Substance Use & Misuse, 49:1146–1151, 2014 C 2014 Informa Healthcare USA, Inc. Copyright ISSN: 1082-6084 print / 1532-2491 online DOI: 10.3109/10826084.2014.903746
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Brazilian Antidoping Public Policy Claudio Bispo de Almeida1 and Deyvis Nascimento Rodrigues2 Departamento de Educac¸a˜ o, Universidade do Estado da Bahia, Guanambi, Bahia, Brazil; 2 Col´egio Estadual Pedro Atan´azio Garcia, SEC/BA, Caetit´e, Bahia, Brazil Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Universitat de Girona on 12/01/14 For personal use only.
1
1984 Los Angeles Olympic Games, the events have succumbed to the power of money, making the Games one of the most effective modes of spreading a brand name and/or product, when victory by an athlete is tied to the successful representation of the brand’s sponsor. With various forms of pressure (political, social, financial, personal, or media) requiring athletes to perform well, there has been a huge increase in the creation and implementation of methods and substances used in order to improve an athlete’s performance and reduce his/her recovery time, resulting in the winning of more medals and satisfying the demands of their sponsors. Therefore, as Aquino Neto (2001) has described, all of these pressures have and continue to transform the athlete into an instrument of the needs, agendas, and goals of a range of influential individual and systemic stakeholders without discernment as to where the ethical, moral, social norms, and health limits lay. The prohibited substances and methods used, and which have changed over time, are called doping; both listed substances and the processes used. Doping in Brazil, according to Article 1 of Resolution No. 02 (May 05, 2004), published in the Official Gazette (Federal Official Gazette, May 12, 2004) in Section I, the Ministry of Sports and National Council of Sports, is conceptualized as being a substance, method, or agent capable of altering an athlete’s performance, his/her health, or spirit of the game, during sports competition—inside or outside of (Brasil, 2004). According to Rivier (2000), in 1999 doping was defined during the “World Conference Against Doping” in Lausanne, Switzerland as “an activity that is contrary to the fundamental principles of Olympism, medical ethics, and sport”.1 According to Medeiros and Santos (2008), the control mechanisms to combat doping in sport are relatively new in the history of sports. In 1960, during the Rome
Doping, used to improve sports performance, is legally prohibited. This paper describes Brazilian regulations, resolutions, and Federal laws addressing the issue of doping and antidoping which were collected in 2012 from official websites. We conclude that Brazilian laws have constrained doping, and have been updated over the years to conform to worldwide legal guidelines. Study limitations are noted. Keywords doping in sports, antidoping, Brazilian law and public policies, performance- enhancing substances
INTRODUCTION
Sport and exercise have always played an important role in human life, either as leisure practices, pedagogical practices, for health care, or as part of military training. Da Matta (1994) notes that the functions of sports include: (1) dimensions of egalitarianism, (2) the introduction of the use of predefined rules imposed on practitioners, and (3) the experience of equality and social justice. The commodification and politicalizing of sports, competitive events, and athletes and the decrease in “sportsmanship” as a norm, value, and process are relatively new in the history of athletics. Among the various sports events, the most popular is the Olympics. The Olympic Games of the modern era were organized by Pierre de Coubertin and the first modern Games were held in April 1896 in the city of Athens, Greece (Tavares, 2005). According to Rubio (2010), the Olympic Games have become a means for dissemination of ideals and political regimes, as in the 1936 Games, which were used to display Hitler’s Nazism and during the Cold War, when the United States and the Soviet-Union sought to showcase sporting events as a political and social force. Since the 1
The reader is asked to consider the implications of permitting and fostering contact sports (i.e., football, boxing, and soccer) as well as other risky and endangering sports which are increasingly documented as being associated with serious health consequences to life, limb, and quality of daily functioning during training as well as during one’s game playing for both amateurs as well as professionals. Second, that effective “doping” depends upon an active ongoing network of people enabling the doping athlete to “dope” within the context of a co-opted, complacent, silent culture rooted in winning at any cost and marginalizing tagged losers. Editor’s note. Address correspondence to Claudio Bispo de Almeida, Departamento de Educac¸a˜ o, Universidade do Estado da Bahia, Av Vanessa Cardoso, S/N, Ipanema, Guanambi, Bahia CEP 46430-000, Brazil; E-mail: [email protected]
1146
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Universitat de Girona on 12/01/14 For personal use only.
BRAZILIAN ANTIDOPING PUBLIC POLICY
Olympics, for the first time, the International Olympic Committee Medical Commission instituted drug testing for athletes. However, the IOC began doping enforcement during the1968 Winter Olympic Games in Grenoble, France, but the limitations were immense due to the poor methods of analysis, so only a few stimulants and narcotics were detected (Aquino Neto, 2001; Campos et al., 2005). According to Aquino Neto (2001), it was only in 1968 that the IOC officially took control of testing for the use of certain doping methods and substances. The World Anti-Doping Code was created on February 20, 2003 and entered into force for the first time on January 1, 2004. The laws are new, but the use of doping substances and methods is as old as the history of sport. In this sense, Campos et al. (2005) have reported that the Greeks ate mushrooms, believing the mushrooms could improve the performance of athletes in competition and that Roman gladiators used stimulants to alleviate fatigue. During the end of the 19th Century and the beginning of the 20th Century, other illicit substances were incorporated into sport. In 1886, Arthur Linton, a cyclist, died under the influence of stress and speed ball (cocaine + heroin) during the Tour de France. In 1904, the first case of drug use in the modern Olympic Games took place when Thomas Hicks, a marathoner, nearly died from a mixture of brandy and strychnine (Aquino Neto, 2001). The use of testosterone in sport soon appeared, because as early as 1939, some sport enthusiasts theorized that the use of the male hormone would improve the performance of athletes. According to Hoberman & Yesalis (1995), testosterone was first synthesized in 1935 by two different groups. The first report of athletes using a synthesized form of this hormone was by Russian athletes in 1954 during a weightlifting championship in Vienna (Castilho & Nascimento, 2003; Lise et al., 1999). According to Aquino Neto (2001), the decade of 1960–1970 was marked by many historical events opposed to doping, such as the creation of the council, composed of 22 nations, proposing a resolution against the use of doping agents in sports. And, in 1963, France adopted Antidoping Legislation, and two years later (1965) Belgium followed in the footsteps of France. But the event that marked the decade was the death of cyclist Tommy Simpson due to the nonmedical use of amphetamines during the Tour de France. This episode led the IOC to take forceful steps to try to prevent the use and misuse of doping substances in sports. During the decade of the 1960s, the German Democratic Republic discovered that sporting success could both improve the self-esteem of the population and its prestige in the international competitive sports arena. They began to finance studies on the use of anabolic–androgenic steroids (AAS), invested in the discovery of young talent, and the use of prohibited drugs. During this period, professional athletes were adminisR pills and injections of testosterone tered Oral-Turinabol esters and nandrolone—presenting them as being vitamins and prophylactic measures. In 1968, the East Ger-
1147
