2015 Testing Figures Report

Definitions

  1. What is an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF)?
  2. What is an Atypical Finding (ATF)?
  3. What is an Anti-Doping Organization (ADO)?
  4. What is a Testing Authority (TA)?
  5. What is ADAMS?
  6. What is the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP)?

ABOUT THE REPORT

  1. What does the 2015 Testing Figures Report represent?
  2. What figures are included in the 2015 Report?
  3. Did the implementation of the 2015 Code and International Standard for Testing & Investigations (ISTI) by Anti-Doping Organizations (ADOs) [e.g. the Technical Document for Sport Specific Analysis (TDSSA)], impact the results?

2015 REPORT VERSUS 2014 REPORT

  1. How does the data from the 2015 Report compare to the 2014 Report?
  2. Was the 2015 data collected in a different way to 2014?
  3. Are there any differences in format between the 2015 and 2014 Reports?

RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER WADA REPORTS

  1. How does this 2015 Report differ from the Anti-Doping Rule Violations (ADRVs) Reports?
  2. Why doesn’t ADAMS itself illustrate the number of ADRVs or anti-doping sanctions?

THE DATA

  1. How many Testing Authorities are included?
  2. Which disciplines and sports organizations are included within the sports listed?
  3. Do laboratories have to analyze a minimum number of samples?
  4. Why is there such a large gap between the number of AAFs for in-competition as opposed to out-of-competition?

OTHER QUESTIONS

  1. Is ADAMS use mandatory?
  2. Does every single sample/result in the 2015 Report represent an individual athlete?
  3. How many TAs conducted ABP blood testing?
  4. Why are the ABP samples reported separately from other blood samples?

Definitions

1. What is an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF)? Up

An AAF is a report from a WADA -accredited laboratory or other WADA-approved laboratory that, consistent with the International Standard for Laboratories (ISL) 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.

2. What is an Atypical Finding (ATF)? Up

An ATF is a report from a WADA-accredited laboratory or other WADA-approved laboratory 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.

3. What is an Anti-Doping Organization (ADO)? Up

An ADO is a Signatory to the World Anti-Doping Code (Code) that is responsible for adopting rules for initiating, implementing or enforcing any part of the Doping Control process. This includes, for example, the International Olympic Committee (IOC), the International Paralympic Committee (IPC), other Major Event Organizations (MEOs) that conduct Testing at their Events, WADA, International Federations (IFs), and National Anti-Doping Organizations (NADOs).

4. What is a Testing Authority (TA)? Up

A TA is the organization that has authorized a particular Sample collection; whether:

  • An ADO; or,
  • Another organization conducting testing pursuant to the authority of, and in accordance with, the rules of the ADO (for example, a National Federation that is a member of an International Federation).

5. What is ADAMS? Up

ADAMS (Anti-Doping Administration and Management System) is a web-based database management tool for data entry, storage, sharing, and reporting designed to assist stakeholders and WADA in their anti-doping operations in conjunction with data protection legislation.

6. What is the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP)? Up

The fundamental principle of the ABP is to monitor selected variables (`biomarkers of doping´) over time that indirectly reveal the effect of doping, as opposed to the traditional direct detection of doping by analytical doping controls.

ABOUT THE REPORT

1. What does the 2015 Testing Figures Report represent? Up

The 2015 Testing Figures Report (2015 Report) is a summary of all doping control samples analyzed and reported by 35 WADA-accredited laboratories in 2015.  This includes all testing conducted worldwide by Signatories to the Code – in- and out-of-competition for urine; blood and Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) blood data; and, the analytical results of such analysis -- including AAFs and ATFs.

The 2015 Report offers a comprehensive reflection of global anti-doping testing figures, which allows organizations to observe patterns of doping control programs by sports, organizations, substances and laboratories; and, as a result, adapt their anti-doping strategies accordingly.

The 2015 Report represents the first set of global testing data since the revised Code came into effect on 1 January 2015.  It is the fourth year that WADA has produced such a report based off of ADAMS data.

