TJD-AD 2022-005 Appeal Decision - Cycling

Related case:

TJD-AD 2022-001 Disciplinary Decision - Cycling
March 18, 2022

On 18 March 2022 the TJD-AD Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete after she tested positive for the prohibited substance Enobosarm (Ostarine).

In first instance the Panel deemed that without corroborating evidence the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor how the substance had entered her system. There was no evidence of supplement contamination, neither evidence that the analysed supplements were purchased by the Athlete.

Following analysis of the her supplements the Rio de Janeiro Lab found no Ostarine. However it established the presence of the substances Canrenone, Indapamide and Spironolactone.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed this Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal and requested for a reduced sanction.

The Athlete alleged that there was an inconsistency that would invalidate the test result and asserted that she was tested twice in 2 days, yet only tested positive once. She maintained that her supplements were contaminated in the compounding pharmacy and analysis of these supplements in the Rio Lab had confirmed this.

After assessment of the case the Rapporteur finds that the sample collection and test result were valid. Despite the compounding pharmacy did not respond at once, the produced evidence from this pharmacy showed that there was no  contamination of the Athlete's supplements.

Following investigations ABCD and other authorities determined that the substance Ostarine was not prescribed and compounded in this pharmacy for another person at the material time. Furthermore the Rapporteur considers that the Rio Lab reported that the Athlete's supplements for analysis were delivered in unsealed open containers. Also there was not evidence that she had purchased these supplements, neither was there evidence of tampering. 

As a result the Rapporteur confirmed the conclusion that without corroborating evidence the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor how the substance(s) had entered her system.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 18 March 2022 to dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to uphold the Appealed Decision of 18 March 2022.

Original document

Parameters

Legal Source
National Decisions
Date
18 March 2022
Arbitrator
Baptista, Marta Wada
Barbosa, Daniel Chieriguini
Ferreira, Alexandre
Miranda, Martinho Neves
Nicolau, Jean Eduardo Batista
Nunes, Tatiana Mesquita
Original Source
Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD)
Country
Brazil
Language
Portuguese
ADRV
Adverse Analytical Finding / presence
Legal Terms
Burdens and standards of proof
Circumstantial evidence
Period of ineligibility
Sport/IFs
Cycling (UCI) - International Cycling Union
Other organisations
Autoridade Brasileira de Controle de Dopagem (ABCD) - Brazilian Doping Control Authority
Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva Antidopagem (TJD-AD) - Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal
Laboratories
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Laboratório Brasileiro de Controle de Dopagem – LBCD – LADETEC / IQ - UFRJ
Analytical aspects
Reliability of the testing method / testing result
Doping classes
S1. Anabolic Agents
S5. Diuretics and Other Masking Agents
Substances
Canrenone
Enobosarm (ostarine)
Indapamide
Selective androgen receptor modulators (SARMs)
Spironolactone
Various
Contamination
Supplements
Document type
Pdf file
Date generated
25 July 2022
Date of last modification
7 November 2022
Category
  • Legal Source
  • Education
  • Science
  • Statistics
  • History
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Legal Terms
  • Sport/IFs
  • Other organisations
  • Laboratories
  • Analytical aspects
  • Doping classes
  • Substances
  • Medical terms
  • Various
  • Version
  • Document category
  • Document type
Publication period
Origin