mans became pioneers in the administration of androgenic hormones to female athletes (Cunha et al., 2004). Campos et al. (2005) have reported for the first time (in 1974), the development of the radioimmunoassay technique for detecting the presence of AAS in biological samples, with the result that they were included in the lists of substances banned by the IOC. In 1984, testosterone was analyzed during the Olympic Games in Los Angeles, where art, technology, instrumentation, and skilled personnel were brought together to combat the use of doping substances (Aquino Neto, 2001; Castilho & Nascimento, 2003). On November 10, 1999, in Lausanne, Switzerland, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) was created. “The WADA aims to promote and coordinate the international fight against doping in sport and to foster a culture of doping-free sport” (Lima, 2010). Finally, in 2003, representatives of various governments, including Brazil, gathered in the capital of Denmark, with the international Olympic movement, aimed at the unification of doping control policies at the national and international levels, where participants signed the Copenhagen Declaration, approving the World Anti-Doping Code (De Rose et al., 2004). Within the framework of this historic event and the definition of doping, the present review describes how regulations, resolutions, and Brazilian federal laws were put into place to address the issue of doping and antidoping in Brazil. METHODS
This report documents research, whose source of data collection is restricted to written documents, i.e., primary sources (Marconi & Lakatos, 2003). Initially, we found articles that are part of the database Scientific Electronic Library Online—SCIELO—and our research was performed using the term “doping” as a keyword. At the conclusion of our research, the articles selected followed exclusion criteria due to the lack of information regarding the history and/or the doping legislation. Data were collected during October and November 2012. We consulted various documents related to the theme of federal doping and antidoping laws in force in Brazil. Brazilian laws, relating to the acquisition and use of doping substances and methods, were located in the Official Gazette and websites of the Ministries of Health and Sports Ministry. Three federal laws were observed for this review: the Ordinance of the Ministry of Education, the Ordinance of the Ministry of Health, and the Ordinance of the Ministry of Sport; three Resolutions of the Sports Ministry; and the Brazilian Code of Sports Justice, 2010. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Since the signing of the Declaration of Copenhagen, resulting in the adoption of the World Anti-Doping Code (2004 and later revised in 2009—WADA, 2009), Brazil has focused on creating policies of suppression against
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Universitat de Girona on 12/01/14 For personal use only.
1148
C. B. DE ALMEIDA AND D. N. RODRIGUES
doping. However, prior to this event, laws did exist that regulated the use of substances aimed at improving athletic performance. On July 10, 1985, Ordinance No. 531 of the Ministry of Education became effective; its aim was to legislate the practice of using doping substances. In addition, this Ordinance classified substances into five groups2 : 1—Stimulants psychomotor; 2—Amines sympathomimetics; 3—Stimulants that act on the central nervous system; 4—Narcotic analgesics; and 5—Anabolic androgenic steroids. (Lise et al., 1999; Silva, Danielski, & Czepielewski, 2002). This Ordinance was based on the terms of ARTICLE42, item III of Law No. 6251, of October 8, 1975 (Brazil, 1975). Aiming to suppress the constant importation of substances and drugs, a regulation was published in the Federal Official Gazette on February 1, 1999 (Ordinance 344, May 12, 1998), with the Brazilian Ministry of Health approving a Technical Regulation on Substances and Prescription Drugs (Brazil, 1999). This Ordinance is designed to “control and supervise the production, trade, handling, or use of anabolic substances” that should be decided and implemented in conjunction with the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Justice and its counterparts in the states, the municipalities, and the Federal District (Lise et al., 1999; Silva, Danielski, Czepielewski, 2002). Law No. 9965 of April 27, 2000 (published in the Gazette, April 28, 2000), according to Article 1 thereof, restricts the sale of anabolic steroids, forcing the user to present a prescription issued by a physician or a dentist, duly recorded in the respective board’s professional registry, and the prescription or script will be retained by the drugstore or pharmacy (Brazil, 2000). With the implementation of Ordinance No. 101, dated July 29, 2003 (published in Federal Official Gazette August 6, 2003), the Ministry of Sports created a Commission to Combat Use of Doping. It was expected that the Commission would comprise13 members from various institutions involved with sport and a representative of the National Agency for Sanitary Vigilance, a representative of the Federal Council of Pharmacy, and a representative of the Brazilian Society of Sports Medicine. Among the various powers of the Commission to Combat the Use of Doping, it is noteworthy that Item II of ART. 5, reads: “enforce the World Anti-Doping Code” (Brazil, 2003). The Resolution No. 2, was created on May 5, 2004 (published in Federal Official Gazette May 12, 2004), by the Sports Ministry and established Basic Standards for Control of Doping in Sports. This Resolution comprised nine chapters. It begins by discussing the definition of doping and act of doping, after describing the doping con2
The reader is reminded that categorizing can result in endless relevant, irrelevant, meaningful, as well as meaningless and even misleading outcomes and combinations. Critical criteria to consider are whether the criteria used are theory-based, empirically informed, based on “principles of faith,” stakeholder agenda-driven, tradition-based, among other possibilities, etc. Editor’s note.
trol procedures (identification and selection of athletes, the control sample; reports and results; and control), the Resolution describes the punishment3 for athletes who dope. At the end of Section II, Chapter IX, it provides for the repeal of Ordinance No. 531 of the MEC (Ministry of Education) (Brazil, 2004). This resolution also serves as the theoretical basis for the construction of the National Sports Policy, approved by Resolution No. 5, dated June 14, 2005 (Brasil, 2005b). One important law concerning the issue of doping is the Brazilian Code of Sports Justice, published in 2010. This law is based on the following documents: Legislative Decree No. 306 of 2007, which “approves the text of the International Convention against Doping in Sport, held in Paris on October 19, 2005”; Decree No. 6653 of November 18, 2008, that “promulgates the International Convention against Doping in Sport, held in Paris on October 19, 2005,” and the Resolution of the National Education Council No. 27 of December 21, 2009, that “Approves the list of prohibited substances and methods in sport” (Brazil, 2010). On May 15, 2012, published in the Federal Official Gazette, was the creation of Law No. 12638 of May 14, 2012, where the President of the Republic instituted January 15 as the National Day of Fair Play and to Fight Doping in Sports (Brasil, 2012). Besides these laws, resolutions, and ordinances that regulate and supervise the use of doping substances and methods, Brazil has published annually, since 2004, a list of substances and methods prohibited in sports. Unfortunately, there remains some inconsistency regarding the issue of combating doping in Brazil because, although there are laws and regulatory agencies, evidence proves that Brazil is still below expectations when it comes to doping prevention. On January 6, 2005, the Ministry of Sport made public a report titled “Brazil as an example to combat doping,” describing that so far no Brazilian had tested positive in doping control tests (Brasil, 2005a, Brasil, 2005b ). On November 24, 2009, the Federal Council of Physical Education, provided on its website, a story from the newspaper Correio Brasiliense with the title, “Brazil does not fight doping.” The author of this story revealed that on October 30, 2009, athlete Daiane dos Santos was considered “doped” in a surprise test done by the International Gymnastics Federation. In addition, the author also described that in August of the same year, 10 days before the World Championships, five Brazilians returned home after testing positive in doping tests. The author began his attack by writing that “Brazil does not have a policy to combat doping” and continued by describing that while the Ministry of Sports has a Commission to Combat Doping, it only functions to publicize the WADA list of banned substances created in 2004”(CONFEF, 2009). 3
The reader is asked to consider the implications of delineating only the goals of punishment and not, in addition, that of rehabilitation and relevant treatment. Editor’s note.
