Related cases:
- TJD-AD 2018-060 Disciplinary Decision - Basketball
August 14, 2018 - TJD-AD 2019-193 Appeal Decision - Basketball
April 26, 2019
In May June 2018 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the basketball player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Betamethasone.
Additionally ABCD filed charges against the Athlete's doctor for the administration of Betamethason and charges against his coach and assistant coach for complicity.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The accused filed statements in their defence and were heard for the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).
In a preliminary hearing the Athlete had explained with evidence that the substance was used as medication for his injury and he had made an application for a retroactive TUE. Thereupon on 14 August 2018 the TJD-AD had granted to lift his provisional suspension.
The doctor testified that he had administered this medication as treatment for the Athlete's injury. He was unaware that the Athlete afterwards was selected to participate in the match despite communications to the coach and assistant coach that he could not play.
The Coach and assistant coach asserted there had been miscommunication and that they were unaware that the Athlete was prevented to participate because of his medication. They selected the Athlete for the match to sit on the bench in support of the team.
ABCD contended that the doctor could have administered approved alternative medication despite he had communicated that the Athlete was prevented to play. Futhermore ABCD finds that the coach and assistant coach had missed opportunities to exclude the Athlete to participate.
The Rappoteur concludes that the doctor's conduct was valid due to the substance was administered as legitimate medical treatment and is only prohibited in-competition. Also the Athlete was informed that he could not play because of his medication and because of his injury.
The Rapporteur deems that the coach and assistant coach were involved in complicity and had acted negligently. They knew that the Athlete could not play because of his injury and decided to select him anyhow sitting on the bench in support . Further they failed to check what kind of medication was administered.
The Rapporteur assessed the Athlete's conduct in this case and considers that the Athlete underwent a legitmate medical treatment and thereupon had received a valid (non retroactive) TUE. Finally he Rapporteur accepts that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and that he acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence.
Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 21 February 2019:
- to impose a 2 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the hearing and deducting the time already served;
- to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the coach and assistant coach, starting on the date of the decision;
- to acquit the doctor.
