Related case:

TJD-AD 2018-052 Appeal Decision - Athletics
June 6, 2018

The Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Recombinant Human Erythropoietin (rhEPO).

Previously the Athlete was sanctioned for 2 months until December 2010 for the presence of Oxilofrine (methylsynephrine) and again sanctioned for 4 years until October 2016 for the presence of EPO.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and asserted with evidence that he had used prescribed iron supplements as treatment for his condition.

The TJD-AD 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. Further the Panel considers that this is the Athlete's 3rd anti-doping rule violation and that there had been delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides by majority on 13 March 2018 to impose a 30 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting backdated on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 9 June 2017.

The Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the armwrestler after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone (Nandrolone).

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal. The Athlete denied that the violation was intentional and claimed that the presence of the substances in his system was due to his consumption of meat.

The Rapporteur finds that the presence of prohibited substances has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the TJD-AD Paneld decides on 13 March 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 10 June 2017.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2018-136 Appeal Decision - Armwrestling
December 26, 2018

In September 2017 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the armwrestler after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Hydrochlorothiazide.

After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

ABCD established that the Athlete had mentioned several medication, including Hydrochlorothiazide, on the Doping Control Form, yet he had failed to apply for a TUE. The Athlete produced medical documentation about the prescribed medication he used as treatment for several conditions he suffered.

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

The Rapporteur concludes that the violation was not intentional and deems that the Athlete had failed to apply for a TUE. Further the Rapporteur considers that there had been delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the TJD-AD decides on 9 May 2018 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 15 July 2017.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2019-144 Appeal Decision - Football
February 15, 2019

In November 2017 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Anastrozole. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in his defence.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the subsance and requested to lift the provisional suspension. He stated that the contaminated supplements he had used were the source of the prohibited substance. Analysis of these supplements in a laboratory revealed that 5 supplemenst produced in a compounding pharmacie were contaminated. Further the Athlete questioned the irregularities he had established in the chain of custody of his samples.

The TJD-AD Rapporteur finds that the presence of a prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Rapporteur accepts that the violation was not intentional and the result of a contaminated supplement produced in a compounding pharmacy. In view of the Athlete's conduct regarding the risks in using these compounding supplements the Rapporteur considered his degree of fault. ABCD was invited to investigate the irregularities regarding the chain of custody.

Therefore the TJD-AD decides on 22 May 2018 to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 21 February 2018.

In August 2017 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the powerlifter after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Hydrochlorothiazide and Trenbolone.

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the ABCD. The Athlete stated that he intentionally had used the substance and as treatment for his injury including Cortisone.

The parties in this case reached an agreement and the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal was requested for approval of the sanction into a decision.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 3 May 2018 to impose a 3 year and 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 2 April 2017.

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.

In October 2017 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the armwrestler after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone) and Tamoxifen.

Following notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence. He admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substances. He explained that he underwent surgery after a car accident and pins and plates were placed in his lower limb.

The Athlete stated that as self-treatment he had used Deca-Durabolin in order to recover from muscle loss after his car accident. Tamoxifen was used as prevention from the side effects.

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) assessed this case and deemed that the substances could be used for both medical and sport enhancement purposes. However there was no medical justification for the use of Tamoxifen and the Athlete had failed to apply for a TUE.

WADA approved only a reduction of 1 month. Thereupon the Athlete signed an Acceptance of Consequences Form and agreed with the sanction proposed by ABCD.

Hereafter the Parties in this case requested the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) to render a decision based on the admitted violation and the proposed sanction. Therefore the TJD-AD decides on 4 April 2018 to impose a 3 year and 11 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2018-031 Disciplinary Decision - Athletics
March 13, 2018

On 13 March 2018 the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD Panel) decided to impose a 30 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for his 3rd anti-doping rule violation after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Recombinant Human Erythropoietin (rhEPO).

Previously the Athlete was sanctioned for 2 months until December 2010 for the presence of Oxilofrine (methylsynephrine) and again sanctioned for 4 years until October 2016 for the presence of Erythropoietin (EPO).

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the decision with the TJD-Appeal Panel and argued the iron supplement he had used had increased his EPO level. Yet, the Appeal Panel rejected this argument because exogenous rhEPO was found in the Athlete's samples and not endogenous EPO.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 6 June 2018 to uphold the First Instance Decision for the imposition of a 30 year sanction and to dismiss the Athlete's appeal.

Related cases:

• TJD-AD 2019-152 Disciplinary Decision - Basketbal
  February 21, 2019
• TJD-AD 2019-193 Appeal Decision - Basketball
  April 26, 2019

In May 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 substtance Betamethasone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered.

The Athlete filed a statement in his defence, made an application for a retroactive TUE and requested to lift the provisional suspension. In a preliminairy hearing the Athlete explained with evidence that the substance was not used intentionally, rather as medication for his injury.

In view of the evidence the TJD-AD Panel deems that under the Rules there are sufficient grounds to grant the Athlete's request. Accordingly on 14 August 2018 the TJD-AD Panel decides to lift the provisional suspension.

In April 2018 both the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) and the judo Athlete appealed the imposed TJD-AD decision regarding the imposition of a sanction of 4 years after the Athlete tested positive for the prohibited substance Sibutramine. 

ABCD and the Athlete contended that the violation was not intentional and requested the TJD-AD for a sanction of 2 years since the substance was only used for weigth loss. 

The TJD-AD Appeal Panel finds that the appeals are admissible and decides on 28 August 2018 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the of the sample collection, i.e. on 7 May 2017.