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Universitat de Girona on 12/01/14 For personal use only.
BRAZILIAN ANTIDOPING PUBLIC POLICY
Additionally, the journalistic site “Estad˜ao” published, on July 31, 2012, the following news: “Brazil is about 30 years too late ‘in the fight against doping’,” according to the information in a publication by Swedes’ Gunnar Gunnarsson and Arne Ljungqvist, head of the IOC Medical Commission and vice president of WADA. The international agency to combat doping says, “It is not just late for 2016. Brazil is about 30 years late. Long ago this structure should have already existed” (CHADE, 2012). However, according to Weineck (2005), the problem of doping will not be eradicated in the short term.4 The author states that, with the same speed that laboratories specialize in doping analysis, the pharmaceutical market provides substances that cannot be immediately detected. Fortunately, the author draws attention to the importance of doping controls that, through the discussions generated in the process, help to combat the practice. Consequently, Brazil has, through covenants (IOC, WADA, and IMETRO), increasingly combated doping. Since the founding of the Laboratory of Technological Development Support Institute of Chemistry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (Ladetec-IQ/UFRJ) in 1989, the country has intensified campaigns to combat and control doping through the training of staff for testing and analysis, with antidoping campaigns outside of competition. Furthermore, aiming at greater efficiency in the analysis of performance-enhancing drugs during international events (World Cup, Olympics, among others), Brazil has held regular conferences with international institutions (IOC and WADA), and has adopted technologies that enable greater security during analysis (Aquino Neto, 2001; Barros, 2012). Unfortunately, owing to problems related to lack of infrastructure and proper preparation of staff, Ladetec, the only Brazilian laboratory certified to conduct doping tests, was disaccredited by WADA in August 2013. In this regard, the executive director of the Brazilian Authority of Doping Control, Marco Aurelio Klein, attended a meeting of WADA in Montreal (Canada) on September 11, 2013, where, during the meeting, Klein signed a statement of understanding that Brazil would meet the requirements of the Agency and seek to rectify the situation with Ladetec as quickly as possible (Brasil, 2013a, Brasil, 2013b). During the meeting, Klein described the actions put into place to restore certification, including federal government funding for construction of the new headquarters 4
The reader is asked to consider the implications of the reality that there has been limited success in controlling the range of man’s chemical and nonchemical appetites, historically, through legislation. In addition to having to effect a person’s awareness, perceptions, expectations, judgments, decisions which are or aren’t implemented and are or aren’t learned from, there is the ongoing effect of a person, system, and culture being law-abiding, or not, in given roles, contexts, situations, and environments. These are rarely, if ever, taken into consideration by the stakeholder legislators as they create and implement their “controls.” Editor’s note.
1149
of Ladetec, increasing the number of Ladetec employees, the acquisition of new equipment and substances to facilitate analysis, and the implementation of education programs to combat doping. Unfortunately, these measures will not be sufficient for the rapid reaccreditation of the laboratory, making it impossible to conduct testing during the 2014 FIFA World Cup, with Brazil having to resort to other laboratories for testing during the World Cup. According to the agreements reached during the meeting in Canada, it is expected that Ladetec will once again be accredited during the second half of 2015, therefore being able to exercise their laboratory testing functions during the 2016 Rio Olympics. This is an indication and an example of the known, unknown at a given time, and unknowable complexities associated with doping and its intervention options and activities. Study Limitations
This report was limited to surveying the primary, nationwide Brazilian laws regarding sports doping. We elected not to include laws relating to sports doping enacted by Brazilian states and municipalities. A further limitation of this archival study is that the critical process of “law abidingness”—without which doping controls can and do become little more than stakeholder “medals” was not part of its design. It never has been in doping research.
CONCLUSIONS
We conclude that Brazilian laws deal with doping in sport in a serious, aggressive way and, through updates, are in parallel with worldwide legal guidance. It can be observed that the impact of the laws created in Brazil aim to combat the use and commercialization of doping substances; enforce the global antidoping code, and publicize, annually, the list of prohibited substances and methods in nationallevel sports. Although there is some criticism about the lack of aggressiveness in Brazilian law and the lack of structure that facilitates the application and enforcement of these laws, we note that there is, in these laws, a theoretical consistency. It is therefore important that governments create, not only laws to combat doping, but develop as well, ways to enforce these laws, such as increased border enforcement and a more effective means of suppressing use and the illegal possession of these substances, as well as greater autonomy and working conditions for the current antidoping commission.
Declaration of Interest
The authors, Claudio Bispo de Almeida and Deyvis Nascimento Rodrigues, report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the article.
1150
C. B. DE ALMEIDA AND D. N. RODRIGUES
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Universitat de Girona on 12/01/14 For personal use only.
THE AUTHORS Claudio Bispo de Almeida, B.C., M.Sc., graduated in Physical Education from Universidade Cat´olica do Salvador, specializing in Methodology of Teaching Physical Education; Physical Activity, and Health at the Universidade do Sudoeste da Bahia; Psychomotricity at Universidade Candido Mendes, by Public Health Faculdade Guanambi. He received the Masters Degree in Physical Education, Physical Activity, and Health from the Centro de Desportos (CDS) of the Federal University of Santa Catarina, Brazil. He is a Professor of Physical Education at the Universidade do Estado da Bahia, Brazil, and an investigator of the research group, Linha de Estudo, Pesquisa e Extens˜ao em Atividade F´ısica. His areas of interest are physical activity and health, doping in sports and exercise, anabolic–androgenic steroids in public health, and health promotion.
Deyvis Nascimento Rodrigues, B.C., graduated in Physical Education from the Universidade do Estado da Bahia, Brazil, and specialized in Applied Health Physiology and Performance at Faculdades Unidas do Norte de Minas, Brazil. He is a Professor of state schools in the state of Bahia, Brazil and an investigator of the research group—Grupo de Estudo, Pesquisa e Extens˜ao em Educac¸a˜ o, Cultura e Sa´ude. His areas of interest are physiology, physical activity and health, doping in sports and exercise, and health promotion.
GLOSSARY
Doping in sports: Misuse of substances or methods in order to improve sport performance. Performance-enhancing Substances: Substances that can improve sports performance and an athlete’s appearance.
