The statistics report Adverse Analytical Findings (the presence of prohibited substances or methods in samples) and Atypical Findings (the presence of prohibited substances or methods in samples requiring further investigation before potentially becoming an Adverse Analytical Finding), as reported to the relevant Anti-Doping Organizations (ADOs) by the laboratories.

The concept of Atypical Finding was introduced in the 2008 International Standard for Laboratories and formalized in the 2009 World Anti-Doping Code (Code).

These data are only analytical findings reported by the laboratories. These reports are all subject to the results management process conducted by ADOs, which includes matching with Therapeutic Uses Exemptions (TUEs) and longitudinal studies. Therefore, the number of Adverse Analytical Findings and Atypical Findings reported by laboratories may not correspond with the number of cases sanctioned by ADOs.

No.

The Adverse Analytical Findings and Atypical Findings in this report should not be confused with adjudicated or sanctioned Anti-Doping Rules Violations for several reasons.

First, these figures may contain findings that underwent the Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) approval process. In addition, some Adverse Analytical Findings and Atypical Findings may correspond to multiple findings on the same athlete or measurements performed on the same athlete, such as in cases of longitudinal studies in testosterone (i.e., tracking the testosterone level of one athlete over a period of time).

In 2005, WADA began the roll out of ADAMS (Anti-Doping Administration & Management System), a Web-based database management tool for athletes and anti-doping organizations. ADAMS is a platform for results management, administration of TUEs, athlete whereabouts information, and test distribution planning.

With the full adoption of ADAMS by stakeholders, the sporting community will have a transparent means for tracking results, from collection to sanction, while respecting confidentiality. In addition, complete analysis of data will be available, including linking Adverse Analytical Findings to TUEs and sanctioned cases.

In the interim, International Federations (IFs) and National Anti-Doping Organizations (NADOs), as part of their Code responsibilities, are obliged to report their testing statistics directly to WADA at least annually; also as required by the Code, WADA publicly reports data received from IFs and NADOs.

(The summary of the latest data received by WADA from IFs and NADOs can be found here.)

Yes, the significant introduction of two new tables - Table H and Table I - for blood sample tests. Table H includes blood testing for the Athlete Biological Passport, as well as for human growth hormone (hGH), haemoglobin-based oxygen carriers (HBOCs), CERA and homologous blood transfusions (HBTs), while Table I compiles the blood data by sport.

For the last few years WADA has been encouraging ADOs to conduct more blood testing and in 2010, for the first time, we are able to assess the number of blood tests carried out and thus the anti-doping community will be in a position to compare these figures for future years.

In 2010 there was a decrease of 19,601 samples analyzed compared to 2009. A total of 277,928 samples were analyzed in 2009, and 258,267 samples were analyzed in 2010.

There was a decrease in the number of Adverse Analytical Findings and Atypical Findings from 5,610 in 2009 to 4,820 in 2010. There was a slight decrease in the global percentage of findings (which include Adverse Analytical Findings and Atypical Findings) from 2.02% in 2009 to 1.87% in 2010.

It must be noted that not all 35 WADA accredited laboratories were active all year in 2010. The Penang laboratory accreditation was revoked in June 2010 and the Bogota laboratory was suspended by WADA in 2010 for 3 months due to non-compliance with the International Standard for Laboratories.

There is a slight downward trend in the total number of tests in many sports and WADA believes there are two main reasons for this. Firstly, ADOs are collecting and analyzing more blood samples, which is a more expensive process and part of a more intelligent, target-oriented approach which WADA encourages.

As well as allowing for the detection of more prohibited substances and methods, blood analysis is necessary for the Athlete Biological Passport and longitudinal profiling. It also enables better target testing of athletes in the future.

The second reason is the emphasis now on quality testing rather than quantity testing. This has the effect of more cost-effective programs with a consequent reduction in overall numbers. It fits with the WADA strategy.

The statistics include all analyses conducted by the 35 WADA accredited laboratories for in- and out-of-competition testing conducted in 2010. In addition, the report includes expanded blood data including the number of blood samples analyzed by the laboratories, the tests conducted and the sports involved, especially data reported into ADAMS for the purposes of the Athlete Biological Passport.

Slight differences may be due to how the samples are assigned to any particular year since ADAMS differentiates based on receipt date.

Other differences are likely to originate from non-World Anti-Doping Code signatories (e.g. professional sport leagues) which, due to confidentiality provisions in their service contracts with laboratories, do not permit the reporting of individual data in ADAMS, however do permit the reporting of aggregate data.

WADA does not have this information. The sports and disciplines listed are reported by the laboratories as they have been designated on the doping control at the time of sample collection. In addition, some generic descriptions vary from country to country (e.g. football and hockey). Dependent on the increased use of ADAMS by the sports organizations, WADA anticipates being able to provide more detailed and relevant data on anti-doping sample testing in the future.

The International Standards for Laboratories, under the World Anti-Doping Code, requires that a WADA accredited laboratory performs analysis on a minimum of 1,500 samples per year. Any accredited laboratory that does not meet the 1,500 minimum is monitored closely by WADA, which oversees accreditation and re-accreditation. However, in 2011, this minimum has been raised to 3,000 (urine and blood) samples.

Laboratory accreditation guidelines are set forth in the International Standard for Laboratories under the World Anti-Doping Code. The purpose of the Standard and related technical documents is to ensure laboratory production of valid test results and evidentiary data and to achieve uniform and harmonized results from accredited anti-doping laboratories.

In January 2004, WADA assumed responsibility for accreditation and reaccreditation of laboratories and developed and implemented the International Standard for Laboratories in order to establish harmonized performance and accountability under the Code. Prior to 2004, the International Olympic Committee oversaw anti-doping laboratories.

The WADA External Quality Assessment Scheme (EQAS) is designed and conducted to evaluate laboratory performance as well as to improve test result uniformity between WADA accredited laboratories.

Starting in 2011, WADA distributes at least 18 blind EQAS samples to all accredited laboratories and probationary laboratories (accepted into the probationary phase of accreditation) for the purpose of evaluating laboratory performance. The EQAS challenge may consist of blank urines, adulterated urines, or urines containing one or more Adverse Analytical Finding or Atypical Finding and can be representative of any of the drug classes of the Prohibited List. The laboratories are blind to the contents of the samples and utilize their full menu of the routine laboratory testing procedures. The results of the sample analysis and associated documentation are reported to WADA within a determined time frame.

Also starting in 2011, laboratories in addition receive at least two double blind EQAS samples. The samples may consist of blank urines, adulterated urines, or urines containing one or more Adverse Analytical Finding or Atypical Finding and which are indistinguishable from normal testing samples. The laboratories will be unable to identify the sample as an EQAS sample.

WADA then evaluates the laboratory results based on the proper identification and determination of concentration, if applicable, of the target substance(s).

Satisfactory performance in the WADA EQAS Program is required to maintain WADA accreditation. Unsatisfactory performance can lead to possible actions ranging from laboratory corrective action to suspension or revocation of the accreditation dependent on the severity of the non-compliance(s).

The number of samples analyzed by any particular laboratory depends primarily on the development of the national anti-doping program in the associated region. The number of international events hosted by the region, as well as the anti-doping programs associated with professional leagues and sports organizations outside of the Olympic movement, also plays a role.

The percentage of Adverse Analytical Findings and Atypical Findings from laboratory to laboratory may be attributed to many factors, including the extent to which the national anti-doping program conducts no advance notice testing, the type of sports within the laboratory’s testing population, as well as the lists of prohibited substances from sports organizations and professional leagues outside the Olympic movement.