The true extent of the results and data on the fight against doping are not only unknown, as also the news about doping in successful sports personalities in the media gives a message that is very distant from the actual situation. Official analysis to detect banned substances in sportsmen and women has been practised since the 1960s, when the International Federation of Football Associations (FIFA) and the International Cycling Union (UCI) carried out the first determinations. The consolidation in 1999 of the World AntiDoping Agency (WADA-AMA) was a very important step, as it not only brought the majority of international sports federations together with the same aim, but also established an Antidoping Code listing banned substances in and outside competitions, together with all of the procedures and actions necessary to obtain samples correctly.1 Since then and up to now the grouping together of regional and national antidoping agencies and Olympic and non-Olympic sports federations and associations has strengthened the commitment to clean competition.

However, it is not easy to communicate the message that this contest against fraudulent competitors is being won. It is habitual in different competitions, and above all those which attract the largest numbers of followers, for news to arise that a winning sportsman or woman cheated to gain an honour that does not correspond to them. Such news items are often the most widely broadcast, and they debase the references to the sports in question.

The WADA-AMA has published the worldwide results of these analyses annually since 2003 in its official website. This paper presents the results, classified and grouped according to sports, with the aim of offering those who study this subject resources that show the actual situation.

The annual results from the last 13 years from 2003 to 2015 were obtained from the WADA-AMA web page. These results are classified according to sport, whether or not it is an Olympic sport and according to the banned substance detected by analysis. To break down the findings according to sport and to make a selection from them the results of the last year shown in the web page, 2015, are shown.

Adverse results are identified, i.e., the ones that are unexpected and indicate the presence in a urine sample of a substance considered to be doping according to the current antidoping code. By definition an “Adverse analytical Result” indicates the presence of banned substances or the use of banned methods in a certain sample. Adverse Analytical Results should not be confused with AntiDoping Rule Violations (ADRV) which are judged or punished due to several reasons. These figures may therefore contain findings that were subject to the process of Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUE) Authorisation, or some adverse analytical findings may correspond to multiple measurements in a single sportsman or woman, such as cases of longitudinal studies to evaluate the presence of testosterone (i.e., monitoring the testosterone level in an individual over a period of time).

The results are shown in Tables 1–5. Table 1 shows that the number of checks performed has doubled over these 13 years (by 200.6%). Although fewer checks have always been performed in non-Olympic sports than in Olympic ones, over somewhat more than a decade non-Olympic sports federations and the organisers of the sports events they participate in have committed themselves to clean competition and health protection. There has therefore been a major increase in the number of tests in non-Olympic sports or activities (by 284%).

Table 2.

Number of samples identified as adverse results in each group for the sports included in ADAMS. They should not be confused with violations punished by the regulations (ADRVs) given that some may be covered by a TUE or may correspond to several tests in the same subject.

RA: adverse results, AT procedural alterations, B2 agonists: Beta agonists or beta2 adrenergics, GlycoCTC: glycocorticoids, H.Pept.: peptide hormones.

Table 3.

Adverse results for the presence of S1 category stimulants.

Amph: amphetamine, Meth: methamphetamine, MDA: dymethylamine.

The three columns on the right in Table 1 show the presence of adverse outcomes. In the samples evaluated these are really rare at less than 1% of those who practice Olympic sports and hardly above 2% for non-Olympic sports (Fig. 1) in the last recorded year.

Figure 1.

Adverse results (AR) according to Olympic category.

(0.12MB).

Table 2 shows abnormal results according to substance. Anabolic steroids are the most used substance in all of the annual series, with values that are always close to or above 50% in comparison with the other substances. Different proportions of stimulants are in second place (Table 3), while masking agents are in third place, having risen since 2014. Although the latter products have no active effect themselves in sport terms, they are used to hinder or annul the detection of a banned substance by the antidoping control laboratory. In Table 2 it must be underlined that glycocorticoids remain in a range from 4% to 7%. Like betagonists and some others, this medication must not always be considered to be doping. As was pointed out above, its presence in a sample may be justified by a current TUE, that does not eliminate the result of the quantification listed and must not be considered to be doping, so that it is not punishable.

Table 3 shows the results of the different stimulants used with the intent to cheat. Pseudoephedrine was once fully authorised. However, due to its reappearance at striking levels in certain sports it was banned once again. This ban did not take place because in certain countries it was evaluated again, after which it was understood that its reappearance was not due to expressly therapeutic reasons.2 In the one-year evaluation its presence may be considered to stand at a low level, as it was found in fewer than 9 subjects. Nevertheless, it would be expected that it would not exist at all, not even as the result of a mistake or due to a poorly prescribed therapy.