REFERENCES Aquino Neto, F. R. (2001). O papel do atleta na sociedade e o controle de dopagem no esporte. The Revista Brasileira de Medicina do Esporte, 7, 4. Barros, B. Operac¸a˜ o Controles de Dopagem ultrapassa meta estabelecida pela ABCD. 2012. Retrieved Dicember, 2012, from http://www.abcd.gov.br/noticiaDetalhe.jsp?idnoticia=9635 Brasil. (1975). LEI N∞ 6.251, de 8 de outubro de 1975. Retrieved October–November, 2012, from http://www.esporte.gov.br/
cedime/legislacao/leisFederais/1975 NormasJuridicas(TextoInte gral) LEI 006251 08 10 1975.jsp. Brasil. (1999). Minist´erio da Sa´ude. Secret´aria de Vigilˆancia Sanit´aria. PORTARIA N∞ 344, de 12 de maio de 1998. Di´ario Oficial da Uni˜ao – Sess˜ao 01, N◦ 2, segunda-feira, 1◦ de fev de 1999. Brasil. (2000). LEI No 9.965, DE 27 DE ABRIL DE 2000. Di´ario Oficial da Uni˜ao – Sess˜ao 01, N∞ 82 sexta-feira, 28 de abril de 2000. Brasil. (2003). Minist´erio do Esporte. Gabinete do Ministro. PORTARIA N∞ 101, de 29 de julho de 2003. Di´ario Oficial da Uni˜ao – Sess˜ao 01, N∞ 150, quarta-feira, 6 de agosto de 2003. Brasil. (2004). Minist´erio do Esporte. Gabinete do Ministro. ˜ n∞ 2, de 5 de maio de 2004. Di´ario Oficial da RESOLUC¸AO Uni˜ao – Sess˜ao 01, N∞ 90, quarta-feira, 12 de maio de 2004. Brasil. (2005a). Minist´erio do Esporte. Brasil e´ exemplo de combate ao doping. 06/01/2005. Retrieved August 25, 2012, from http:// www.esporte.gov.br/ascom/noticiaDetalhe.jsp?idnoticia= 2971. Brasil. (2005b). Minist´erio do Esporte. Gabinete do Ministro. ˜ N∞ - 5, DE 14 DE JUNHO DE 2005. Di´ario OfiRESOLUC¸AO cial da Uni˜ao – Sess˜ao 01, N∞ 157, terc¸a-feira, 16 de agosto de 2005. Brasil. (2010). C´odigo Brasileiro de Justic¸a Desportiva / IBDD Instituto Brasileiro de Direito Desportivo. – S˜ao Paulo: IOB, 2010. Brasil. (2012) LEI N∞ 12.638, de 14 de maio de 2012. Di´ario Oficial da Uni˜ao – Sess˜ao 01, N∞ 93, terc¸a-feira, 15 de maio de 2012. Brasil. (2013a). Minist´erio do Esporte. Nota Sobre a suspens˜ao das atividades de controle de dopagem no Ladetec. 09/08/2013. Retrieved September, 2013, from http://www. esporte.gov.br/ascom/noticiaDetalhe.jsp?idnoticia=10914. Brasil. (2013b). Minist´erio do Esporte. Brasil assume compromisso para obter recredenciamento de laborat´orio antidoping. 09/08/2013. Retrieved September, 2013, from http:// www.esporte.gov.br/ascom/noticiaDetalhe.jsp?idnoticia= 11101 Campos, D. R. (2005). Determinac¸a˜ o de esteroides androgˆenicos anab´olicos em urina por cromatografia gasosa acoplada a` espectrometria de massas. Revista Brasileira de Ciˆencias Farmacˆeuticas, 41, 4. Castilho, E. G., Nascimento E. S. (2003). Aspectos anal´ıticos do controle da dopagem de agentes anabolizantes em urina de atletas: avaliac¸a˜ o de crit´erios de positividade. Revista Brasileira de Ciˆencias Farmacˆeuticas, 39, 1. Chade, J. (2012). Brasil est´a uns 30 anos atrasado no combate ao doping. Retrieved October-November, 2012, from http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/impresso,brasil-esta-uns30-anos-atrasado-no-combate-ao-doping-,908382,0.htm Conselho Federal de Educac¸a˜ o F´ısica—CONFEF. (2009). Brasil n˜ao combate o doping. 24 de novembro de 2009. Retrieved October–November, 2012, from http://www.confef.org. br/extra/noticias/conteudo.asp?id=216 Cunha, T. S., Cunha, N. S., Moura, M. J. C. S., & Marcondes, F. K. (2004). Esteroides anab´olicos androgˆenicos e sua relac¸a˜ o com a pr´atica desportiva. Revista Brasileira de Ciˆencias Farmacˆeuticas, 40, 2. ´ Damatta, R. (1994). Antropologia do Obvio: notas em torno do significado social do futebol. Revista USP Dossiˆe Futebol, 22, 10–17. De Rose, E. H., de Aquino Neto, F. R., de Moraes Moreau, R. L.,& de Castro, R. R. T. (2004). Controle antidoping no Brasil:
BRAZILIAN ANTIDOPING PUBLIC POLICY
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Universitat de Girona on 12/01/14 For personal use only.
resultados do ano de 2003 e atividades de prevenc¸a˜ o. The Revista Brasileira de Medicina do Esporte, 10, 4. Hoberman, J.M., & Yesalis, C. E. (1995) The history of synthetic testosterone. Scientific American, 272(2), 76–81. Lima, L. C. C. (2010). Considerac¸o˜ es gerais sobre doping no esporte. Revista de Estudos de Gest˜ao, Jur´ıdicos e Financeiros, Ano 1, Ed. N∞ 03. Lise, M. L. Z., da Gama e Silva, T.S., Ferigolo, M., & Barros, H.M.T. (1999). O abuso de esteroides anab´olico-androgˆenicos em atletismo. Revista da Associac¸a˜ o M´edica Brasileira 1999; 45(4), 364–370. Marconi, M. A., & Lakatos, E. M. (2003). Fundamentos de metodologia cient´ıfica (5th. ed.). S˜ao Paulo: Atlas. Medeiros, A. G. A., & Santos, D. S. (2008). O doping no discurso midi´atico. Motrivivˆencia Ano XX(31), 333–345.
1151
Rivier, L. (2000). Is there a place for hair analysis in doping controls? Forensic Science International, Shannon, 107, 309–323. Rubio, K. (2010). Jogos ol´ımpicos da era moderna: uma proposta de periodizac¸a˜ o. Rev. Bras. Educ. F´ıs. Esp., 24, 1. Silva, P. R. P., Danielski, R., & Czepielewski, M. A. (2002). Esteroides anabolizantes no esporte. The Revista Brasileira de Medicina do Esporte, 8, 6. Tavares, O. (2005). Jogos Ol´ımpicos. In: F. J. Gonz´alez & P. E. Fensterseifer, Dicion´ario Cr´ıtico de Educac¸a˜ o F´ısica. Iju´ı: Uniju´ı. WADA: World Anti-Doping Agency. (2009). C´odigo mundial antidoping: play true. Cited January, 2012, from http://www.wadaama.org/Documents/World Anti-Doping Program/WADPThe-Code/WADA Anti-Doping CODE 2009 EN.pdf. Weineck, J. (2005). Biologia do esporte (7th ed.). S˜ao Paulo: Manole.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Brazilian Antidoping Public Policy Claudio Bispo de Almeida1 and Deyvis Nascimento Rodrigues2 Departamento de Educac¸a˜ o, Universidade do Estado da Bahia, Guanambi, Bahia, Brazil; 2 Col´egio Estadual Pedro Atan´azio Garcia, SEC/BA, Caetit´e, Bahia, Brazil Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Universitat de Girona on 12/01/14 For personal use only.
