Related case:

TJD-AD 2021-005 Disciplinary Decision - Athletics
March 9, 2021

On 9 March 2021 the TJD-AD decided to impose a 4 year period on an Athlete after he tested positive for the prohibited substances Canrenone, Modafinil and Oxandrolone. Also a 4 year period of ineligibility was imposed on the Athlete's sports Doctor for the administration of these substances.

Hereafter the Doctor appealed the TJD-AD decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal.

The Doctor denied that he had acted intentionally and that the substances were used as prescibed medication for the treatment of the Athlete as an amateur in order to recover from his injuries. Yet ABCD's medical team deemed that Oxandrolone is an invalid medication for the treatment of injuries and Canrenone is only allowed with a TUE when other effective medications were unavailable.

The Rapporteur finds that the Doctor only sought a medical justification for the administration of the substances and that he ignored the breaches of anti-doping rules. Further the Rapporteur observes that the Doctor repeatedly failed to attend the hearings without a jusitification or due to unsubstantiated Covid-19 contraction.

In view of the anti-doping rules the Rapporteur rejected the Doctor's arguments for annulment of the Appealed Decision and concludes that the Doctor intentionally had administered the prohibited substances. There was also no medical justification for the application of these prohibited substances.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal decides on 29 April 2021 to dismiss the Doctor's appeal and to uphold the sanction of a 4 year period of ineligibility imposed in the Appealed Decision.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2021-015 Appeal Decision - Cycling
June 30, 2021

In November 2019 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist after his sample tested positive for the prohibitied substance Erythropoietin (EPO).

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 gave a prompt admission and declined an acceptance of sanction of 45 months proposed by ABCD with approval of WADA, whereas the Athlete sought a reduced sanction of 2 years. He acknowledged that he intentionally had injected the substance into his system. 

The TJD-AD Rapporteur finds that the presence of the prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete’s sample and accordingly that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Rapporteur considers that the Athlete had admitted the intentional use of the substance, rejected an acceptance of sanction, and that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction. 

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 5 April 2021 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 13 November 2019.

Previously the CrossFit Games Organisation, as non-signatory of the World Anti-Doping Code, imposed a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Brazilian Athlete after he tested positive for the prohibited substances Enobosarm (ostarine), LGD-4033 (ligandrol) and Metandienone. 

The sanction was imposed by CrossFit without a hearing although the Athlete wanted to be heard. In October 2020 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) confirmed in a Decision that the Athlete’s participation in competitions would be a violation of the Brazilian Anti-Doping Code. 

Hereafter in October 2020 the Athlete filed a request with the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD). The Athlete disputed the validity of the imposed CrossFit sanction and the ABCD Decision and requested to lift the imposed suspension. 

The TJD-AD Rapporteur established that under the Rules the anti-doping decision from CrossFit, as Non-Signatory, and the ABCD Decision are only valid after confirmation by the TJD-AD.

Due to the TJD-AD had not approved the CrossFit Decision the TJD-AD Rapporteur deemed that the ABCD Decision was invalid. 

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 5 April 2021 to lift the imposed sanction on the Athlete.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2021-019 Appeal Decision - Football
September 15, 2021

In December 2020 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 Clostebol.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete requested to lift the provisional suspension and refused the ABCD's proposal for an Acceptance of Consequences. He filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and asserted that there are grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence.

He stated that cross contamination had caused the positive test and explained with evidence that his wife daily used the prescribed medication Novaderm - containing Clostebol - for her cervix. Through sexual intercourse thereupon the substance was transferred to his system whereas he was unaware that his wife was using this medication.

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.

Previously the TJD-AD already had lifted the Provisional Suspension and the TJD-AD Rapporteur considers that the Athlete was tested before without issues while there were similar contamination cases of male athletes in this matter.

The Rapporteur accepts the Athlete's explanation and evidence; he concludes that the violation was not intentional; and that the Athlete demonstrated how the substance entered his system. Further he deems that the violation occurred in a context unrelated to sport performance and that the Athlete established No Fault or Negligence and Exeptional Circumstances.

Therefore on 1 July 2021 the TJD-AD decides not to impose any sanction on the Athlete.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2021-002 Disciplinary Decision - Football
January 29, 2021

In January 2021 the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) decided to impose a reduced 15 month period of ineligibility on the football player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Sibutramine related to the use of a contaminated product he had used. 

