In 2017 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against a football player after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Dexamethasone. As a result a sanction of 12 months was imposed on the Athlete.

In this case the masseuse of the Athlete's football team testified at the hearing in March 2018 that he unintentionally had administered Dexamethasone instead of a vitamine B12 injection. Consequently ABCD reported an anti-doping rule violation for Complicity against the masseuse as Athlete Support Personnel.

In view of the evidence in this case the Rapporteur deems that the administration of the substance by the masseuse was not intentional and that he acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence. Further the Rapporteur establishes that there had been delays in the proceedings not attributed to the person.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 17 December 2019 by majority to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Masseuse as Athlete Support Personnel, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 4 March 2020.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-003 Disciplinary Decision - Football
May 18, 2020

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 sanction of 10 months and the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) was requested for ratification of this agreement.

However the TJD-AD Panel deemed that in this case the source of the substance Furosemide remained unexplained whereas the Athlete only had admitted the use of the supplement Natural Detox.

Consequently on 13 May 2020 the TD-AD Panel decided to dismiss the ratification of this agreement. Hereafter the case was referred to the TJD-AD in order to render a decision.

Following assessment by the parties' expert witnesses the Rapporteur upholds the conclusion that the Athlete's contaminated supplement in question contained only the prohibited substance Hydrochlorothiazide. Yet, the Athlete failed to explain the presence of Furosemide in his sample, nor established a possible second contamination.

Finally the Rapporteur considers that there is no evidence that the violation was intentional and that there had been delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 29 January 2021 to impose an 18 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 29 September 2019.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2021-012 Appeal Decision - Triathlon
June 18, 2021

An anti-doping rule violation was reported against the amateur triathlon Athlete (42) after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Androsterone, Testosterone including its Adiols. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in her defence.

The Athlete admitted the violation, denied the intentional use of the substances and requested for the application of the principle of lex mitior. She explained that the positive test was the result of the prescribed medication she had used for hormone replacement therapy whereas she mentioned her medication on the Doping Control Form. 

The TJD-AD Rapporteur establishes that the Athlete indeed participated in triahtlon as an amateur athlete, that the principle of lex mitior is applicable and that mitigating circumstances justifies the imposition of a reduced sanction.

The Rapporteur accepts that the violation was not intentional, that she established no Significant Fault or Negligence and that she acted with a standard light degree of Fault. 

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 23 February 2021 to impose a 4 month period of ineligibility on the Athlee, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 25 August 2019.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2021-010 Appeal Decision - Football
May 22, 2021

In March 2020 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Sibutramine.

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

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and believed that the supplement Diet Stronger+ he had used to lose weight was the source of the prohibited substance. Yet he could not analyse this supplement because of the cost whereas his football club had also terminated his contract. The supplement was recommended to him in a supplement store and he had checked the label of the product before using. 

The TJD-AD Rapporteur considers that a better anti-doping education and prevention is needed in the country instead of simply sanctioning any athlete. Regarding supplements the recommendation was made that athletes and their athlete support personnel improve the anti-doping education. Further the Rapporteur holds that there were delays in the proceeding not attributed to the Athlete. 

In view of the circumstances the Rapporteur is willing to accept that the violation was not intentional, that the Athlete acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence due to a contaminated supplement, wheras the Athlete in his defence was financially unable to request analysis of his B sample, nor analysis of his supplement. 

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 29 January 2021 to impose a 15 month period of inelibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 8 February 2020.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-007 Disciplinary Decision - Athletics
December 17, 2020

On 17 December 2020 the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) decided to impose a 4 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Enobosarm (Ostarine).

In this case the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) established and confirmed that the Athlete’s prescribed supplements were contaminated in the pharmacy that had compounded these supplements for the Athlete. 

Hereafter the ABCD appealed the TJD-AD decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal and requested for a more severe sanction in view of the Athlete’s conduct. ABCD contended that the Athlete had acted negligently because he had used 35 supplements that might constitute or result in a higher risk of contamination. 

The TJD-AD Appeal Panel considered the Athlete’s conduct an his degree of negligence and decides by majority on 13 April 2021 to uphold the Appealed Decision of 17 December 2020 for the imposition of a 4 month period of ineligibility.

In December 2020 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Clomifene.

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 admitted the violation, denied the intentional use of the substance, requested to lift the provisional suspension and for a reduced sanction. He argued that he only as amateur cyclist had participated in competitions and that he was unaware that the substance was prohibited in sport.

the Athlete asserted with medical documents that he had used the substance as treatment for his medical condition whereas his doctor confirmed that he had prescribed the medication Clomifene as treatment of his Hypogonadism sinds 2016. 

The ABCD argued that the violation was intentional and rejected the Athlete’s statement. It contended that the Athlete had produced insufficient information about his medical condition, while Testosterone is the appropriate medication for the treatment of Hypogandism and not Clomifene.

The ABCD argued that the Athlete had received anti-doping education, yet failed to mention Clomifene as medication on his Doping Control Form, nor filed an application for a TUE. Also records show that the Athlete is clearly a professional cyclist who had participated in several official competitions. 