1
1984 Los Angeles Olympic Games, the events have succumbed to the power of money, making the Games one of the most effective modes of spreading a brand name and/or product, when victory by an athlete is tied to the successful representation of the brand’s sponsor. With various forms of pressure (political, social, financial, personal, or media) requiring athletes to perform well, there has been a huge increase in the creation and implementation of methods and substances used in order to improve an athlete’s performance and reduce his/her recovery time, resulting in the winning of more medals and satisfying the demands of their sponsors. Therefore, as Aquino Neto (2001) has described, all of these pressures have and continue to transform the athlete into an instrument of the needs, agendas, and goals of a range of influential individual and systemic stakeholders without discernment as to where the ethical, moral, social norms, and health limits lay. The prohibited substances and methods used, and which have changed over time, are called doping; both listed substances and the processes used. Doping in Brazil, according to Article 1 of Resolution No. 02 (May 05, 2004), published in the Official Gazette (Federal Official Gazette, May 12, 2004) in Section I, the Ministry of Sports and National Council of Sports, is conceptualized as being a substance, method, or agent capable of altering an athlete’s performance, his/her health, or spirit of the game, during sports competition—inside or outside of (Brasil, 2004). According to Rivier (2000), in 1999 doping was defined during the “World Conference Against Doping” in Lausanne, Switzerland as “an activity that is contrary to the fundamental principles of Olympism, medical ethics, and sport”.1 According to Medeiros and Santos (2008), the control mechanisms to combat doping in sport are relatively new in the history of sports. In 1960, during the Rome
Doping, used to improve sports performance, is legally prohibited. This paper describes Brazilian regulations, resolutions, and Federal laws addressing the issue of doping and antidoping which were collected in 2012 from official websites. We conclude that Brazilian laws have constrained doping, and have been updated over the years to conform to worldwide legal guidelines. Study limitations are noted. Keywords doping in sports, antidoping, Brazilian law and public policies, performance- enhancing substances
INTRODUCTION
Sport and exercise have always played an important role in human life, either as leisure practices, pedagogical practices, for health care, or as part of military training. Da Matta (1994) notes that the functions of sports include: (1) dimensions of egalitarianism, (2) the introduction of the use of predefined rules imposed on practitioners, and (3) the experience of equality and social justice. The commodification and politicalizing of sports, competitive events, and athletes and the decrease in “sportsmanship” as a norm, value, and process are relatively new in the history of athletics. Among the various sports events, the most popular is the Olympics. The Olympic Games of the modern era were organized by Pierre de Coubertin and the first modern Games were held in April 1896 in the city of Athens, Greece (Tavares, 2005). According to Rubio (2010), the Olympic Games have become a means for dissemination of ideals and political regimes, as in the 1936 Games, which were used to display Hitler’s Nazism and during the Cold War, when the United States and the Soviet-Union sought to showcase sporting events as a political and social force. Since the 1
The reader is asked to consider the implications of permitting and fostering contact sports (i.e., football, boxing, and soccer) as well as other risky and endangering sports which are increasingly documented as being associated with serious health consequences to life, limb, and quality of daily functioning during training as well as during one’s game playing for both amateurs as well as professionals. Second, that effective “doping” depends upon an active ongoing network of people enabling the doping athlete to “dope” within the context of a co-opted, complacent, silent culture rooted in winning at any cost and marginalizing tagged losers. Editor’s note. Address correspondence to Claudio Bispo de Almeida, Departamento de Educac¸a˜ o, Universidade do Estado da Bahia, Av Vanessa Cardoso, S/N, Ipanema, Guanambi, Bahia CEP 46430-000, Brazil; E-mail: [email protected]
1146
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Universitat de Girona on 12/01/14 For personal use only.
BRAZILIAN ANTIDOPING PUBLIC POLICY
Olympics, for the first time, the International Olympic Committee Medical Commission instituted drug testing for athletes. However, the IOC began doping enforcement during the1968 Winter Olympic Games in Grenoble, France, but the limitations were immense due to the poor methods of analysis, so only a few stimulants and narcotics were detected (Aquino Neto, 2001; Campos et al., 2005). According to Aquino Neto (2001), it was only in 1968 that the IOC officially took control of testing for the use of certain doping methods and substances. The World Anti-Doping Code was created on February 20, 2003 and entered into force for the first time on January 1, 2004. The laws are new, but the use of doping substances and methods is as old as the history of sport. In this sense, Campos et al. (2005) have reported that the Greeks ate mushrooms, believing the mushrooms could improve the performance of athletes in competition and that Roman gladiators used stimulants to alleviate fatigue. During the end of the 19th Century and the beginning of the 20th Century, other illicit substances were incorporated into sport. In 1886, Arthur Linton, a cyclist, died under the influence of stress and speed ball (cocaine + heroin) during the Tour de France. In 1904, the first case of drug use in the modern Olympic Games took place when Thomas Hicks, a marathoner, nearly died from a mixture of brandy and strychnine (Aquino Neto, 2001). The use of testosterone in sport soon appeared, because as early as 1939, some sport enthusiasts theorized that the use of the male hormone would improve the performance of athletes. According to Hoberman & Yesalis (1995), testosterone was first synthesized in 1935 by two different groups. The first report of athletes using a synthesized form of this hormone was by Russian athletes in 1954 during a weightlifting championship in Vienna (Castilho & Nascimento, 2003; Lise et al., 1999). According to Aquino Neto (2001), the decade of 1960–1970 was marked by many historical events opposed to doping, such as the creation of the council, composed of 22 nations, proposing a resolution against the use of doping agents in sports. And, in 1963, France adopted Antidoping Legislation, and two years later (1965) Belgium followed in the footsteps of France. But the event that marked the decade was the death of cyclist Tommy Simpson due to the nonmedical use of amphetamines during the Tour de France. This episode led the IOC to take forceful steps to try to prevent the use and misuse of doping substances in sports. During the decade of the 1960s, the German Democratic Republic discovered that sporting success could both improve the self-esteem of the population and its prestige in the international competitive sports arena. They began to finance studies on the use of anabolic–androgenic steroids (AAS), invested in the discovery of young talent, and the use of prohibited drugs. During this period, professional athletes were adminisR pills and injections of testosterone tered Oral-Turinabol esters and nandrolone—presenting them as being vitamins and prophylactic measures. In 1968, the East Ger-
1147
