ReviewSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2004
Non-intentional doping in sports.
Review in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Case Report: A case study of positive doping control by animal-to-human drug transfer after an athlete administered medicine in spray format, containing clostebol acetate, to a pet dog.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2024Article
- Dietary Supplements as a Major Cause of Anti-doping Rule Violations.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2022Article
- Dietary Supplement and Food Contaminations and Their Implications for Doping Controls.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- An evaluation of prevention initiatives by 53 national anti-doping organizations: Achievements and limitations.Journal of sport and health science · 2020Observational
- Questions of fairness and anti-doping in US cycling: The contrasting experiences of professionals and amateurs.Drugs (Abingdon, England) · 2015Article
- Epidemiological analysis of doping offences in the professional tennis circuit.Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England) · 2010Article
- The continuing story of nutritional supplements and doping infractions.British journal of sports medicine · 2007Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Compulsory drug testing was introduced in 1968 by the International Olympic Committee. Since then, several doping cases have been reported in sports competition world wide. Positive results are based on the detection of prohibited substances, their metabolites and markers in biological (mainly urine) samples supplied by athletes. In some cases, the evidences were not contested and athletes admitted the use of banned substances. However, in other cases, athletes denied the use of doping to enhance performance and claimed to have inadvertently or passively absorbed the drug. Unfortunately, no current accepted analytical method is capable of distinguishing between a sample from a cheater and one from an athlete who was passively exposed to a doping agent. Athletes' allegations have included the passive inhalation of drug smoke (e.g. marijuana) or the ingestion of food or products sold as nutritional supplements that contained prohibited substances. In the scientific literature, several studies have been performed to investigate the possibility of an accidental exposure being the reason for the appearance of detectable quantities of banned substances in urine samples. Based on these studies, this article discusses those cases where the athlete's claims could be possible in generating a positive result in doping control and in which circumstances it would be improbable to happen.
Indexed as
Identifiers
15456345What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.