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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In April 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 substance Cocaine.

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. becaus the Cocaine was used recreational. The Rapporteur accepts that the violation was not intentional although he tested positive in-competition for use of Cocaine and acted negligently as an experienced Athlete.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 19 November 2020 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 11 April 2019.

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.