Compulsory drug testing was introduced in 1968 by the International Olympic Committee. Since then, several doping cases have been reported in sports competition world wide. Positive results are based on the detection of prohibited substances, their metabolites and markers in biological (mainly urine) samples supplied by athletes. In some cases, the evidences were not contested and athletes admitted the use of banned substances. However, in other cases, athletes denied the use of doping to enhance performance and claimed to have inadvertently or passively absorbed the drug. Unfortunately, no current accepted analytical method is capable of distinguishing between a sample from a cheater and one from an athlete who was passively exposed to a doping agent.
Athletes’ allegations have included the passive inhalation of drug smoke (e.g. marijuana) or the ingestion of food or products sold as nutritional supplements that contained prohibited substances. In the scientific literature, several studies have been performed to investigate the possibility of an accidental exposure being the reason for the appearance of detectable quantities of banned substances in urine samples. Based on these studies, this article discusses those cases where the athlete’s claims could be possible in generating a positive result in doping control and in which circumstances it would be improbable to happen.
Cocaine Anabolic Agent International Olympic Committee Doping Control Poppy Seed
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
The authors have provided no information on sources of funding or on conflicts of interest directly relevant to the content of this review.
International Olympic Committee. Prohibited classes of substances and prohibited methods. Lausanne: International Olympic Committee, 2003Google Scholar
International Olympic Committee. The world anti-doping code. Lausanne: International Olympic Committee, 2003Google Scholar
Perez-Reyes M, Di Guiseppi S, Mason AP, et al. Passive inhalation of marihuana smoke and urinary excretion of cannabinoids. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1983; 34(1): 36–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
elSohly AM, Jones AB. Drug testing in the workplace: could a positive test for one of the mandated drugs be for reasons other than illicit use of the drug? J Anal Toxicol 1995; 19: 450–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
Mulé SJ, Lomax P, Gross SJ. Active and realistic passive marijuana exposure tested by three immunoassays and GC/MS in urine. J Anal Toxicol 1988; 12: 113–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
Morland J, Bugge B, Skuterud B, et al. Cannabinoids in blood and urine after passive inhalation of cannabis smoke. J Forensic Sci 1985; 30: 997–1002PubMedGoogle Scholar
Cone EJ, Johnson RE. Contact highs and urinary cannabinoid excretion after passive exposure to marijuana smoke. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1986; 40(3): 247–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cone EJ, Yousefnejad D, Hillsgrove MJ, et al. Passive inhalation of cocaine. J Anal Toxicol 1995; 19(6): 399–411PubMedGoogle Scholar
Struempler RE, Nelson G, Urry FM. A positive cannabinoids workplace drug test following the ingestion of commercially available hemp seed oil. J Anal Toxicol 1997; 21(4): 283–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
Fortner N, Fogerson R, Lindman D, et al. Marijuana-positive urine test results from consumption of hemp seeds in food products. J Anal Toxicol 1997; 21(6): 476–81PubMedGoogle Scholar
Bosy TZ, Cole KA. Consumption and quantitation of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol in commercially available hemp seed oil products. J Anal Toxicol 2000; 24(7): 562–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
Zoller O, Rhyn P, Zimmerli B. High-performance liquid chromatographic determination of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol and the corresponding acid in hemp containing foods with special regard to the fluorescence properties of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol. J Chromatogr A 2000; 872: 101–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cone EJ, Johnson RE, Paul BD, et al. Marijuana-laced brownies: behavioral effects, physiologic effects, and urinalysis in humans following ingestion. J Anal Toxicol 1988; 12: 169–75PubMedGoogle Scholar
Leson G, Pless P, Grotenhermen F, et al. Evaluating the impact of hemp food consumption on workplace drug tests. J Anal Toxicol 2000; 25: 691–8Google Scholar
Meadway C, George S, Braithwaite R. Opiate concentrations following the ingestion of poppy seed products: evidence for ‘the poppy seed defence’. Forensic Sci Int 1998; 96: 29–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Cock KJS, Delbeke FT, Van Eenoo P, et al. Detection and determination of anabolic steroids in nutritional supplements. J Pharm Biomed Anal 2001; 25: 843–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delbeke FT, Debackere M. Urinary concentrations of codeine and morphine after the administration of different codeine preparations in relation to doping analysis. J Pharm Biomed Anal 1991; 9(10–12): 959–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Olympic Committee. Updated explanatory note concerning the IOC/WADA. Lausanne: International Olympic Committee, 2003Google Scholar
Cody JT. Enantiomeric composition of amphetamine and methamphetamine derived from the precursor compound famprofazone. Forensic Sci Int 1996; 80: 189–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Midio AF, Moreau RLM, Silva OA. The possibilities of hair analysis in the determination of involuntary doping in sports. Sports Med 2001; 31(5): 321–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar