Technological capability of doping control

International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics

ISSN: 1940-6940 (Print) 1940-6959 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/risp20

Technological capability of doping control laboratories: a metric proposal Claudio Pitassi & Leandro Ribeiro de Lacerda To cite this article: Claudio Pitassi & Leandro Ribeiro de Lacerda (2018): Technological capability of doping control laboratories: a metric proposal, International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, DOI: 10.1080/19406940.2018.1528993 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2018.1528993

Published online: 17 Oct 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 61

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=risp20

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT POLICY AND POLITICS https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2018.1528993

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Technological capability of doping control laboratories: a metric proposal Claudio Pitassia and Leandro Ribeiro de Lacerdab a

Master of Business Administration Program, Centro Universitário IBMEC, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; bDepartment of Communication, Centro Universitário IBMEC, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil ABSTRACT

ARTICLE HISTORY

The use of increasingly advanced doping techniques in sports requires constant investments in new detection processes and technologies, forcing doping control laboratories to develop their innovative capability. Although WADA considers that all accredited labs should have equal quality, sports scientists point to the huge economic and cultural differences between emerging and developed countries. This article is in line with other studies that: (1) consider doping to be a biomedical technology that needs to be analysed under the lens of innovation theory; and (2) advocate the need to redesign antidrug policies to overcome the present limitations. This paper’s main objective is to present a technological capability (TC) metric for anti-doping labs that can guide their technological strategy, helping them perform a more significant role in redesigning antidrug policy. The secondary objective is to report the testing of the metric at the Brazilian Doping Control Laboratory (LBCD). The construction of the analytical framework followed the recommendations for qualitative metrics. The main result was the TC metric, formulated with input from experts on doping control. Interviews revealed that the proposed metric could help laboratories better manage their R&D processes, including drug testing. The collected evidence suggests that a global network approach, including WADA requirements that consider countries’ economic realities, are crucial to guide investments and prevent drug control labs from prioritising short-term profits over steady investments in R&D.

Received 29 April 2018 Accepted 16 September 2018 KEYWORDS

Doping; anti-doping policy; WADA; R&D; health innovation

1. Introduction The establishment of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) in 1999 was a response of sports organizations to stakeholder pressures (national governments, physicians, former athletes and the media) regarding drug usage in elite sports (Schneider and Butcher 2000, López 2014). The main objective was to restore and protect the image and ‘the spirit of sports’, in the sense argued by de Hon and Bottenburg (2017). However, there is strong evidence that the anti-doping policy has failed to achieve its intended objectives (Mazanov and Connor 2010, Ryan 2015). The scientific literature shows that, from a multidisciplinary perspective, the science of sports and sports scientists must deal with a variety of issues, ranging from the physiological and biomechanical reaction of the human body to exercise, to the sociological and legal aspects involving contemporary professional sports. Among the main problems, related to the present antidrug policy observed in the sports management literature are: CONTACT Claudio Pitassi

[email protected]

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

Centro Universitário Ibmec, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

2

C. PITASSI AND L. R. D. LACERDA

(1) It ignores the fact that technological innovation is a central characteristic of professional sports dynamics (Hatton 2007). (2) Some decisions about which technologies are natural or artificial are arbitrary (López 2012). (3) Technical problems related to drug testing methods can lead to misleading results (Mazanov and Connor 2010). (4) Banning a chemical substance may be easier than for accredited labs to develop reliable tests (Huybers and Mazanov 2012). (5) Long-term financial and personal consequences seem to take a back seat to the desire for immediate earnings (Toohey and Veal 2007). (6) Mandatory testing tramples on human rights related to privacy (Houlihan 2004, Sluggett 2011). According to the WADA Code (World Anti-Doping Agency 2017, p.14), spirit of sports ‘is the essence of Olympism, the pursuit of human excellence through the dedicated perfection of each person’s natural talents. It is how we play true. The spirit of sport is the celebration of the human spirit, body and mind, and is reflected in values we find in and through sport, including: ethics; fair play and honesty; health; excellence in performance; character and education; fun and joy; teamwork; dedication and commitment; respect for rules and laws; respect for self and other participants; courage; community and solidarity.’. The anti-doping governance system, with the leading role of WADA and accredited antidrug labs, anchored on a sense of superior morality, has generated a self-defending structure, with lucrative career paths and social power stakes (Mazanov 2016). Although a deeper discussion about hegemony is outside the scope of this paper, it must be acknowledged that this puritanical justification of anti-drug policy, anchored in a vague definition of ‘spirit of sports’, can be associated with a form of Western European colonialism and imperialism. (Houlihan 2009, Mazanov and Connor 2010, Bowers and Paternoster 2016). This governance structure may not be contributing to better management of technological innovation, considered a central characteristic of the contemporary professional sports industry (Kayser and Tolleneer 2017). Since the establishment and vigorous enforcement of antidrug policies by sports authorities, there has been increasing demand among sports researchers for a profound change in the way drugs are managed in sports, to allow the design of better antidrug policies. The change should consider both the social dimension of professional sports (Petróczi et al. 2017) and the dynamics involved in the biopharma industry, which reflects the interplay of ‘drug’ and ‘anti-drug’ technologies, as discussed in session 2.1 of this article (Møller and Dimeo 2014). Recognizing the importance of these critics, this study questions the present antidrug governance logic, where accredited labs are used mainly as enforcement tools to accomplish a moralistic objective. Its distinctive contribution is to investigate anti-drug labs’ role as R&D organizations, which could bring a unique contribution to the science of sports in dealing with the intrinsic technological dialectics that move the use of drugs in professional sports. To keep malicious athletes, confederations or governments from selecting less stringent antidrug labs, or using the argument that the substance would not have been detected had it been analysed in a second-tier lab, WADA demands that all accredited labs should have equal quality regarding standard routine test analysis. To enforce these quality requirements, WADA also uses strong political pressures on accredited antidrug labs (Eber 2002). Nevertheless, the WADA Technical Document acknowledges the differences among lab’s capabilities (World Anti-Doping Agency 2017), determining that the ‘specialized methods’, i.e.. those that are not necessary for standard routine analysis, do not have to be included in the accreditation requirements. Even though, sports scientists (López 2012, Viret 2016) point to the huge economic and cultural differences between emerging and developed countries, here we assume that doping control laboratories’ performance, mainly in emerging countries, will depend on their technological capability (TC). The TC theory builds on the pioneering empirical studies of technological innovation in

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT POLICY AND POLITICS

3

Latin America and Southeast Asia performed by Dahlman and Westphal (1982) and Katz (1984), among others. Doping is a technology in many cases created, even if not intentionally, by the pharma industry. Consequently, it is reasonable to consider that, given the symbiotic interplay of the pharmaceutical ‘doping’, and anti-doping industries (de Hon et al. 2014), anti-drug R&D labs with more advanced TC can be better prepared to capture the interdependencies of drug development and usage in professional sports. This article is in line with other studies that: (1) consider doping to be a biomedical technology that needs to be analyzed under the lens of innovation theory (López 2012); and (2) advocate the need to redesign antidrug policies in order to overcome the limitations of the sporting spirit tradition (Mazanov and Connor 2010). Our main objective is to present a metric of TC for antidoping labs that could guide their technological strategy, helping them perform a more significant role in redesigning antidrug policy. The secondary objective is to report the testing of the metric at the LBCD.