2. What figures are included in the 2015 Report? Up

The 2015 Report includes all analyses reported by the 35 laboratories, which were WADA-accredited or that were approved by WADA to conduct blood testing exclusively for the purposes of the ABP (‘approved laboratories’).

 

The figures are 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 specified sport categories.

The 2015 Report also includes some data that has not been submitted individually into ADAMS, but instead has been aggregated and included in only the overall testing figure tables. This has allowed a continuous year-to-year comparison of overall figures. These aggregated figures are primarily comprised of professional and university testing programs conducted by organizations in North America (e.g. the NCAA and Major Leagues), which are not Code Signatories; although, they use WADA-accredited laboratories in North America. Due to confidentiality provisions within their service contracts, they do not allow reporting of individual data in ADAMS.

Finally, the 2015 Report features expanded blood data (including the number of blood samples analyzed by the laboratories); the types of analyses conducted and the sports involved. This data is particularly useful for the purposes of the ABP.

3. Did the implementation of the 2015 Code and International Standard for Testing & Investigations (ISTI) by Anti-Doping Organizations (ADOs) [e.g. the Technical Document for Sport Specific Analysis (TDSSA)], impact the results? Up

Yes.

The TDSSA is a mandatory, level two document that came into effect on 1 January 2015. As required under the 2015 Code, ADOs have applied the TDSSA.

The TDSSA is intended to ensure that Prohibited Substances within the scope of the TDSSA, which are deemed to be at risk of abuse in certain sports/disciplines, are subject to an appropriate and consistent minimum level of analysis by all ADOs. Under the TDSSA, ADOs are required to conduct a minimum level of analysis for the following three groups of prohibited substances; Erythropoietin Stimulating Agents (ESAs), Growth Hormone (GH) and GH Releasing Factors (GHRFs).

The findings of the 2015 Report highlight that there was a significant increase in testing by ADOs in these three groups when compared to 2014 with:

  • an 82% increase in GH testing;
  • a 14.5% increase in ESAs testing in urine and an 84% increase in blood testing; and
  • a 91.7% increase in GHRFs testing.

The 2015 Report also shows a significant increase in the number of TAs conducting, and sports receiving, testing for the three groups of Prohibited Substances. When compared to 2014, there was an increase in AAFs across two of the three groups with three additional AAFs for GH and eight additional AAFs for GHRFs.

Therefore, the 2015 Report demonstrates that the TDSSA has had an impact on anti-doping testing programs, achieving a greater level of global harmonization for the testing of these prohibited substances across sports and disciplines and, in turn, providing further protection to clean athletes.

2015 REPORT VERSUS 2014 REPORT

1. How does the data from the 2015 Report compare to the 2014 Report? Up

Based on all ADAMS and non-ADAMS results reported by the laboratories, there was a 7.1% increase in the number of overall doping control samples. Considering each urine, blood and blood ABP result as a separate ‘sample’, approximately 22,000 more samples were analyzed in 2015 (2015  Laboratory Report - Table 3)  than in 2014 (2014 Laboratory Report – Table 3) .

Approximately two-thirds of the accredited laboratories had an increase in the total number of overall samples recorded in 2015 compared to 2014.        

In terms of the AAFs reported, there was a relative increase in the number from overall samples analyzed: 1.11% (3,153 AAFs from 283,304 samples) in 2014 to 1.26% in 2015 (3,809 AAFs from 303,369 samples).

In addition, there was an increase in the percentage of Total Findings (AAFs and Atypical Findings  - ATFs - combined) from 1.36% in 2014 to 1.49% in 2015. The increase in the Total Findings can in part be attributed to the increase of ATFs reported as an expected consequence of the new guidelines for the reporting and management of Human Chorionic Gonadotrophin (hCG) and Luteinizing Hormone (LH) findings. In addition, there was an increase in the number of AAF findings from the application of the Gas chromatography combustion isotope ratio mass spectrometry (GC/C/IRMS) test: 2.9% in 2014 (147 AAFs from 5,001 samples) to 3.2% in 2015 (176 AAFs from 5,578 samples).