mans became pioneers in the administration of androgenic hormones to female athletes (Cunha et al., 2004). Campos et al. (2005) have reported for the first time (in 1974), the development of the radioimmunoassay technique for detecting the presence of AAS in biological samples, with the result that they were included in the lists of substances banned by the IOC. In 1984, testosterone was analyzed during the Olympic Games in Los Angeles, where art, technology, instrumentation, and skilled personnel were brought together to combat the use of doping substances (Aquino Neto, 2001; Castilho & Nascimento, 2003). On November 10, 1999, in Lausanne, Switzerland, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) was created. “The WADA aims to promote and coordinate the international fight against doping in sport and to foster a culture of doping-free sport” (Lima, 2010). Finally, in 2003, representatives of various governments, including Brazil, gathered in the capital of Denmark, with the international Olympic movement, aimed at the unification of doping control policies at the national and international levels, where participants signed the Copenhagen Declaration, approving the World Anti-Doping Code (De Rose et al., 2004). Within the framework of this historic event and the definition of doping, the present review describes how regulations, resolutions, and Brazilian federal laws were put into place to address the issue of doping and antidoping in Brazil. METHODS
This report documents research, whose source of data collection is restricted to written documents, i.e., primary sources (Marconi & Lakatos, 2003). Initially, we found articles that are part of the database Scientific Electronic Library Online—SCIELO—and our research was performed using the term “doping” as a keyword. At the conclusion of our research, the articles selected followed exclusion criteria due to the lack of information regarding the history and/or the doping legislation. Data were collected during October and November 2012. We consulted various documents related to the theme of federal doping and antidoping laws in force in Brazil. Brazilian laws, relating to the acquisition and use of doping substances and methods, were located in the Official Gazette and websites of the Ministries of Health and Sports Ministry. Three federal laws were observed for this review: the Ordinance of the Ministry of Education, the Ordinance of the Ministry of Health, and the Ordinance of the Ministry of Sport; three Resolutions of the Sports Ministry; and the Brazilian Code of Sports Justice, 2010. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Since the signing of the Declaration of Copenhagen, resulting in the adoption of the World Anti-Doping Code (2004 and later revised in 2009—WADA, 2009), Brazil has focused on creating policies of suppression against
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Universitat de Girona on 12/01/14 For personal use only.
1148
C. B. DE ALMEIDA AND D. N. RODRIGUES
doping. However, prior to this event, laws did exist that regulated the use of substances aimed at improving athletic performance. On July 10, 1985, Ordinance No. 531 of the Ministry of Education became effective; its aim was to legislate the practice of using doping substances. In addition, this Ordinance classified substances into five groups2 : 1—Stimulants psychomotor; 2—Amines sympathomimetics; 3—Stimulants that act on the central nervous system; 4—Narcotic analgesics; and 5—Anabolic androgenic steroids. (Lise et al., 1999; Silva, Danielski, & Czepielewski, 2002). This Ordinance was based on the terms of ARTICLE42, item III of Law No. 6251, of October 8, 1975 (Brazil, 1975). Aiming to suppress the constant importation of substances and drugs, a regulation was published in the Federal Official Gazette on February 1, 1999 (Ordinance 344, May 12, 1998), with the Brazilian Ministry of Health approving a Technical Regulation on Substances and Prescription Drugs (Brazil, 1999). This Ordinance is designed to “control and supervise the production, trade, handling, or use of anabolic substances” that should be decided and implemented in conjunction with the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Justice and its counterparts in the states, the municipalities, and the Federal District (Lise et al., 1999; Silva, Danielski, Czepielewski, 2002). Law No. 9965 of April 27, 2000 (published in the Gazette, April 28, 2000), according to Article 1 thereof, restricts the sale of anabolic steroids, forcing the user to present a prescription issued by a physician or a dentist, duly recorded in the respective board’s professional registry, and the prescription or script will be retained by the drugstore or pharmacy (Brazil, 2000). With the implementation of Ordinance No. 101, dated July 29, 2003 (published in Federal Official Gazette August 6, 2003), the Ministry of Sports created a Commission to Combat Use of Doping. It was expected that the Commission would comprise13 members from various institutions involved with sport and a representative of the National Agency for Sanitary Vigilance, a representative of the Federal Council of Pharmacy, and a representative of the Brazilian Society of Sports Medicine. Among the various powers of the Commission to Combat the Use of Doping, it is noteworthy that Item II of ART. 5, reads: “enforce the World Anti-Doping Code” (Brazil, 2003). The Resolution No. 2, was created on May 5, 2004 (published in Federal Official Gazette May 12, 2004), by the Sports Ministry and established Basic Standards for Control of Doping in Sports. This Resolution comprised nine chapters. It begins by discussing the definition of doping and act of doping, after describing the doping con2
The reader is reminded that categorizing can result in endless relevant, irrelevant, meaningful, as well as meaningless and even misleading outcomes and combinations. Critical criteria to consider are whether the criteria used are theory-based, empirically informed, based on “principles of faith,” stakeholder agenda-driven, tradition-based, among other possibilities, etc. Editor’s note.
trol procedures (identification and selection of athletes, the control sample; reports and results; and control), the Resolution describes the punishment3 for athletes who dope. At the end of Section II, Chapter IX, it provides for the repeal of Ordinance No. 531 of the MEC (Ministry of Education) (Brazil, 2004). This resolution also serves as the theoretical basis for the construction of the National Sports Policy, approved by Resolution No. 5, dated June 14, 2005 (Brasil, 2005b). One important law concerning the issue of doping is the Brazilian Code of Sports Justice, published in 2010. This law is based on the following documents: Legislative Decree No. 306 of 2007, which “approves the text of the International Convention against Doping in Sport, held in Paris on October 19, 2005”; Decree No. 6653 of November 18, 2008, that “promulgates the International Convention against Doping in Sport, held in Paris on October 19, 2005,” and the Resolution of the National Education Council No. 27 of December 21, 2009, that “Approves the list of prohibited substances and methods in sport” (Brazil, 2010). On May 15, 2012, published in the Federal Official Gazette, was the creation of Law No. 12638 of May 14, 2012, where the President of the Republic instituted January 15 as the National Day of Fair Play and to Fight Doping in Sports (Brasil, 2012). Besides these laws, resolutions, and ordinances that regulate and supervise the use of doping substances and methods, Brazil has published annually, since 2004, a list of substances and methods prohibited in sports. Unfortunately, there remains some inconsistency regarding the issue of combating doping in Brazil because, although there are laws and regulatory agencies, evidence proves that Brazil is still below expectations when it comes to doping prevention. On January 6, 2005, the Ministry of Sport made public a report titled “Brazil as an example to combat doping,” describing that so far no Brazilian had tested positive in doping control tests (Brasil, 2005a, Brasil, 2005b ). On November 24, 2009, the Federal Council of Physical Education, provided on its website, a story from the newspaper Correio Brasiliense with the title, “Brazil does not fight doping.” The author of this story revealed that on October 30, 2009, athlete Daiane dos Santos was considered “doped” in a surprise test done by the International Gymnastics Federation. In addition, the author also described that in August of the same year, 10 days before the World Championships, five Brazilians returned home after testing positive in doping tests. The author began his attack by writing that “Brazil does not have a policy to combat doping” and continued by describing that while the Ministry of Sports has a Commission to Combat Doping, it only functions to publicize the WADA list of banned substances created in 2004”(CONFEF, 2009). 3
The reader is asked to consider the implications of delineating only the goals of punishment and not, in addition, that of rehabilitation and relevant treatment. Editor’s note.
