An appeal with the TJD-AD was filed after reports in the media that a State Football Federation had conducted fraudulent Doping Control Proceedings during a football championship, without supervision of the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD), and repeatedly had charged fees to football clubs for non existing doping controls proceedings. 

The ABCD established that it was not involved because it had no sample collections scheduled at all for this championschip in question in that season. Accordingly the ABCD finds that these alleged fraudulent matters were no violations of the Brazilian Anti-Doping Code (CBA), yet violations of the Brazilian Code of Sports Justice (CBJD). 

The TJD-AD agrees that the appeal is inadmissible because it has no competence under CBA. However because there is evidence of charging fees to football clubs for no existing doping control proceedings the TJD-AD deems on 9 June 2021 that this matter must be transferred and settled by the State Court of Sport Justice for Football.

In November 202 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Canrenone, Modafinil 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 accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the substances. She asserted that she ony had used the supplements and medication she had mentioned on the Doping Control Form and requested for a reduced sanction. 

The TJD-AD Reporteur 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 Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional, nor grounds for a reduced sanction. 

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 5 May 2021 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 23 November 2020.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2021-023 Appeal Decision - Football
September 30, 201

In March 2021 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 substances Hydrochlorothiazide and Sibutramine.

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 substances and he requested for a reduced sanction. He believed that the medical herbal supplement he had used - purchased on the internet - was the source of the prohibited substances.

Analysis of the open bottle of this supplement in question in the Rio Lab confirmed the presence of the prohibited substances, yet not in the sealed bottles of this product from the same batch that had been analysed.

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

The Rapporteur considered the circumstances and the Athlete's conduct in this case in view of the setbacks in his personal life and deems that the violation was not intentional.

The Rapporteur establishes that the label of the product did not list the prohibited substances although the Athlete failed to demonstrate sufficiently that this product in question was the source of the substances.

Further the Rapporteur regards that the Athlete acted with some degree of negligence whereas he had received anti-doping education and had not mentioned the supplement on the Doping Control Form.

Therefore the TJD-AD decides on 16 August 2021 to impose an 8 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 9 March 2021.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2021-021 Appeal Decision - Football
September 14, 2021

In October 2019 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 Enobosarm (Ostarine). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in his defence.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and stated that all the supplements he had used were provided by his football club. At first the analysis of these supplements in the Rio Lab did not reveal prohibited substances. Yet analysis of another batch of these supplements from a compounding pharmacy, provided to the Athlete after the Doping Control in August 2019, confirmed the presence of traces of Ostarine and Anastrozole in two products.

ABCD disputed the admissibility of the analysis of the second batch due to these supplements were compounded and provided to ABCD after the Doping Control and due to these supplements were delivered in unsealed condition.

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.

Based on the evidence the Rapporteur concludes that the violation was not intentional and that a contaminated supplement was the source of the positive test.

The Rapporteur considers that the Notification after 2 months hampered the Athlete in finding the source of the contamination, whereas he was tested before without issues. Further the Athlete's conduct was considered and his degree of negligence since he failed to mention his supplements on the Doping Control Form

Therefore the TJD-AD decides on 14 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 August 2019.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2021-008 Disciplinary Decision - Cycling
April 5, 2021

In April 2021 the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the cyclist after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO), starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 13 November 2019. 

Hereafter in April 2021 the Athlete appealed the Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Panel and requested for a reduced sanction and the start of the sanction on the date of the sample collection. 

In view of the evidence the Rapporteur finds that the presence of the prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete’s sample and accordingly that he intentionally had committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Further the Rapporteur holds that after notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission but declined to accept and Admission Agreement with a sanction reduction of 3 months. 

The Rapporteur deems that there are no grounds for a reduction of the 4 year sanction, yet he considers that there were substantial delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete to allow the start of the sanction on the date of the sample collection. 

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 30 June 2021 to uphold the imposed 4 year period of ineligibility, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 27 September 2019.

Related cases:

• TJD-AD 2021-004 Disciplinary Decision - Swimming
  May 6, 2021
• TJD-AD 2021-021 Disciplinary Decision - Swimming
  October 1, 2021
• TJD-AD 2021-029 Appeal Decision - Swimming
  December 16, 2021

In First Instance on 6 May 2021 a warming was imposed by the TJD-AD on the parathlete swimmer after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Ostarine. 

Hereafter the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) appealed the TJD-AD decision and requested the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal to annul the Appealed Decision.

The Rapporteur establishes that in First Instance the TJD-AD Panel was divided about the sanction and that a majority voted for the imposition of a warning whereas faults in the proceedings had created a dubious decision. 

At the hearing in First Instance the Arbitrator as Rapporteur advocated for the acquittal of the Athlete or alternatively for the imposition of a warning. Yet in the Appealed Decision was only mentioned his vote for a warning without remarks about the validity of the complaint and the acquittal or warning of the Athlete. 

