TJD-AD 2020-006 Disciplinary Decision - Powerlifting

11 Feb 2020

In May 2019 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the powerlifter after his sample tested positive for multiple prohibited substances: Androsterone, Drostanolone, Etiocholanolone, Metandienone, Stanozolol, Testosterone and its Adiols.

After notification the Athlete only submitted an admission to the ABCD. Hereafter he didn't respond to the communications, nor filed a statement in his defence, nor attended the hearing of the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

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

In his submission the Athlete only admitted the violation and failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional. Furthermore the Rapporteur determines that there had been substantial delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

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

TJD-AD 2020-007 Disciplinary Decision - Athletics

17 Dec 2020

Related case:

TJD-AD 2021-003 Appeal Decision - Athletics
April 13, 2021


In December 2020 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Enobosarm (Ostarine) in a low concentration.

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

The Athlete explained with evidence that she had used supplement pills from a compounding pharmacy and she assumed that this supplement was the source of the prohibited substance.

The ABCD openend an investigation and analysis of the Athlete’s supplement pills in the Rio Lab revealed the presence of Ostarine as contamination including traces of the substances Canrenone and Spironolactone.

Futher the compounding pharmacy in question confirmed that on the same day that the Athlete's pills were compounded the substance Ostarine was compounded for another customer. 

In view of the evidence the TJD-AD Rapporteur accepts that the Athlete’s anti-doping rule violation was not intentional and the result of the use of a contaminated supplement.

The Rapporteur regards that a low concentration Ostarine had been established in the Athlete’s samples, consistent with the contaminations found in the supplement pills. Further the Rapporteur considers that the Athlete acted with a light degree of Fault that justifies the imposition of a reduced sanction. 

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 17 December 2020 to impose a 4 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 23 December 2020.

Finally the TJD-AD decides to request the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (Anvisa) in a complaint to impose measures against the compounding pharmacy in question because of the contaminations that had been established in supplements for athletes.

TJD-AD 2020-007 Disciplinary Decision - Cycling

21 Feb 2020

In September 2019 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Heptaminol and Octodrine.

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 could not explain how the prohibited substances had entered his system. He believed that in one supplement the ingredient Metylhexane had metabolized into Octodrine. However the Rio de Janeiro Lab dismissed this possibility.

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

The Rapporteur accepts that the violation was not intentional although the Athlete was unable to demonstrate how the substance had entered his system.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 11 February 2020 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 25 November 2019.

TJD-AD 2020-007 Disciplinary Decision - Football

7 May 2020

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-032 Appeal Decision - Football
July 15, 2020

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 subsance Enobosarm (Ostarine) in a low concentration.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Rapporteur establishes that the Athlete had demonstrated with corroborating evidence that the prescribed supplement he had used had been contaminated with the substance Ostarine compounded in a pharmacy. Further the Rio Lab confirmed that he low concentration found in the Athlete's sample was consistent with the concentration of contamination found in the supplement in question.

Accordingly the Rapporteur deems 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 7 May 2020 to impose on the Athlete a warning without a period of ineligibility.

TJD-AD 2020-009 Appeal Decision - Athletics

12 Dec 2019

Related case:

TJD-AD 2019-246 Disciplinary Decision - Athletics
August 26, 2019


On 26 August 2019 the TJD-AD de Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for possesion of the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO).

Hereafter in September 2019 the Athlete appealed the Decision and requested for acquital. Despite the Athlete previously had admitted the violation he alleged that there was no evidence that he had puchased the prohibited substance.

However in view of the evidence the Rapporteur determines that the Athlete possessed the prohibited substance EPO and accordingly had committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 12 December 2019 to dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to uphold the imposed sanction of 4 years, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 30 April 2019.

TJD-AD 2020-009 Disciplinary Decision - Athletics

25 Jun 2020

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-036 Appeal Decision - Athletics
August 12, 2020


The Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample - collected in September 2019 - tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (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 (TJD-AD).

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and stated that his nutritionist had administered protein injections. Further he asserted that during the sample collection and the chain of custody several irregularities occurred as departures of the ISTI and ISL.

In view of the evidence 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 holds that the Athlete failed to demonstrate with corroborating evidence that there had been departures of the ISTI or ISL that could invalidate the test result. He failed to apply for a TUE, nor had mentioned the injections on the Doping Control Form, nor his supplements. 

