for glory. Sanctioned dopers are probably even angrier as they had to serve penalties while so far Valieva has not. Let the best athlete win and all is well. Allow a doping scandal to invade and all hell breaks loose. At the center of the scandal are cardiovascular drugs that can be used to enhance endurance; trimetazidine and hypoxen. One banned in sport, the other not. She also said she was using L-carnitine. Here we explore the substances used by Valieva, and others that could be alternative doping agents.

Valieva tested positive for the anti-ischemic drug trimetazidine (TMZ) on a Christmas Day drug test reported six weeks later causing the entire Olympics to take a collective pause. One hand on a team medal in figure skating for Russia and one hand in the cookie jar. Not good. Valieva also declared the use of hypoxen and L-carnitine on her collection form. All three have a common connection in that they are cardiovascular treatments or in some way impact heart function.

TMZ is not approved for use in the U.S. but it is commonly used as a heart treatment medication in Europe. From a doping perspective it can increase blood flow and improve endurance. A study done in Poland noted that TMZ could be found in relatively high amounts in treated wastewater demonstrating that it had become an environmental contaminant. This could expose crops irrigated with treated wastewater, or even animals that eat those crops, to the potential for contamination with TMZ. I wrote about this concern right as this scandal was breaking and the Olympics were doing a twizzle.

Realize that the now infamous drug meldonium is also an Eastern European anti-ischemic drug. Meldonium shocked the world in 2016 when it was first prohibited as it became the number one substance found in the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) system causing 515 failed drug tests across the globe. That number had dropped to around 70 by 2019 but it was still a common doping agent. The meldonium affair showed the world athletes were looking at anti-ischemic agents that were not yet prohibited as potential doping agents.

Trimetazidine itself was first prohibited in 2014. It was originally categorized as a stimulant and has since been moved to category S4 Hormone and Metabolic Modulators on the WADA Prohibited List. There have been an average of 9 positive drug tests each year for TMZ since 2014, not that many. However, “retrospective data mining regarding doping control analyses conducted between 1999 and 2013 at the Cologne Doping Control Laboratory concerning trimetazidine revealed a considerable prevalence of the drug particularly in endurance and strength sports accounting for up to 39 findings per year.” So it seems it was used a lot more before it was banned.

Trimetzidine sits alone as S4.4.4 right after S4.4.3 Meldonium. This is where anti-ischemic cardiovascular treatments that may have endurance benefits have been categorized on the WADA Prohibited List. Only a few examples of such drugs appear.

Hypoxen is one that does not, yet it is widely available at sites that cater to Russian pharmaceuticals. One such site has hypoxen as a ‘Cardiovascular Treatment’ along with 9 others that are not yet on the WADA Prohibited List. The summary of hypoxen on the site describes, “HYPOXEN is an antihypoxant and antioxidant. It reduces oxygen consumption and increase the efficiency of the organism in extreme situations, such as mental and physical stress, accompanied by a lack of oxygen,” it goes on to outline uses as, “To Improve Performance in Extreme Conditions (Including the Highlands, Arctic conditions, Underwater Work)” and, “Ischemia of the Heart Muscle (Angina Pectoris).”

A series of other options are on the site alongside TMZ, meldonium and hypoxen. The other options include Captopril (Capoten), Corvalol, Emoxypine, Riboxin (Inosine), VALIDOL (Validolum, Valofin, Menthoval, Menthyl isovalerate), VERAPAMIL (Isoptin, Calan).

Validol is of particular interest. The description outlines that Validol, “is an anxiolytic and produces a sedative effect as well as a moderate reflex and vascular dilative action,” under uses it includes, “Ischemia of the Heart Muscle (Angina Pectoris).” Let’s see increase in blood flow, anti-ischemic treatment. Sound familiar?

Riboxin is another substance I featured in an article in August 2021 on ‘Russian Doping of a Different Sort: Russian and Eastern European Drugs Hiding in Plain Sight as Alternative Doping Agents.’ The site that sells it notes several potential benefits to athletes including, “Provides anabolic effect,” and, “It reduces the area of necrosis and myocardial ischemia by improving microcirculation. Riboxin is also considered to improve muscle development.” Blood flow, ischemia. Check. This one even has anabolic effects. Ideal.

L-carnitine, the other substance Valieva declared, is a non-essential amino acid made in the human body that helps turn fat into energy. It is important to healthy brain and heart function and other processes in our bodies. Ingestion of L-carnitine is not prohibited in sport but injection over 50ml would be prohibited. L-carnitine injections in sport were made infamous by the Nike Oregon Project and Mo Farah, who admitted to the practice, then recounted in a mysterious saga reported by the Independent. In the Farah situation it was alleged that the amount injected was 13.5ml and not illegal. High amounts of L-carnitine when injected can enhance endurance.

Alberto Salazar, the coach at the center of the Nike Oregon project affair was excited about the potential of L-carnitine for performance enhancement. In a story reported by AP October 2, 2019 Salazar, “sent an email to none other than Lance Armstrong. ‘Lance, call me asap!’ Salazar wrote to the world’s most famous cyclist, who himself was only months away from being banned for life for doping. ‘We have tested it, and it’s amazing.’”

That’s the same stuff Valieva declared. Now, she may have declared an ingestible form of L-carnitine as a nutritional supplement, which would be perfectly legal in sport, or it could be this grey area high amount of L-carnitine injection practice in action. We just don’t know and we probably never will. It is sad to think that on top of everything else Valieva has suffered in this affair she could be a human pincushion as well.

These substances and practices are out in the open and appear to be obvious substitutes or alternatives for now notorious banned substances in sport like meldonium. Hypoxen, Validol, and Riboxin appear to be substances that would have clear doping potential. In the case of L-carnitine injections, it is a convenient workaround. It is time we open our eyes wider and address some of these potential doping agents as they are obviously in use.

This whole affair is an utter shame to anyone that loves the Olympics as I do. A 15-year’s doping scandal has cast a pall over the entire Olympics. Reduced to tears after her long program in Beijing, Valieva was clearly struggling under the weight of the scandal. Reporting in People noted Valieva’s coach was “heard admonishing her performance,” as if she needed more pain. Fellow Russian 17-year old Alexandra Trusova who won the silver was quoted saying, “everyone has a gold medal, everyone, but not me. I hate skating. I hate it. I hate this sport. I will never skate again. Never.” The gold medalist, Anna Shcherbakova looked shocked and stunned after winning. That is the kind of unbelievable pressure these Russian girls are under. Meanwhile the bronze medalist from Japan cried tears of joy.

