- What does the 2014 Anti‐Doping Testing Figures Report represent?
- What figures are included in the report?
- How does this report differ from the Anti-Doping Rule Violations (ADRVs) Report WADA issued in June 2015?
- How do the 2014 testing figures compare to the 2013 figures?
- How many Testing Authorities* (TAs) are included?
- Which disciplines and sports organizations are included within the sports listed?
- Why is there a discrepancy in the number of samples analyzed by the different laboratories and the number of AAFs and ATFs?
- Do laboratories have to analyze a minimum number of samples?
- Why is there such a large gap between the number of AAFs for in-competition as opposed to out-of-competition?
- The report includes non-ADAMS data – what does this represent?
- Do the numbers of Adverse Analytical Findings (AAFs) and Atypical Findings (ATFs) reflect the number of sanctions (Anti-Doping Rule Violations)?
- Why doesn’t ADAMS illustrate the number of ADRVs or anti-doping sanctions?
- Is ADAMS use mandatory?
- Does each single statistic in the report represent an individual athlete?
- Was the 2014 data collected in a different way to 2013?
- Are there any differences in format between the 2014 and 2013 reports?
- How many TAs conducted ABP blood testing?
- Does the number of ABP blood samples reflect the number of athletes tested within the ABP?
- Why are the ABP samples reported separately from other blood samples?
This Report compiles the testing figures reported by WADA-accredited laboratories for 2014. These figures include the number of urine and blood samples analyzed and the Adverse Analytical Findings (AAFs) and Atypical Findings (ATFs) reported for both in- and out-of-competition testing.
This is the third year that these figures have been compiled entirely from the Anti-Doping Administration and Management System (ADAMS), the system through which all WADA-accredited laboratories report their positive and negative findings. In using ADAMS, the 2014 Testing Figures Report offers a comprehensive reflection of anti-doping testing figures. There were 32 WADA-accredited laboratories for the majority of 2014. The Sochi Laboratory, a satellite facility of the Moscow Laboratory, conducted anti-doping testing services during the Sochi Winter Olympic Games and Paralympic Games.
The figures include all analyses conducted in 2014 by the 32 WADA-accredited laboratories for in- and out-of-competition testing and by the three additional laboratories (“approved laboratories”) that have been approved by WADA to conduct blood testing exclusively for the purposes of the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP). In addition, the ADAMS data for 2014 is compiled according to the “Date Received” by the Laboratory since it is the only date that is consistently available to the Laboratories and therefore reportable into ADAMS. These figures are associated with the noted sport categories.
The Laboratory Report also includes some data which has not been submitted individually into ADAMS, but instead has been aggregated and included in the only overall testing figure tables. This has allowed a year-to-year comparison of overall figures. These aggregated figures are primarily comprised of professional and university testing programs conducted by organizations (e.g. the NCAA and Major Leagues) which are not signatories of the World Anti-Doping Code yet which use the North American WADA-accredited laboratories. Due to confidentiality provisions in their service contracts with laboratories, these organizations do not allow the reporting of individual data in ADAMS.
Finally, the report features expanded blood data including the number of blood samples analyzed by the laboratories, the tests conducted and the sports involved. This data is particularly useful for the purposes of the ABP.
3. How does this report differ from the Anti-Doping Rule Violations (ADRVs) Report WADA issued in June 2015? Up
The Testing Figures Report highlights the results of tests performed by WADA-accredited laboratories on urine and blood samples for 2014, as reported into ADAMS. It does not illustrate statistics on the number of Anti-Doping Rule Violations.
The ADRVs Report WADA issued in June 2015 illustrates the incidence of doping in global sport during 2013. The ADRV Report shows both analytical and non-analytical Anti-Doping Rule Violations (or sanctions, as they are commonly known). The Report breaks down sanctions by sport, testing authority and nationality.
The reason the ADRVs Report includes 2013 statistics whilst this Testing Figures Report includes 2014 statistics is because for anti-doping cases (which the ADRVs Report highlights), the results management process can take a long time from the first signs of a potential violation through to the end of a case. Cases take time to be resolved before they can be adequately prepared and published.