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Universitat de Girona on 12/01/14 For personal use only.
BRAZILIAN ANTIDOPING PUBLIC POLICY
Additionally, the journalistic site “Estad˜ao” published, on July 31, 2012, the following news: “Brazil is about 30 years too late ‘in the fight against doping’,” according to the information in a publication by Swedes’ Gunnar Gunnarsson and Arne Ljungqvist, head of the IOC Medical Commission and vice president of WADA. The international agency to combat doping says, “It is not just late for 2016. Brazil is about 30 years late. Long ago this structure should have already existed” (CHADE, 2012). However, according to Weineck (2005), the problem of doping will not be eradicated in the short term.4 The author states that, with the same speed that laboratories specialize in doping analysis, the pharmaceutical market provides substances that cannot be immediately detected. Fortunately, the author draws attention to the importance of doping controls that, through the discussions generated in the process, help to combat the practice. Consequently, Brazil has, through covenants (IOC, WADA, and IMETRO), increasingly combated doping. Since the founding of the Laboratory of Technological Development Support Institute of Chemistry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (Ladetec-IQ/UFRJ) in 1989, the country has intensified campaigns to combat and control doping through the training of staff for testing and analysis, with antidoping campaigns outside of competition. Furthermore, aiming at greater efficiency in the analysis of performance-enhancing drugs during international events (World Cup, Olympics, among others), Brazil has held regular conferences with international institutions (IOC and WADA), and has adopted technologies that enable greater security during analysis (Aquino Neto, 2001; Barros, 2012). Unfortunately, owing to problems related to lack of infrastructure and proper preparation of staff, Ladetec, the only Brazilian laboratory certified to conduct doping tests, was disaccredited by WADA in August 2013. In this regard, the executive director of the Brazilian Authority of Doping Control, Marco Aurelio Klein, attended a meeting of WADA in Montreal (Canada) on September 11, 2013, where, during the meeting, Klein signed a statement of understanding that Brazil would meet the requirements of the Agency and seek to rectify the situation with Ladetec as quickly as possible (Brasil, 2013a, Brasil, 2013b). During the meeting, Klein described the actions put into place to restore certification, including federal government funding for construction of the new headquarters 4
The reader is asked to consider the implications of the reality that there has been limited success in controlling the range of man’s chemical and nonchemical appetites, historically, through legislation. In addition to having to effect a person’s awareness, perceptions, expectations, judgments, decisions which are or aren’t implemented and are or aren’t learned from, there is the ongoing effect of a person, system, and culture being law-abiding, or not, in given roles, contexts, situations, and environments. These are rarely, if ever, taken into consideration by the stakeholder legislators as they create and implement their “controls.” Editor’s note.
1149
of Ladetec, increasing the number of Ladetec employees, the acquisition of new equipment and substances to facilitate analysis, and the implementation of education programs to combat doping. Unfortunately, these measures will not be sufficient for the rapid reaccreditation of the laboratory, making it impossible to conduct testing during the 2014 FIFA World Cup, with Brazil having to resort to other laboratories for testing during the World Cup. According to the agreements reached during the meeting in Canada, it is expected that Ladetec will once again be accredited during the second half of 2015, therefore being able to exercise their laboratory testing functions during the 2016 Rio Olympics. This is an indication and an example of the known, unknown at a given time, and unknowable complexities associated with doping and its intervention options and activities. Study Limitations
This report was limited to surveying the primary, nationwide Brazilian laws regarding sports doping. We elected not to include laws relating to sports doping enacted by Brazilian states and municipalities. A further limitation of this archival study is that the critical process of “law abidingness”—without which doping controls can and do become little more than stakeholder “medals” was not part of its design. It never has been in doping research.
CONCLUSIONS
We conclude that Brazilian laws deal with doping in sport in a serious, aggressive way and, through updates, are in parallel with worldwide legal guidance. It can be observed that the impact of the laws created in Brazil aim to combat the use and commercialization of doping substances; enforce the global antidoping code, and publicize, annually, the list of prohibited substances and methods in nationallevel sports. Although there is some criticism about the lack of aggressiveness in Brazilian law and the lack of structure that facilitates the application and enforcement of these laws, we note that there is, in these laws, a theoretical consistency. It is therefore important that governments create, not only laws to combat doping, but develop as well, ways to enforce these laws, such as increased border enforcement and a more effective means of suppressing use and the illegal possession of these substances, as well as greater autonomy and working conditions for the current antidoping commission.
Declaration of Interest
The authors, Claudio Bispo de Almeida and Deyvis Nascimento Rodrigues, report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the article.
1150
C. B. DE ALMEIDA AND D. N. RODRIGUES
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Universitat de Girona on 12/01/14 For personal use only.
THE AUTHORS Claudio Bispo de Almeida, B.C., M.Sc., graduated in Physical Education from Universidade Cat´olica do Salvador, specializing in Methodology of Teaching Physical Education; Physical Activity, and Health at the Universidade do Sudoeste da Bahia; Psychomotricity at Universidade Candido Mendes, by Public Health Faculdade Guanambi. He received the Masters Degree in Physical Education, Physical Activity, and Health from the Centro de Desportos (CDS) of the Federal University of Santa Catarina, Brazil. He is a Professor of Physical Education at the Universidade do Estado da Bahia, Brazil, and an investigator of the research group, Linha de Estudo, Pesquisa e Extens˜ao em Atividade F´ısica. His areas of interest are physical activity and health, doping in sports and exercise, anabolic–androgenic steroids in public health, and health promotion.
Deyvis Nascimento Rodrigues, B.C., graduated in Physical Education from the Universidade do Estado da Bahia, Brazil, and specialized in Applied Health Physiology and Performance at Faculdades Unidas do Norte de Minas, Brazil. He is a Professor of state schools in the state of Bahia, Brazil and an investigator of the research group—Grupo de Estudo, Pesquisa e Extens˜ao em Educac¸a˜ o, Cultura e Sa´ude. His areas of interest are physiology, physical activity and health, doping in sports and exercise, and health promotion.
GLOSSARY
Doping in sports: Misuse of substances or methods in order to improve sport performance. Performance-enhancing Substances: Substances that can improve sports performance and an athlete’s appearance.