2. Theoretical references 2.1 Antidrug policy Since WADA’ founding, it has claimed that, besides concern for athletes’ health and the need to suppress unfair practices, antidrug policies should protect the Olympian ideal, ensuring the integrity of the spirit of sports (Ryan 2015), which is characterized by universalism, purity and virtue (Ritchie and Jackson 2014). The claim of intrinsic value places ethics, fair play and honesty as the main drivers of antidrug laws and regulations (de Hon 2017), ignoring that sports, besides being a social need, is a multibillion dollar business activity, which reflects the tension between the idealistic ‘value of participating’ and the desire to outperform opponents (Ryan 2015). Therefore, doping can be interpreted as an outcome derived from the ultimate commitment of professional sports to hierarchy, performance and victory (Kumar 2010, Bowers and Paternoster 2016). According to Møller and Dimeo (2014, p.260), professional sports has four main characteristics: (1) The activity is performed as a competition, which is taken seriously even though it serves no external purpose, and in that sense can be regarded as unserious. (2) The aim is to win and to move upwards within the activity’s hierarchical structure. (3) The activity is organized and functions in an institutionalized framework, in which results are recorded and are ascribed significance. (4) The activity is governed by a written set of rules, which are administered by a referee, judge or umpire, who ideally is impartial. Since the moral crusade captained by WADA has brought more confusion and anxiety to drug use management, there is a need to suppress the puritanical ideology and recognize the economic nature of contemporary sports, treating drug usage as an inexorable characteristic of elite sports, where winning is what ultimately counts (Bowers and Paternoster 2016). The sports industry is strongly influenced by innovation economics (Mazanov and Connor 2010). According to López (2014, p.2), antidrug policy is designed to respond the ‘dialectics between continuity and innovation’. This recognition implies that the use of performance-enhancing substances in sports is a game of innovation in a business oriented society (Kayser and Tolleneer 2017). Therefore, drug use should not be blamed only on misconduct by dishonest individuals (Ryan 2015) or those with psychological weaknesses (Kirby et al. 2011). The game of innovation reflects the symbiotic interplay of the pharmaceutical, doping and antidoping industries (de Hon et al. 2014). For instance, pharma companies that first develop a patented

4


drug will guarantee monopolistic gains for approximately 20 years. However, even if all tests were strictly followed (in vitro and clinical trials tests 1, 2 and 3), unanticipated benefits or unhealthy side effects are usually generated, demanding the development of incremental innovation to control them. One of the side effects may be a change in human performance that could be interpreted as a ‘drug’ in WADA’s perspective. Therefore, the detection-based deterrence logic should be replaced by a coordinated drug policy that takes advantage of these interdependences, allowing serendipity effects and the new drug spinoffs to lead to innovation regarding new classes of therapeutic drugs, with less harmful side effects for regular patients and for athletes (López 2014). Summing up, the need to redesign the present drug policies can be justified by the need to protect: (1) athletes’ health instead of vague moral principles (Stewart and Smith 2010); and (2) the value of sports as a business industry (Foddy and Savulescu 2007). Whatever the reason, it is logical to advocate that sports physicians and sports scientists should be involved in the design of a dynamic antidrug policy, putting these professionals in the forefront, not only in WADA, but also in accredited drug detection labs. Although the problems in the current antidrug policy leave doubt about the effectiveness of these mechanisms, it is necessary to recognize the participation of accredited lab scientists in WADA’s committees and expert groups. For instance, the Health, Medical and Research Committee, which among other responsibilities, are ‘the monitoring of scientific developments in sport with the aim to safeguard doping-free sport practice, as well as the overseeing of the following Expert Groups: Prohibited List, Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUE), Laboratory accreditation, and Gene Doping.’ (WADA, 2017, p.1). Even acknowledging this participation, we assume that in a scenario where scientific reasoning overcomes moralistic arguments will demand deeper participation of lab scientists in anti-drug management. Given this paper’s objective, the term sports scientists refers to specialists in the applied life science disciplines, such as molecular biology, medicine, pharmaceutics, chemistry, nutrition, and also the physiological reaction to drug usage.

2.2 Accredited doping control labs All doping control laboratories are subject to strict standards, based on ISO 17,025 and the International Standard for Laboratories (ISL) (World Anti-Doping Agency 2016). In addition, in section 4.2.3 of ISL, WADA requires that these units allocate at least 7% of their budgets to R&D (WADA, 2016, p.22). In part, this determination is facilitated by the fact that in 2017, out of the 32 accredited laboratories, 16 were connected to universities. This is important, since university laboratories have unique management and governance rules, acting as links between academe and industry (Barradas and Sampaio 2017). National governments, through different ministries/departments, run another 14 laboratories. In some countries, such as India and France, the units are connected to a specific ministry of doping control. In others, such as China and Portugal, the ministry of health or sports administers them. Thus, the government plays a key role as research inducer (Mazzucato 2013). It should be noted that only two laboratories accredited by WADA are in the private sector, one in Finland and the other in Japan. Although investments in R&D are a premise of WADA, accredited laboratories have different maturity stages (Catlin et al. 2008, Horta 2011), directly affecting their ability to innovate (Barradas and Sampaio 2017). This difference explains why the location of laboratories can be crucial to the development and use of their TC (Hanstad 2008). Brazil is an emerging country that has fragilities that hamper technological innovation (Lall 1992, Bell and Pavitt 1995). To try to ‘level the playing field’ for laboratories and encourage global development, in 2014 WADA established a set of minimum detection standards. Entitled TD2014MRPL, this document became effective in September 2014, and has been updated frequently since then. However,


5

despite these efforts, the TC difference among laboratories has remained significant, mainly because of differing economic and cultural realities (Viret 2016).

2.3 TC in emerging countries According to Lall (1992), Bell and Pavitt (1995) and Figueiredo (2009), TC cannot be restricted to physical systems or to machines and equipment. It also involves organizational routines and cultural aspects that are embedded in the organizational fabric, as well as the links that organizations establish with other organizations. TC is based on four theoretical foundations, which in turn are anchored in the Resource Based View (Penrose 1959), and in the New-Schumpeterian Evolutionary Schools (Nelson and Winter 1982): (1) It is a capability that results from the use of a set of tangible and intangible assets that interoperate to achieve a goal that, in the case of organizations, is expressed in the production of goods and services (Grant 1991, 1996). (2) It is a type of knowledge, in part tacit, which follows a continuous, incremental and spiral creation and dissemination process (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1997). (3) It depends on an absorptive capability that is not limited only to the acquisition of technologies, since it also needs the ability to exploit them (Cohen and Levinthal 1990). (4) It requires a dynamic capability, which determines the speed of resource reconfiguration to face the acceleration of technological change (Teece et al. 1997). The above characteristics explain why TC cannot be reduced to tangible metrics, although it has a decisive impact on operational and innovative performance (Figueiredo 2009). In addition to the physical structure, it involves human capital necessary to operate the various technologies (Cuadros-Rodríguez et al. 2017). Thus, it is necessary to build specific organizational routines to perform and coordinate tasks associated with managing technological innovation (Cetindamar et al. 2009). As demonstrated by the pioneering studies of National Innovation System (NIS), the innovative performance of a nation depends on the presence of a set of strong institutions along with coherent public policies supporting R&D (Freeman 1995). In Brazil, because it is an emerging country, many difficulties are encountered with respect to scientific development (Braga and Willmore 1991, Erber 2009). This is compounded by the financial crisis of the state and the resulting deep cutbacks in public R&D investments since 2015 (Rossi and Mello 2017).

2.4 TC metrics According to (Figueiredo 2009), there are two types of metrics for technological innovation: (1) conventional, focused on R&D expenditures and patent registration; and (2) those based on TC. TC in late industrialized economies occurs in several stages, with factors acting simultaneously at different levels (Freeman 1995). Thus, the establishment of metrics to assess TC is a complex task, subject to conceptual and methodological controversies (Baginski et al., 2017). This makes it necessary to clarify whether the goal is to measure technological innovation through R&D activities or more broadly, considering all dimensions of the phenomenon, as the Oslo Manual recommends (OECD, 1997). The more comprehensive the metric is, the more complex its formulation will be (Baginski et al., 2017). For Figueiredo (2009), conventional innovation metrics, which are intended to quantify only the tangible results of R&D, do not consider transfer mechanisms and technology assimilation processes of TC accumulation, a pattern that is typical of organizations from emerging countries, which face long learning paths before reaching the stage of technology driven nations (Bell and Pavitt 1995).