Olympians are supposed to have the opportunity to come together alongside the best of their kind in the world to celebrate camaraderie and their unbelievable dedication to sport while proudly representing their countries in hopes of basking in Olympic glory and maybe winning a medal. Instead Valieva has to answer for the failure of the Russian system to evolve the culture to one that actually endorses clean sport. Worse yet she has to answer for the failure of the Olympic movement to manage it. So too do all the other athletes crushed by the latest Russian doping scandal. The last four Olympics have been marred by talks of Russian doping. It is about time that ends.

Russian Doping of a Different Sort: Russian and Eastern European Drugs Hiding in Plain Sight as Alternative Doping Agents

Russian doping has been at the forefront of people’s minds as the 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games fade in our memories and we prepare for the 2022 Beijing Olympics to begin in February. The state-sponsored doping that culminated at the 2014 Sochi Olympics continues to cast shade over Russian sport–excuse me, the Russian Olympic Committee (ROC)–and indeed global competition, as the ensuing discussion and veiled accusations mar the Olympic spirit. But perhaps people should also be concerned about Russian doping of a different sort, one that is not often considered but should be. History has shown that athletes use Russian and Eastern European drugs as doping agents and yet few are prohibited today.

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List outlines the substances that are banned in international competition including the Olympics. The 2021 WADA Prohibited List consists of 333 compounds listed by name, but the inclusion of catch-all language also prohibits related substances in many product categories. To be found, however, drugs have to rise to a level of concern and be targeted first and the WADA list primarily focuses on drugs of Western origin. Only four drugs of Russian or Eastern European origin appear to be included. Certainly there are others out there that would be attractive as doping agents.

Let’s take a look at the four drugs on the WADA Prohibited List that are of Russian or Eastern European origin and explore alternatives that athletes may be using today.

The story starts with bromantan, which was developed in the 1980s at the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences in Moscow. It can be found under the brand name Ladasten and is technically an actoprotector. Research out of Korea in 2012 explored bromantan in The Pharmacology of Actoprotectors: Practical Application for Improvement of Mental and Physical Performance. The writers described actoprotectors as “synthetic adaptogens with a significant capacity to improve physical performance.” The literature noted, “Bromantan was first found in an athlete sample at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics and was officially banned in 1997 as a stimulant.” There have been 11 adverse findings for bromantan in the WADA system since 2006.

Perhaps this is not surprising as a perfect alternative, bemitil, also known as metaprot, is described in the literature above and remains widely available online today, often at sites that offer Russian medicines or nootropics. The paper above explains that “nowadays, bemitil is manufactured in Ukraine (commercial name: Antihot) and is widely used in preparing Ukrainian national sport teams for international competitions.” It also notes, “Bemitil was successfully employed in preparing the athletes of the USSR’s national team for the 1980 Olympic Games held in Moscow.”

“Bemitil was successfully employed in preparing the athletes of the USSR’s national team for the 1980 Olympic Games held in Moscow.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3762282/

Bemitil was added to the WADA monitoring program list in 2018, 38 years after the Moscow Olympics you will note, but is not yet prohibited. If it does get prohibited, fear not there are alternatives for it, too. A site that sells Eastern European drugs like bemitil, MOSPharma.com, suggests four related products including noopept (see below) and trekrezan “from Russian pharmaceutical company Usolye-Siberian CPP,” with activity that “increases endurance during physical and mental stress.”

Next on the list of Russian doping agents is mescocarb, a central nervous system (CNS) stimulant and a dopamine reuptake inhibitor patented originally in Russia in 1970 by Vni Khim Farmatsevtichesky. Also known as Armesocarb, it is currently in clinical trials as an antiparkinsonian drug from Melior Pharmaceuticals. It has been sold under the brand name Sydnocarb with a nod to the technical chemical category in which it fits, mesoionic sydnone imine. Mesocarb does not appear to be widely available today online. It has been prohibited in sport since at least 1996 based on references to it at that time, but it has only been responsible for two adverse analytical findings since 2006.

There are also Russian alternatives to CNS stimulants with semax as one option. A poster on black market products with suspiciously doping relevant ingredients – annual report from the 2016 Manfred Donike Workshop discussed that semax “acts as a nootropic agent on the central nervous system and regulates dopamine and serotonine levels.” MOSPharma.com describes semax as “100% original from the Russian CJSC INPC Peptogen,” and notes it is used “to stimulate the central nervous system and enhance memory, focus, mental and physical performance, analytical skills.”

Carphedon, otherwise known as phenylpiracetam, is the next on our list and one of a family called racetams that are generally considered nootropic drugs. In 2019, researchers from the Czech Republic considered Carphedon at the Crossroads: A Dangerous  Drug or a Promising Psychopharmaceutical? They explain this substance was “developed in Russia as a stimulant to keep astronauts awake on long missions, and occasionally used in Russia as a nootropic prescription for various types of neurological disease.” Carphedon “was synthesized in 1990 by Russian chemists as a combination of two drugs, nootropic piracetam and amphetamine stimulant.” A 2012 review of Piracetam and Piracetam-Like Drugs describes them as “modulators of cerebral functions,” used for, “various therapeutic interventions relating to the CNS, including (i) cognition/memory; (ii) epilepsy and seizure; (iii) neurodegenerative diseases; (iv) stroke/ischaemia; and (v) stress and anxiety.”

Handwritten notes from 1997 show carphedon was considered by my father, sports drug-testing guru Dr. Don H. Catlin, and colleagues at the IOC Medical Commission for addition to the prohibited list at the time. The notes describe carphedon as, “adaptogenic, registered in 1994 in Russian pharmacopeia that might help with space travel and improve workload.” The drug has caused 122 adverse analytical findings since 2006.

