In recent years, three world-class athletes have also been banned from boosting performance-enhancing drugs, the common point in their history being that all three of them claim that the banned substance got into their bodies quite amazingly, and that all three were released in early 2020.The punishment has escaped and they can happily prepare for next year’s postponed Olympics.We asked Dr. Ágnes Tiszeker, the managing director of the Hungarian Anti-Doping Group and Péter Kárai, the vice-president of the Hungarian Kayak-Canoe Association, a member of the board of the European association, about how this is possible.The Canadian canoe lady was found in Hungary just before the start of the 2019 World Championships in Szeged in C2, so she could not kneel on the boat with her brother.The contestant, who was in tears, denied from the start that he had deliberately doped.It was later revealed that an agent called Ligandrol had been detected in his body.Then, in January 2020, to the surprise, the doping committee of the International Sports Federation (ICF) released the competitor.“In his sport, the ICF’s justification was even more shocking: Laurence Vincent-Lapointe was acquitted by the acting council because it was seen as an acceptable justification for the illicit substance to enter the body through the exchange of body fluids from a competitor’s former friend.All three persons involved in the case were connected in some way to the international federation.In a previous audit of the International Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), it had already indicated that the Doping Commission was not independent enough and asked the ICF to change this, ”said Péter Kárai.Ligandrol (LGD-4033 or VK5211) is a so-called SARM-type substance listed by the International Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) as a substance belonging to the group of other anabolic agents.Although its medical use is not currently authorized anywhere in the world, it is manufactured and marketed by many companies as a 'research compound' or a 'research-only product' or a product 'not intended for human consumption'.The drug has been in WADA’s line of sight for years, and SARMs have been on the sports ban list since 2008.It has been tested by WADA-accredited doping control laboratories since 2015 and can be detected in a urine sample.“As the human clinical use of human has not yet been authorized or registered by the licensing health authorities, we cannot be considered a medicine either.Nevertheless, more and more SARM-type drugs are being marketed, primarily as a dietary supplement, so fraudulent athletes are virtually free to buy them to increase lean muscle mass.Because their interference with hormonal homeostasis in a young, healthy body has not been scientifically studied,their use can be seen as a form of human experimentation that poses enormous dangers.One thing is for sure: their side effects are very similar to those of anabolic androgenic steroids.This doping case also has some Hungarian implications: Santos was a member of the 4 × 100 quick relay that finished second at the 2017 World Championships in Budapest, winning the first relay medal in South America.Norwegian cross-country champion Olympic and ten-time world champion Therese Johaug also fell with this drug in September 2016.He defended himself by saying that there was a source of the illicit drug in the sunscreen.The named Trofodermin does contain a clostebolt, but its box also says doping.The ban on the cross-country skier was finally imposed by the CAS in eighteen months, so she could not start at the 2018 Winter Olympics.The Brazilian swimmer failed a surprising test two years later when the presence of closurebol, an anabolic steroid, was detected in his body.“The clostebolt is used by athletes to increase muscle mass.In the case of doping offenses, the possibility of positivity due to sexual or accidental contamination has been raised several times, as clostebol-acetate is also commercially available as a cream in Italy and Brazil.As a cream for dermatological and gynecological treatments, it is typically used to treat wounds, ulcers, burns, but it is also used in vaginal creams for cervicitis.However, accidental contamination must be proven by the Athlete in all cases.In the event of the possibility of contamination, if the investigating WADA-accredited laboratory also demonstrates that the amount of Prohibited Substance found in the Athlete's body is small and may result from contamination, a hair test may be performed as evidence of intent or innocence.Of course, it is not advisable to use this drug for a long time, especially for doping purposes, because it can cause high blood pressure, arrhythmias, heart failure, heart attack, liver and kidney damage, metabolic and sexual disorders.Ágnes Tiszeker presented the background of the illicit drug.In July 2019, the doping committee of the International Swimming Federation (FINA) accepted the athlete's explanation that the illicit drug had entered the competitor's body "through a shared towel used by a family member taking a closetbolt under a medical prescription."He therefore banned Santos for only a year instead of four.The swimmer's and prepared lawyer even appealed this mild, oddly, sentence that expired just before the Tokyo Olympics.They made the decision because the International Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) did not even consider the case negligent in February this year, so it acquitted the Brazilian swimmer.