6


As described by Figueiredo (2009), the TC metric is calculated by using technological functions arranged in columns and TC levels arranged in rows. The intersection of technology function with the TC level describes the activities or the common attributes of companies that occupy the corresponding level. That is, the TC metric will list (1) the relevant technological functions for the operating and innovative performance of a sector’s companies; (2) the different TC levels of companies in the sector; and (3) activities or attributes that companies must undertake to be at a certain level. To fall within a given level, a laboratory needs to have full command of the technologies that allow it to perform the most advanced tests of that level. For instance, frontier antidrug labs must be able to create new tests for innovative drugs.

3. Method This study is theoretical, since it involves the preparation of detailed analytical frameworks for measuring laboratories’ R&D activities (Miles and Huberman 1994) to support future empirical studies in sports management. We conducted a field study with a qualitative approach (Miles et al. 2013). Data collection was based on interviews with an open script. The interviews were mainly conducted in person, but internet apps or email were used for respondents living outside Brazil. The primary unit of analysis was the TC of doping control laboratories. To further improve the metric, a pilot test was carried out at LBCD. The tables’ conceptual basis and the suitability of the TC metric evaluation were based on studies performed by Figueiredo (2009), following the models of Lall (1992) and Bell and Pavitt (1995). Although Figueiredo worked with more levels, for the reasons stated in Baginski et al. (2017) and Moreira and Pitassi (2013), we decided to adopt five levels of innovation: frontier, intermediate, basic, advanced and routine basic. Treatment of evidence was based on the recommendations of Miles et al. (2013) for construction and consolidation of analytical frameworks. Other contributions to the qualitative interpretation of the information obtained during the exploratory research were supported by Denzin and Lincoln (2000). Planning was based on the steps proposed by Baginski et al. (2017) and Moreira and Pitassi (2013): Step 1: Based on data extracted from the literature review, a rationale was applied to determine how the analytical categories should be organized. To condense the doping control process into three major groups, the studies of Catlin et al. (2008), Ljungqvist et al. (2008), Horta (2011), and Ayotte et al. (2017) were used. The first column structures laboratories considering equipment and facilities, including information systems, speed with which equipment can be upgraded, and information and data security level (Polet and Van Eenoo 2015, Cuadros-Rodríguez et al. 2017). The second column relates to the processes and organizational capacities. Here we grouped items related to management of operations (methods and processes), functional qualifications, annual number of tests, accreditation maintenance and quality certification processes (World Anti-Doping Agency 2016). The third column involves testing and knowledge management. It includes materials and substances necessary for carrying out tests, as well as the know-how for optimization, validation, operation and development of methods and techniques (Jiménez et al. 2002, Dilger et al. 2007, Baume et al. 2015). It also includes participation in proficiency testing, educational testing, accreditation maintenance testing and internal auditing. Thus, according to studies of Bradford (2012), Vernec (2014), and Robinson et al. (2017), in this group we gathered the following types of expertise: intellectual property, launches and development of methods and techniques, collaborative networks and R&D management. Step 2: From the formulation of frameworks described in step 1, open interviews were conducted with sports professionals and researchers involved in doping control. The snowball method was applied to reach the complete list of respondents (Biernacki and Waldorf 1981). The interviewees who started the process were invited based on the adherence between the research


7

theme and their scientific curriculum. The second segment of professionals was selected due to their relevant research in doping control. To reach these specialists, the snowball method was especially helpful. Before each interview, the respondents were asked to examine the metric and comment on its validity. Step 3: Interpretation of the information contained in the interviews helped to adjust the analytical framework and consolidate the tables. After revisions, these tables were submitted again to some respondents for a final evaluation. Of the 13 respondents, eight received the final tables for validation (respondents 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7), including the former chairman of WADA’s Laboratory Commission, a founding member of WADA, the director-general of Ladetec and the director-general of LBCD. Step 4: A pilot test of the metric was applied in LBCD for final validation.

4. Findings and discussion The research results, specifically regarding the proposed TC metric adapted for doping control laboratories, can be seen in Tables 2, 3 and 4. In the first phase of the field survey, the respondents suggested that all WADA accredited labs should be at the innovative level: The WADA requirements are extremely strict and specific, so that only laboratories that have the same skills and analytical technologies can be accredited (Respondent 2). After the separation of innovative and routine laboratories, the interviewees converged to a consensus that not all laboratories perform the same types of tests and have the same rate of absorptive capability: The lowest level of testing is urine. To accredit a lab, you get a basic credential. . . Table 1. Respondent profile. Type Respondent Respondent 1 Respondent 2 Respondent 3 Respondent 4 Respondent 5 Respondent 6 Respondent 7 Respondent 8 Respondent 9 Respondent 10 Respondent 11 Respondent 12 Respondent 13

Position/Specialty LLM from London School of Economics. Took over in July 2016 as general director of WADA. Has extensive experience in law, finance and governance. Doctor of Science from UFRJ, Ph.D. in nuclear magnetic resonance from Bureau International des Poids et Mesures-Sèvres, France. Researcher-technologist in metrology and quality at Inmetro. MD from University of Porto. Former president of the Portuguese Anti-Doping Authority between 2005 and 2009. Anti-doping consultant for Brazilian Doping Control Authority from July 2014 to July 2016. Ph.D. in chemistry from UFRJ. Director general of Ladetec. Former general doordinator of LBCD. Professor emeritus at IQ/UFRJ. MD in medicine and surgery from Universita degli Studi La Sapienza of Rome, Italy (1991) and Ph.D. in medicine from Universität zu Köln Cologne, Germany (1985). Founding member of WADA. Was part of the Medical and Scientific Committee of the IOC. Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of Umea, Oslo. Specialized in different analysis methods based on chromatographic techniques. Ph.D. in organic chemistry from Rio de Janeiro Federal University (2004), and associate professor at IQ/UFRJ. general coordinator of LBCD. First general secretary of the Brazilian Doping Control Authority and one of the people responsible for the process of re-accreditation of LBCD. MD from the School of Medicine of UNICAMP. Member of the Doping Commission of the International Blind Sports Federation. Ph.D. in toxicology from the University of São Paulo (2004). Associate professor in the Department of Clinical and Toxicological Analysis of the School of Pharmaceutical Sciences of the University of São Paulo. Director of the Laboratory for Toxicological Analyses (LAT-USP). Ph.D. in pharmaceutical sciences. President of the Slovenian Anti-Doping Commission.

1 2 3 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Ph.D. in biology from the University of Lausanne. Has over 10 years of experience in the life sciences X X Is currently chief of biology in a Swiss doping control laboratory. Ph.D. in sports science from the University of Koln, Germany. Has worked in the anti-doping X laboratory of Qatar since January 2012.

Source: Developed by the authors (1) Structure, management and operational processes of doping control laboratories. (2) Perception of external doping control laboratories as R&D facilities. (3) Validation of the metric.

8


Table 2. Facilities and equipment. Level Level 5 Reference Laboratory Innovative Frontier. Biological Passport. Olympic Scope

Facilities and Equipment

● Full performance in the two modules the Athlete Biological Passport Program (ABP): Haematology and steroid analysis.

● Latest generation software for research of adverse analytical findings. ● Protected database, with confidential and proprietary information, especially about ongoing research and partnerships with the pharmaceutical industry.

● System information fully virtualized, with multiple layers of protection. ● Integrated servers with cloud computing. ● Building security system with maximum level; access controlled by individual magnetic cards, passwords and digital monitoring by cameras 24 hours a day.

● Restricted access, including the common areas of the building, outdoor patio and parking lot.

● Proprietary software developed by Ra&D team or purchased on request. ● Latest generation machines for sample analysis. Continuous improvement program and equipment replacement. Level 4 Reference Laboratory B Innovative Advanced

● Automated devices for sorting and analysis of all samples. ● Integrated computer system aimed at four areas: analysis of samples, management, building security and database servers.

● Software for process automation. ● Complex statistical information and data on ongoing research developed by another ● ● ● ● ●

Level 3 Basic Innovative Laboratory Urine Basic Menu

laboratory. 100% of information management using cloud computing. Data protected from cyber-attacks. Access control equipment in critical areas, using coded cards and fingerprints. Monitoring system using 24-hour active cameras. Broad portfolio of modern testing machines. Occasional updates or by customer demand.

● Computational system oriented to sample analysis, data maintenance and processing of the results.

● Databank of analytical information on samples, and database with details on reference materials, purity of solutions and inventory.

● Use of local servers with cloud backup. ● Equipment prepared to prevent internal effects of external electrical and hydraulic failures.

● Equipment for performing liquid and gas chromatography, mass spectrometry and immunoassays. Level 2 Routine Operational Laboratory (not WADA certified)

● Use of third-party software, with specific adaptations. ● Equipment with advanced technologies replicating tests using established methods,

Level 1 Basic Routine Operational Laboratory B (not WADA-certified)

● Purchase and use of simple software, primarily focused on consolidation and delivery

● ● ● ●

with greater capabilities to perform customization. Database updated with the more significant results in terms of innovation. Computerization geared to the management of samples and production results. Equipment embedded with simple technologies. Prompt purchase of equipment with advanced technologies, driven by customer demand. of test results

● Equipment embedded with basic technologies, replicating tests using established ● ● ● ● ●

methods. Database with limited information. Building security at a basic level. Automation at the lowest level. Units with reduced physical space. Low equipment purchasing power.

Source: Developed by the authors

What levels are above this? A second level is the laboratory with the ability to analyse blood (. . .). Also, there are labs doing insulin dosage (Respondent 5). The interviewees provided evidence that the standardization imposed by WADA on laboratories, although necessary, must take into consideration the economic realities of each country. To consider this argument, a second classification was proposed. The Reference Laboratory, for


9

Table 3. Methods, processes and testing. Level Level 5 Reference Laboratory Innovative Frontier. Biological Passport. Olympic Scope

Methods, Processes and Testing

● Technical qualification for testing, with longitudinal profile for analysis and investigation.

● Specific processes to perform analytical tests for intelligent interpretation of data to ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Level 4 Reference Laboratory B Innovative Advanced

monitor a specific athlete or a group of athletes. Full automation of sample treatment. Constant preventive inspection of equipment and reagents, with dedicated staff. Equipment maintenance performed by own laboratory staff. Strategic management through continuous training for improvement of techniques, control and analysis of samples. Synergy between laboratory and R&D team. Immediate ability to expand operations and to adopt new methods. Procedures and methods protected by patents. Highly skilled analysis processes to foster technological innovation. Capacity to customize test lots and meet specific demands.

● Specialization in advanced testing in the fields of haematology and urine, using hormone and insulin tests, for example.

● Capacity to serve large customers, across multiple analyses. ● Ability to customize tests, from simple models to complex ones. ● Main process automated, requiring human intervention only in exceptional situations.

● Preparation of tests using analytics. ● Price ranges between tests present significant differences according to the type of test and the method employed. Level 3 Basic Innovative Laboratory Urine Basic Menu

● Specialization in basic blood and urine tests (known as basic menu). ● Latest technology licenses for complex analyses of blood and urine. ● Full compliance with ISO 17,025 and specific international standards for biological and chemical analysis laboratories.

● Capacity to serve large customers across multiple analyses. ● Ability to customize tests. Price range presents significant differences according to the matrix to be analysed and the type of test to be used.

● Main processes automated. Timely human intervention. Level 2 Routine Operational Laboratory (not WADA certified)

● Licensing of technologies for of simple blood tests. ● Work teams divided into specific sectors (narcotics, diuretics, steroids). ● Possibility to perform a large volume of tests with low degree of complexity, or a small number of complex tests.

● Ability to offer customization of tests within a narrow spectrum (at significantly higher prices).

● Organization process oriented to efficiency. Each area produces its results. At the end of the tests, a sector is responsible for consolidating the information.

● Strong orientation to serve the market through partnerships with large customers. Level 1 Basic Routine Operational Laboratory B (not WADA-certified)

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Routine analysis of urine samples. Detection of diuretics, stimulants and narcotics. Outsourced maintenance of equipment. Performance of low complexity tests. Goal is providing cost-effective services. Staff with skills to work in specific functions. Inability to analyse multiple or complex samples. Dubious samples are treated as negative without further investigations. Review process conducted in manual mode. No ability to customize tests. Sale of sealed packages to the customer. Management focused exclusively on marketing activities to assure profitability.

Developed by the authors

the frontier innovation labs; Reference Laboratory B, for intermediate innovative (laboratories capable of performing complex tests such as insulin and hormones, as well as being ready to adopt new methods and techniques); and Analytical Laboratories (laboratories that operate primarily to perform the basic menu tests): [Advocate] the creation of two types of accredited labs, located in countries with greater economic power and holders of new technologies, and the non-reference laboratories. . .This is not about creating some with better

10


Table 4. Qualification and Personal Knowledge Management. Level Level 5 Reference Laboratory Innovative Frontier. Biological Passport. Olympic Scope

Qualification and Personal Knowledge Management

● Sports scientists capable of performing a critical role in anti-drug policy design ● R&D personnel highly trained, formed by PhDs/MDs and researchers, aimed at identifying substances and methods to integrate new tests.

● Geneticists specialized in DNA analysis. ● Business intelligence and analytics systems. ● Networking with universities, research centres, government institutions, competitors, ● ● ● ● ●

private frontier laboratories and suppliers to develop reagents and new detection methods. Frequent innovations in the detection of doping methods, replicating the new models of other laboratories. Presence of a department focused on intellectual property management. Fully proficient in the areas of biotechnology, pharmacology, chemistry, biochemistry, nanotechnology, physiology, analytical chemistry and informatics. Development of sociological, behavioural, juridical and ethical studies, in addition to medical, analytical and physiological research. Development of reference materials and processes for use by other laboratories.

Level 4 Reference Laboratory B Innovative Advanced

● Highly trained R&D formed staff, formed by people holding MScs, PhDs and

Level 3 Basic Innovative Laboratory Urine Basic Menu

● R&D managed by people holding master’s degrees and PhDs in chemistry, bio-

researchers, aimed at identifying innovations available in the market and at promoting rapid absorption. ● Networking with universities, research centres, government institutions, competitors, private laboratories and cutting-edge suppliers for efficient adoption of new kits, methods and substances. ● Experience in quantitative analysis, using internal standard methods. ● Autonomy for evaluating appropriate internal standards for quantitative assays of various compounds, considering availability, security, health risk and cost.

● ● ● ● ●

Level 2 Routine Operational Laboratory (not WADA certified)

chemistry, pharmacology and informatics, with ability to track the emergence of innovations and adapt models. Slow rate of absorption of new methods. Ability to purchase drugs with ‘doping design’ (i.e., substances that are very similar to those currently analysed by the laboratory). Partnerships with suppliers and manufacturers to develop skills for maintenance. Partnership with suppliers and competing private laboratories for absorption of knowledge to adapt methods. Development of specific studies to develop new methods, processes and quality control.

● B.Sc. technicians in chemistry and biology, specializing in biochemistry and analytical chemistry. Doctors specializing in haematology.

● Path dependency in established technologies and dependence on technology transfer.

● Managers focused on quantitative monitoring of performance. ● Lack of knowledge exchange among internal departments. ● Basic training for quality improvement. Simple courses for learning techniques and knowledge of new reagents.

● Partnerships with suppliers of products and management. ● Partnerships with external laboratories focused on training. Level 1 Basic Routine Operational Laboratory B (not WADA-certified)

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Professionals with bachelor’s degrees in chemistry and pharmacy. No investment in R&D and no research development. Replication of methods already consolidated. Employee training exclusively focused on operation. Incorporation of standardized basic processes Lack of partnerships. Licensing of consolidated technologies of low cost and minimum level of complexity. Not specialized managers. Focus on production.

