Doping control analysis at the Rio 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games
Rattachement africain : br. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
This paper summarises the results obtained from the doping control analyses performed during the Summer XXXI Olympic Games (August 3-21, 2016) and the XV Paralympic Games (September 7-18, 2016). The analyses of all doping control samples were performed at the Brazilian Doping Control Laboratory (LBCD), a World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)-accredited laboratory located in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. A new facility at Rio de Janeiro Federal University (UFRJ) was built and fully operated by over 700 professionals, including Brazilian and international scientists, administrative staff, and volunteers. For the Olympic Games, 4913 samples were analysed. In 29 specimens, the presence of a prohibited substance was confirmed, resulting in adverse analytical findings (AAFs). For the Paralympic Games, 1687 samples were analysed, 12 of which were reported as AAFs. For both events, 82.8% of the samples were urine, and 17.2% were blood samples. In total, more than 31 000 analytical procedures were conducted. New WADA technical documents were fully implemented; consequently, state-of-the-art analytical toxicology instrumentation and strategies were applied during the Games, including different types of mass spectrometry (MS) analysers, peptide, and protein detection strategies, endogenous steroid profile measurements, and blood analysis. This enormous investment yielded one of the largest Olympic legacies in Brazil and South America. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Doping control analysis at the Rio 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games
- Date Crossref
- 01/11/2017
- Éditeur
- Wiley
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.