Hereafter in March 2021 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) appealed the TJD-AD decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Panel and requested to impose a more severe sanction on the Athlete. 

ABCD contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate how the prohibited substance had entered his system due to a contaminated product. The Athlete claimed that the supplement Diet Stronger he had used to lose weight was the source of the positive test, yet because of the costs he had not ordered analysis of the this supplement in the Rio Lab. 

The TJD-AD Arbitrator finds that the ABCD Appeal is admissible and deems that the Athlete failed to demonstrate how the substance had entered his system. The Athlete had declined the analysis of the supplement in question and thus not demonstrated that the positive test was the result of contamination.

Further the Athlete had not attended the hearing of the Appeal Panel for questioning in orde to verify the plausibility of the contamination claim. Althought the Athlete had checked the label of the product and conducted a research on the internet before using, he failed to mentioned the use of this supplement on the Doping Control Form. 

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decided on 22 May 2021 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 8 February 2020.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2021-024 Appeal Decision - Cycling
October 5, 2021

In November 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 Higenamine.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordedered. 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 stated that he had purchased and used a pre-workout supplement Muscle Pump. He acknowledged that he wanted to improve his sports performance and claimed that he was unaware that Higenamine was a prohibited substance.

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.

The Rapporteur considers the Athlete's conduct in this case and concludes that the Athlete intentionally had used the supplement to improve his sports performance and failed to mention this supplement on the Doping Control Form. The Rapporteur deems that the Athlete had acted with a hight degree of guild and that there are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

Therefore the TJD-AD decides on 1 July 2021 to impose a 40 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 21 January 2021.

In October 2020 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Isometheptene.

After notification 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 declined an acceptance of sanction of 6 months proposed by ABCD, accepted the test results and denied the intentional use of the substance. He requested for a reduced sanction due to No Significant Fault or Negligence.

He asserted that the source of the prohibited substance was an unprescribed medication Doralgin he had used for his headache. The Brazil Lab confirmed that the positive test result was consistent with the Athlete’s use of this medication. 

The TJD-AD Rapporteur finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete’s samples and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Rapporteur accepts that the violation was not intentional and that there are grounds for a reduced sanction in view of the Athlete’s degree of fault. Further the Rapporteur considers that in similar cases reduced sanctions were imposed by the TJD-AD and that there were delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete. 

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel dedices on 22 April 2021 to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 1 September 2020.

In August 2020 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) reported two anti-doping rule violations against his the cyclist for evasion and tampering. The Athlete claimed that he immediately had left the competition in July 2019 because his wife was admitted in the hospital. 

The ABCD investigation revealed that the Athlete’s wife had not been involved in a hospital admittance at all, the Athlete gave false statements and the corroborating medical documents he had provided were falsifications. Accordingly an 8 year period of ineligibility was imposed on the Athlete for committing two separate anti-doping rule violations. 

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Panel. In his defence the Athlete denied the charges, disputed the delays in the proceedings and refuted with explanations the charges. 

Based on the evidence in this case the TJD-AD Rapporteur rejected the Athlete’s assertions regarding the notification, the role of a corroborating witness and the alleged hospital admittance of his wife. Further the Rapporteur holds that the delays in the proceedings were attributed to the Athlete because the ABCD had to conduct an investigation into the Athlete’s assertions.

Accordingly the Rapporteur concludes that the Athlete intentionally had committed an anti-doping rule violation for evasion and thereafter had committed a second anti-doping rule violation for tampering. 

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 22 May 2021 to dismiss the Athlete’s appeal and to confirm the imposition of an 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 13 August 2020.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2021-001 Disciplinary Decision - Triathlon
February 23, 2021

On 18 June 2021 the TJD-AD Tribunal decided to approve the settlement agreement between the triathlon Athlete and the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) after the Athlete tested positive for the prohibited substances Androsterone,  Etiocholanolone, Testosterone and its adiols.

As a result of the settlement agreement the appeals filed by both parties were withdrawn.

In January 2020 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the volleyball player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis in a high concentration above the WADA threshold.

After notification 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 gave a prompt admission, denied the intentional use of the substance and accepted a provisional suspension. He acknowledged that he was struggling with addiction problems after a motorcycle accident in 2012. 

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 Rapporteur accepts that the violation was not intentional and considers that the Athlete gave a prompt admission. 

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 22 April 2021 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 13 December 2019.