Source: Developed by the authors

quality and others with lower quality. All of them have the same quality. What will differentiate them is that some, because of their economic capability, are able to quickly implement technologies for new detection methods. The problem is that today WADA thinks a certain method is important and, from there, creates a rule forcing everyone to adopt it immediately. It´s impossible to work like this (Respondent 3).


11

Laboratories not accredited by WADA were classified as routine. Normally these labs specialize in simple toxicological tests to identify narcotics and are used by companies for toxicology testing of their employees. They also can test forensic substances. Their importance in the ecosystem is that many professionals can be trained through these units and then migrate to accredited laboratories. Another important aspect relates to the fact that some of these laboratories are linked to universities, which favours the research and the exchange of knowledge between accredited and non-accredited labs. Additionally, experts argued it would not always be possible to classify a lab in all categories. Thus, it was necessary to adapt the TC metric, creating a level hierarchy that could make it possible to classify all types of antidrug labs: I’m not sure if it’s possible for all the labs to operate the same way. The explanation is that we must consider the financial realities, competence and experience (Respondent 6). Another aspect that was revealed to support the theoretical framework is the interdependence between laboratories’ structure, strategic management, research strategy and development of TC: Rich countries have a multi-year plan to manage the labs. Once I talked to a leading analyst of the Cologne laboratory in Germany, one of the best in the world. He said there were no problems in replacing equipment. The problem happened when they needed to buy a device that had never been used. They had to do a calculation on the cost of maintenance and, they had to present the replacement costs for a period of 30 years (Respondent 3).

Respondents stressed the symbiotic dynamics of the pharma, doping and anti-doping industries, as indicated in de Hon et al. (2014), not only for use in the detection of banned substances, but also for public health: I had two cases in Toronto (1976) to detect substances that were not pharmaceutical end products. They were products in development. So, the partnership between WADA and industry is very important. In addition, WADA calls on pharmaceutical companies that create a substance to provide a detailed manual on its composition and report a detection method (Respondent 5).

Deepening this relationship, the importance of R&D to doping control laboratories was a consensual perception among the interviewed sports scientists: For these and other reasons, doping control laboratories are at the forefront of innovation in the R&D area, playing a vital role in the development of analytical methodologies in drug discovery and in drug metabolism studies, among other areas. The large number of scientific articles with high impact produced by these laboratories shows that role (Respondent 2).

During the discussions to adjust the metric, the TC associated with the dimension ‘Evaluation Methods, Metrics, Processes and Tests’ was the one that brought the most questions regarding the need for laboratories to conform and at the same time maintain the degree of currency required by WADA. In 2013, the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (BCDA) was created to adapt Brazilian practice to the requirements of WADA. In this sense, although discussions about the metric construction occurred at the organizational level instead of the national innovation system (NIS) level, it was revealed that, due the lack of a consistent economic policy by the BDCA, LBCD had difficulty in sustaining its activities.

5. LBCD pilot test The metric’s application in LBCD showed that the simplification adopted in the number of levels helped its operability. However, in some discussions, such as of R&D investments and methods and processes, for example, there was evidence that higher refinement could have resulted in a better adjusted analysis, especially when economic reality is taken into consideration, since laboratories do not have significant profit margins because they are oriented mostly for research and training of scientists.

12


One indication of the TC metric reliability is given by the fact that differences in respondents’ evaluation of the TC of LBCD, when expressed, were of minor relevance, not exceeding one TC level in a specific requirement. For instance, one respondent considers that information system (IS) TC was intermediate and other advanced, mainly because of different interpretation of having an IS and of fully using that same IS. One of the difficulties of this study was that in Brazil only LBCD is accredited by WADA. Thus, there is no unit with similar characteristics for comparison. The closest for comparison is the Toxicological Testing Laboratory of the University of São Paulo (LATUSP). According to the perception of LBCD respondents, the dimensions ‘plant and equipment’ and ‘personal qualification and knowledge management’ had the highest level of evaluation. In both cases, the lab was considered as Level 5, or Reference A. Much of this was explained by the fact that the unit recently went through a reform for accreditation. Moreover, by acting as reference unit for the 2016 Olympic Games, it was authorized to conduct a public tender process to hire specialists. At the time this research was conducted, there were 34 high-level staff members. The biggest differences due the application of the metric in LBCD appear in the dimension ‘methods, procedures and tests’, especially regarding the amount of laboratory testing as a factor for classification. WADA determines a minimum annual amount for the maintenance of accreditation. The point is that in addition to quantity, the accredited laboratories are also encouraged to keep track of the quality of testing, requiring them to constant updating the list of minimum requirements defined in the Technical Document for Sport Specific Analysis (TDSSA). Although the WADA standardization manual determines the technologies that should be available, it does not specify the number of machines or the level of equipment updating. Thus, it is difficult to determine the extent to which laboratories should prioritize the purchase of more expensive or more modern equipment, given the requirements for constant updating established in the TDSSA. From 2017 to 2018, for example, there was a recommendation that biological passport tests rise from 15% to 30%. The following evidence reflects these pressures: There are tests you are required to do. Under current legislation, WADA cannot force us to do tests that are not part the basic menu, since this involves money to invest in the method and personnel (. . .) The problem is that while WADA does not obligate today, in a year or two it may do so (Respondent 7).

The question of technological equipment appeared as one of the main problems faced by the laboratories in relation to WADA requirements. Because of the different economic realities, not all units have the same capacity to invest. Moreover, national policies also influence important aspects of laboratories’ routine, such as the importation of raw materials, machinery and equipment, as can be seen in the following comment: When the critical mass of laboratories increases, it requires all laboratories to adopt a test. The top laboratories are required to pass on this expertise. This is no problem. The problem is receiving. WADA does not have the sensitivity to assess costs. It claims that if a country wants to have the honour of hosting an accredited laboratory, it must turn around (Respondent 4).

LBCD is part of Ladetec, created in 1984 by Rio de Janeiro Federal University (UFRJ). In 1989, because of the Copa America soccer matches in Brazil, Ladetec committed to conduct doping control tests. Thirteen years later, in 2002, it received accreditation by WADA. In 2013, because of flaws in testing during routine evaluation, the unit was disqualified. After extensive renovation, the process of reaccreditation began in August 2014 and was completed in 2015, then under the name LBCD. To act in the 2016 Olympic Games, LBCD received investments of approximately R$ 188 million for the purchase of equipment and building structure. Therefore, its technology park was regarded as one the most modern in the world, which makes it perfectly possible to classify the laboratory on the frontier of innovative category, or Reference A. This perception is shared by both LBCD’s researchers and by the external public. My perception has always been that, from the point of view of government, and I do not speak just about Rio de Janeiro, the laboratory is the greatest legacy of the Olympic Games; because it is a legacy of a technology


13

park. It is written in the report of the independent WADA observers. ‘Technological park with state of the art’. It [LBCD] has the best technology park of all the laboratories in the world (Respondent 8).

Regarding geographical distribution, more developed countries concentrate the largest number of tests, which can lead to economic imbalance, which in turn generates a global problem. In this sense, when applying the metric, it was possible to state that in terms of quantity and price, LBCD is unable to compete with labs located in developed countries. We cannot compete on price with the US. If we tried, we would go broke in six months (. . .). What is the laboratory situation in Colombia? Price below ours. I asked them: how do you manage this? The explanation was that the amounts were paid by the Colombian Treasury. The government pays for the laboratory expenses. In our laboratory, we are trying to apply a hybrid system (. . .). But we need direct investment. There can be the ABCD, but it can coordinate efforts in this direction (. . .) (Respondent 7).

