Related cases:
- TJD-AD 2017-008 Disciplinary Decision - Automobile
October 5, 2017 - TJD-AD 2017-013 Disciplinary Decision - Automobile
November 28, 2017
On 28 November 2017 the TJD-AD Panel decided to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Dexamphetamine (d-amphetamine, dextroamphetamine).
The Athlete could explain with evidence that the substance was used as medication for his Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). He had also applied for a retroactive TUE which was approved in September 2017.
In this case the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) and TJD-AD had deliberations whether Dexamphetamine was listed as specified substance or not and whether the approval of the Athlete's retroactive TUE was valid or not.
Thereupon the TJD-AD Panel deemed that approval of the Athlete's TUE was valid, that his violation was not intentional and that the Athlete acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence.
Hereafter in February 2018 ABCD appealed the TJD-AD Decision of 28 November 2017 with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal. Also the Athlete filed a cross-appeal in this case.
ABCD contended that the prohibited substance Dexamphetamine was listed as S6a non-specified substance and under the Rules the imposed sanction of 6 months and the approved retroactive TUE should be deemed invalid.
The Athlete asserted that his violation was not intentional, that he acted without Significant Fault or Negligence and that he had received a valid retroactive TUE for his medication.
The Rapporteur establishes that ABCD in the previous proceedings had accepted that the substance Dexamphetamine was considered to be classified as a specified substance. Accordingly ABCD had accepted the imposed sanction. In view of this acceptance under the applicable Rules ABCD consequently had waived his right to appeal.
Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 9 May 2018 that ABCD's appeal is inadmissible and to dismiss the Athlete's appeal.
