In July 2020 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 substances Prednisolone and Prednisone. ABCD also charged the Athlete's doctors for complicity regarding these prohibited substances.

After notification the accused 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 explained that she had used prescribed medication for her injury and that she had mentioned this medication on the Doping Control Form.

The Athlete acknowledged that at the time when she was tested she very late became aware that she needed a TUE for her medication. Thereupon her TUE application was denied in September 2019 and again in May 2020. Later the South American Football Confederation (CONMEBOL) her application for a TUE.

The Athlete's medical specialist testified that the Athlete had a serious injury and that the prescribed medication was necessary as treatment. He asserted that the TJD-AD had no competence in his case because as a medical specialist he was not affiliated to any sports club.

The Athlete's sports doctor denied the violation and stated that the Athlete's medication was prescribed by her medical specialist. He assisted in the TUE application and had not recommended that the Athlete could participate in competitions.

The Rapporteur determines that at the material time the Athlete had not a valid TUE and only made an application following Doping Control. The Rapporteur accepts that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and considers that she mentioned her medication on the Doping Control Form.

Further the Rapporteur considers that ultimately CONMEBOL granted the Athlete's TUE application and that there had been substantial delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

The Rapporteur establishes that the TJD-AD has competence regarding medical doctors involved in the treatment of Athletes whether they are affiliated to sport or not. The Rapporteur concludes that in this case there is no evidence that the doctors acted intentionally.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 19 November 2020:

• to impose a 14 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 29 September 2019; and
• to dismiss the charges and to acquit the doctors.

In August 2019 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the basketball player after his sample tested positive for multiple prohibited substances: Anastrozole, Oxandrolone and Stanozolol.

The Athlete was tested out-of-competition in July 2019 and he acknowledged to the Doping Control Officer that he had used Cannabis and cycles of steroids. He declined to mention these substances on the Doping Control Form.

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

The Rapporteur finds that multiple prohibited substances had been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation. In view of the evidence the Rapporteur concludes that the Athlete clearly intentionally had used these prohibited substances.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 17 December 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension.

In Oktober 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 Androsterone, Etiocholanolone and Testosterone.

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 denied that the violation was intentional and explained with medical evidence that she underwent prescriped treatment for her low Testosterone. Yet, she did not explain the presence of the other prohibited substances.

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

The Rapporteur deems that the Athlete explained the use of Testosterone whereas she failed to apply for a TUE. The Athlete also failed to demonstrate how the other prohibited substances had entered her system, nor that the violation was not intentional.

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

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 sample collection, i.e. on 28 July 2019.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-025 Appeal Decision - Football
April 9, 2020

In July 2019 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Isometheptene.

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 Rapporeur accepts that the violation was not intentional wheras the Athlete had used the substance as medication for his headache en mentioned this on the Doping Control Form.

It remained unclear whether the medication was prescribed by a physician or used as self-medication. Further the Rapporteur considers that there had been delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 11 February 2020 to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 23 June 2019.

Related cases:

• TJD-AD 2021-019 Disciplinary Decision - Cycling
  December 19, 2021
• TJD-AD 2022-007 Appeal Decision - Cycling
  May 11, 2022
  
  

The Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist after her sample - provided in July 2019 - tested positive for the prohibited substances Chlorothiazide, Hydrochlorothiazide and Stanozolol.

Further ABCD reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete's doctor for the prescription and administration of the prohibited substances.

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 asserted that she only recently had started cycling and had not received anti-doping education. The substances were prescribed by her doctor whereas she used diuretics for many years because of her medical condition.

The doctor acknowledged the prescription and administration of the prohibited substances. He testified that only following the positive test the patient told the doctor that she is an Athlete submitted to doping control.

The Rapporteur finds 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.

The Rapporteurs questions the Athlete's explanation and deems that the Athlete failed to apply for a TUE, nor mentioned her medication on the Doping Control Form.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 11 February 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension. Also the TJD-AD Panel decides for the acquital of the Athlete's doctor.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-026 Appeal Decision - Cycling
April 9, 2020

The Brazilian Doping Control Authority has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide. 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 stated that he was unaware that he had ingested a prohibited substance and claimed that a contaminated supplement was the source of the positive test. Analysis of one supplement in question by the Rio Lab revealed the presence of a contamination.