Because of differences in regulations, economies and geography, WADA’s standardization manual has received severe criticism. To ensure a standard of quality in the examination of samples, WADA treats all laboratories with the same level of rigor regarding the quality of available technologies, determining that all must have the same readiness to evolve. In the case of LBCD, evidence showed that it could not guarantee this readiness at the time this study was conducted. WADA requires a minimum of 3000 samples a year. The IOC and WADA have made a series of demands, for example, to accredit the Rio lab to work during the Olympics. The problem is that with 3000 samples a year, no laboratory can afford its operations. You need to do much more than that (. . .) you must pay not only to purchase equipment. [You must also pay for] trained personnel, reagents and other substances. There were methods that had to be validated and accredited by Inmetro to be used. This all costs money. Therefore, we must have a policy that allows the laboratory to survive (Respondent 3).

Another important aspect relates to the transfer of technology. Laboratories considered references should provide to other laboratories the ability to deploy new detection methods, as shown by the following statement: The best laboratories with the best innovative and operational programs should send to poorer countries the technologies to foster updating the lab network (Respondent 6).

LBCD, because of the existence of machines, raw materials and cutting-edge professionals, can perform this transfer since it has absorptive capability. The problem lies in the external environment, which the lab does not control. In Brazil, the structure for doping control is deficient. In addition, the ABCD is a recent organization, in a country marked by a lack of resources and of antidoping culture, which in turn slows the lab’s development. Another important aspect to be considered in the dimension ‘personnel qualification and knowledge management’ is that the formation of external networks in R&D requires significant investments. In this sense, doping control laboratories face a common problem. With rare exceptions, they are units that do not profit due to the high operating costs and the reduced number of tests, as is the case of LCBD: About 20 years ago I visited Finland and talking to a director of the laboratory. In Finland, the laboratory is private. This director was terrified because his unit was the one that caused losses within the laboratory complex. But the prestige of having this lab working justified the company’s bearing this loss. It is so to this day (Respondent 4).

The evidence obtained in this study indicated that LBCD fully satisfies the function of interacting with external entities and promoting science, within the limits imposed by the Brazilian NIS. Moreover, among its employees were some of the leading scientists in the country, which is why it could be classified in staff qualification and knowledge management as on the innovative frontier, although this condition may deteriorate rapidly.

14


Concluding remarks A significant number of sports scientist’s question WADA’s antidrug policy, stating that its lack of effectiveness and its impact on athlete’s privacy can lead to the ruin of professional sports industry. Although there are only 32 laboratories accredited by WADA in the world, the research undertaken for this article suggests that the TC of these units can help the design of better antidrug policy. Therefore, if the antidrug labs cannot perform more advanced research on drug effects and potentialities, innovative substances will not be adequately tested, which could contribute to aggravate the above-mentioned lack of credibility of antidrug policy. The results obtained in this study reinforce the argument that doping control laboratories should not be seen as mere operational units. Due to the specificity of their work, they are at the forefront of innovation. These labs are responsible for the development of analytical methods for the discovery of new drugs and for drug metabolism. The large number of scientific articles published in high-impact journals produced by researchers working in these laboratories highlights the scientific relevance of these units. The symbiotic interplay between doping and anti-doping industries, a central characteristic of professional sports industry, and the evidence collected in the interviews with sports scientists showed that antidrug labs with advanced TC can do more than enforce antidrug policy to protect the spirit of sports. They can perform sophisticated tests that can help the pharma companies anticipate or speed up the discovery of unexpected results that often occur in the drug innovation process. That hypothesis can be considered one of the main results of the research presented here, a theme that should be investigated more thoroughly in future studies. Another important aspect is the reason for WADA’s existence. When an organization’s mission is against something, it must wait for the fact to happen. Thus, it is necessary to develop techniques right after a new doping method emerges. The first cases of doping were detected with a lapse of 25 years after the first use of anabolic steroids (de Rose 1989). Scientists around the world have been developing studies to strengthen detection methods and techniques so that the time between the emergence of a new substance or method and its detection is as short as possible and may in some cases be reduced to weeks (Puchowicz et al. 2018). This imposes an even greater scientific challenge, given the complexity of anti-doping tests, and the economic interests at stake, both from the perspective of sponsors and athletes, who in some cases are veritable pop stars. The gigantic fraud involving Russian coaches, athletes, scientists and politicians proved that no doping control system is immune to failures and manipulation, whether in the collection of samples or the dissemination of results. Even in the case of cutting-edge laboratories, it is necessary for the entire system to be shielded from the pressure for results and from political and economic interferences. Therefore, in parallel with investments in control techniques and methods, it is necessary to invest in governance structure and in international police investigation to ensure full freedom of laboratories against external pressures to mask results, manipulate samples or protect athletes. In response to the objectives proposed in this article, the interviews allowed assessing, from the metric adaptation phase to the implementation of the pilot test in LBCD, that the dimension ‘methods, processes and testing’ plays the leading role in relation to the other dimensions regarding laboratory classification. The explanation lies in the fact that a laboratory, by embracing a test, needs to invest in equipment and professional training. Those that are confined to the basic menu will have a technology park with equipment and professionals directed to this segment. Those that work with Biological Passport must have more advanced machines, and therefore more specialized technicians, requiring stronger external partnerships. This finding allows evaluating the consistency between management strategies and technology strategies of laboratories. Thus, the evidence collected shows that the metric can be used as a tool to support strategies based on technological innovation.


15

Because of the reaccreditation process for the Olympic Games, the triangulation of the results suggests that LBCD possessed in 2017 a technology park comparable to the best laboratories in the world, with the latest-generation machines. The recent completion of a public tender enabled the hiring of highly qualified researchers, who were added to the existing staff. Thus, regarding the dimensions ‘structure and ‘equipment’ and ‘personnel qualification and knowledge management”, the evidence collected indicates that LCBD was, at the time of this study, at level 5. The point is that to sustain the laboratory at this level will require high investments. Issues of a political and economic nature, which are reflected in the crisis faced by the Brazilian state, could jeopardize these investments. Without resources, the tendency will be for LBCD to recede from Olympic scope. Considering that the scientific disciplines with which LCBD deals have ever faster technological change rates, the TC level may disappear rapidly, which would be an important loss to science and sports in Brazil. Doping control is an expensive enterprise. Some devices cost millions of dollars and maintenance contracts are also costly. Almost all doping control units, mainly in emerging countries, share the inherent difficulty observed in LBCD. Not by chance, many of them recently suffered sanctions because of different faults. Besides this, laboratories are free to receive samples from international federations or other anti-doping organizations outside the country. Therefore, not every country can afford or be interested in investing on a consistent doping control program, and as a rule laboratory from emerging countries do not make profits. This partly explains why there are only two private units among the 32 accredited by WADA. In Japan, Mitsubishi maintains the structure. In Finland, the laboratory is part of a complex, with a cross-subsidy process. Thus, the other operations help finance the lossmaking unit. Considering these challenges, the results from LCBD pilot case study show the pressures, in line with the neoliberal recommendations usually prescribed by global organizations such as the International Monetary Fund to underdeveloped countries, to convert these laboratories into companies whose direct and indirect profits could finance high operating expenses and the investments for updating machines and equipment. However, it is for future research to assess how much the conversion of these R&D centres into for-profit companies can jeopardize the development of today’s existing TC, or even put these laboratories in the service of vested commercial interests. It would therefore be useful to evaluate whether greater operational and strategic integration between laboratories around the world would help reduce current costs by fostering partnerships and collaborative networks. In the case of LBCD, activities were maintained by the fact that the laboratory is connected to Rio de Janeiro Federal University. Thus, the Ministry of Education pays most of the operational costs. The testimonies collected indicate that without this public contribution, the laboratory would not be able to operate. Therefore, its managers were seeking a way to expand activities and forge partnerships that enable a volume of resources able to promote self-management. For this, the laboratory received the promise from the federal government that, after the Olympic Games in 2016, there would be a contribution of resources for two or three years, until the lab could stabilize. At the time this study was conducted, no money had been released. Parallel to this, WADA has increased the requirements for laboratories to deter doping. For instance, claiming the need to further protect clean athletes and enhance the global effectiveness of testing programs, TDSSA will require the implementation of an ABP haematological module with a ESAs MLA equal to or greater than 30%, which will be a mandatory from 1 January 2019 (WADA, 2018). The current operating condition of LCBD, and the governance rules to which it is subject, indicate that a deeper change in the scenario described here will depend on the strengthening of the Brazilian NIS. To standardize the accreditation of laboratories, WADA has a set of procedural manuals such as ISL, and technical documents such as:: TD2018MRPL (for detention levels); TD2018BAR (for blood analytical requirements for the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP)); TD2018EAAS (for endogenous