If you peruse the piracetam review highlighted above, you will find nine other racetam options that may be considered as doping agents. None is listed by WADA today. Neither is noopept, otherwise known as omberacetam, which has become one of the most popular nootropic agents on the market today. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) notes that “noopept was patented by Russian-based pharmaceutical company JSC LEKKO Pharmaceuticals in 1996.” The information cites that the “research shows Noopept has similar effects, but works differently than other nootropics in the racetam-family.” A number of sites compare the effects of phenylpiracetam to noopept with nootriment.com, suggesting that “both are purported to have benefits for memory, concentration, mood and alertness.”

From a banned substance standpoint, phenylpiracetam is on the WADA Prohibited List while noopept is not listed nor is it targeted. A synthetic drug, noopept, is widely available in supplement form despite it not qualifying as a dietary supplement ingredient according to the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), which defines legal supplement ingredients in the U.S. It shows up in 32 dietary supplement products in the NIH Office of Dietary Supplements Dietary Supplement Label Database. In 2016 a BSCG blog post I wrote considered noopept could be the next big doping agent hiding in plain sight. That still remains the case today.

Last but not least of the four Russian doping agents is meldonium, otherwise known as mildronate. One will remember the maelstrom that ensued when meldonium was added to the WADA Prohibited List in 2016. There were 515 positive drug tests for meldonium in 2016, making it the most common substance found that year in Olympic sport. Tennis star Maria Sharapova was among them. There were 269 more positives from 2017 to 2019 for a total of 784. Meldonium is included on the WADA Prohibited List as a metabolic modulator in category S4.

Scientists from the University of Latvia and the Latvian Institute of Organic Synthesis that created meldonium, described it as “an anti-ischemic drug.” Its performance-enhancing potential has been the subject of much debate likely because it is a complex substance that has a variety of effects. An excerpt from a 2005 paper written by the aforementioned scientists, Mildronate: An Antiischemic Drug for Neurological Indications, describes it as follows.

“Mildronate was designed to inhibit carnitine biosynthesis in order to prevent accumulation of cytotoxic intermediate products of fatty acid oxidation in ischemic tissues and to block this highly oxygen-consuming process. Mildronate is efficient in the treatment of heart ischemia and its consequences. Extensive evaluation of pharmacological activities of mildronate revealed its beneficial effect on cerebral circulation disorders and central nervous system (CNS) functions. The drug is used in neurological clinics for the treatment of brain circulation disorders. It appears to improve patients’ mood; they become more active, their motor dysfunction decreases, and asthenia, dizziness and nausea become less pronounced.”

The meldonium saga more than demonstrated athletes around the world had recognized an obscure anti-ischemia agent as a doping option and had started to use it. When it was prohibited, Russian scientists boasted they already had alternatives. As reported in USA Today from Moscow, “Federal Medical-Biological Agency head Vladimir Uiba says Russia has found ‘several drugs which are not banned and work significantly better than meldonium.’”

You don’t have to look far. Mexidol is broadly available on sites that cater to Russian medicine as well as on a site called DrDoping.com; very subtle. It is also available on Amazon from Pharmasoft at $21 for 50 tablets with a label that suggests it be used for “Anxiety Relief, Anti-Stress, and Ischemic Condition.” Mexidol, an anti-oxidant, was patented in 2002 in Russia with the patent describing the “invention relates to preparations used for prophylaxis and treatment of different forms of cardiac ischemia disease, atherosclerosis and acute circulation disturbances, cerebral insults.” With indications for ischemic conditions, it certainly appears similar to meldonium.

In a 2007 paper, Mexidol effects in extreme conditions, T.A. Varonina with the Institute of Pharmacology, Russian Academy of Medical Sciences notes, “Mexidol can be prescribed to humans to maintain efficiency in all kinds of extreme situations.” Could hundreds of Olympic athletes be using mexidol as an alternative to meldonium today?

A 2019 review from Russia of Pharmacoeconomic analysis of the neuroprotective medicines in the treatment of ischemic stroke compares mexidol to actovegin, which gained some notoriety as a potential doping agent around 2009 as explored in the Daily News. Actovegin, which DrDoping.com carries in pill form, is an extract from calf blood and is not on the WADA Prohibited List. In the article Olivier Rabin, WADA’s science director, suggests, “Actovegin could be used as a component of sophisticated blood doping methods, in which athletes withdraw, manipulate, and re-inject their blood to boost their endurance, or in conjunction with the use of erythropoietin, or EPO.”

When we ran independent drug-testing programs for several leading cycling teams in the peloton years ago, a key member of a team said to me after an event, “You know, Oliver, we aren’t doing anything that is over the line but we are doing everything we can up to the line.” That simple philosophy likely rings true across sport today.

People often ask if the Olympics or sport in general is clean today. To answer that simply, the system is very good at finding drugs that are currently defined as prohibited substances. None of the Russian or Eastern European drugs we note here–bemitil, trekrezan, semax, noopept and other racetams, actovegin, or mexidol–is on the WADA Prohibited List today. These Russian or Eastern European drugs certainly seem to be potential alternatives to prohibited drugs, but if they are not yet defined as such then using them is not yet considered doping. If sites like DrDoping.com has found them, who else might have them?

Oliver Catlin is the longtime president and co-founder of BSCG (Banned Substances Control Group), an international third-party certification and testing provider. With a background in sports anti-doping, he is widely regarded as a thought-leader in the field of sports nutrition and dietary supplements.

House of Representatives Passes ‘Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act’

By Ryan Connolly

Earlier this week, the United States Congress moved closer to establishing federal criminal penalties for international doping fraud conspiracies, such as the Russian Doping scandal that rocked the Olympic world in 2016. “The Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act of 2019”–controversially named after a chief perpetrator and eventual whistleblower of the aforementioned scandal–was passed by the House of Representatives on October 22. If signed into law, H.R. 835 would establish significant criminal penalties–up to 10 years in prison and $250,000 in fines for an individual–and make it unlawful to “knowingly carry out…a scheme…to influence by use of a prohibited substance or prohibited method any major international sports competition.” Under the Act, such an international competition must (1) have at least one U.S. athlete participating, (2) have at least three non-U.S. athletes participating, (3) be governed by the World Anti-Doping Code, and (4) receive sponsorship or broadcast rights money from a U.S.-based organization.