Because of the established failures the TJD-AD Appeal Panel concludes that the Appealed Decision is not accomplished in accordance with the stipulations of the Brazilian Anti-Doping Code (CDA). Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 5 July 2021 to refer the case back to the TJD-AD Disciplinary Panel and to annul the parathlete's provisional suspension.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2021-028 Appeal Decision - Boxing
December 16, 2021

In February 2021 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the boxer after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Enobosarm (Ostarine) in a low concentration. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in his defence.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and asserted that a contaminated supplement was the source of the prohibited substance. He provided ABCD two opened vials with supplements compounded in a pharmacy. Analysis of these supplements revealed the presence of Ostarine in one of these supplements.

The Compounding pharmacy in questioned confirmed to ABCD that prior on the same day Ostarine was compounded for another person and consequently thereupon the compounding supplement of the Athlete got contaminated.

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 concludes that the violation was not intentional and the result of a contaminated supplement. Considered was that he was a high level athlete, had received anti-doping education, and was tested before without issues.

Further the Rapporteur deems that the Athlete acted with some degree of fault or negligence because he used his own unprescribed compounding supplements, not the prescribed supplements of his sports federation, whereas he failed to mention his supplements on the Doping Control Form.

Therefore the TJD-AD decides on 14 September 2021 to impose a 9 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e on 22 January 2021.

Related cases:

• TJD-AD 2021-003 Disciplinary Decision - Football
  April 22, 2021
• TJD-AD 2021-018 Disciplinary Decision - Football
  September 23, 2021
• TJD-AD 2021-027 Appeal Decision - Football
  November 12, 2021
  
  

On 22 April 2021 the TJD-AD Panel decided by majority to impose a 2 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete after his samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Dexamethasone.

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

Hereafter ABCD appealed the Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal.

The Appeal Panel assessed the Appealed Decision and determines that the Rapporteur in first instance had not voted, nor had provided foundations for his arguments. Consequently the Appeal Panel deems that the Appealed Decision was not valid because its Decision had not been established by Panel Majority.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 30 June 2021 to annul the Appealed Decision and to refer the case back to the TJD-AD First Instance Tribunal.

In December 2020 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Androsterone, 5β-androstane-3α,17β-diol, Clostebol, Etiocholanolone and Testosterone. In addition an anti-doping rule violation was reported against the Athlete's doctor as Athlete Support Personnel for the administration of the prohibited substances.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete and his doctor filed statements in their defence and they were heard for the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substances and he explained with medical evidence that he suffered from a  condition. He and his doctor stated that for the treatment of hypogonadism these prescribed substances were used.

ABCD contended that only Testosterone is the proper medication as treatment for hypogoonadism. Yet there is no justification for the use of the other substances found in the Athlete's sample.

The Rapporteur finds that the presence of 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 had committed the violation intentionally and considers that the Athlete had failed to apply for a TUE, nor had mentioned his medication on the Doping Control Form. In addition the doctor testified that he had only had administered Eposteron and Anastrozole, not the other substances.

Further the Rapporteur disputed the doctor's conduct as a specialist in sports medication because he had acted negligently through the administration of prohibited substances. 

Therefore the TJD-AD decides on 14 October 2021:

• to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 7 December 2020; and
• to impose a 30 year period of ineligibility on the doctor, starting on the date of the Decision.

Related cases:

• TJD-AD 2021-003 Disciplinary Decision - Football
  April 22, 2021
• TJD-AD 2021-017 Appeal Decision - Football
  June 30, 2021
• TJD-AD 2021-027 Appeal Decision - Football
  November 12, 2021
  
  

In November 2019 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 in June 2020. 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 explained with medical evidence that he had received medication for his injury, which was administered by a physiotherapist. The Athlete nor the club's doctor were aware that the physiotherapist possibly had administered a medication containing a prohibited substance.

Thereupon his football club and its doctor confirmed the administration of the substance Cytoneurin to the Athlete on the date of the Doping Control.

ABCD contended that the Athlete was unable to establish how the substance had entered his system because the medication Cytoneurin does not contain Dexamethasone and there was evidence that this medication was purchased by the club 23 days after the sample collection.

The TJD-AD Rapporteur finds that the presence of the prohibited substance had been established and accordingly that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Rapporteur considers that the Athlete was tested before without issues, had cooperated with the investigations and that there had been substantial delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

In view of the evidence and circumstances in this case the Rapporteur finds it plausible that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and that he had demonstrated how the substance had entered his system. Although there were grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence, the Panel was devided in accepting the evidence in favour of the Athlete.

Therefore the TJD-AD decides by majority on 27 September 2021 to impose a 2 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 12 August 2019. The Athlete already had served this period of ineligibility.