In August 2019 World Rugby (WR) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Brazillian rugby player Alisson Kalkmann Ribeiro after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Clomifene. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement with evidence in his defence and he was heard for the WR Judicial Committee.
The Athlete admitted the violation, denied the intentional use of the substance and argued that he had acted with very low degree of fault. He asserted that this was his first doping control, he was an unexperienced rugby player who had never received any anti-doping education. Prior he had used many supplements, vitamins and medication without problems. He explained that he had used a medication containing 100mg of Clomifene prescribed by his club doctor. He trusted his doctor since he was a specialized sports doctor well aware that the Athlete was a professional rugby player.
WR accepted that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete established on a balance of probabilities that the prescribed Clomiphene was the source of the postive test. Also WR contended that the Athlete failed to act with the utmost caution.
The Judicial Committee is troubled about the Athlete's conduct in this case. However since WR does not seek to prove that the violation was intentional the Committee will accept that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete has demonstrated the source of the prohibited substance in his samples on a balance of probabilities.
The Committee considered that (i) the Athlete did not read the label of the product used (or otherwise ascertained the ingredients), (ii) did not cross-check the ingredients on the label with the list of prohibited substances, (iii) did not make an internet search of the Clomiphene prescribed, and (iv) did not diligently instruct his doctor that he was an athlete who could not consume any prohibited substances but rather just assumed that his doctor would know this.
Further the Committee is puzzled that the Athlete failed to provide any explanation or detail on what kind of treatment was being sought through the off-label use of Clomiphene. Neither was produced any witness statement from his doctor to corroborate his version of events, nor was provided any medical details as to why Clomiphen would be prescribed to an apparently healthy 19-year old male athlete.
The Committee concludes that the Athlete acted with a serious although less than significant degree of fault or negligence. Giving some credit to the subjective factors in this case, a reduction of 3 months from the presumed 2-year period of ineligibility is warranted.
Therefore the Judicial Committee decides on 26 January 2020 to impose a 21 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 26 August 2019.
