Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-024 Appeal Decision - Gymnastics
March 31, 2020

In September 2019 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the minor gymnastics Athlete after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Athlete admitted the violation, denied the intentional use of the substance and claimed that she acted from ignorance. She asserted that she struggled with her body and felt ashamed. In order to improve her body image and to lose weight she had used the substance one week before the sample collection.

ABCD contended that the minor Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor when the substance had been used. She was an experienced Athlete, had participated in many national en international competitions and had received anti-doping education.

ABCD considered that the Athlete failed to apply for a TUE and the high concentration found in her sample was not consistent with her alleged use of the subsance one week before the sample collection. Further her postings on social media showed that she was very proud of her body, contradicting her allegation that she felt ashamed about her body image.

The Rapporteur agrees that there are inconsistencies in the Athlete's statements about the use of the substance and the concentration found in her sample.

Therefore the TJD-AD decides on 17 December 2019 by majority to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 7 June 2019.

In February 2018 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the bodybuilder for evading Doping Control.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Athlete admitted the violation and stated that he had to leave the competition venue otherwise he would miss his ride. He requested to lift the provisional suspension and disputed the Doping Control.

Following assessment of the evidence the Rapporteur finds that the Athlete had evaded Doping Control intentionally and accordinghly had committed an anti-doping rule violation. There are no grounds to lift the provisional suspension, nor mitigating circumstances.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 11 December 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 10 December 2017.

In April 2018 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the bodybuilder after his sample tested positive for the prohibitied substances Canrenone, Clenbuterol, Drostanolone, Stanozolol and Testosterone.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD). The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substances and asserted that he was unaware of the anti-doping rules.

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

Therefore the TJD-AD decides on 12 February 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. 9 December 2017.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2018-043 Disciplinary Decision - Football
May 22, 2018

The Football player received on 22 May 2016 a 6 month period of ineligibility after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Anastrozole, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 21 February 2018. In First Instance it was accepted that the violation was not intentional and the result of a contamined supplements produced in a compounding pharmacies.

Hereafter in May 2018 both the Athlete and the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) appealed the Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal.

The Athlete asserted that analysis in an independent laboratory had established that the supplement in question was contaminated. Also he disputed the irregularities that occurred during the chain of custody.

The ABCD did not accept the test result and evidence of the contaminated supplement in question because ABCD had not been involved in the analysis in a laboratory as ordered by the Brazilian Football Confederation (CBF).

Nevertheless the Rapporteur considered the parties arguments and accepts the evidence and conclusions made in First Instance regarding the anti-doping rule violation and the contaminated supplement in the Appealed Decision.

Therefore the TJD-Appeal Panel decides on 15 December 2018 to dismiss the appeals filed by the Athlete and ABCD and to uphold the Appealed Decision.

In April 2018 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Hydrochlorothiazide.

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 (TJD-AD).

The Athlete admitted the violation and explained that he had used the substance for weight loss.

The TJD-AD Rapporteur 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 Rapporteur deems that under the Rules the violation was intentional and he considers that the Athlete had not mentioned the use of the substance on the Doping Control Form, nor had he applied for a TUE.

Therefore the TJD-AD decides on 22 February 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 23 January 2018.

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.

In April 2018 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO). After notification the Athlete admitted the violation, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by ABCD.

Hereafter the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) established that the Athlete had breached the accepted provisional suspension through his participation into a competition on 6 May 2018.

The Rapporteur 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.

In view of the evidence the Rapporteur concludes that the Athlete during the accepted provisional suspension had participated in a competition of a non-signatory organisation. As a result the Athlete violated the terms of the Acceptance of Consequences he had signed, whereas the agreement between the cyclist and ABCD had not been approved yet by the TJD-AD. Further the Rapporteur considers that there had been delays in the proceeding not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 25 February 2019 to impose a 90 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete for the 2 violations, starting backdated on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 26 November 2017.

In August 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 Metandienone.

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 (TJD-AD). His request to lift the provisional suspension was dismissed.

The Rapporteur 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 Rapporteur deems that there were no grounds for a reduced sanction and considers that there had been substantial delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the TJD-AD Decides on 28 February 2019 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.

In July 2018 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the mountain bike rider after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis in a concentration above the WADA threshold.

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

The Athlete admitted the violation, denied the intentional use of the substance and requested for a reduced sanction.

The TJD-AD Rapporteur 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 Rapporteur concludes that the violation was not intentional and regards that the Athlete is an is an amateur rider who had not received anti-doping education. Further he considers the Athlete's degree of negligence and that there had been delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the TJD-AD Decides on 12 March 2019 to impose an 18 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 24 June 2018.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2018-102 Disciplinary Decision - Football
October 30, 2018

On 30 October 2018 the TJD-AD Panel decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine. In first instance the Panel accepted that the violation was not intentional and deemed that the Athlete acted negligently.

Herafter the Athlete appealed the Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal and requested for a more reduced sanction. Conversely ABCD contended that the imposed sanction of 2 years was justified considering the Athlete's degree of negligence.

The Athlete argued that the Cocaine was used recreationally 2 days before the Doping Control and he asserted that he acted with a low degree of negligence. He had not received any anti-doping education and prior he didn't know that he was selected to play in a match.

Following assessment of the case the Rapporteur agrees that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and that he acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 26 April 2019 that the Athlete's appeal is admissible and to impose an 18 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 25 April 2018.