Importantly, a person’s intention is a key element of the section of the Act establishing criminal penalties. A person must knowingly intend to influence an international competition through doping fraud to violate the Act. Unless the actions of the person are fairly blatant and backed by evidence demonstrating an intent to cheat the system, establishing the “knowingly” element may be a significant bar for a federal prosecutor to clear in many cases. This should largely alleviate concerns of criminal penalties for certain actors who are inadvertently responsible for positive doping tests. This includes dietary supplement companies and executives whose products are found to be contaminated (unintentionally) with a banned substance. However, such potentially negligent actors may still be found responsible for the consequences and face significant civil damages and penalties, as is reaffirmed by the Act.

Another significant aspect of the Act is related to information sharing between the United States government and the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), a non-governmental Colorado non-profit corporation that conducts anti-doping activities for Olympic sports in the United States. Under the Act, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are required to coordinate with USADA with regard to any investigation related to an international doping fraud conspiracy, unless the integrity of that agency’s criminal investigation would be affected. This coordination specifically includes that the agencies must “shar[e] with USADA all information in [their] possession…which may be relevant to any such potential violation” of the Act. If the Act is signed into law, this new information sharing requirement could prove to yield a treasure trove of knowledge that may have been previously inaccessible to USADA.

View the text of H.R. 835 at Congress.gov.

Ryan Connolly is a Los Angeles-based attorney serving as counsel to various businesses, individuals, and dietary supplement / anti-doping-related organizations, including Banned Substances Control Group (BSCG).

Response to Grigory Rodchenkov and Vladimir Putin on Russian Doping Debacle

Beijing Olympics Opening Ceremony – Photo by Oliver Catlin

We welcomed reading the Sept. 22 New York Times opinion piece from Grigory Rodchenkov on Russia’s state-sanctioned doping and the response to date by the Olympic community. Vladmir Putin has now added his voice to the discussion.

Grigory’s comments clarifying the direct involvement of the Russian sport minister in the country’s nefarious doping activities are very important, as that has been difficult to prove. Grigory also shares what our position has been for some time, that as a result of its state-directed doping Russia should be sanctioned and not allowed to compete as a nation in the upcoming 2018 Winter Olympics in PyeongChang but demonstrably clean Russian athletes should be allowed to compete under a neutral flag.

While we appreciate much of the perspectives Grigory shares, and also his apology to those he disappointed since we fall into that group, we still have some questions regarding his explanation and reasoning. The biggest question remains: Why did he participate in Russia’s fraudulent state-directed doping for so long without trying to expose it earlier on ethical grounds, and exactly how long was the activity going on?

Grigory begins his piece saying he escaped Russia to expose to the world the Russian doping activities in hopes of leading to change. He laments that his hope for change is fading due to a lax response. He notes that Russia has yet to admit to supporting the doping activities or provide evidence to demonstrate the specifics of what occurred, part of the recommended reforms the Olympic authorities have requested. He points out the oddity that none of the commissions investigating the case had sought comment from him until September. This is certainly unfortunate if true.

He then goes on to unequivocally explain that Vitaly Mutko, a deputy prime minister and former minister of sport, and other government officials were directly involved in the doping activities, saying Mr. Mutko “knew about, and was critical to the success of, Russia’s doping program.” The involvement of the state and the ability to demonstrate it has been debated by some to date and has made it easier to support a less stringent response for those so inclined. Grigory, as a key witness, adds important clarity as to the direct involvement of government authorities in the Russian doping agenda.

Grigory goes on to describe himself as the witch in the witch-hunt, and we agree with that notion in part as he was most likely not the mastermind behind this affair. Yet we are not ready to accept his absolution of guilt. After all, from an ethical standpoint there are still many questions remaining as to why Grigory did not come forward earlier to expose the truth behind the Russian doping activities and halt his own involvement in them. There are also big questions as to how long the state-sponsored doping has been ongoing that are of significant concern.

Grigory describes himself as a victim of the system suggesting that he did not have a choice but to be involved in the doping activities. He compares this to the clean athletes that also do not “have much choice but to cheat, even if some did so enthusiastically.” He suggests that the Russian system demands compliance and that people face serious consequences if they do not comply with directions from superiors or the state. He recounts the sudden, mysterious deaths of two of his colleagues that were involved in Russia’s doping system, saying that they were not coincidental.

We do not doubt, nor discount, the need to comply with the demands of the state in Russia or face dire consequences. We understand that careers, and in fact lives in certain circumstances, are at stake for non-compliance.

For Grigory, or for Russian athletes, a sad choice is suggested: Follow the directions of the state, sacrificing your ethics in the process, if you want to be successful in your career. The other option seems to be to leave the country to pursue your trade, whether it be science or athletics. Leaving ones country and life behind is perhaps a more difficult choice to make than sacrificing ones ethics, but that is a choice that some people in similar circumstances have made. What a horrible decision to have to make.

We noted recently in our commentary on the documentary “Icarus” that there are allegations of state-sponsored doping in the Soviet Union and Russia going back to 1988 and before, when Victor Uralets was the laboratory director from 1980 to 1992. Elliott Almond reminded us of this on May 13, 2016 in The Monterey Herald in his interview with Victor the week following the revelations of Russian doping in The New York Times. Grigory was hired by Victor and eventually succeeded him as director of the Moscow anti-doping laboratory.

A Russian magazine Smena had revealed allegations of 1988 pre-testing occurring on the ship ‘Mikhail Sholokhov,’ docked 60 kilometers from Seoul in an effort to explore whether Russian athletes would pass drug tests during the Olympics. As Elliott writes, this was “one of the most startling revelations that attracted little attention… after the 1988 Summer Olympics in Seoul, South Korea.” An L.A. Times piece from March 24, 1989 describes the Smena article and recounts a startling story told by the young anonymous Soviet athlete interviewed by the youth magazine.

“They knew what kind of ‘vitamins’ these were,” said the athlete, who asked not to be identified. “And that if you refused, you’d be thrown off the team. . . . Now I’m practically an invalid . . . constant pains . . . my whole hormonal system is destroyed, my health is ruined . . . and my life is still ahead of me. I would have liked to become a mother.” For those who question why we should fight against doping, this one personal story should provide a powerful answer.

