In July 2019 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the blind Parathlete after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 5-Methylhexan-2-amine (1,4-dimethylpentylamine).

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

Following a preliminary investigation ABCD also reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete's Guide for the administration of a prohibited substance to the Parathlete. After notification the Guide failed to cooperate, nor responded to the communications, nor attended the TJD-AD hearing.

The Parathlete accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the substance. She argued that she was tested before without issues and requested for a reduced sanction.

Because of her blindness the Parathlete needed the assistance of her Guide regarding the supplements she used. She stated that the source of the positive test was a supplement Mr. Veinz provided by her Guide whereas she was unaware that it contained a prohibited substance.

Undisputed is that available on the market there were two versions of the supplement Mr. Veinz . One version containing the prohibited substance was purchased by the Guide and issued to the Parathlete.

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.

Further the Rapporteur finds that there is no evidence that the Athlete acted intentionally. Yet, he deemed that she rather acted negligently in borrowing a supplement belonging to her Guide.

The Rapporteur holds that the Guide failed to respond, nor cooperated in this case and accordingly deemed that he failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional.

In a dissenting opinion one Arbitrator in the Panel finds that the Parathlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional due to the many inconsistencies in her statements.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 29 June 2020 by majority to impose a 20 month period of ineligibility on the Parathlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e on 7 August 2019.

Furthermore the TJD-AD Panel decides to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Guide for the administration of a prohibited substance, starting on the date of the Decision.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2021-001 Disciplinary Decision - Football
January 29, 2021

The Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player after his A and B samples, collected in September 2019, tested positive for the prohibited substances Chlorothiazide, Furosemide and Hydrochlorothiazide. 

The Athlete admitted the violation and assumed that the supplement Natural Detox he had used was contaminated. Analysis of this supplement confirmed the presence of Hydrochlorothiazide as contaminant. 

Thereupon in March 2020 the Athlete and ABCD reached an agreement for an accepted of sanction of 10 months. Hereafter this agreement of acceptance of consequences was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) for approval into a decision of the TJD-AD. 

The TJD-AD Rapporteur determines that the Athlete’s use of the contaminated supplement explained the presence of the substance Hydrochlorothiazide in his A and B samples.

However the Rapporteur holds that the source of the substance Furosemide remained unexplained while the Athlete only had admitted the use of the supplement Natural Detox. In view of these findings the Rapporteur deems to reject the ratification of the agreement. 

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 13 May 2020 to reject the ratification of the agreement of acceptance of consequences proposed by the ABCD and that the TJD-AD shall settle te case.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-027 Appeal Decision - Sailing
May 22, 2020

In September 2019 the sailing Athlete tested positive for the prohibited substance Tamoxifen. Previously World Sailing had granted a retroactive TUE which was revoked in October 2019 and thereupon by WADA in January 2020.

Hereafter World Sailing referred the case to the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD). The Athlete accepted a provisional suspension in January 2020 and filed a statement in his defence and the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD)

The Athlete explained with corroborating evidence that he suffered from a bilateral gynecomastia and that he had used prescribed Tamoxifen medication as non-surgical treatment.

He was unaware that in advance he had to apply for a TUE becasue he had used the medication in June 2019, 40 days before the start of the competition, whereas he only had to mention on the Doping Control Form the medication he had used the last 7 days.

The TJD-AD Panel accepts that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete underwent legitimate medical treatment for his condition with prescribed medication. Further the Panel agrees that he was only required to mention on the Doping Control Form his medication he had used the last 7 days.

In view of the circumstances the Panel considers that the Athlete had acted with a low degree of negligence because he failed to apply in advance for a TUE. Also the Panel considers that there had been substantial delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete due to the revoked TUE applications.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 17 March 2020 to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 15 August 2019, which the Athlete had already served.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-030 Appeal Decision - Football
June 24, 2020

Previously in 2019 the TJD-AD Tribunal imposed a 2 year period of ineligibility on the football player after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine. Hereafter in January 2020 the football player requested the TJD-AD Tribunal for a revision of his case.

The Athlete invoked the principle of lex mitior to reduce his sanction for his use of Cocaine in view of the upcoming 2021 WADA Code which stipulates reduced sanctions for substances of abuse.

Pending the application of lex mitior the Athlete requested to return to training from November 2020 and to return to competitions from the date the new 2021 WADA Code comes into force in January 2021.

The TJD-AD Panel finds that the Athlete's request for revision is admissible. The Panel establishes that the principle of lex mitior is applicable and holds that the Athlete is allowed to return to training.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 7 May 2020 to grant the Athlete's request to return to training from November 2020 in view of the new WADA Code, coming into force in January 2021.

In December 2018 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-nortestosterone, 19-noretiocholanolone (Nandrolone), Androsterone, Etiocholanolone, Testosterone and its adiols.

Also ABCD reported that the Athlete had attemped to tamper with any part of the Doping Control. The Control Officers reported that the Athlete acted suspiciously and had discarded a plastic holder containing a yellowish liquid, apparently urine, in the trash between the Doping Control Station and the venue. ABCD considered both violations as one single violation and did not pursue the charge of tampering against the Athlete.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered whereas the Athlete didn't respond to any of the ABCD communications. Prior on the Doping Control Form the Athlete had mentioned the use of supplements, hormone replacement therapy and a marrow donation.