REFERENCES Aquino Neto, F. R. (2001). O papel do atleta na sociedade e o controle de dopagem no esporte. The Revista Brasileira de Medicina do Esporte, 7, 4. Barros, B. Operac¸a˜ o Controles de Dopagem ultrapassa meta estabelecida pela ABCD. 2012. Retrieved Dicember, 2012, from http://www.abcd.gov.br/noticiaDetalhe.jsp?idnoticia=9635 Brasil. (1975). LEI N∞ 6.251, de 8 de outubro de 1975. Retrieved October–November, 2012, from http://www.esporte.gov.br/
cedime/legislacao/leisFederais/1975 NormasJuridicas(TextoInte gral) LEI 006251 08 10 1975.jsp. Brasil. (1999). Minist´erio da Sa´ude. Secret´aria de Vigilˆancia Sanit´aria. PORTARIA N∞ 344, de 12 de maio de 1998. Di´ario Oficial da Uni˜ao – Sess˜ao 01, N◦ 2, segunda-feira, 1◦ de fev de 1999. Brasil. (2000). LEI No 9.965, DE 27 DE ABRIL DE 2000. Di´ario Oficial da Uni˜ao – Sess˜ao 01, N∞ 82 sexta-feira, 28 de abril de 2000. Brasil. (2003). Minist´erio do Esporte. Gabinete do Ministro. PORTARIA N∞ 101, de 29 de julho de 2003. Di´ario Oficial da Uni˜ao – Sess˜ao 01, N∞ 150, quarta-feira, 6 de agosto de 2003. Brasil. (2004). Minist´erio do Esporte. Gabinete do Ministro. ˜ n∞ 2, de 5 de maio de 2004. Di´ario Oficial da RESOLUC¸AO Uni˜ao – Sess˜ao 01, N∞ 90, quarta-feira, 12 de maio de 2004. Brasil. (2005a). Minist´erio do Esporte. Brasil e´ exemplo de combate ao doping. 06/01/2005. Retrieved August 25, 2012, from http:// www.esporte.gov.br/ascom/noticiaDetalhe.jsp?idnoticia= 2971. Brasil. (2005b). Minist´erio do Esporte. Gabinete do Ministro. ˜ N∞ - 5, DE 14 DE JUNHO DE 2005. Di´ario OfiRESOLUC¸AO cial da Uni˜ao – Sess˜ao 01, N∞ 157, terc¸a-feira, 16 de agosto de 2005. Brasil. (2010). C´odigo Brasileiro de Justic¸a Desportiva / IBDD Instituto Brasileiro de Direito Desportivo. – S˜ao Paulo: IOB, 2010. Brasil. (2012) LEI N∞ 12.638, de 14 de maio de 2012. Di´ario Oficial da Uni˜ao – Sess˜ao 01, N∞ 93, terc¸a-feira, 15 de maio de 2012. Brasil. (2013a). Minist´erio do Esporte. Nota Sobre a suspens˜ao das atividades de controle de dopagem no Ladetec. 09/08/2013. Retrieved September, 2013, from http://www. esporte.gov.br/ascom/noticiaDetalhe.jsp?idnoticia=10914. Brasil. (2013b). Minist´erio do Esporte. Brasil assume compromisso para obter recredenciamento de laborat´orio antidoping. 09/08/2013. Retrieved September, 2013, from http:// www.esporte.gov.br/ascom/noticiaDetalhe.jsp?idnoticia= 11101 Campos, D. R. (2005). Determinac¸a˜ o de esteroides androgˆenicos anab´olicos em urina por cromatografia gasosa acoplada a` espectrometria de massas. Revista Brasileira de Ciˆencias Farmacˆeuticas, 41, 4. Castilho, E. G., Nascimento E. S. (2003). Aspectos anal´ıticos do controle da dopagem de agentes anabolizantes em urina de atletas: avaliac¸a˜ o de crit´erios de positividade. Revista Brasileira de Ciˆencias Farmacˆeuticas, 39, 1. Chade, J. (2012). Brasil est´a uns 30 anos atrasado no combate ao doping. Retrieved October-November, 2012, from http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/impresso,brasil-esta-uns30-anos-atrasado-no-combate-ao-doping-,908382,0.htm Conselho Federal de Educac¸a˜ o F´ısica—CONFEF. (2009). Brasil n˜ao combate o doping. 24 de novembro de 2009. Retrieved October–November, 2012, from http://www.confef.org. br/extra/noticias/conteudo.asp?id=216 Cunha, T. S., Cunha, N. S., Moura, M. J. C. S., & Marcondes, F. K. (2004). Esteroides anab´olicos androgˆenicos e sua relac¸a˜ o com a pr´atica desportiva. Revista Brasileira de Ciˆencias Farmacˆeuticas, 40, 2. ´ Damatta, R. (1994). Antropologia do Obvio: notas em torno do significado social do futebol. Revista USP Dossiˆe Futebol, 22, 10–17. De Rose, E. H., de Aquino Neto, F. R., de Moraes Moreau, R. L.,& de Castro, R. R. T. (2004). Controle antidoping no Brasil:
BRAZILIAN ANTIDOPING PUBLIC POLICY
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Universitat de Girona on 12/01/14 For personal use only.
resultados do ano de 2003 e atividades de prevenc¸a˜ o. The Revista Brasileira de Medicina do Esporte, 10, 4. Hoberman, J.M., & Yesalis, C. E. (1995) The history of synthetic testosterone. Scientific American, 272(2), 76–81. Lima, L. C. C. (2010). Considerac¸o˜ es gerais sobre doping no esporte. Revista de Estudos de Gest˜ao, Jur´ıdicos e Financeiros, Ano 1, Ed. N∞ 03. Lise, M. L. Z., da Gama e Silva, T.S., Ferigolo, M., & Barros, H.M.T. (1999). O abuso de esteroides anab´olico-androgˆenicos em atletismo. Revista da Associac¸a˜ o M´edica Brasileira 1999; 45(4), 364–370. Marconi, M. A., & Lakatos, E. M. (2003). Fundamentos de metodologia cient´ıfica (5th. ed.). S˜ao Paulo: Atlas. Medeiros, A. G. A., & Santos, D. S. (2008). O doping no discurso midi´atico. Motrivivˆencia Ano XX(31), 333–345.
1151
Rivier, L. (2000). Is there a place for hair analysis in doping controls? Forensic Science International, Shannon, 107, 309–323. Rubio, K. (2010). Jogos ol´ımpicos da era moderna: uma proposta de periodizac¸a˜ o. Rev. Bras. Educ. F´ıs. Esp., 24, 1. Silva, P. R. P., Danielski, R., & Czepielewski, M. A. (2002). Esteroides anabolizantes no esporte. The Revista Brasileira de Medicina do Esporte, 8, 6. Tavares, O. (2005). Jogos Ol´ımpicos. In: F. J. Gonz´alez & P. E. Fensterseifer, Dicion´ario Cr´ıtico de Educac¸a˜ o F´ısica. Iju´ı: Uniju´ı. WADA: World Anti-Doping Agency. (2009). C´odigo mundial antidoping: play true. Cited January, 2012, from http://www.wadaama.org/Documents/World Anti-Doping Program/WADPThe-Code/WADA Anti-Doping CODE 2009 EN.pdf. Weineck, J. (2005). Biologia do esporte (7th ed.). S˜ao Paulo: Manole.