16


anabolic androgenic steroids); TD2018CG/LH (for the reporting and management of urinary human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) and luteinizing hormone (LH) findings in male athletes). These documents establish the same standards of quality, although WADA recognizes that not all accredited labs possess the same TC. Evidence collected in this research suggest that labs’ TC will reflect the economic and social realities of the countries where they are located. Laboratories located in countries with strong economies and more tradition in doping control will have clients that are more robust. So, they will be readier to develop and absorb new technologies. In weaker countries, this process is slower. It is doubtful that a country with late industrialization, which has a fragile and faltering NIS, can keep a level 5 doping control laboratory, particularly when this lab was created to meet objectives involved in the decision to host major events like the Olympics, which are not always transparent. The metric also presented limitations. When applied to professionals from different countries, there were small differences in the results of the answers, particularly about the need for global operational standardization. There were those who advocated the adoption of similar practices for all, regardless of the context, arguing that without this requirement, the quality of the tests may be affected. In contrast, other specialists defended the view that there is only sense in investing in each technology if the lab has clients interested in using it. Despite this difference of opinion, it can be said that, regarding the metric operationalization with specialists, both in general and in the LBCD case, there was no major differences in the specialists’s interpretation on levels classification criteria and on the efforts and strategies necessary to achieve higher TC levels. New empirical research focused on the application of the TC metric in doping control laboratories will contribute to a further evaluation of the benefits and costs of adopting a global standard and relaxing the rules imposed by WADA, particularly about TC, which triggers the ability to innovate. A challenge of future research is the implementation of the metric through adjustment of analytical levels to the different economic realities, to encourage the establishment and accreditation of a higher number of laboratories, particularly in countries with weaker economies. Today in South America, only two countries have laboratories: Brazil and Colombia, and the Colombian laboratory is currently suspended. In Africa, there is no laboratory, since the South African one is suspended. The Portuguese and Mexican laboratories are also suspended. Therefore, in addition to democratizing doping control, intelligent standardization will be crucial to expand the research network, promoting the entry of new laboratories for doping control.

Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors Claudio Pitassi obtained his PhD from Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro (PUC-Rio), BR. Leandro Ribeiro de Lacerda obtained his Master from Centro Universitário IBMEC, Rio de Janeiro, BR.

References Ayotte, C., Miller, J., and Thevis, M., 2017. Challenges in modern anti-doping analytical science. In: O. Rabin and Y. Pitsiladis, eds. Acute topics in anti-doping. Basel: Karger Publishers, 68–76. Baginski, L., Pitassi, C., and Barbosa, J.G.P., 2017. Technological capability in the Brazilian naval industry: a metric for offshore support vessels. Revista de Administração E Inovação, 14 (2), 109–118. doi:10.1016/j.rai.2017.03.002 Barradas, J. and Sampaio, P., 2017. ISO 9001 and ISO/IEC 17025: which is the best option for a laboratory of metrology? International journal of quality & reliability management, 34 (3), 406–417. doi:10.1108/IJQRM-03-2014-0032


17

Baume, N., et al., 2015. Antidoping programme and biological monitoring before and during the 2014 FIFA world cup Brazil. British journal of sports medicine, 49 (9), 614–622. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-094762 Bell, M. and Pavitt, K., 1995. The development of technological capabilities. In: Ul Haque, I., Bell, M., Dahlman, C., Lall, S. and Pavitt, K (Eds). Trade, Technology and international competitiveness. Washington, DC: The World Bank, 69-101. Biernacki, P. and Waldorf, D., 1981. Snowball sampling: problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociological methods & research, 10 (2), 141–163. doi:10.1177/004912418101000205 Bowers, L.D. and Paternoster, R., 2016. Inhibiting doping in sports: deterrence is necessary, but not sufficient. Sport, ethics and philosophy, 1321 (January), 1–20. Bradford, M.H., 2012.Would-be cheats face barrage of tests by army of antidoping scientists at London Olympics. British medical journal, 343, (September 2011) 554–555. Braga, H. and Willmore, L., 1991. Technological imports and technological effort: an analysis of their determinants in Brazilian firms. Journal of industrial economics, 39 (4), 421–432. doi:10.2307/2098441 Catlin, D.H., Fitch, K., and Ljungqvist, A., 2008. Medicine and science in the fight against doping in sport. Journal of internal medicine, 264 (2), 99–114. doi:10.1111/jim.2008.264.issue-2 Cetindamar, D., et al., 2009. Does technology management research diverge or converge in developing and developed countries? Technovation, 29 (1), 45–58. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2008.04.002 Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A., 1990. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative science quarterly, 35 (1), 128–152. doi:10.2307/2393553 Cuadros-Rodríguez, L., et al., 2017. Evolution of the quality concept in analytical laboratories. Encyclopedia of Analytical Chemistry. 1–54. Dahlman, C. and Westphal, L., 1982. Technological effort in industrial development: an interpretative survey of recent research. In: Stewart, F, and James, J. (Eds.). The economics of new technology in developing countries. London: Frances Pinter, 105–137. de Hon, O., 2017. The redundancy of the concept of ‘spirit of sport’ in discussions on the prohibited list of doping substances. International Journal of Sport Policy, 9 (4), 667–676. doi:10.1080/19406940.2017.1348380 de Hon, O. and Bottenburg, M.V. (2017). True dopers or negligent athletes? an analysis of anti-doping rule violations reported to the world anti-doping agency 2010–2012. Substance Use & Misuse, 1–5. de Hon, O., Kuipers, H., and Van Bottenburg, M., 2014. Prevalence of doping use in elite sports: a review of numbers and methods. Sports medicine, 45 (1), 57–69. doi:10.1007/s40279-014-0247-x de Rose, E.H. (1989). O uso de Anabólicos Esteroides e Suas Repercussões na Saúde. Valores Humanos, Corpo e Prevenção: a procura de Novos Paradigmas para a Educação Física. Brasil, Ministério da Educação. (7), 80–89. Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y., 2000. Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. Dilger, A., Frick, B., and Toldsdorf, F., 2007. Are athletes doped? some theoretical arguments and empirical evidence. Contemporary economic policy, 25 (4), 604–615. doi:10.1111/j.1465-7287.2007.00076.x Eber, N., 2002. Credibility and independence of the world anti-doping agency: a Barro-Gordon-Type approach to antidoping policy. Journal of sports economics, 3 (1), 90–96. doi:10.1177/1527002502003001006 Erber, F.S. (2009). Innovation and the development convention in Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Inovação, 3 (1jan/jun), 35– 54. doi:10.20396/rbi.v3i1.8648891 Figueiredo, P., 2009. Aprendizagem Tecnológica e Inovação Industrial em Economias Emergentes: uma Breve Contribuição para o Desenho e Implementação de Estudos Empíricos e Estratégias no Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Inovação, 3 (2), 323–361. doi:10.20396/rbi.v3i2.8648901 Foddy, B. and Savulescu, J., 2007. Ethics of performance enhancement in sport: drugs and gene doping. Principles of health care ethics: second edition. NJ: John Wiley and Sons. 511–519. Freeman, C., 1995. The national system of innovation in historical perspective. Cambridge journal of economics, 19(1), 5–24. Grant, R.M., 1991. The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy formulation. California management review, 33 (3), 114–135. doi:10.2307/41166664 Grant, R.M., 1996. Toward a knoweldge-based theory of the firm. Strategic management journal, 17 (S2), 109–122. doi:10.1002/smj.4250171110 Hanstad, D.V., 2008. The establishment of the world anti-doping agency. International review for the sociology of sport, 3 (43), 227–249. doi:10.1177/1012690208100552 Hatton, C.K., 2007. Beyond sports-doping headlines: the science of laboratory tests for performance-enhancing drugs. Pediatric clinics of North America, 54 (4), 713–733. doi:10.1016/j.pcl.2007.04.008 Horta, L., 2011. The new strategies in the fight against doping and the protection of privaty rights. British journal of sports medicine, 45 (2), 2010–2012. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2010.081570.2 Houlihan, B., 2004. Civil rights, doping control and the world anti-doping code. Sport in society: cultures, commerce, media, politics, 7 (3), 420–437. doi:10.1080/1743042000291712 Houlihan, B., 2009. Mechanisms of international influence on domestic elite sport policy. International journal of sport policy and politics, 1 (1), 51–69. doi:10.1080/19406940902739090 Huybers, T. and Mazanov, J., 2012. What would Kim do: A choice study of projected athlete doping considerations. Journal of sport management, 26 (4), 322–334. doi:10.1123/jsm.26.4.322

