Related case:

TJD-AD 2019-065 Disciplinary Decision - Gymnastics
December 17, 2019

On 17 December 2019 the TJD-AD Panel decides by majority to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide.

In first instance the Panel deemed that there were inconsistencies in the Athlete's statements about the use of the substance and the concentration found in her sample.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal and requested for a reduced sanction. She argued that she was a minor, gave a prompt admission and had demonstrated how and when the substance had entered her system.

In view of the evidence the Rapporteur concludes that the Athlete's violation was not intentional despite that she was an experienced Athlete as a minor and had acted with a medium degree of negligence.

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 7 June 2019.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-016 Disciplinary Decision - Football
March 5, 2020

On 11 February 2020 the TJD-AD Panel decides to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the football player after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Isometheptene. In first instance the Panel accepted that the violation was not intentional, that the substance was used as medication and mentioned on the Doping Control Form.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal and requested for acquital. The Athlete argued that the violation was not intentional, that he acted with a low degree of negligence and that he had cooperated with the investigation.

Following assessment of the case the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 31 March 2020 by majority to dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to uphold the Appealed Decision of 5 March 2020.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-019 Disciplinary Decision - Cycling
March 17, 2022

On 11 February 2020 the TJD-AD Panel decided to impose an 18 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide.

In first instance the Panel concluded that the Athlete acted with a high degree of negligence. He failed to provide details about his supplier and use of his supplements. Also the presence of the contamination in question was detected only in an unsealed open supplement container.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal and requested to annul the Appealed Decision. He alleged that contamination had caused the positive test result and that analysis in the Rio Lab had established this contamination in the supplement in question.

After assessment of the case the Rapporteur finds that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that there was supplement contamination, nor that he acted with a low degree of negligence, nor grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the TJD-Appeal Panel decides on 12 May 2020 by majority to dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to uphold the Appeal Decision.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-003 Disciplinary Decision - Sailing
March 17, 2020

On 17 March 2020 the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) decided to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Tamoxifen.

Here the TJD-AD Panel accepted that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete underwent legitimate medical treatment for his condition with prescribed medication.

Hereafter the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) appealed the Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Panel and requested for a more severe sanction.

ABCD contended that the Athlete had acted with a higher degree of negligence since he failed to apply in advance for a TUE. As an experienced Athlete, submitted frequently for Doping Control, he had to be aware to apply timely for a TUE.

The TJD-AD Appeal Panel agrees that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and that the Athlete had to use prescribed medication for his condition whereas a valid TUE was required.

In view of the circumstances the Appeal Panel deems that the Athlete had acted with a higher degree of negligence. Furthermore the Panel considers that prior World Sailing had granted a retroactive TUE and that there had been substantial delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete. 

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 12 May 2020 by majority to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. 15 August 2019.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-020 Disciplinary Decision - Cycling
February 11, 2020

On 11 February 2020 the TJD-AD Panel decided to impose a 36 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete after she tested positive for the prohibited substance Gestrinone.

In first instance the Panel accepted that the Athlete's prescribed Gestrinone chip was used in a context unrelated to sport performance despite she acted with a high degree of negligence.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal and request for acquittal or for a further reduced sanction.

She argued that she only acted and competed as an amateur cyclist and that the substance was used in the prescribed implanted Gestrinone contraceptive chip in order to control her menstruation.

The Rapporteur dismissed the Athlete's assertion that she is an amateur cyclist because there is sufficient evidence that she participated as an national level Athlete and as a member of a professional cycling team whereas she also had received anti-doping information..

The Rapporteur agrees that the prescribed implanted Gestrinone contraceptive chip was used in a context unrelated to sport performance. Due to the Gestrinone chip also has an anabolic effect to gain muscle mass the Athlete failed to mention the use of the substance on the Doping Control Form, nor made an application for a TUE.

Finally the Rapporteur deems that the Athlete had acted with a high degree of negligence and that there are no grounds for a further reduction of the sanction.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 12 May 2020 to dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to uphold the Appealed Decision for the imposition of a 36 month period of ineligibility.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-004 Disciplinary Decision - Football
May 7, 2020

Previously in 2019 the TJD-AD Tribunal imposed a 2 year period of ineligibility on the football player for the use of Cocaine.

Thereupon in January 2020 the football player requested the TJD-AD Tribunal for a revision of his case because the new WADA Code, coming into force in January 2021, introduced stipulations for substances of abuse and reduced sanctions.

Following the request for revision the TJD-AD decided on 7 May 2020 to allow the Athlete to return to training in November 2020 based on the principle of lex mitior and pending the new 2021 WADA Code.