Victor verifies the veracity of the pre-testing claims and the apparent purpose, in Elliott’s article and also importantly noted that he left his position and came to the United States because he did not believe what he was being asked to do was ethical or safe. “By the time I realized it is not ethical or safe, I decided to leave,” Victor is quoted as saying. “I have a similar job here but without that embarrassment involved with cheating.” He goes on to say, “It is repeating itself. It is a huge embarrassment. It is an embarrassment on a global scale.”

Is it repeating itself or did it never end?

As we pointed out in our earlier discussion on “Icarus,” Don, and others had concerns that doping activity was occurring going back to the Soviet era. Manfred Donike, one of the greatest anti-doping scientists in history, had become suspicious in 1988 of Soviet pre-testing during the Olympics in Calgary where on the street he ran into Victor, who was there unbeknownst to his international doping control lab colleagues. Later, Don and other colleagues became aware of the Smena allegations of pre-testing of Soviet athletes; Don even recalls a photo of Grigory coming off the boat.

While there was suspicion that these activities could be part of a larger Soviet doping strategy there was never anything actionable to address. There had been no proof presented that we can recall that could clearly demonstrate state-sanctioned doping was occurring in the 1980s, or in the years since. As Grigory points out, that proof has yet to be provided by Russia even for the most recent endeavors.

But Grigory, we must ask, why did you not opt to do the same thing that Victor did? Why did you not come out earlier to expose the scandal for the benefit of clean athletes? Why did you wait until your life was threatened? You could have come to us at any point and we would have done everything possible to help you expose whatever was occurring in the right way–and do what was possible to protect your family in the process. You chose not to take that path, and that is unfortunate. Now you want to wash your hands of any responsibility?

The New York Times article of May 12, 2016, “Russian Insider Says State-Run Doping Fueled Olympic Gold” by Rebecca Ruiz, described your activities as “the apex of a decade-long effort to perfect Russia’s doping strategy at international competitions.” You have admitted to not only allowing your testing to be used as a tool in the state-directed doping activities, but to actually providing the drugs involved! We would really like to know the extent of what was going on back to the 1980s and how you were involved since then.

For us to consider that you were complicit somehow in Soviet and Russian doping from the 1980s through recent years makes our spine tingle. We were your friends, your colleagues. We even worked on collaborative anti-doping efforts with you including a groundbreaking U.S. – Soviet partnership in 1988 described in the New York Times at the time as “the first major attempt by each country to eliminate the use of performance-enhancing drugs like anabolic steroids.”  All that seems like a fraud now, sadly.

In “Icarus,” Grigory briefly alludes to challenges we have faced in the United States with doping athletes. In the 1980s the USOC’s now infamous “education” program was used to explore how to dope athletes and beat the drug tests. When Don uncovered the reality behind the program, for which he was doing the testing, he immediately stopped the work and demanded change.

His career was potentially on the line, but thankfully his life was never threatened. We understand the ethical dilemma Grigory faced, but we can’t profess to truly understand the circumstantial dilemma that the threat of the state adds to the equation.

Courageous whistleblower athletes Yuliya Stepanova and her husband, Vitaliy, did understand the risk and nonetheless elected to come forward. They are to be lauded for helping to expose the sordid Russian doping affair. As we noted in our earlier statement on “Icarus,” the athletes courageously stepped forward to demand change themselves and took action. Their strength is a powerful force in confronting state corruption and impelling the system to change.

We share the opinion that the Olympic family must adequately respond to this demand for change and that it has yet to do so. Prohibiting Russia from achieving glory at the 2018 Winter Olympics in PyeongChang as a penalty for its involvement in the establishment of a doping program seems justified. We advocated for that step to be taken before Rio. Fines are not adequate and set a dangerous precedent. Allowing Russian athletes that are proven clean to compete under a neutral flag reinforces support of clean athletes while a Russian ban would enforce a deservedly harsh penalty on the state.

We remain hopeful the exposure of the Russian doping scandal will result in positive changes that will reinforce the protection that clean athletes deserve. Grigory could help further by explaining what was happening before Sochi and the mouse holes were drilled and the bottles tampered with and the positive test results covered up and the clean athletes denied their victories. He could help shed some light on the historical realities of the Soviet and Russian doping program going back to the 1980s and 1990s. This information might help us to avoid state-sponsored doping in the future, by Russia or some other country willing to ride roughshod over the integrity of Olympic sport.

Russia is now requesting that Grigory be returned home to face trial for his actions. If he is sent back he will surely be imprisoned, or worse, and his knowledge of what really happened will be lost. What he knows is important to the future of clean sport and he should be given the opportunity to finish telling his story.

On Nov. 9, Russian President Vladimir Putin commented on the Russian doping allegations, suggesting among other things that the doping scandal is a U.S. plot aimed at swinging the upcoming Russian presidential election against him. He is quoted in part as follows:

“Here is what worries me: the Olympics start in February, and when are our presidential elections? In March. There is a strong suspicion that this is all happening in order to create a situation useful to some, one of disappointment for sports followers and sportsmen in which the state allegedly participated in violations. Therefore, there is strong suspicion that in response to our alleged interference in their election they want to create problems in the election of the President of Russia, which, if so, is very bad, as it undermines the very meaning of the Olympic movement.”

President Putin, the eyes of the world have already been opened to the reality that there was high-level support for the doping that occurred in your country. Independent international parties under the auspices of the World Anti-Doping Agency carried out the process of investigating and reporting the reality of the abuses that occurred. The exposed Russian doping scandal is not a U.S. plot and the good people of the Lausanne laboratory were not part of the subterfuge. It is clear this was a systemic scheme perpetuated on sport by Russia to subvert Olympic competition. The worldwide reaction to this affront represents a global fight for the integrity of Olympic sport, led in part by Russia’s own athletes.

Indeed, part of the beauty of Olympic sport is that it transcends politics, which is all the more reason to protect it. In your own words, “sport as well as culture should be beyond politics, because it is a bridge that unites people”–yet you seek to politicize it. Doping degrades and destroys sport, it ruins the lives of talented athletes, and it undermines the unity and goodwill that international sport generates. As you point out, “a sports match should be honest, otherwise it loses all meaning. Interest in it disappears.”

President Putin, we appreciate your passion for sport and your aim to ensure Russia remains a global leader in sport. We hope you realize that in order to accomplish that goal a true embrace of the Olympic ideals and a real commitment to support clean sport are required.