18


Jiménez, C., et al., 2002. Strategies for internal quality control in antidoping analyses. Analytica Chimica Acta, 460 (2), 289–307. doi:10.1016/S0003-2670(02)00199-X Katz, J., 1984. Technological innovation, industrial organization and comparative advantages of Latin American metalworking industries. In: Fransman, M. and King, K. (Eds). Technological capability in the third world. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 113–136. Kayser, B. and Tolleneer, J., 2017. Ethics of a relaxed antidoping rule accompanied by harm-reduction measures. Journal of medical ethics, medethics-2015-102659 doi:10.1136/medethics-2015-102659. Kirby, K., Moran, A., and Guerin, S., 2011. A qualitative analysis of the experiences of elite athletes who have admitted to doping for performance enhancement. International journal of sport policy, 3 (2), 205–224. doi:10.1080/ 19406940.2011.577081 Kumar, R., 2010. Competing against doping. British journal of sports medicine, 44 (Suppl 1), i8–i8. doi:10.1136/ bjsm.2008.049783 Lall, S., 1992. Technological capabilities and industrialization. World development, 20 (2), 165–186. doi:10.1016/0305750X(92)90097-F Ljungqvist, A., Horta, L., and Wadler, G., 2008. Doping: world agency sets standards to promote fair play. Nature, 455 (October), 1176. doi:10.1038/nature07270 López, B. 2012. Doping as technology: a rereading of the history of performance-enhancing substance use in the light of Brian Winston’s interpretative model for technological continuity and change. International journal of sport policy and Politics, 4 (1), 55–71. López, B. 2014. Creating fear: the ‘doping deaths’, risk communication and the anti-doping campaign. International 665journal of sport policy, 6 (2), 213–225. doi:10.1080/19406940.2013.773359 Mazanov, J., 2016. Beyond antidoping and harm minimisation: a stakeholder-corporate social responsibility approach to drug control for sport. Journal of medical ethics, 42 (4), 220–223. doi:10.1136/medethics-2015-102661 Mazanov, J. and Connor, J., 2010. Rethinking the management of drugs in sport. International journal of sport policy, 2 (1), 49–63. doi:10.1080/19406941003634032 Mazzucato, M., 2013. Financing innovation: creative destruction vs. destructive creation. Industrial and corporate change, 22 (4), 851–867. doi:10.1093/icc/dtt025 Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A., 1994. Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications. Miles, M.B., Huberman, A., and Saldaña, J., 2013. Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, Inc. Møller, V. and Dimeo, P., 2014. Anti-doping - the end of sport. International journal of sport policy, 6 (2), 259–272. doi:10.1080/19406940.2013.798740 Moreira, C.A.G. and Pitassi, C., 2013. Proposta de métrica do nível de capacidade tecnológica das empresas farmacêuticas Brasileiras. Revista de Administração E Inovação, 10 (4), 229–252. doi:10.5773/rai.v10i4.1170 Nelson, R. and Winter, S.G., 1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA, US: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H., 1997. Criação de conhecimento na empresa: como as empresas japonesas geram a dinâmica da inovação. Rio de Janeiro: Campus. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (1997). Manual de Oslo: diretrizes para a Coleta e Interpretação de dados sobre Inovação Tecnológica. OCDE, Eurostat E Financiadora de Estudos E Projetos, 1–184. Penrose, E., 1959. The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: sharpe. 4th. Oxford: Oxford. Petróczi, A., Norman, P., and Brueckner, S., 2017. Can we better integrate the role of anti-doping in sports and society? A psychological approach to contemporary value-based prevention. Medicine and sport science, 62, 160–176. Polet, M. and Van Eenoo, P., 2015. GC-C-IRMS in routine doping control practice: 3 years of drug testing data, quality control and evolution of the method. Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 407 (15), 4397–4409. doi:10.1007/ s00216-015-8491-y Puchowicz, M.J., et al., 2018. The critical power model as a potential tool for anti-doping. Frontiers in physiology, 9, 643. doi:10.3389/fphys.2018.00421 Ritchie, I. and Jackson, G., 2014. Politics and ‘shock’: reactionary anti-doping policy objectives in Canadian and international sport. International journal of sport policy, 6 (2), 195–212. doi:10.1080/19406940.2013.773358 Robinson, N., Sottas, P.E., and Schumacher, Y.O., 2017. The athlete biological passport: how to personalize anti-doping testing across an athlete’s career? Medicine and sport science, 62, 107–118. Rossi, P. and Mello, G., 2017. Choque recessivo e a maior crise da história: a economia brasileira em marcha à ré. Centro de Estudos de Conjuntura e Política Econômica, Nota de conjuntura 1- Cecon. Available from: http://brasildebate. com.br/choque-recessivo-de-2015-causou-a-maior-crise-da-historia-brasileira/ Ryan, K., 2015. Doping and anti-doping: the excesses of enterprise and the tyranny of transparency. International journal of sport policy, 7 (4), 637–653. doi:10.1080/19406940.2015.1063529 Schneider, A.J. and Butcher, R.B. (2000). A philosophical overview of the arguments on banning doping in sport. In Values in Sport. Elitism, Nationalism, Gender Equality, and the Scientific Manufacturing of Winners (pp. 185–199).


19

Sluggett, B., 2011. Sport’s doping game: surveillance in the biotech age. Sociology of sport journal, 28 (4), 387–403. doi:10.1123/ssj.28.4.387 Stewart, B. and Smith, A., 2010. Player and athlete attitudes to drugs in Australian sport: implications for policy development. International journal of sport policy, 2 (1), 65–84. doi:10.1080/19406941003634040 Teece, D., Pisano, G., and Shuen, A., 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic management journal, 18 (7), 509–533. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0266 Toohey, K. and Veal, A.J., 2007. The Olympic games: a social science perspective. Wallingford, Oxon, UK: CABI Publishing. Vernec, A., 2014. The Athlete Biological Passport: an integral element of innovative strategies in antidoping. British journal of sports medicine, 48 (10), 817–819. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2014-093560 Viret, M., 2016. Evidence in anti-doping at the intersection of science and law. Berlin: Springer. World Anti-Doping Agency. (2016). International Standard for Laboratories (ISL). Montreal. World Anti-Doping Agency (2017). WADA Technical Document – TD2018MRPL – minimum Required Performance Levels for Detection and Identification of Non-Threahold Substances. Montreal: 2017https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/ default/files/resources/files/td2018mrpl_v1_finaleng.pdf> World Anti-Doping Agency (2018). WADA Technical Document for Sport Specific Analysis, version number 3.1, Written By: TDSSA Expert Group. Approved By: WADA Executive Committee. Date: 15 November 2017. Effective Date: 1 January 2018