Furthermore the B-sample was not analysed because the Athlete repeatedly failed to make payments within the set deadlines. Also there were no grounds to conduct DNA-analysis, neither grounds for ordering ABCD to conduct analysis of the B-sample.

Following assessment of the Athlete's conduct the Rapporteur finds that the Athlete had acted with a high degree of negligence and failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional. Finally the Rapporteur considers that there had been delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 25 June 2020 by marjority to impose a 46 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 10 September 2019.

TJD-AD 2020-010 Disciplinary Decision - Canoeing

28 Apr 2020

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-031 Appeal Decision - Canoe
June 4, 2020

On 2 August 2019 the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Kayak Athlete after he tested positive for a prohibited substance.

Previously in June 2019 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) also had reported that the Athlete had participated as a coach and as an athlete of the Kayak Team of the Brazilian Canoe Confederation (CBCa) during the Provisional Suspension.

ABCD reported that the Athlete was caught 3 times in competition; there were postings on social media showing the Athlete in competition; and the Athlete apparently received support from the CBCa lawyer.

Consequently an anti-doping rule violation was ordered by ABCD against the CBCa President for complicity. The President denied the charge while he acknowledge that in May 2018 he and the Manager of the technical department had been informed about the Athlete's Provisional Suspension.

The CBCa President testified that he was unaware that the Athlete had received permission from the CBCa. The Manager in question confirmed that he granted permission to the Athlete to participate into the competitions during the Provisional Suspension. However the Athlete was never authorised to operate as a coach, only as staff member of the Kayak Team and his registration was changed accordingly.

The Athlete confirmed that he was present at the competitions and he denied that he had breached the provisional suspension. In accordance with his instructions from the CBCa he did not operate there as a coach, nor did he participate into the matches. He asserted that he only had assisted the athletes during these competitions.

In view of the evidence in this case the Rapporteur determines that the Athlete indeed clearly had breached the Provisional Suspension whereas the CBCa was involved into this breach.

Although there were several inconsistencies in the evidence and testimonies in this case the Rapporteur finds that the CBCa President was not intentionally involved in the breach of the Athlete's Provisional Suspension. Nevertheless the Rapporteur deems that the CBCa President had failed to apply properly the anti-doping rules and acted with disregard, disrespect and incompetence.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 28 April 2020 for the acquittal of the President regarding the Complicity violation.

TJD-AD 2020-010 Disciplinary Decision - Volleyball

25 Jun 2020

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

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. Eventually the Athlete responded in July 2019 and filed a statement in his defence in November 2019.

The Parathlete denied the intentional use and requested for a reduced sanction. He explained with medical information that the substance was prescribed and used for one of the medical conditions he suffered.

He admitted his negligence and was unaware that he had to list any and all the medication he used whereas he already had mentioned a large number of medications on the Control Form.

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

The Rapporteur accepts that the violation was not intentional and that the substance was used for a legitimate medical treatment. Further the Rapporteur considers that there are mitigating circumstances in this case.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 25 June 2020 to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Parathlete. The sanction starts on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 5 July 2019, which the Athlete has already served.

TJD-AD 2020-011 Disciplinary Decision - Cycling

18 Aug 2020

In December 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 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 denied the intentional use of the substance. He stated that he had used an injectable vitamin supplement en assumed that EPO was administered by mistake.

The Rapporteur finds that there are inconsistencies in the Athlete's explanation and that he failed to produce corroborating evidence in his defence whereas he also failed to mention his injectable vitamin supplement on the Doping Control From.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 18 August 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 19 December 2018.

TJD-AD 2020-012 Disciplinary Decision - Cycling

16 Jul 2020

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-034 Appeal Decision - Cycling
August 12, 2020

In August 2019 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Canrenone and Oxandrolone.

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

The Athlete admitted the occasionally use of the medication Spironolactone (Canrenone) and requested for a reduced sanction. She denied the intentional use of Oxandrolone and assumed that the supplements and drinks she had used during the competitions were possibly contaminated.

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

The Rapporteur deems that the Athlete failed to demonstrate how the Oxandrolone had entered her system. Furthermore she failed to prove that the violation was not intentional, nor grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 16 July 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 29 August 2019.

Category
  • Legal Source
  • Education
  • Science
  • Statistics
  • History
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Legal Terms
  • Sport/IFs
  • Other organisations
  • Laboratories
  • Analytical aspects
  • Doping classes
  • Substances
  • Medical terms
  • Various
  • Version
  • Document category
  • Document type
Publication period
Origin