4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Doping control analysis at the Rio 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games

Journal

DRUG TESTING AND ANALYSIS
Volume 9, Issue 11-12, Pages 1658-1672

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/dta.2329

Keywords

anti-doping; Olympic and Paralympic Games; athlete biological passport; mass spectrometry; WADA-accredited laboratory

Funding

  1. Brazilian Federal Government through Ministry of Sport
  2. Brazilian Federal Government through Ministry of Education

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper summarises the results obtained from the doping control analyses performed during the Summer XXXI Olympic Games (August 3-21, 2016) and the XV Paralympic Games (September 7-18, 2016). The analyses of all doping control samples were performed at the Brazilian Doping Control Laboratory (LBCD), a World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)-accredited laboratory located in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. A new facility at Rio de Janeiro Federal University (UFRJ) was built and fully operated by over 700 professionals, including Brazilian and international scientists, administrative staff, and volunteers. For the Olympic Games, 4913 samples were analysed. In 29 specimens, the presence of a prohibited substance was confirmed, resulting in adverse analytical findings (AAFs). For the Paralympic Games, 1687 samples were analysed, 12 of which were reported as AAFs. For both events, 82.8% of the samples were urine, and 17.2% were blood samples. In total, more than 31 000 analytical procedures were conducted. New WADA technical documents were fully implemented; consequently, state-of-the-art analytical toxicology instrumentation and strategies were applied during the Games, including different types of mass spectrometry (MS) analysers, peptide, and protein detection strategies, endogenous steroid profile measurements, and blood analysis. This enormous investment yielded one of the largest Olympic legacies in Brazil and South America. Copyright (C) 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available