The Rapporteur established that the Athlete is extremely experienced, yet acted with a high degree of negligence regarding the 11 supplements he had purchased and ingested  without any reasearch.

Furthermore the Athlete failed to provide details about his supplier and use of his supplements. Also the presence of the contamination was detected in an open container of the supplement in question.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 11 February 2020 by majority to impose an 18 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. 20 July 2019.

Related cases:

• TJD-AD 2021-019 Disciplinary Decision - Football
  September 23, 2021
• TJD-AD 2021-023 Disciplinary Decision - Football
  December 2, 2021
• TJD-AD 2022-001 Appeal Decision - Football
  March 10, 2022

Previously an 8 month period of ineligibility was imposed on the football player after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Triamcinolone acetonide. Investigations conducted by the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) showed that there were inconsistencies and contradictions in the statements provided by the Athlete and his doctors. They had willingly produced falsified medical information to explain the use of the prohibited substance as treatment for the Athlete’s knee injury. 

Consequently an anti-doping rule violation was reported against the Doctor for conspiracy whereas already a sanction of 36 months was imposed on two other doctors for their involvement. ABCD had received from the Athlete audio recordings which showed that the Doctor clearly discussed the details for the falsification of medical documents in order to disguise the real facts.

In view of the evidence the TJD-AD Rapporteur contended that the Doctor deliberately had attempted to mislead ABCD with falsified medical evidence.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 3 September 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Doctor, starting on the date the falsifications were produced, i.e. on 4 December 2017.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-028 Appeal Decision - Cycling
May 12, 2020

The Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Gestrinone.

The Athlete denied the intentional use and asserted that she acted and competed only as an amateur Athlete. She explained that since 2018 she use a prescribed implanted Gestrinone contraceptive chip in order to control her menstruation.

ABCD contended that the Athlete was a national level Athlete and failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional. She didn't mention the use of the substance on the Doping Control Form, neither did she apply for a TUE.

Furthermore ABCD argued that the Gestrinone chip has an anabolic effect to gain muscle mass and it imporved sport performance.

The Rapporteur concludes that the prescribed Gestrinone chip was used in a context unrelated to sport performance. Nevertheless he deemed that as an experienced Athlete she had acted with a high degree of negligence with grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 11 February 2020 to impose a 36 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the hearing.

Related cases:

• TJD-AD 2019-024 Disciplinary Decision - Swimming
  October 11, 2019
• TJD-AD 2020-005 Disciplinary Decision - Swimming
  February 19, 2020

On 19 February 2020 the TJD-AD Panel decided to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete after she testes positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide.

In first instance the Panel deemed that the Athlete was unable to demonstrate with sufficent corroborating evidence that the source of the substance was a contaminated supplement. Nevertheless the Panel was willing to accept that the violation was not intentional.

Prior the TJD-AD Panel on 11 October 2019 had granted the Athlete's request to lift the provisional suspension in order to compete in major international sports events.

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

ABCD requested for a more severe sanction and contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate how the substance had entered her system while she had acted with a high degree of negligence. By contrast the Athlete requested for a more reduced sanction and asserted that she had acted with a low degree of negligence.

Following assessment of the case the Rapporteur deems that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete had acted with a medium degree of negligence.

Therefore the TJD-Appeal Panel decides on 31 March 2020 the dismiss the appeals filed by ABCD and the Athlete and to uphold the Appealed Decision for the imposition of a 12 month period of ineligibility.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2019-047 Disciplinary Decision - Football
October 17, 2019

On 17 October 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 Cocaine. In first instance the Panel deemed that the violation was not intentional although the Athlete had acted negligently.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal and requested for a reduced sanction of 3 months invoking the principle of lex mitior.

Following assessment of the case the Rapporteur accepts that the violation was not intentional and occurred in a context unrelated to sport performance. The Rapporteur considers that the Athlete continued to receive psychological treatment for his depression and deems that there are grounds for a further reduction of the sanction.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 31 March 2020 by majority to impose a reduced 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 16 March 2019.