“The consecutive case of a Norwegian cross-country skier and a Brazilian swimmer proves that the most dangerous consequence is that individual cases could set a precedent for fallen athletes living with illicit performance enhancers.From here, the lawsuit depends on the skill of the defense attorney.If you find the loophole, the right athlete explanation, you can save even the most serious agents.The legal category “which cannot be proved beyond doubt” is a refuge for fraudulent athletes, as this explanation can be applied to the vast majority of cases, ”said Péter Kárai.Jarrion Lawson was the first athlete to win the U.S. University Championships in the 100 and 200 meters and long jumps in 2016 after Jesse Owens ’1936 feat.He returned home from the 2017 World Open Air Championships in London with a silver medal in an 844-cent jump, and in June 2018, after an out-of-competition doping test, a performance enhancer called Epitrenbolone was shown in his body.The International Federation of Athletics (IAAF) conducted the investigation according to its order and manner, and eleven months later banned the American long jumper for four years.Lawson, of course, has denied the allegation of doping all along, saying one of the main metabolites of trenbolone, an anabolic androgenic steroid, was ingested with contaminated beef during a tasty dinner.He therefore appealed to the CAS, which decided in March this year to accept the beef story and dismissed the athlete on the grounds that it was “more likely than not that the source of the illicit performance enhancer was contaminated beef consumed by the athlete the day before the test”.“Trenbolone is without a doubt one of the best anabolic androgenic steroids that works well for both fiber and muscle building.It has minimal water retention and this substance binds most strongly to androgen receptors, making it an excellent muscle building and fat burner.It increases the production of IGF-1 and growth hormone in the body and also helps regenerate damaged muscles.There is no official human application, but atrenbolone acetate has been used in animal husbandry for decades because of its anabolic effects, as it effectively increases milk and meat yield, improves the animal's appetite, and also helps to better dissolve minerals and utilize nutrients.Unfortunately, it is still an extremely popular drug among athletes, although it has the same side effects as any other steroid, ”explained Ágnes Tiszeker.The use of steroid hormones in the breeding of meat-producing animals has been banned in Europe since 1988, but is still permitted in the United States and several other countries to this day.The goal is exactly the same as when an athlete sets out to doping;thereby increasing the rate of growth of the animal as well as the efficiency of incorporation of the feed consumed.In America, the condition for authorization is that the food consumed from the treated animals is safe for humans, while not harming the goods and the environment.Hormone levels considered safe are determined accordingly, butof course, a positive result in a doping control is not an exclusionary condition.Although the use of steroids in meat animals is not permitted in Europe, steroids have been found in meat and meat products (typically nandrolone, methyltestosterone, trenbolone, boldenone, clostebol and stanozolol) in a number of cases.Although the legal argument for Lawson's acquittal is difficult for laymen to understand, one of the most respected international sports lawyers, Professor Richard H. McLaren of Canada, was a central figure in the doping case against Russia.According to WADA's annual report, in 2018, 2,328 of the decisions made by anti-doping organizations were reviewed.Of these, only 18 were appealed to the CAS - and four were subsequently withdrawn.There are obviously significant costs involved in appealing, but in the interests of combating doping, at least in the case of exemptions, this tool should be used automatically to protect clean athletes.“Certain sections of the legal provisions of the WADA Code allow for flexible interpretation.One such point is the level of proof.According to this, "the degree of proof must in all cases be higher than mere probability, but must not exceed what is already beyond reasonable doubt".This prescription unfortunately gives way to the imagination of the lawyer as well as the incredible stories of athletes.To avoid this, a stricter wording would be needed.The other question is the interpretation of negligence and its degree.Lack of intent can reduce the four-year ban on non-specified substances to two years and the two-year ban on certain substances to zero (reprimand).If an Athlete proves that a Prohibited Performance Enhancer has been inadvertently ingested (most typically through contaminated food supplements), the four-year Prohibition Period may be halved.If you also prove that the degree of negligence is low, you can get away with it for up to 1 year, and the lack of negligence can result in an excuse.The various instances of negligence (normal, minor, deficient) should be defined in some way in the anti-doping rules.Until this happens, the international public will most likely encounter other incredible stories that inspired Hollywood filmmakers, Péter Kárai summed up.Featured image: Zoltán Balogh / MTIIf you want to comment, talk, argue, or just share your opinion with others, you can do so on the 24.hu Facebook page.If you read more about the reasons, here are the answers.Do you allow 24.hu to send you notifications about featured news?Notifications can be turned off at any time in your browser settings.