The 2013 Anti-Doping Rule Violations (ADRVs) Report and 2014 Testing Figures Report provide powerful data that will help Anti-Doping Organizations (ADOs) gain a better understanding of the global incidence of doping, and adapt their strategies to further protect clean athletes.
Further information on the ADRVs Report can be found in the following question and answer document.
Based on all ADAMS and non-ADAMS results reported by the laboratories, there was an increase in the number of overall anti-doping samples. Considering each urine, blood and blood ABP result as a separate “sample”, approximately 15,000 more samples were analyzed in 2014 than in 2013. More than half the accredited laboratories had an increase in the total number of overall samples recorded in 2014 compared to 2013 in ADAMS.
In terms of the Adverse Analytical Findings* (AAFs) reported, the 2014 percentage of 1.11% is lower than the 1.31% in 2013.
In addition, there was a decrease in the percentage of Total Findings (AAFs and ATFs combined) from 2.21% in 2013 to 1.36% in 2014. The decrease can in part be attributed to the reduction of ATFs reported as an expected consequence of the Adaptive Model of the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP).
With the implementation and utilization of the Steroidal Module of the ABP and IRMS testing, it is anticipated that the number of ATFs will continue to decrease in the future.
*Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) – as defined in the 2009 World Anti-Doping Code (version in effect in 2014): A report from a laboratory or other WADA-approved entity that, consistent with the International Standard for Laboratories and related Technical Documents, identifies in a Sample the presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers (including elevated quantities of endogenous substances) or evidence of the Use of a Prohibited Method.
**Atypical Findings (ATF) - as defined in the 2009 World Anti-Doping Code: A report from a laboratory or other WADA-approved entity which requires further investigation as provided by the International Standard for Laboratories or related Technical Documents prior to the determination of an Adverse Analytical Finding.
The 2014 Anti-Doping Testing Figures in ADAMS include data from 385 different Testing Authorities, a little over half of the 643 from 2013. This is mainly due to the lower number of National Federations (NFs) which were identified as Testing Authorities. NFs themselves are not signatories to the World Anti-Doping Code - and therefore not entitled to authorize testing independently – although the rules of some National Anti-Doping Organizations (NADOs) and International Sport Federations (IFs) may delegate testing authority to these bodies. As a result, tests attributed to NFs may in some instances be part of NADO or IF programs.
*Testing Authority (TA) – As defined in the International Standard for Laboratories: The organization that has authorized a particular Sample collection, whether (1) an Anti-Doping Organization (for example, the International Olympic Committee or other Major Event Organization, WADA, an International Federation, or a National Anti-Doping Organization); or (2) another organization conducting Testing pursuant to the authority of and in accordance with the rules of the Anti-Doping Organization (for example, a National Federation that is a member of an International Federation).
The sports and disciplines listed are reported by the laboratories as they were designated on the doping control form (DCF) relating to the sample at the time of its collection. The sport codes (names) in ADAMS ensure that all laboratories are reporting sports in a more standardized manner, as in prior years there were some generic sport descriptions that varied from country to country (e.g. football/soccer and ice/field hockey). The use of ADAMS by Anti-Doping Organizations (ADOs) to enter DCF information not only further standardizes the sport/discipline names, but additionally all the other mandatory DCF details, thereby further minimizing any discrepancies.
WADA has initiated a review of the ADAMS sport/discipline codes in consultation with the relevant IFs in order to make sure that data is entered and reported in ADAMS more precisely. IFs are encouraged to file any corrections or updates in relation to sports and disciplines under their governance to the ADAMS team.
In addition, while some National Sport Federations or Continental Sport Confederations conduct testing under the delegation of their relevant IFs, others initiate testing independently of their IF. In the latter case, the test does not appear in the IF statistics, but rather in the Confederation testing statistics providing they were noted as the TA.
7. Why is there a discrepancy in the number of samples analyzed by the different laboratories and the number of AAFs and ATFs? Up
The number of samples analyzed by any particular laboratory depends primarily on the development of the national anti-doping program in the associated region. The number of international events hosted by the region, as well as the anti-doping programs associated with professional leagues and sports organizations that are not Code signatories, also play a role.