Several drug classes saw an increase in the number of Prohibited Substances reported as AAFs, including clenbuterol and various Selective Androgen Receptor Modulator (SARMs) and GHRFs.

There was a relative increase in the overall number of blood samples analyzed: 4.78% in 2014 (13,553 from 283,304) to 6.98% in 2015 (21,176 of 303,369).

There was also a significant rise in testing for the key Prohibited Substances of:  GH, ESAs and GHRFs, as encouraged by the TDSSA.  [See the previous question for more details.]

2. Was the 2015 data collected in a different way to 2014? Up

No.

The 2015 data was collected using ADAMS, as was the case from 2012 onwards. Data from 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. This has allowed all data - negatives as well as AAFs and ATFs - to be compiled from ADAMS. The details and structure of the data in ADAMS are the reason that the 2012 to 2015 Reports offer a much more thorough view of anti-doping data than the reports prior to 2012.

As an example, the use of ADAMS has allowed the Testing Figures reports to differentiate the testing figures by discipline, TA, and in- and out-of-competition testing. This offers stakeholders a more detailed view of the worldwide fight for the protection of clean athletes.

3. Are there any differences in format between the 2015 and 2014 Reports? Up

Yes.

AAFs per Drug Class and Sport Disciplines

For the first time, the 2015 Report includes the number of samples analyzed for GHRFs, GnRH, Insulin, IGF-I, and hGH biomarkers. In 2015, ADAMS allowed the reporting of these analyses, when conducted, in a standardized way. WADA has been encouraging ADOs to conduct more comprehensive testing in line with the TDSSA and, in the 2015 Report, the number of these analyses is included.

Categorization of Sport Disciplines

The sports continue to be compiled in the following eight major categories:

  1. ASOIF (Association of Summer Olympic International Sports Federations)
  2. AIOWF (Association of International Olympic Winter Sports Federations)
  3. ARISF (Association of IOC Recognized International Sports Federations)
  4. AIMS (Alliance of Independent Recognized Members of Sport)
  5. IPC (International Paralympic Committee)
  6. Sports for Athletes with an Impairment
  7. Other Sports – Code Signatories
  8. Other Sports

The sports data is further differentiated based on the disciplines that are included within the associated IFs’ governance and the structure provided by the sport-discipline codes in ADAMS (as determined by the IF).

In addition, the sport figures can differentiate sports within the Olympic program which are emanating from university sport disciplines, e.g. those disciplines that are not likely to be under the governance of the relevant IF; thus, providing more accurate data than previously with respect to the relevant IFs. The 2015 Report includes more samples that are assigned to specified disciplines than in 2014, which suggests that TAs are incorporating the TDSSA-defined sport disciplines into their sample collection procedures and documentation.  

For example, the testing figures under ASOIF sport ‘Rugby Union’ include only data from 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 TA tables in the TA report clearly differentiate the TAs that contributed to the Rugby Union and Rugby Sevens data, i.e. World Rugby, each NADO, etc.  ADOs using ADAMS also have the ability to further clarify testing conducted under the umbrella of their organization.

Growth Hormone (GH)

Results from the new hGH Biomarker test for 2015 are included. New guidelines for the hGH Biomarkers Test were published in 2015, which established a harmonized approach in the application of the hGH Biomarker test including decision limits for interpretation and reporting of results. ADAMS permitted the compilation of the tests conducted in a standardized way.

RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER WADA REPORTS

1. How does this 2015 Report differ from the Anti-Doping Rule Violations (ADRVs) Reports? Up

The 2015 Report highlights the results of analyses performed by WADA-accredited laboratories on urine and blood samples for 2015, as reported into ADAMS. It does not illustrate statistics on whether the AAFs or ATFs reported became ADRVs.

The data in the 2015 Report may not correspond with the number of ADRVs reported by 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 substances 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.

In simple terms, not all AAFs or ATFs lead to ADRVs.

