The Inhaler, the Unlabelled Ampoule and the Doping Control Form
Harleen, 19, is a state-level 400 m hurdler selected for a national invitational meet in three weeks. She has physician-diagnosed asthma and has used a salbutamol metered-dose inhaler since she was 12; her prescription is current and her spirometry reports are on file. At a team meeting a senior training partner offers her an unlabelled ampoule of what she calls vitamin B12 for injection, saying it opens the lungs and that everyone at the top does it. Harleen's coach has never read the WADA Prohibited List but tells her that inhalers are allowed for asthmatics, so injections must be fine too, and that she should simply not mention anything on the doping control form to avoid unnecessary paperwork. Harleen is anxious, does not want to lose her place in the relay squad, and brings the ampoule to the school physical education teacher. She has no doctor's letter for the injection and does not know what the ampoule contains.
1. Classify both products under the WADA Prohibited List and explain exactly where the coach's reasoning fails.
Read the worked answer
Salbutamol (inhaler) falls in class S3, beta-2 agonists, which are prohibited in and out of competition by any route. Inhaled salbutamol is permitted only inside a maximum dose - currently 1600 micrograms over 24 hours, in divided doses not exceeding 600 micrograms over 8 hours - and only with a genuine diagnosis and a current prescription. Above that dose a Therapeutic Use Exemption is needed. So the inhaler is legal for Harleen only if her actual daily dose and documentation match the rule; the teacher should read the label, not assume.
The ampoule is a different problem. Vitamin B12 is not itself on the list, but the product is unlabelled, injectable and supplied by a training partner. The athlete cannot show what is inside it, and anti-doping operates on strict liability: whatever is in her body is her responsibility. An unlabelled injectable is the classic route for an anabolic agent or a contaminated preparation, and a positive test would end her season regardless of who gave it to her.
The coach's argument is a false analogy. A documented, dosed, prescribed inhaler is not comparable to an unknown injection, and the same logic would never be used for an unlabelled tablet. Advising her to hide information on the doping control form is worse than bad advice: giving false information or concealing a substance is tampering or fraudulent conduct, a separate anti-doping rule violation that falls on the athlete, not the coach.
2. What should Harleen actually do in the three weeks before the meet, and what should she do if she is selected for doping control?
Read the worked answer
Before the meet:
- Confirm the inhaler's daily dose against the current Prohibited List threshold, and keep the prescription, diagnosis and dose record in her kit bag.
- If her asthma genuinely needs more than the permitted inhaled dose, apply for a TUE in advance. Retroactive applications are accepted only in limited circumstances, so waiting is risky.
- Refuse the injection outright. If a supplement is ever considered, use only batch-tested products and take food-first advice; her diet and asthma control are the coach's business, but the ampoule is not.
- Check the list herself at the source rather than relying on the coach or a teammate.
At doping control:
- Declare the salbutamol inhaler, with dose and frequency, in the medication section of the form. Declaration is not a TUE and does not legalise a prohibited dose, but it explains a finding and prevents an avoidable adverse analytical finding.
- Declare any supplement taken in the previous days.
- Give the sample, keep a copy of the form, and ask the doping control officer about a retroactive TUE if her dose exceeds the threshold.
The judgement the teacher must make is that the fastest route to a ban here is not the inhaler; it is the injection and the advice to stay silent.
3. If the ampoule had contained nandrolone and Harleen tested positive, what sanction would normally apply, and which arguments would not help her?
Read the worked answer
Nandrolone is an anabolic agent and a non-specified substance. The standard period of ineligibility is four years, and the burden then shifts to the athlete to prove how the substance entered her body and that she bore no significant fault before any reduction is considered.
Arguments that would not help:
- That she did not know what was in the ampoule. Ignorance of the Prohibited List is not a defence, and not knowing what she injected makes it harder, not easier, to establish the route of ingestion.
- That the coach said it was allowed. A coach's assurance does not transfer responsibility; the athlete is responsible for her own support personnel and for what she puts into her body.
- That no one told her about the rules. Every athlete is expected to be informed.
The only realistic mitigation would come from quickly admitting the injection, identifying the product and the person who supplied it, and showing genuine, documented diligence. Even then a substantial ban is likely. The lesson for the teacher is that this case has to be stopped at the ampoule stage, because once the sample is sealed the argument is already lost.