Catlin Perspective on Netflix Documentary ‘Icarus’ and Russian Doping

By Oliver Catlin

With the high-profile “Icarus” documentary now available on Netflix and in selected movie theaters, I wanted to take a moment to provide perspective on some points my father, anti-doping pioneer Dr. Don H. Catlin, and I have considered in regards to “Icarus” and Russian doping in general.

We offer a warning to those who have not yet seen the film that the following contains some spoilers.

Participation in ‘Icarus’ Documentary

When a documentary maker contacts my father looking for help for an anti-doping piece, he tries to lend his support and expertise whenever possible. He did so with Bryan Fogel, even though he was unfamiliar with Fogel’s previous work. In his request for participation, Fogel stated that the primary aim of his film would be a historical review of anti-doping scientific developments and a discussion of my father’s many achievements in the field and anything else my father wanted to discuss. Fogel also mentioned an interest in doping himself prior to riding in a top amateur cycling race to hopefully demonstrate he could beat the anti-doping system. “You are the expert on the subject—I am the filmmaker… let’s discuss and formulate a schedule and a plan and hopefully be aligned!” he wrote in his pitch.

As a key expert at the highest levels of sports drug testing for more than three decades, Don was excited to have an opportunity to share his historical insights about a myriad of professional experiences and developments in the field. Though he hesitated at the thought of helping someone to dope or attempt to game a system he had helped to build, he found himself curious how doping might impact someone in a real-world race environment. Fogel, however, was eager to discuss how difficult it was to evade detection and where the current holes in the system might be and how they could be exploited. Don shared some discussion with Fogel about the filmmaker’s ideas, but orchestrating the doping activity or trying to demonstrate that the current anti-doping system could be thwarted was not something my father was interested in doing.

About Grigory Rodchenkov

Over the years, my father has crossed paths with many other capable, dedicated scientists in the anti-doping field. He has enjoyed working with this committed group to help build the best anti-doping system possible for the protection of sport and the athletes. When Fogel asked if there was anyone he knew who might be able to help with his doping agenda, my father believed his dedicated colleagues, especially those in WADA-accredited labs, would decline as he did. Without question, most of them have high ethical standards and scrupulous laboratory practices, and take pride in their anti-doping work. He could think of only one person who might be willing to assist Fogel: Grigory Rodchenkov, then the director of Russia’s anti-doping laboratory in Moscow.

My father had known Rodchenkov for many years and respected his scientific work but over time was less certain of his ethics. While my father could never have imagined how extensive the Russian state-sponsored doping and its cover-up were at the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics under the direction of Rodchenkov, he did believe Rodchenkov was operating in a different realm than the rest of his colleagues.

My father and others in the anti-doping community had been suspicious of Russia’s doping activity for many years. Prior to the airing of the earth-shattering ARD exposés in Germany in 2015 and 2016, allegations of widespread malfeasance in Russian track and field were publicly reported in 2014 with the help of courageous athletes by the ARD’s award-winning journalist Hajo Seppelt.

Some Context About Russian Doping

Russian state-sponsored doping of its top athletes has likely been going on for years. At one point in “Icarus,” Fogel raises the possibility that it goes all the way back to 1968. Thanks to the Russian magazine Smena, we know that in 1988, prior to the Summer Olympics in Seoul, South Korea, the Soviet team was pre-tested aboard a ship offshore. The Soviets purportedly wanted to ensure their doped athletes could pass the IOC tests. Victor Uralets, the director of the Moscow anti-doping laboratory from 1980 to 1992, essentially corroborated this story publicly in 2016 and indicated that he left the lab because he did not believe what he was being asked to do was ethical or safe. He now works at a testing lab in Northern California where he no longer has to deal with what he described as the embarrassment involved with cheating. We commend Victor for having the courage to leave a corrupt system.

In 2002, at the Winter Olympics at Salt Lake City, two Russian cross-country skiers, as well as a Spanish cross-country skier, were suspended after testing positive for darbepoetin alfa, a new form of the blood-booster EPO, or erythropoietin. It was the first time the test, developed by the French scientist Dr. Françoise Lasne, had been employed successfully. My father, who oversaw the drug testing at these Olympics, martialed the introduction of this new test that produced these historic positive results. Perhaps these early findings were merely the tip of the iceberg in the larger scheme of Russian doping that has been unveiled.

A Silver Lining

One small bit of silver lining loosely discussed in “Icarus” is the actual effects of doping on Fogel’s cycling performance, which decreased the year he rode dirty. By originally dedicating himself to training, proper nutrition, and riding clean, Fogel came in 14^th place in the Haute Route Alps in 2014, 4^th in his 40 – 49 age class. With a focus on doping, beating the system, and riding with a dirty mentality the following year, he came in 27^th place and 12^th in his age class. While a mechanical issue impaired a direct comparison of the two performances, we are left to wonder what the real effect of his doping might have been. Did it improve performance or did it hinder it, as Fogel’s results appear to show?

Fogel described it being easier to train and recover when he was doping, that the banned substances made it mentally easier to perform at a high level. When you are in a race situation and constantly challenging your maximum capability, however, is such an effect really beneficial? Or could the mental strength necessary to overcome suffering exhibited by clean riders sometimes actually enhance performance more than banned drugs? The mental capacity to deal with suffering and pain is vital in the grueling sport of cycling, and we wonder if that is actually diminished if one makes the sport easier by doping.

Many people will probably view “Icarus” and be dismayed as we were by its sordid tale of Russian doping, but we are also buoyed by the larger picture. We must remember it was not Rodchenkov or Fogel who were responsible for unveiling the ugly truth of state-sponsored Russian doping; it was the courageous athletes caught in its web, such as Yuliya Stepanova and her husband Vitaliy, who at great risk to themselves came forward to expose what was happening. The athletes themselves are driving change and endorsing clean sport more and more, and that is extremely powerful.

Oliver Catlin is President of BSCG (Banned Substances Control Group), a leading dietary supplement testing and certification provider since 2004. A graduate of UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business, he has worked as an executive in the anti-doping and dietary supplement industries for nearly fifteen years.

The Rio Olympics, the Russian Doping Scandal, Dietary Supplements and Banned Substances in Sport

A Discussion with Dr. Don H. Catlin and Oliver Catlin

Don H. Catlin, M.D., a renowned longtime sports anti-doping researcher, is considered a father of drug testing in sport. He founded the UCLA Olympic Analytical Laboratory prior to the 1984 Los Angeles Summer Olympics and served as its director for 25 years, growing it into the world’s largest lab testing for performance-enhancing drugs. Today, among other things, he is Chief Science Officer at BSCG (Banned Substances Control Group), a leading provider of analytical testing and certification programs for dietary supplements, natural products, ingredient suppliers and manufacturing facilities.

Oliver Catlin is president of BSCG. A well-respected executive, he has been working in the arenas of sports anti-doping and dietary supplements for more than a decade.

Dr. Don Catlin, left, and Oliver Catlin

In the interview that follows, Dr. Catlin and Mr. Catlin discuss the upcoming summer Olympic Games in Rio, the Russian doping scandal and dietary supplement issues related to drugs in sport.

 

Q. Dr. Catlin, as a former longtime member of the IOC (International Olympic Committee) Medical Commission, how do you feel about the IOC’s recent decision not to ban all Russian athletes at the Rio Olympics?

Dr. Catlin: I was not happy to wake up a few days ago to the news that the IOC did not ban Russian athletes from competing at the Summer Olympic Games in Rio. I was hoping to see a serious statement made against the practice of state-sponsored doping. Instead the IOC turned the decision over to International Federations and an IOC executive committee. Several high-level recent reports (McLaren, WADA report 1C, German television ARD) established that the state of Russia was clearly involved with directing doping activities in an operation that included,Russian lab director Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov, the state ministry of sport, and the FSB security forces (renamed from the KGB). The extent of the activities warranted a ban in my view. This decision presented an opportunity for the IOC to show its dedication to anti-doping ideals and make a serious statement in support of clean sport, but sadly they failed to make that statement

Mr. Catlin: If we don’t stand up for anti-doping in this instance, when will we? I think that perhaps the consideration of a complete ban was challenged by a lack of precedence for banning an entire country as a result of anti-doping as well as liability concerns. Clean athletes were going to be harmed whether a total ban was enacted or not; arguably more clean athletes are impacted by not proceeding with a ban. Although I don’t believe there is a precedent for keeping an entire country out of the Games due to systemic doping, there is perhaps a precedent for systemic doping factoring into whether a sport is allowed to remain an Olympic sport. It was not long ago that the status of baseball and softball as Olympic sports were affected in large part due to concerns over systemic doping in baseball. Surely a number of clean athletes were affected by the decision to remove these sports, and for a longer period of time than the Russian ban was being considered. Liability is also perhaps a concern. With gold medals being worth upwards of $10 million or more, the risk of Russian athletes suing for damages may have been a factor in the IOC’s decision.

 

Q. What do you make of Sochi Olympics lab director Dr. Rodchenkov’s claims that he helped to oversee the systematic doping of Russian Olympic athletes at the behest of the Russian government?

Dr. Catlin: I was deeply disappointed to learn that Grigory Rodchenkov, someone I had called a friend and a colleague, had become a central figure in the Russian doping scandal that has spanned many years. In an in-depth interview with the New York Times in May, Dr. Rodchenkov revealed his role in doping Russian athletes. He did this by providing cocktails of drugs that were designed to clear the system quickly, aiding Russian agencies in a scheme to cover up positive test results, and in the case of Sochi testing he participated in an elaborate sample switching scheme enabled by the FSB. Dr. Rodchenkov remained in the lab from midnight to dawn. He knew which samples were positive. He passed those through a hole in the wall to an FSB agent, who used a new technique to open the tamper proof bottles and replace the positive urine with a clean sample. The bottles were closed and passed back to the lab for testing. It is hard for me to stomach that kind of deceit from someone I had known for many years. Thankfully, most of the lab directors in the WADA system are dedicated and ethical scientists who work hard to defend anti-doping and clean sport.

Mr. Catlin: I think most observers of the Russian doping scandal realize that Russia presents a very different environment. There is often no option other than to follow state directives. Ramifications of challenging the state can be severe. The recent McLaren report noted that the Russian laboratory personnel did not have a choice in whether to be involved in the state-directed system; their employment required participation. We are focused on the current scandal but I think it is fair to say that this is not the first occasion that my father, or the larger anti-doping community, have been suspicious of Russian doping. Nor is Russia alone in having issues, we have seen problems previously with Chinese swimmers, East German athletes, and even in the U.S. with result shredding scandals and ‘educational’ testing in the 80’s.

 

Q. Some have gone so far as to suggest that systematic doping threatens the very existence of the Olympics. How concerned are you that we could actually reach a tipping point where the general public might no longer believe the Olympics is a fair competition?

Dr. Catlin: The Olympics have been involved with controversies for many years, including doping scandals. I think back to the Ben Johnson affair at the 1988 Summer Olympics at Seoul, South Korea, and what that did to shake up the system at the time. The Olympics have survived all such controversies in the past and will likely survive this one. It is true that each drug scandal takes its toll, and this one is pretty gross. But a scandal can also help expose systemic weakness, which if addressed, can improve anti-doping efforts for the future.

Mr. Catlin: It’s sad that the Russian doping scandal has cast a pall over the Rio Olympics. The silver lining is that it has put the anti-doping issue on center stage, as it should be given its importance to the Olympic family. Years ago, my father helped to create the International Olympic Charter against Doping in Sport, and hopefully commitment to those ideas will help lead us past the current situation. The important thing is for us to recognize the problems and find real solutions.

 

Q. What changes or solutions do you think are necessary to protect against these kinds of concerns at the Olympics in the future?

Dr. Catlin: One thing we need to evaluate is the process involved in reviewing and reporting positive results and to create more oversight when it comes to results management. For years we have put result management largely in the hands of stakeholders without adequate independent review. In WADA’s review and criticism of its own activities a year or two ago, they suggested they needed more commitment and participation on behalf of stakeholders. If we continue to allow results decisions to be managed by state sport agencies or federations like IAAF, we face the risk of result manipulation. Decision-making is not always in the hands of the experts anymore. Twenty years ago the IOC doping control system was largely managed by a group of lab directors and scientific experts. Today the IOC has abdicated much of the responsibility and expertise and put it on the shoulders of WADA, an administrative body. In its zeal to conduct its mission, WADA has at times created an adversarial relationship with lab directors, which can diminish their impact and value. I would like to see the system return to a more collegial process in the future.