The percentage of AAFs and ATFs from laboratory to laboratory may be attributed to many factors, including the extent to which the national anti-doping program or other ADO conducts robust testing, the type of sports within the laboratory’s testing population, as well as the lists of prohibited substances from sports organizations and professional leagues that are not Code signatories.
The International Standard for Laboratories (ISL) requires that a WADA-accredited laboratory performs analysis on a minimum of 3,000 (including urine and blood) samples per year. Any accredited laboratory that does not meet this figure is monitored closely by WADA.
9. Why is there such a large gap between the number of AAFs for in-competition as opposed to out-of-competition? Up
By its very nature, the in-competition menu contains more drug classes and therefore more prohibited substances subject to detection compared to the out-of-competition menu, particularly with substances such as stimulants, cannabinoids and glucocorticosteroids (called "glucocorticoids" in the 2015 List of Prohibited Substances and Methods), which are typically reported in greater numbers.
The non-ADAMS figures comprise professional and university testing programs that use the North American WADA-accredited laboratories. These stakeholders or Testing Authorities are not signatories to the Code and do not allow the WADA-accredited laboratories to report their individual results into ADAMS. However, the laboratories are permitted to report these results as aggregated data, as has been the case in previous years.
11. Do the numbers of Adverse Analytical Findings (AAFs) and Atypical Findings (ATFs) reflect the number of sanctions (Anti-Doping Rule Violations)? Up
This report illustrates the number of AAFs and ATFs reported by laboratories. This may not correspond with the number of Anti-Doping Rule Violations (ADRVs) reported by Anti-Doping Organizations (ADOs) because all reported results are still subject to the full results management process conducted by ADOs. This includes matching results with Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs) (through which the use of a banned substance can be approved by an ADO for legitimate medical reasons), longitudinal studies and ensuring that sample collection and analysis were conducted in accordance with the relevant international standards.
ADAMS cannot yet provide a full picture of the number of ADRVs or anti-doping sanctions as not all ADOs are using ADAMS at this time.
ADAMS has the capability to record ADRVs by results management authorities. ADAMS also has the capability to record sample collection information and athlete profiles all within a secure and World Anti-Doping Code-compliant environment. This information is not reflected in this report because the figures were compiled with data entered by the WADA-accredited laboratories and not the ADOs themselves.
All these functions are available to ADOs at no cost. With the full adoption of ADAMS by ADOs, the sporting community would have a more transparent means for tracking results from collection to sanction, while respecting confidentiality. In addition, a complete analysis of data would be available, including linking AAFs to TUEs and sanctioned cases.
While the Testing Figures Report does not illustrate sanctions, the 2013 Anti-Doping Rule Violations Report, which was released in June 2015, does.
The use of all ADAMS functions is not currently mandatory for ADOs, however certain elements such as the reporting of testing on Registered Testing Pool (RTP) athletes and operating an ABP program remain mandatory. The 2015 World Anti-Doping Code, which took effect on 1 January 2015, strengthens these requirements by making it mandatory for all ADOs to use ADAMS or another system approved by WADA. This will enhance the availability of anti-doping statistics even further.
WADA strongly encourages all ADOs to take advantage of the benefits that ADAMS provides in order to make their reporting more comprehensive. It should also be noted that doping control forms containing athlete and sample collection data must be entered into ADAMS by ADOs to further enhance the ability to assess the state of the fight against doping.
No, one result does not necessarily correspond to one athlete as multiple samples may be taken from one athlete during the same sample collection session. AAFs and ATFs in the report may also correspond to multiple findings on the same athlete, or measurements performed on the same athlete, such as in cases of longitudinal studies for testosterone (i.e. tracking the testosterone level of one athlete over a period of time through the steroidal module).
No, the 2014 data was collected using ADAMS, as was the case in 2012 and 2013. The 2014 report includes further details such as AAFs reported in each drug class by sport and discipline. Data from organizations that are not signatories to the Code, such as the professional leagues in the USA, was aggregated as per previous years. Since 2012, the laboratories began reporting negative data in addition to the AAFs and ATFs reported in previous years. This has allowed all data - negatives as well as AAFs and ATFs - to be collated in ADAMS. The ADAMS reporting method is the reason that the 2012 to 2014 Reports offer a much more thorough view of anti-doping data than the reports before 2012.
