In March 2023 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the powerlifter Jonathan Stanley after his sample tested positive for multiple prohibited substances:

• 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone);
• Clostebol;
• Drostanolone;
• Methylphenidate;
• Oxandrolone;
• Testosterone; and
• Trenbolone.

Following notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by CCES. Because the Athlete signed and submitted the Early Admission and Acceptance Form he received a 1 year reduction from CCES.

Therefore CCES decides on 27 September 2023 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 24 July 2023.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2022-021 Disciplinary Decision - Canoe
December 7, 2022

In April 2022 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority reported an anti-doping rule violation against the canoe Parathlete for his Whereabouts Filing Failures within a 12 month period. This resulted in 3 Missed Tests in February, April and December 2021.

Consequently on 7 December 2022 TJD-AD Panel decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Parathlete. Hereafter both ABCD and the Parathlete appealed the TJD-AD decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Panel.

ABCD and the Athlete requested the Appeal Panel the set aside the Appealed Decision. ABCD wanted a more severe sanction whereas the Parathlete wanted an acquittal or alternatively a more reduced sanction.

The Rapporteur assessed and addressed the Parathlete's conduct regarding his Whereabouts and the missed tests in February, April and December 2021. He determines that the Parathlete for his Missed Tests failed to provide sufficient explanations to ABCD, nor provided corroborating evidence in this matter.

The Rapporteur concludes that the Parathlete acted with a high degree of fault or negligence, rather acted more evasive with his Whereabouts. Accordingly he deems that there are no grounds for the imposition of a reduced sanction.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 21 June 2023 to set aside the Appealed Panel and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 19 April 2022.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2022-007 Disciplinary Decision - Weightlifting
November 4, 2022

In October 2021 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the minor weightlifter (16) after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Enobosarm (ostarine) and GW501516.

Thereupon ABCD also reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete's doctor for the prescription of prohibited substances to the minor Athlete.

Consequently the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) decided on 4 November 2022 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the minor Athlete and to impose a 12 year period of ineligibility on the doctor.

Hereafter ABCD appealed the TJD-AD decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Panel. ABCD requested the Appeal Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a more severe sanction on the doctor.

ABCD contended that the doctor deliberately had administrated prohibited substances to a minor athlete as a Protected Person and that his conduct justifies the imposition of a 30 year period of ineligibility.

The doctor argued that there was corroborating evidence that showed that he was not aware, nor informed, that the minor Athlete participated into competitions.

Following assessment of the evidence the Appeal Panel determines that there was insufficient evidence that the doctor knew that the minor Athlete participated into competitions. In this matter there was also insufficient evidence that the doctor was involved as Athlete Support Personnel.

Therefore by majority the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 10 May 2023 to dismiss ABCD's appeal.

The Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Clomifene.

After notification the Athtlete admitted the violation and explained that he underwent medical treatment for his diagnosed gynecomastia. With evidence he demonstrated that he had used prescribed medication containing Clomifene in order to avoid surgery.

ABCD accepted that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete's prescribed medication was the source of the positive tests results. ABCD proposed a sanction of 10 months whereas the Athlete aimed for a sanction of 6 months.

Following deliberations the Athlete accepted a proposed sanction of 8 months. Thereupon the parties reached an agreement as to sanction for approval into a decision of the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 30 June 2023 to approve the settlement and to impose an 8 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the settlement, i.e. 18 May 2023.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2023-007 Appeal Decision - Canoe
June 21, 2023

In April 2022 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the canoe Parathlete for his Whereabouts Filing Failures en 3 Missed Tests within a 12 month period.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Parathlete filed a statement in his defence. He did not accept the sanction proposed by ABCD and the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

ABCD contended that the Parathlete is an experienced sportman, had received anti-doping education and had been tested before without issues. ABCD deemed that the Athlete had acted negligently and reviewed the attempts to locate the Parathlete as reported by de Doping Control Officers (DCOs).

With evidence the Athlete provided explanations and justifications for the circumstances that resulted in de missed tests in February, April and December 2021. By contrast he alleged that the DCOs did not do what was reasonable in the circumstances to locate him for testing.

The Panel assessed the Athlete's conduct in this case and finds that he acted negligently, rather acted evasive with his Whereabouts.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides by majority on 7 December 2022 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 19 April 2022.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2023-005 Appeal Decision - Weightlifting
May 10, 2023

In October 2021 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the minor weightlifter (16) after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Enobosarm (ostarine) and GW501516.

ABCD also reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete's doctor for the prescription of prohibited substances for the minor Athlete.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete and the doctor filed statements in their defence and they were heard for the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Athlete and the doctor admitted that prohibited substances had been administered and used. Further they alleged that there had been irregularities in the chain of custody of the samples between the sample collection and the Rio Laboratory.

The Athlete and his coach testified that the doctor was not informed that the Athlete participated in competitions. The coach stated that the doctor was merely requested to guide the athletes during training and assist them in improving their performances.

The doctor acknowledged that he was aware of the anti-doping rules and that he had prescribed prohibited subtances to the minor Athlete. He argued that he was not involved as Athlete Support Personnel and that the TJD-AD had no competence because only the Federal Council of Medicine (CFM) has jurisdiction to resolve the charges against him.

The compounding pharmacy in question that provided the substances stated that they had no prescription on file for the Athlete's medication. A prescription was not necessary while there was also no invoice of purchase available.

Preliminary the Rapporteur establishes that the test results were valid and that there had been no irregularities during the chain of custody that could invalidate these test results. Further the Rapporteur determines that under the Rules the doctor had acted as Athlete Support Personnel.