Following the Athlete's failure to filed a statement in his defence the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Rapporteur establishes that ABCD has jurisdiction and that the Athlete under the Rules anyhow was subjected to submit to sample collection despite he was unregistered as an Athlete with the Brazilian Ju-Jitsu Confederation.

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

Without the Athlete response the Rapporteur deems that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor how the substances had entered his system. There are no mitigation circumstances and there was evidence of attempted tampering with the sample collection.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 13 March 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 27 December 2018.

In November 2019 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the volleyball player after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Isometheptene. Also ABCD reported an anti-doping rule violation against the physical therapist for the administration of a prohibited substance.

After notification the Athlete and the physical therapist filed statements in their defence and the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. She stated that the day before the match during the warming-up she suffered from severe headache. Because she found the doctor not present she ingested a capsule of Sedamed provided by the physical therapist.

The Athlete acknowledged that she didn't check this medication and immediately ingested the capsule. Also she didn't mention the use of this product on the Doping Control Form.

The physical therapist denied that he acted intentionally and confirmed that he only gave the Athlete the capsule for her headache. He was not part of the Athlete Support Personnel, yet hired by the organisation of the competition and not entitled to prescribe medication.

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 violations committed by the Athlete and the physical therapist were not intentional and that they demonstrated how the substance had entered the Athlete's system. In view of the circumstances the Rapporteur concludes that the Athlete achted with No Significant Fault or Negligence and that the physical therapist acted with No Fault or Negligence.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 29 June 2020 to impose a warning, without a period of ineligibility, on the Athlete. Furhter the Panel dismissed the charges against the physical therapist.

Related cases:

• TJD-AD 2019-024 Disciplinary Decision - Swimming
  October 11, 2019
• TJD-AD 2020-021 Appeal Decision - Swimming
  March 31, 2020

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 filed a statement in her defence.

The Athlete claimed that the source of the positive test was a contaminated supplement she had used. In this matter she handed over the supplement in question and a laboratory report stating that this supplement was contaminated.

Thereupon the analysis of this supplement in the Rio Lab did not reveal a prohibited substance. Further the Rio Lab did not accept the findings of the Athlete's laboratory report because this laboratory was not accredited and had used non appoved methods and technology. There was also no evidence that the analysed supplement came from the same batch the Athlete had consumed prior to the sample collection.

The TJD-AD Rapporteur agrees that only the approved testing results of the WADA accredited Rio Lab are acceptable and that there is no evidence that the analysed supplement in question came from the same batch the Athlete prior had used.

However the Rapporteur is willing to accept that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete had acted negligently.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 19 February 2020 to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 19 June 2019.

In March 2020 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Parathlete after he tested positive for the prohibited substance LGD-4033 (ligandrol). Additionally the 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 and the Doctor filed their statements in theire defence and case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD). 

The Athlete gave a prompt admission, accepted a provisional suspension and denied the intentional use of the substance. He stated that he suffered from anemia and that he only had used prescribed medication - such as Ostarine - and supplements as treatment. 

During the Results Management the ABCD considered the statements provided by the Athlete and the Doctor and established that there were several inconsistencies and contradictions in their statements regarding these issues: 

• That the Sports Doctor was aware that the Athlete was participating in competitions;
• That the Athlete requested his Doctor for treatment for improving his sports performance;
• That Ostarine was prescribed to improve the Athlete’s sports performance;
• That Ostarine was prescribed, wheras the Athlete tested positive for Ligandrol.

The TJD-AD 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 Rapporteurs accepts that is customary for compounding pharmacies to label SARM class substances as Ostarine, for other substances such as Ligandrol and Andarine. 

Based on the evidence, and in view of the controversial statements produced by the Athlete and the Doctor, the Rapporteur concludes that the Athlete used the substance intentionally and that he had requested his Doctor treatment for this purpose. Further the Athlete mentioned his supplements on the Doping Control Form, yet failed to mention the prescribed prohibited substance. Although the Athlete gave a prompt admission there are no grounds for a reduced sanction. 

The Rapporteur deems that the Sports Doctor was aware that the Athlete was participating in national and international competitions and that he was willing to prescribe and administer Ostarine / Ligandrol to improve the Athlete’s sport performance. The Rapporteur holds that the Doctor’s administration of doping and attempt for covering up doping justifies the imposition of a more severe sanction. 

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 21 October 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Parathlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 31 January 2020.

The TJD-AD Panel decides by majority to impose a 6 year period of ineligibility on the Sports Doctor starting on 16 October 2020. One of the TJD-AD Arbitrators wanted to impose a 30 year period of ineligibility.

In July 2019 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 substances Chlorothiazide and 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 gave a prompt admission, denied the intentional use and requested for a reduced sanction. He explained with evidence that the substances were used as medication for his hypertension. He mentioned his medication on the Doping Control Form and acknowledged that he failed to apply for a TUE.

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

The Rapporteur determines that the Athlete was duly notified by ABCD and deems that the violation was not intentional. Further the Rapporteur considers that the Athlete gave a prompt admission and that he acted with some degree of negligence.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 21 February 2020 to impose an 8 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 15 June 2019.

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.