Mr. Catlin: In addition to added oversight, I think we need to review the resources available to the pursuit of anti-doping. The world expects a lot out of anti-doping forces, and rightly so, but the resources also have to be there to support the task at hand. The worldwide budget for anti-doping is perhaps $300 million. That sounds like a lot until you consider that we have to test a pool of 100,000 or more athletes around the globe, staff and maintain more than 35 laboratories, and must create methods to find clandestine and evolving doping agents and improve detection capabilities. The resources dopers have to thwart the system have been shown to far exceed the resources we have available to fight for clean sport.

 

Q. Russian media outlets and others in Russia have asked you what can be done to legitimize the participation of their athletes in this summer’s Olympics. What do you tell them?

Dr. Catlin: It is hard to evaluate things on an athlete-by-athlete basis with the extent of the Russian doping now exposed. Some may have been effectively tested outside of the Russian system and perhaps those athletes could be allowed to participate legitimately. Ultimately, Russia needs to replace all the agencies that have been involved and put a new person in charge, someone who is clearly not involved with doping, and then build from there. The process will not be quick or easy. The international community needs to ensure oversight in the process in order for us to trust the new system.

Mr. Catlin: The big question is what percentage of Russian Olympic athletes were involved in the state sponsored doping; 5%, 20%, 50%? It spanned many athletes and sports based on the report statistics, but I don’t know if we really have all the necessary facts to answer that question. Were other undetectable drugs being used that we don’t yet know about that might still be in use? I am not aware of any consistent guidelines being used to consider whether Russian athletes should be allowed to participate, and without those how do we come to consistent decisions?

 

Q. What are your thoughts about the retesting of samples from the 2012 London Summer Olympics and the 2008 Beijing Games that have led to a number of positive test results?

Dr. Catlin: This is a marvelous idea, and one that I supported over the years. It puts the doper at risk of being penalized for activities that may have been undetectable at the time.  The testing methods are always improving and sometimes it takes anti-doping science a few years to develop an effective test for drugs that we know are being abused. This is a great mechanism for dissuading athletes from pursuing clandestine doping strategies.  The IOC has shown that retesting is a potent addition to the process.

Mr. Catlin: Retesting has certainly proven to be valuable. Historically there are usually only a handful of positive results that occur during an Olympic Games. The retesting has exposed three times as many results per Olympics, sometimes even more. The added deterrence is certainly significant. The shame is that the doper benefits for several years to the detriment of the clean athletes that get elevated in placement years later.

 

Q. Dr. Catlin, you voiced concerns in media interviews about WADA’s closure of the Rio Olympic laboratory weeks before the Olympics were about to begin. Are you glad the lab has been reaccredited and will now handle the drug testing after all?

Dr. Catlin:  Yes, I am very pleased that the lab has been reaccredited. There is much secretiveness about WADA’s actions so we never, if ever, know what the extent of the problem was that led to the loss of accreditation. While it is possible to send the samples to another lab, doing so is difficult and expensive and has many complications. Whenever the Olympics come to town the home country’s lab receives support from experts from around the globe and I have faith that the group assembled will do a great job of conducting the testing during the Rio Games.

Mr. Catlin: Some people have considered the loss of accreditation to be a flaw in the system, when in fact it is evidence of the system working. If deficiencies are found, they are identified and addressed.

 

Q. The drugs meldonium and oral-turinabol/dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (DHCMT) have been in the news lately. What impact, if any, do you think these substances might have at the Rio Olympics?

Dr. Catlin: I don’t think that either drug will have a major impact on the Games. The lack of consideration of meldonium withdrawal times was embarrassing and certainly resulted in a lot of wasted money and effort, but we are mostly beyond that at this point. As for oral-turinabol, or DHCMT, I do not know why there have been so many positive cases recently. The testing method for DHCMT was improved in the last few years with the detection of long-term metabolites extending the detection window from several days to several months. Perhaps that is one reason. Unfortunately, the drug remains prevalent online and has been seen as a contaminant in dietary supplement products as well. If the drug infiltrates the raw material supply for supplements, it could lead to trace amounts of contamination that the new urine-testing methodology would be more likely to expose.

Mr. Catlin: I think some athletes continue to claim they were affected by discrepancies in meldonium findings before or after the cutoff dates for withdrawal time to be considered a valid reason for a positive finding. This might impact which athletes get to participate in the Rio Games. In the case of meldonium, the WADA system addressed a substance that athletes were apparently using for performance enhancement. In the case of DHCMT, the system is now using an improved method that has a longer window of detection. In either case, additional loopholes were closed, which would seem to be good for the system overall.

 

Q. As key figures in both overseeing the testing of Olympic athletes and helping to protect them by providing quality supplement information, testing and certification, what general advice do you offer Olympic athletes about consumption of supplements?

Dr. Catlin: There have been numerous examples where athletes have been harmed by supplements that were spiked with drugs on the WADA Prohibited List. Over the years I helped a number of athletes fight cases against supplement companies after they had tested positive. That is one reason we created BSCG. Athletes should be cautious when considering supplements and should only take those that have been tested to make sure they are ‘clean.’

Mr. Catlin: We have worked on a number of cases over the years where supplements have been involved in a positive drug test in some fashion and have impacted careers or health. Athletes like Kicker Vencill, Jareem Gunter, and Jessica Hardy. The issues involved are complex. Some supplements include active ingredients that may be banned substances in disguise. That was the case with the Superdrol product Gunter used; it contained the powerful anabolic steroid methasterone, which also contributed to his liver failure. Other products can be contaminated with trace amounts of banned substances that can still result in a positive drug test. This was the case with Hardy, who, as a result of using a supplement, lost out on her chance to compete in the 2008 Olympic Games in the prime of her career. We started our company BSCG to test and certify products to be free of banned substances so that athletes could have confidence when using them, and to give responsible supplement manufacturers a way to distinguish themselves from others in the industry. If athletes elect to use supplements—as many do, surveys have shown—we recommend they only consume products that have been certified by a reputable third party.