Meanwhile, the 2014 ADRV Report, issued in April 2016, illustrates the incidence of doping in global sport during 2014. The ADRV Report shows both analytical and non-analytical ADRVs (or sanctions, as they are commonly known). The Report breaks down sanctions by sport, TA and nationality.

The reason the ADRV Report, which was published in 2016, includes 2014 statistics; whilst, this 2015 Testing Report includes 2015 statistics, is because for ADRVs, 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 2015 Report, combined with the 2015 ADRV Report that will be released next year, will provide powerful data, which will help ADOs gain a better understanding of global doping patterns. This will help them adapt their strategies to further protect clean athletes.

2. Why doesn’t ADAMS itself illustrate the number of ADRVs or anti-doping sanctions? Up

ADAMS cannot yet provide a full and accurate 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 Code-compliant environment. This information is not reflected in the 2015 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.

THE DATA

1. How many Testing Authorities are included? Up

The 2015 Report includes data from 403 different TAs, a slight increase over the 385 from 2014. This includes a slight increase in the number of NFs conducting testing. NFs themselves are not signatories to the Code; and, therefore, are not entitled to authorize testing independently – although the rules of some NADOs and 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. 

NADOs continue to be responsible for a significant portion of worldwide anti-doping efforts, having been the responsible TA for 68% of the samples analyzed in 2015. IFs, meanwhile, were responsible for 17.4% of samples analyzed (comprising testing conducted by AIMS, ARISF, AOIWF and ASOIF-member organizations).

2. Which disciplines and sports organizations are included within the sports listed? Up

The sports and disciplines listed in the 2015 Report 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. The 2015 Report by Sport shows improvements in the reporting of specified disciplines in each sport instead of simply the sport.

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 report any corrections or updates in relation to sports and disciplines under their governance to the ADAMS team.

In addition, while some NFs 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 provided they were noted as the TA.

3. Do laboratories have to analyze a minimum number of samples? Up

Yes.

The International Standard for Laboratories (ISL) requires that a WADA-accredited laboratory performs analysis on a minimum of 3,000 (including urine, blood and ABP) samples per year. Any accredited laboratory that does not meet this figure is monitored closely by WADA.

4. Why is there such a large gap between the number of AAFs for in-competition as opposed to out-of-competition? Up

Typically, more samples are collected in-competition than out-of-competition. The 2015 Report illustrates that a total of 133,296 samples were collected in-competition (equating to 58.1%); whilst, 96,105 samples were collected out-of-competition (equating to 41.9%).

Furthermore, 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 glucocorticoids, which are typically reported in greater numbers.

OTHER QUESTIONS

1. Is ADAMS use mandatory? Up

Yes.

On 12 May 2016, WADA’s Foundation Board decided to make the use of ADAMS a mandatory requirement for ADOs to enter all DCFs and TUEs into ADAMS no later than 15 business days after sample collection or receipt of a TUE decision.  This requirement came into effect on 1 June 2016.

2. Does every single sample/result in the 2015 Report represent an individual athlete? Up

No.

One sample/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 2015 Report may also correspond to multiple findings on the same athlete, or measurements performed on the same athlete, such as the ABP haematological and steroidal modules, over a period of time.

3. How many TAs conducted ABP blood testing? Up

There were 76 unique TAs that contributed to the ABP testing figures reported into ADAMS (compared to 91 TAs that contributed to the 2014 ABP figures). This reflects the effort to bring testing conducted by NFs into the relevant NADO. The number of IFs incorporating ABP blood testing has increased from 20 in 2014 to 24 in 2015, while the number of NADOs has also increased from 37 in 2014 to 40 in 2015. 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 2015, there were three laboratories approved by WADA exclusively to analyze blood samples uniquely for the ABP that analyzed and reported results into ADAMS. The total number of blood samples collected and analyzed for the ABP increased from 22,584 in 2014 to 25,012 in 2015 (a 9% increase).

4. Why are the ABP samples reported separately from other blood samples? Up

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.