The success of blood tests at detecting doping appears to be falling, while the success of urine testing appears to be growing, according to the World Anti-Doping Agency’s (WADA) Anti-Doping Testing Figures Report, published today. Just 0.03% of blood samples analysed by WADA-accredited laboratories through the Anti-Doping Administration and Management System (ADAMS) reported an adverse analytical finding (AAF), down from 0.06% in 2014. In comparison, 1.17% of urine samples analysed by laboratories returned an AAF during 2015, up from 1.1% during 2014. Urine tests were also more successful than blood tests during 2014, as reported by The Sports Integrity Initiative.

The results raise the question as to why there has been a 51.6% in blood samples analysed by WADA laboratories outside the athlete biological passport (ABP) programme, while urine testing only increased by 3.1% between 2014 and 2015. The increase in blood sample collection may be due to the introduction of the Technical Document for Sport Specific Analysis (TDSSA), which is included in WADA’s Testing Figures Report for the first time. The document is designed to ensure that three groups of prohibited substances deemed to be at risk in certain sports are subject to a minimum level of testing. ‘The Prohibited Substances within the scope of the TDSSA are normally not part of a routine standard urine analysis and require specialised analysis methods [i.e. blood testing]’, reads the TDSSA.

WADA highlighted the increase in blood testing as a positive measure. ‘There was a relative increase in the number of blood samples collected from 4.78% [of overall samples analysed] in 2014 (13,553 from 283,304) to 6.98% in 2015 (21,176 of 303,369)’, it said in a statement announcing the publication of the Report. Collecting blood samples is also useful for the blood module of the ABP, which allows laboratories to monitor levels within an athlete’s blood over time to detect doping.

WADA said that the inclusion of the TDSSA analysis figures revealed that there was an 82% increase in Growth Hormone (GH) Isoforms testing compared with 2014; a 14.5% increase in Erythropoiesis Stimulating Agents (ESAs) testing in urine and an 84% increase in blood testing; and, a 91.7%1 increase in Growth Hormone Releasing Factors (GHRFs) testing. When compared to 2014, there was an increase in AAFs across two of the three groups: three additional AAFs for GH; and eight additional AAFs for GHRFs. For the first time, the 2015 Report also includes the number of samples analysed for GHRFs, GnRH, Insulin, IGF-I, and hGH biomarkers.

Laboratory sample analysis figures

Reports on the number of samples analysed by WADA-accredited laboratories also revealed that the laboratories performing the largest number of tests are not necessarily reporting the most AAFs. Beijing analysed 17,619 samples, the second-largest number of any WADA-accredited laboratory. However, ten other laboratories reported more AAFs than the 58 Beijing recorded.

It is also interesting that in the year before the 2016 Olympics, the Rio de Janeiro laboratory analysed just 1,938 samples, putting it in the bottom three laboratories in terms of samples analysed. Of those, 198 blood tests resulted in not a single AAF. The Rio laboratory was suspended in June this year, however it was reinstated in July shortly before the start of the Rio Olympic Games.

The International Standard for Laboratories (ISL) requires that a WADA-accredited laboratory performs analysis on a minimum of 3,000 (including urine, blood and ABP) samples per year. Any accredited laboratory that does not meet this figure is monitored closely by WADA, which may hold a clue to why the Rio laboratory was suspended.

In terms of the percentage of samples analysed that generated an AAF, Mexico led the pack with 4.10%. Its 146 AAFs were all due to analysis of urine samples; analysis of 35 blood samples didn’t generate a single AAF. The Mexican laboratory has recently been suspended by WADA, which is understood to be due to a false positive relating to a urine sample provided by sabre fencer Paola Pliego. Further analysis of the WADA Anti-Doping Testing Figures Report – including analysis by sport – will feature on The Sports Integrity Initiative in the future.