The Rapporteur finds that the presence of the prohibited substances had been established in the Athlete's sample and that he doctor had administered these prohibited substances. Accordingly both the minor Athlete and the doctor committed the alleged anti-doping rule violations.

The Rapporteur deems that the minor Athlete and his doctor deliberately had acted in this case. As a Protected Person the Rapporteur determines that the minor Athlete had acted with a lower degree of fault and negligence and that the doctor had not been fully aware that the Athlete participated into competitions.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 4 November 2022:

• to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the minor Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 27 October 2021;
• to impose a 12 year period of ineligibility on the doctor;
• to recommend opening criminal proceedings into the doctor's conduct;
• to recommend opening proceedings into the coach's conduct;
• to inform the weightlifting sports organisations and the CFM regional council about the doctor's violation;
• to open an investigation into the pharmacy that had compounded and supplied the prohibited substances.

In October 2022 the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA), on behalf of the International Tennis Federation (ITF), reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Romanian tennis player Simona Halep after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Roxadustat (FG-4592).

Furthermore in May 2023 the ITIA reported a second anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after an Expert Panel concluded unanimously in April 2023 in their Joint Expert Opinion that the Athlete’s hematological profile “highly likely” showed that she used a prohibited substance or a prohibited method: the use of EPO or Blood doping. 

This conclusion of the Expert Panel was based on assessment of blood samples, collected in the period from 27 August 2013 until 3 March 2023 reported in the Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP). 

After notification about the ABP violation the Athlete submitted an explanation with documentation for the abnormal values in her ABP. However after consideration the Expert Panel rejected the Athlete’s explanations in their 2nd (May 2023) and 3rd (June 2023) Joint Expert Opinions.

In both cases a provisional suspension was ordered. Supported by expert witnesses the Athlete filed explanations and evidence in her defence and she was heard for the ITF Independent Tribunal.

Thereupon the Roxadustat charge and the ABP charge were resolved by the Tribunal in consolidated proceedings. Preliminary the Panel ruled that there were no grounds to lift the imposed provisional suspension(s) as requested by the Athlete.

In the matter of the Roxadustat charge the Athlete accepted the test results and denied the intentional use of the substance. She asserted that the source of the positive test was a contaminated Keto MCT supplement she had used in August 2022.

In this matter the Panel assessed and addressed the issues raised by the Parties and their expert witnesses:

• Whether or not the Keto MCT supplement was contaminated
• Admissibility of the hair test for Roxadustat
• Whether or not the hair test established contamination.
• The concentration of Roxadustat in the Athlete's sample
• The Athlete's use of the supplement
• The specific gravity of the Athlete's sample

The Panel concludes that on a balance of probability the Keto MCT supplement was contaminated with Roxadustat. However the Panel also concludes that the Athlete clearly must have ingested Roxadustat from some other source.

The Panel holds that it can not speculate on how the apparently highly unlikely coincidence of the two separate sources of Roxadustat came about. The evidence does not demonstrate that to the Panel.

In the matter of the ABP charge the Athlete also accepted the results of the 51 valid samples in her ABP and denied that she had used any prohibited substance of prohibited method. She alleged that that the blood values in her ABP samples had been caused by: (a) blood loss during surgery; (b) a second redacted issue; or (c) periods of detraining.

In this matter the Panel also assessed and addressed the ITF evidence, the Athlete's explanations and the opinions of the Parties' expert witnesses.

Ultimately the Panel accepts the findings of the ABP Expert Panel and is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation because of her use of a prohibited substance and/or a prohibited method.

Furthermore the Panel assessed whether there are aggravating circumstances in this case. Yet, it determines that there are insufficient grounds for the imposition of an increased period of ineligibility.

Therefore the ITF Independent Tribunal decides on 11 September 2023 that the Athlete had committed two anti-doping rule violations:

• Presence and Use of the prohibited substance Roxadustat; and
• Use of a prohibited substance and/or a prohibited method.

The Panel rules that these violations shall be considered as one single first anti-doping rule violation, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 7 October 2022.

Accordingly a 4 year period of ineligibility is imposed on the Athlete. Finally the Panel decides to disqualify the Athlete's results obtained between 29 August 2022 to 7 October 2022.

In June 2023 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the fencer Radhika Prakash Awati after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylprednisolone.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered, yet not accepted by the Athlete. She filed a statement in her defence and was heard for the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI).

The Athlete accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the substance. She stated that she underwent treatment for her diagnosed condition and had used prescribed medication which she had mentioned this on the Doping Control Form.

Previously In June 2023 the Athlete had applied for a retrospective TUE for her medication. However this TUE application was rejected in May 2023 and again rejected in July 2023 following the Athlete's appeal.

On both occasions the TUE Committees deemed that the application was incomplete and the filed prescriptions insufficient. Also the Athlete's doctor was deemed not qualified and the medical treatment inappropriate.

The Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation.

In view of the Athlete's conduct the Panel concludes that the violation was not intentional and that she had acted with a degree of negligence. Further the Panel considers that the she had not accepted the Provisional Suspension.

Therefore the Panel decides on 17 August 2023 to impose a 15 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

In April 2023 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the powerlifter Hariom Khari after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Trenbolone.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI).

The Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Panel determines that the Athlete fully admitted the use of the prohibited substance.

Therefore the Panel decides on 16 August 2023 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 12 April 2023.

In May 2023 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the powerlifter Pankaj after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI).

The Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's system and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Panel determines that the Athlete had admitted the use of the prohibited substance.

Therefore the Panel decides on 16 August 2023 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 10 May 2023.