The use of ADAMS also allows the 2014 Anti‐Doping Testing Figures Report to differentiate the testing figures by discipline, Testing Authority, and in- and out-of-competition testing. This offers stakeholders a more detailed view of the worldwide fight for the protection of clean athletes.
AAFs per Drug Class and Sport Disciplines
For the first time, the Report includes the number of substances reported in each prohibited drug class for each sport/discipline which now differentiate the different types of substances that make up the total AAFs reported by sport/discipline (please refer to Table 36 – 41 of the Sport report).
Categorization of Sport Disciplines
The sports are now compiled by eight major categories: ASOIF (Association of Summer Olympic International Sports Federations), AIOWF (Association of International Olympic Winter Sports Federations), ARISF (Association of IOC Recognized International Sports Federations), AIMS (Alliance of Independent Members of SportAccord), IPC (International Paralympic Committee), Sports for Athletes with an Impairment, Other Sports – Code Signatories and Other Sports.
Therefore, the sports data is differentiated by those disciplines which are included within the associated International Federation’s (IF’s) governance based on the structure provided by the sport-discipline codes in ADAMS (as determined by the IF). In addition, the sport figures include sports within the Olympic program emanating from university sport disciplines, e.g. those disciplines that are likely not under the governance of the relevant International Federation, thus providing more accurate data than previously with respect to the relevant International Federations.
For example, the testing figures under ASOIF sport “Rugby” include only data from the disciplines Rugby Union and Rugby Sevens which are under the auspices of World Rugby. Other disciplines categorized under Rugby such as Rugby League, Beach Rugby, Touch Football are included in “Other Sports”. Furthermore, the Testing Authority Tables in the Testing Authority Report clearly differentiate the TAs that contributed to the Rugby Union and Rugby Sevens data (e.g. World Rugby, each NADO, etc). ADOs using ADAMS also have the ability to further clarify testing conducted under the umbrella of their organization.
In addition, all sports reported into ADAMS in 2014 have been compiled and detailed in the Sport Report. Prior Testing Figures Reports for “Other Sports” were reported in aggregate, and, in the 2014 report are listed as individual sports.
EPO in blood
In 2014, ADAMS allowed the reporting of Erythropoiesis Stimulating Agents (ESAs) testing figures in blood, and therefore the status of EPO tests (including CERA) conducted in blood could be compiled since ADAMS allowed the laboratories to report this testing in a standardized way. For the last few years, WADA has been encouraging ADOs to conduct more blood testing and, in the 2014 Report, the number of blood tests carried out is included. As a result, the anti-doping community will now be able to compare blood testing figures between 2010 (when the blood data was first compiled) and subsequent years.
Human Growth Hormone (hGH)
New hGH decision limits were established in early 2014 and as a result ADOs resumed hGH testing as part of their test distribution plans. In addition, WADA encouraged ADOs to continue collecting samples for analysis and, therefore, the test results may have been reported by the Laboratories for those samples received in early 2014 but only analyzed after the new hGH decision limits had been established.
There were 91 unique TAs that contributed to the ABP testing figures reported into ADAMS (compared to 95 TAs that contributed to the 2013 ABP figures). In addition, all WADA-accredited laboratories that were accredited to perform blood analyses in support of the ABP, analyzed and reported results for ABP samples into ADAMS. In 2014, there were three laboratories approved by WADA to analyze blood samples exclusively for the ABP that analyzed and reported results into ADAMS. The total number of blood samples analyzed and collected for the ABP decreased slightly in 2014.
No, the number of samples analyzed is not the same as the number of athletes tested. The ABP program aims to include multiple findings on the same athlete, or measurements performed on the same athlete for longitudinal studies.
Blood samples are collected with the typical “A” and “B” samples to report AAFs (hGH, EPO, etc), while ABP samples can be collected as single samples in order to measure an athlete’s specified blood variables which are then compared to his or her previous data over time. This establishes an athlete biological profile, and therefore offers an indirect method that can indicate doping.