Thread by @Scienceofsport

Let’s briefly talk about some background on #Dyanti and doping. A short thread. Specifcally, we are looking at metandienone, methyltestosterone and LGD-4033, which are the substances confirmed as found in his A & B samples, for which he’s now charged: sport24.co.za/Rugby/Springbo… (1/)

First, let’s orientate ourselves about what we’re dealing with. All 3 those substances are in Class S1, in substances & methods prohibited at all times. S1 is anabolic agents, Testosterone, Stanozol, DHEA the most famous of them. I’ve highlighted in yellow the 3 in Dyanti’s case

Anabolic agents (aka androgenic agents) are responsible for “building up". Muscle, especially. Androgenic = “male making”, so again, muscle growth & repair, improved recovery, greater strength gains when training, injury repair. Hence their placement on the banned list.

Obviously, the question that must be answered is whether Dyanti doped or not? The presence of those substances means “yes”, though the likely rebuttal will be “I didn’t take them on purpose, this is ‘inadvertent doping’”, which is pretty much always to the go-to line (4/)

To show inadvertent doping, player needs to show that he took a supplement that was contaminated with banned substances. But that’s only part of it. He also has to show that he took reasonable precautions to avoid inadvertent doping. That is, they can’t have been “reckless” (5/)

“My bad, I didn’t realise”, or “I took something a company gave me as a sponsorship” is not valid, because the athlete is ultimately liable for what is in their body. A pro athlete pretty much has to always assume they’re an hour away from being tested, so must constantly ask...

…”Is there a chance that this powder/pill/liquid contains banned drugs?”. And that puts the onus on them to research it, to get assurances from independent third-parties (the sport’s governing body, or quality assuring regulators) that they’re on safe ground, doping wise (7/)

If the player hasn’t done this, then it doesn’t matter if it’s an accident or not, it’s as good as doping (otherwise they’d never be able to prove and sanction any doping offences!). So it *can* happen that athletes prove inadvertent doping, but the bar is (necessarily) high (8/)

I don’t know what Dyanti will offer as explanation, now that he’s charged, but history shows that supplement contamination is the most common (LGD4033 may be familiar to some because of Shayna Jack’s case, in AUS swimming, remember? Same defence). This excuse is tough to prove

This is especially true because the supplement industry is notoriously unregulated, especially here in SA, and so a player who takes a supplement WITHOUT doing the necessary checks is playing doping Russian Roulette with their careers. Best case is stupid negligence! (10/)

Worst case is deliberate doping, but the system treats them similarly, unless those other steps are shown convincingly. On “deliberate doping”, rugby in SA has a high degree of ’suspicion’ - we know this from the prevalence of school positives. This is likely true globally (11/)

And when you have a culture of “enhancement” plus easy access to drugs (in gyms), plus you’re drowning in unregulated supplements with aggressive marketing tactics, you have a formula for positive tests, both accidental & deliberate. Time will tell what this is put down to (/end)

Sorry, have to add one point of emphasis. The onus really does lie with the athlete. They must assume a test is coming. So they HAVE to be able to answer “No” to a question “Is there a risk of doping?”. They have support structures to help assure this, so they’re not alone (13/)

There are times when I feel sympathy for athletes, because sometimes it feels like they have to be a biochemist to navigate the WADA list! But they DO have 24hr access to doctors & people who can advise, and it’s THEIR job to use them. Inadvertent doping must be a high bar (/end)