The use of amphetamines as stimulants is especially interesting, given that detection of them not only does not fall, but increases in both absolute and relative terms. This is also the case for methylphenidate, which is used for learning deficit pathologies. The detection of this substance should always be accompanied by a TUE accepted by the relevant body. However, this is not always the case, as it is known to be used as doping substance in sport. On the other hand, the use of dimethylamylamine or methylhexanamine seems to be falling since the 2012 London Olympic Games. This is an amphetamine derivative that has no therapeutic profile or format, so that its conscious use (or unconscious use, as it is found in some sports supplement products) is considered to be doping.3

Tables 4 and 5 show the results according to sport in the year 2015. The first of these, Table 4, refers to summer Olympic sports (ASOIF) and winter Olympic sports (AIOWF). Table 5 shows non-Olympic sports corresponding to several sports federations and associations. The latter shows the data from sports that may belong to different associations together, combining them to make them easier to understand. To reduce this table to a size suitable for publication, it has been restricted to sports with adverse results or 1% or greater.

Based on these results, it seems that fewer sports men and women use doping that could previously have been guessed. Although it is correct that the presence of only one case should be considered despicable, it is also true that the presence of a single positive result would not correspond to one individual of every hundred analyses performed in Olympic sports, and hardly to two in non-Olympic sports. The other reading of this datum, from the ethical and moral point of view in sport, is that of every 100 sports men and women, 98.99 in Olympic sports behave correctly and follow the rules.

These tables contain numbers and may look worthy of a stock market broker. Some points should be raised to ensure that these results are interpreted broadly and correctly. As was pointed out above as well as in the table legends, although adverse results are shown they are not always punishable, as they may be due to a TUE. On the other hand, the positive results for some substances such as anabolic steroids may correspond to several samples from a single individual who was being monitored. Thus although it is correct that anabolic steroids have to be monitored as they are the most widely used doping substances, the result respecting them is somewhat amplified due to the range of additional samples arising from the above-mentioned cause.

On the other hand, it is interesting to observe the increased use of masking agents, products used with the aim of hiding the use of another prohibited substance or perhaps to limit the concentration of another substance with a positivity threshold, as well as the use of certain stimulants (Table 3).

When the tables are evaluated according to sports, in some the level of adverse results is anecdotal, under 0.5% (1/200 subjects), while in others it is clearly higher. Moreover, some substances are stimulants rather than ergogenics, and they may be used to enhance performance or for so-called “social” purposes which, in any case, also modify qualities and abilities which, in sports events will raise subjects above their normal state and make them better than would correspond to them.

The percentages are different in non-Olympic sports and activities. In some of them there may be a temptation to use an illicit extra aid due to their similarity to sports and competition. Comparisons may be drawn in this evaluation of non-Olympic sports and activities based on the percentages arising from the number of samples taken. When few samples are taken, as is the case in electronic sports, a single adverse result may ruin its reputation as a clean sport. We have wished to separate weight-lifting controlled by the AIMS from other weight-lifting sports or even body-building in the same association, given that the number of positive cases is not the same. This is indubitably because these groups of sports men and women compete in very different environments.

Respecting the stimulants, the reason why ephedra derivatives (ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, etc.) are detected in some controls is described above. However, the detection of cocaine is never justifiable, and it seems to be increasing. The use of some amphetamine derivatives is also increasing. These do not necessarily have anything to do with the treatment of learning disorders, such as dimethylamine, which is found in some sports-supplements. Use of this substance increased most especially from 2011 to 2013, and due to this it is shown in a separate column.3 2.8% of samples were positive for methylphenidate in 2015, although when reading these results it must be taken into account that it is a therapeutic substance for attention disorder, with or without hyperactivity, and that its use in therapy always requires a TUE.

We therefore definitively consider that the data shown descriptively in this paper will aid updating and comprehension of the state of doping in sports around the world. This work does not aim to justify performing doping tests, as we believe the need for them to be unquestionable, but rather its purpose is to supply readers with a basis for their own decision. For example, if we translate the results of this evaluation into another field such as traffic, in 2015 and excluding the Basque Country and Catalonia there were 26,339,285 drivers in Spain. There were 4,826,246 traffic infractions during the year, i.e., one infraction for every 5 drivers, or 18.3% committed infraction. This datum is actually incorrect, as some subjects committed more than one infraction, as is also the case with doping. To express this in another way, some drivers committed more than one infraction while many others committed none. Although someone may disagree with the control and punishment, it is clear that infractions only fall in number after a punishment was set. This is the case for the points-based driving licence, as since it was introduced the percentages of deaths on city and intercity roads fell until 2016, when the tendency changed again.4 There can be no doubt that control is positive, even when it is not liked. This is why, and to return to our own context, it is not enough for clean sportsmen and women to fight to remain clean and give an example, as unfortunately controls must still be used, together with punishment when applicable, to further reduce the number of positive tests and permit clean competition without cheating. Nevertheless, we would be delighted if the percentage of cheats in other areas of life were 1%, 2% or even 5%. Examples?

There are fewer than 1% of negative results in doping tests in Olympic sports, and somewhat more than 2% in non-Olympic sports.

The group of substances with the highest rate of negative results is the anabolic steroids, followed at a distance by stimulants and masking agents.

An adverse result is not always caused by doping, as it may be result of consuming a substance for which a TUE has been issued and which has to be taken for health reasons. Examples of such substances are terbutaline, insulin or corticoids administered in a prohibited way.

The authors have no conflict of interests to declare and have no personal economic interests in this paper.