Hereafter the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) appealed this Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Panel. ABCD requested to set aside the Revision and to uphold the sanction of 2 years.

ABCD contended that the TJD-AD Disciplinary Panel had no competence. Instead under the applicable Rules the Athlete had to address his request for revision to ABCD. Also in this matter the principle of lex mitior is not applicable because a retroactive reduction of the Athlete's sanction is not allowed.

The TJD-AD Appeal Panel establishes that it has competence to settle this case and that the ABCD Appeal is admissible. The Panel agrees that under the applicable Rules there are no grounds for a reduction of the Athlete's sanction.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 24 June 2020 to set aside the Appealed Decision for revision and to uphold the imposed sanction of 2 year.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-010 Disciplinary Decision - Canoe
April 28, 2020

On 28 April 2020 the TJD-AD Panel decided for the acquittal of the President of the Brazilian Canoe Confederation (CBCa) regarding Complicity. In this matter the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) had established that a Kayak Athlete had breached the imposed provisional suspension with involvement of the CBCa.

Although the CBCa President's complicity was not intentional the TJD-AD deemed that he failed to apply properly the anti-doping rules and had acted with disregard, disrespect and incompetence.

Hereafter in May 2020 the Prosecution appealed the Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal. It requested to set aside the Appealed Decison and to sanction the CBCa President for his complicity.

After assessment of the evidence and circumstances in this case the TJD-Appeal Panel deems that there are no grounds to conclude that the CBCa President was involved in intentional complicity regarding the Athlete's breach of the provisional suspension.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 24 June 2020 to dismiss the appeal and to uphold the Appealed Decision of 28 April 2020.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-007 Disciplinary Decision - Football
May 7, 2020

On 7 May 2020 the TJD-AD Panel decided to impose only a warning on the football player after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Enobosarm (Ostarine) due to a prescribed contamined supplement he had used.

Hereafter het Prosecution appealed the Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal and requested for a more severe sanction.

The Prosecutor contended that the Athlete had acted with a higher degree of Negligence because he didn't mention his supplements on the Doping Control Form. Further he disputed the doping incidents that occurred within the Athlete's football club where prescriptions were issued for supplements as for prohibited substances.

In view of the evidence the Rapporteur confirmes the conclusion of the TJD-AD Panel in first instance that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and that he acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence. The source of the prohibited substance was a contaminated supplement compounded in a pharmacy.

The Rapporteur agrees that an investigation is needed into the football club's Athlete Support Team where besides prescriptions for supplements also prohibited substances were prescriped.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 24 June 2020 to dismiss the Appeal and to uphold the Appealed Decision of 7 may 2020 for the imposition of a warning on the Athlete without a period of ineligibility. Further the Appeal Panel ordered an investigation into the conduct of the Athlete Support Personnel of the football club in question.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-012 Disciplinary Decision - Cycling
July 16, 2020


On 16 July 2020 the TJD-AD Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete after she tested positive for the prohibited substances Canrenone and Oxandrolone.

In first instance the Panel deemed that the Athlete failed to demonstrate how the Oxandrolone had entered her system. She also failed to prove that the violation was not intentional, nor grounds for a reduced sanction.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal and requested for a reduced sanction.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substances and asserted that she only had participated as an amateur cyclist. She explained the use of Canrenone and how the Oxandrolone possibly had entered her system.

ABCD contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate how the substance Oxandrolone had entered her system. It also rejected the Athlete's assertion that she only competed as an amateur cyclist and that she had not received anti-doping education.

Following assessment of the case the Rapporteur agrees with ABCD's contentions and does not accept any of the Athlete's assertions.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 12 August 2020 to dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to uphold the Appealed Decision for the imposition of a sanction of 4 years.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-009-2 Disciplinary Decision - Athletics
June 25, 2020

On 25 June 2020 the TJD-AD Panel decided to impose a 46 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO).

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal. Again the Athlete asserted that there had been irregularities during the sample collection and within the chain of custody while he had received protein injections from his nutritionist.

The Rapporteur assessed the Athlete's arguments and concludes that there are no grounds to annul the Appealed Decision. The Rapporteur deems that the Athlete had acted with a high degree of negligence and failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional. 

The Rapporteur determines that in this case there were no departures of the ISTI or ISL; the Athlete failed to apply for a TUE; nor had mentioned the injections or his supplements on the Doping Control Form.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 12 August 2020 to dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to uphold the imposed sanction of 46 months, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 10 September 2019.