The TJD-AD 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 Rapporteur deems that Athlete acted intentionally and that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction. The Rapporteur regards that the Athlete indeed is a professional cyclist who participated in national and international competitions over the last 10 years. 

The Rapporteur establishes that Clomifene is medically not a likely choice for the treatment of Hypogonadism, yet it can normalize Testosterone levels in men with Hypogonadism. Nevertheless the Rapporteur holds that the Athlete and his doctor acted negligently as they produced insufficient medical information about the condition and the treatment.

Futher the Rapporteur establish that the Athlete failed to mention the Clomifene as medication on the Doping Control Form while he had used the substance since 2016 and participated in many competitions with a significant risk of committing an anti-doping rule violation. 

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 6 April 2021 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 19 January 2021.

Related cases:

• TJD-AD 2021-017 Appeal Decision - Football
  June 30, 2021
• TJD-AD 2021-018 Disciplinary Decision - Football
  September 23, 2021
• TJD-AD 2021-027 Appeal Decision - Football
  November 12, 2021

In June 2020 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Dexamethasone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and argued that he acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence. He stated that he and two other football players had received Citoneurin and Miofibrax injections administered by the football club's physiotherapist as recommended by a doctor.

In view of the evidence in this case the Panel was troubled whether ABCD had established with sufficient evidence that the Athlete had acted intentionally, rather it had established that the football club's Athlete Support Personell were responsible for the violation.

Furthermore it remained unclear for the Panel whether the physiotherapist by mistake the medication Dexa Cetoneurim had administered instead of the Citoneurin and Miofibrax medication. Finally the Panel considers that there had been delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides by majority on 22 April 2021 to impose a 2 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. 12 August 2019. The Athlete already had served this sanction.

In October 2019 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the bodybuilder after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Furosemide, Oxandrolone and Stanozolol.

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 denied the violation, disputed the provisional suspension and requested for a reduced sanction. He blamed his Sports Federation for conducting anti-doping tests in the Master Category whereas he asserted that the use of these substances is acceptable in this environment. 

The TJD-AD 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. The Rapporteur deems that the Athlete clearly intentionally had used these prohibited substances while he made no effort at all to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor grounds for a reduced sanction. 

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 4 March 2021 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 2 August 2019.

Related cases:

• TJD-AD 2021-016 Appeal Decision - Swimming
  July 5, 2021
• TJD-AD 2021-021 Disciplinary Decision - Swimming
  October 1, 2021
• TJD-AD 2021-029 Appeal Decision - Swimming
  December 16, 2021

In August 2020 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority reported an anti-doping rule violation against the parathlete swimmer after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Enobosarm (Ostarine) in a low concentration.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the parathlete filed a statement in his defence. He denied the intentional use of the substance and assumed that the prescribed supplements from a compounding pharmacy were contaminated.

ABCD established that in the compounding pharmacy in question prior on the same day Ostarine was compounded for another person and thereupon the supplements were compounded for the Parathlete. As a result ABCD accepted that the violation was not intentional and that the source of the prohibited substance had been determined.

Further ABCD considered that the Parathlete was tested before without issues, that he acted carefully with his medications and that there had been delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Parathlete.

The TJD-AD Panel finds that the violation was not intentional and the result of a contaminated supplement. In view of the circumstances the Panel is divided on whether to impose a reduced sanction or only a warning on the Parathlete.

Finally by majority the TJD-AD decides on 6 May 2021 to impose a warning on the Parathlete.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2021-007 Appeal Decision - Athletics
April 29, 2021

In September 2019 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after he tested positive for the prohibited substances Canrenone, Modafinil, Oxandrolone. 

Also the ABCD reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete's sports doctor for the administration of these substances. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete and the Doctor filed a statement in their defence.  

The Athlete admitted the violation and explained that the substances were used as prescribed medication to recover faster of his of persistent injury that hampered his sports participation.

Both the Athlete and the doctor were aware that prohibited substances were administered and claimed that the treatments were valid and only for medical purposes because he was an amateur athlete and not a professional athlete. 

ABCD contended that the substances were used and administered intentionally to improve sports performance. It rejected the argument that he was an amateur because as an athlete he is anyhow submitted to the anti-doping rules.

Also ABCD arguded that the Athlete had fully participated in several competitions as high performace athlete while he had used these prohibited substances. Evidence of the alleged medical treatment was only provided at the end of the proceedings.

The TJD-AD Rapporteur agrees with the ABCD that the prohibited substances clearly intentionally were used and administered. In addition the Athlete had acknowledged that he failed to check his medication, nor had mentioned the substances and other medication on the Doping Control Form and had made no application for a TUE. 

Therefore the TJD-AD decides on 9 March 2021 to impose a 4 year period on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 12 September 2019. Further a 4 year period of ineligibility is imposed on the Doctor, starting on the date of the hearing, i.e. 2 February 2021.