Tweet
The onus is clearly on WADA to communicate to its laboratories what is and what is not on the prohibited list. There are clearly gaps in communication with regard to Higenamine, something which also tends to support the suggestion that WADA’s own internal procedure and analysis in respect of this substance is incomplete (as discussed above).
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport...-live-12915125
http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/...3_DOWNLOAD.pdf
Is Higenamine on WADA’s prohibited list?
- Is Higenamine a Beta-2 Agonist?
- What has WADA communicated to its accredited laboratories about Higenamine?
- Are the WADA accredited laboratories consistently testing for Higenamine?
Frankly, the CEDB struggles to understand the value of a code which lacks universalenforcement. A code, for example, where different laboratories are looking for differentthings.
In the present case, the CEDB was presented with a situation where the Player tested positive for Higenamine because the Sample was sent to Cologne, but would not have tested positive if the Sample had been sent to Lausanne.
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport...-live-12915125
http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/...3_DOWNLOAD.pdf
Is Higenamine on WADA’s prohibited list?
- Is Higenamine a Beta-2 Agonist?
- What has WADA communicated to its accredited laboratories about Higenamine?
- Are the WADA accredited laboratories consistently testing for Higenamine?
Frankly, the CEDB struggles to understand the value of a code which lacks universalenforcement. A code, for example, where different laboratories are looking for differentthings.
In the present case, the CEDB was presented with a situation where the Player tested positive for Higenamine because the Sample was sent to Cologne, but would not have tested positive if the Sample had been sent to Lausanne.
Comment