On 16 May 2018 the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal decided by majority to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Pentathlon Athlete after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances GW501516 and Oxandrolone.

Hereafter the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) appealed this Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Panel and requested for a sanction of 4 years.

The Athlete provided an explanation for the presence of Oxandrolone as a result of the mix up of her father's prescribed Oxandrolone capsules with her supplement capsules. Nevertheless the Athlete could not explain the presence of GW501516 because her supplements were not analysed for contaminations. ABCD deemded that due to inconsistencies in her conduct she failed to establish the violation was not intentional.

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

Considering the circumstances in this case the Rapporteur deems that she could not demonstrate with corroborating evidence that contamination had cause the positive test result.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 15 December 2019.

In March 2019 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the powerlifter after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol.

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 denied the intentional use of the substance, neither that he acted with Fault or Negligence.

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

The Rapporteur deems that the Athlete failed to demonstrate with any evidence that the violation was not intentional, nor grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the TJD-AD decides on 11 October 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 28 March 2019.

Related cases:

• TJD-AD 2020-005 Disciplinary Decision - Swimming
  February 19, 2020
• TJD-AD 2020-021 Appeal Decision - Swimming
  March 31, 2020

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

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

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and asserted that her out-of-competition use of a contaminated product had caused the positive test. The Athlete argued that she was tested before without issues and that this product was recommended by a nutritionist affiliated to the Brazilian Olympic Committee.

Further she requested to lift the provisional suspension as she already had served 88 days of the suspension. In this matter it was necessary that she could participate in the FINA Championship in South Korea in December 2019 and in the 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games as part of the Brazillian team.

The Rapporteur accepts the Athlete's assertions and considers that the product was used in a context unrelated to sport performance, nor for weight loss, nor to mask other prohibited substances.

Therefore the TJD-AD decides on 11 October 2019 to lift the Athlete's voluntary provisional suspension immediately.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2018-090 Disciplinary Decision - Football
September 26, 2018

On 26 September 2018 the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the football player after he tested positive for the prohibited substances Furosemide and Sibutramine.

Hereafter the football player was granted several extentions of the deadline to appeal in order to produce new evidence in his defence. Yet after months the TJD-AD Appeal Panel establishes that the Athlete had failed to file any new appeal nor had he presented any new evidence in his defence.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 26 September 2019 not the consider the Athlete's appeal and to uphold the TJD-AD Decision of 26 September 2018 for the imposition of a 4 year period of ineligibility, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 13 March 2017.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2018-137 Disciplinary Decision - Handball
December 11, 2018

On 13 June 2019 the TJD-AD Panel decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Clenbuterol.

Hereafter the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) appealed the Decision with the TJD-AD Apppeal Tribunal and requested for a sanction of 4 years.

ABCD contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor how the substance had entered his system. It argued that the Athlete did not produce any corroborating evidence on how and when he had ingested contaminated meat in June 2018 in countries where food contaminations have been established such as China and Mexico.

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

The Appeal Panel agrees that there is no corroborating evidence that shows that the positive test was caused by food contamination. However the Panel deems that the established low concentration Clenbuterol in the Athlete's sample is more consistent with an unintentional violation.

Therefore The TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 26 September 2019 by majority to dismiss the ABCD Appeal and to uphold the sanction of 2 years imposed on the Athlete.

In May 2018 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the canoeist after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Oxandrolone. In addition ABCD reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete's sports doctor for the administration of the prohibited substance.

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 had used several supplements, purchased abroad and from a compounding pharmacy in Brazil. He claimed that one of these supplements was contaminated.

The Panel deems that there were several inconsistencies in the Athlete's evidence and statements and it had also received information that the Athlete had participated in a competition during the ordered provisional suspension.

The Panel establishes that on behalf of the Athlete the compounding pharmacy had received 7 orders for perscribed Oxandrolone between January and May 2017. The alleged contaminated supplement the Athlete had send for analysis was compounded in May 2017 whereas the Athlete was tested months later in March 2018.

For this supplement in question the Athlete had produced a prescription without a date whereas his doctor refused to cooperate with the investigation. On the other hand for this supplement the compounding pharmacy produced a prescription from the sports doctor for the use of Oxandrolone and Testosterone.

The Panel considers the Athlete's conduct and notes that he  was tested before, had received anti-doping education and was aware that Oxandrolone was prescribed. Yet he claimed to be unaware of the anti-doping rules, had used carelessly several supplements and he failed to mention these on the doping control form.

Therefore the TJD-AD decides on 2 August 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete and his doctor. The sanction shall start on the date of this decision because of the Athlete's breach of his provisional suspension.

In April 2019 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 Metandienone, Methasterone and Trenbolone.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. Initially the Athlete failed to respond to the ABCD communications and only later he produced a statement in his defence. He claimed his ignorance of the anti-doping rules, he had not received anti-doping education from ABCD, nor had he participated in any competition of his Confederation.

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

Based on the evidence in this case the Panel dismisses the Athlete's assertions and finds that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional. The Panel deems that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction nor grounds to start the sanction on the date of the provisional suspension.

Therefore the TJD-AD decides on 9 August 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-057 Appeal Decision - Football
January 15, 2020

In June 2019 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Isometheptene.

After notification no provisional suspension was ordered. In this matter ABCD regarded that the widely used pain killer Neosaldine was used. This product contained Isometheptene, yet it did not mention this substance on the label. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Rapporteur 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.

The Rapporteur accepts that the violation was not intentional and the result of the use of a pain killer Neosaldine wheras the Athlete only later during the proceedings provided an explanation on how the substance had entered her system.

In view of previous cases, involving Isometheptene and Neosaldina, the Rapporteur considers that reduced sanctions were imposed due to No Significant Faul or Negligence.

Therefore the TJD-AD decides on 18 October 2019 by majority to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

In February 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 Fenoterol.

ABCD contended that the Athlete had committed a second anti-doping rule violation because the violation was committed after the Athlete had been notified that he had committed a first anti-doping rule violation.

In both proceedings the Athlete admitted the violation and demonstrated with evidence that the substance had been used as medication for his asthma which was mentioned on the Doping Control Form.

The Athlete asserted that ABCD's notification of his first anti-doping rule violation occurred on the same day he provided the second sample during his preparation for the match. Based on ne bis in idem and lis pendens the Athlete argued that he can't be prosecuted for one and the same anti-doping rule violation for which the TJD-AD already had imposed a sanction and appealed.

In view of the evidence the Rapporteur finds that ABCD has not proven that the Athlete was duly notified of his first anti-doping rule violation on the day of the second sample collection. The Rapporteur accepts that the two reported anti-doping rule violations must be considered as one single violation and that lis pendens had been established. Further the Rapporteur finds that the Athlete had not acted intentionally due to his Asthma, yet had failed prior to apply for a TUE.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 16 October 2019 that the Athlete had not committed a second anti-doping rule violation due the principle of lis pendens.

On 21 February 2019 the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the triathlon Athlete for his evasion or failure to submit to sample collection during a Doping Control at a competition in March 2018.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the TJD-AD Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal.

In view of the Athlete's defence the Rapporteur does not accept the Athlete's assertion that he only acted as an amateur Athlete because he is well educated and had participated frequently and professionally in triathlon competitions at national level and abroad.

Further the Rapporteur finds that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction as the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional. He was duly notified about the Doping Control and aware of the consequences he left the location without a plausible explanation.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal decides on 24 October 2019 to uphold the Appealed Decision for the imposition of a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the violation, i.e. on 4 March 2018.