Related case:

TJD-AD 2021-009 Disciplinary Decision - Football
July 1, 2021

In December 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 Clostebol in a low concentration.

In this case cross contamination had caused the positive test due to the Athlete's wife had used the prescribed medication Novaderm - containing Clostebol - for her cervix. Through sexual intercourse thereupon the substance was transferred to the Athlete's system whereas he was unaware that his wife was using this medication.

As a result the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) concluded 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.

Hereafter in July 2021 ABCD appealed the TJD-AD decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal. ABCD requested the Panel to reform the Appealed Decision and to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

The Rapporteur concludes that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and that had been established how the prohibited substance had entered his system. Yet ABCD conteded that the Athlete acted with some degree of Fault or Negligence in this case.

Nevertheless in view of the evidence and exceptional circumstances in this case the Rapporteur finds that the Athlete No Fault or Negligence had been established on a balance of probabilities whereas there are no grounds for the imposition of a 12 month period of ineligibility.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal decides by majority on 15 September 2021 to uphold the Appealed Decision and to dismiss ABCD's appeal.

Related cases:

• TJD-AD 2020-018 Disciplinary Decision - Cycling
  February 11, 2020
• TJD-AD 2022-007 Appeal Decision - Cycling
  May 11, 2022

On 11 February 2020 the TJD-AD Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the cyclist after she tested positive for prohibited substances Chlorothiazide, Hydrochlorothiazide and Stanozolol.

Hereafter the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) reported that the Athlete had trained and participated in cycling events organised by GranClub as part of the company Granciclismo.

In this matter ABCD also charged GranClub's cycle team, its captain and its coach for complicity in breaching the Athlete's ineligibility. The accused filed statements in their defence and the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The accused denied the violations and argued that GranClub's trainings and events are only recreational and non-professional. The organisation is not affiliated, nor a Signatory, nor subjected to the anti-doping rules.

The Rapporteur finds that prior the TJD-AD had imposed a 4 year sanction on the Athlete and that she had breached ineligibility. In view of GranClub's activities the Rapporteur concludes that under the Rules it has the characteristics of a sports club and therefore is submitted to the anti-doping rules.

The Rapporteur establishes that the cycle team had participated in several trainings in preparation for cycle competitions organised by Granciclismo. Also there is evidence that the Athlete had participated in these trainings. Consequently the Rapporteur deems that the cycling team, its captain and coach were involved in complicity in the Athlete's breach of ineligibility.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 19 December 2021 to impose an additional 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date the current sanction of 4 years shall end.

Futhermore the TJD-AD Panel decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the cycling team, its captain and its coach including registration of this decision with the Cycling Federation of the State of Rio de Janeiro and the Brazilian Cycling Confederation.

Related cases:

• TJD-AD 2020-019 Disciplinary Decision - Football
  September 3, 2020
• TJD-AD 2021-023 Disciplinary Decision - Football
  December 2, 2021
• TJD-AD 2022-001 Appeal Decision - Football
  March 10, 2022

On 3 September 2020 the TJD-AD Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on a Doctor for complicity regarding the use of the substance Triamcinolone acetonide by a football player. The TJD-AD concluded that this Doctor deliberately had attempted to mislead the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) with falsified medical evidence.

Additionally the TJD-AD decided on 4 July 2019 to impose a sanction of 3 years on two other doctors for their involvement in producing falsified medical information. Following their conviction one of these doctors contacted TJD-AD and requested to receive all relevant documents because he had been unaware that in absentia a sanction was imposed.

TJD-AD established that in this case ABCD and TJD-AD had submitted their communications to the wrong e-mail address. As a result the TJD-AD deemed that the doctor had not received the opportunity to present his defence.

Therefore the TJD-AD decides on 23 September 2021 to annul the TJD-AD Decision of 4 July 2019 and to refer the case back to the TJD-AD for a new trial.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2021-026 Appeal Decision - Cycling
November 8, 2021

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 substances Androsterone, Clomifene, Recombinant Erythropoietin (rhEPO), Exemestane and Etiocholanolon.

Also ABCD reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete's doctor for the administration of prohibited substances.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered against the Athlete. Ultimately the Athlete accepted ABCD's proposal for a sanction of 3 years. He admitted the use of the substances and claimed that they were prescribed and administered by his doctor in order to recover after he had contracted COVID-19.

The Athlete's doctor - an Endocrinologist with the nomenclature of Sports Doctor - confirmed the administration to the Athlete of EPO in order to recover from COVID-19, and Clomifene as treatment for the Athlete's low Testosterone levels. The doctor claimed that he was unaware that the Athlete was subjected to Doping Control.

ABCD contended that there was no medical justification for prescribing these substances as treatment for the Athlete's conditions, nor was a TUE application filed for the use of these substances.

The Rapporteur regards that the Athlete had admitted the violation and had accepted the sanction proposed by ABCD.
In view of the evidence the Rapporteur finds that the doctor was responsible for prescribing prohibited substances that caused the Athlete's anti-doping rule violation.

Further the Reporteur disputed the doctor's conduct in this case. However he concludes that there was insufficient evidence that these substances were prescribed in a context related to sports performance.

Accordingly the Rapporteur deems that the doctor had not committed an anti-doping rule violation. Nevertheless he Rapporteur is troubled that the doctor applied the nomenclature of sports doctor.

Therefore the TJD-AD decides on 30 September 2021 to ratify the accepted sanction and to impose a 3 year period of inelibility on the Athlete. Further the TJD-AD decided not to sanction the doctor. Yet the TJD-AD notified the Conselho Federal de Medicina (CFM) about the doctor's wrongful nomenclature of sports doctor.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2021-014 Disciplinary Decision - Football
May 14, 2021

On 14 May 2021 the TJD-AD decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the football player after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Ostarine.

In First Instance the TJD-AD accepted that the postive test result was caused by contaminated supplements the Athlete had used although the Athlete had acted with a degree of negligence.

Herafter the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) appealed the TJD-AD decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal. ABCD requested the Appeal Tribunal for a sanction of 4 years and contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate how the prohibited substance had entered his system.

ABCD asserted that the Athlete had not mentioned his supplements on the Doping Control Form and that the second batch of supplements in question were inadmissable for analysis because they were were delivered unsealed and were compounded after the Doping Control in August 2019. Also after 2 months the Athlete had not kept the empty supplement vials of the first batch.

The Appeal Tribunal agrees that under the Rules the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional.
Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal decides on 14 September 2021 to reform the Appealed Decision and to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Related cases:

• TJD-AD 2021-004 Disciplinary Decision - Swimming
  May 6, 2021
• TJD-AD 2021-016 Appeal Decision - Swimming
  July 5, 2021
• TJD-AD 2021-029 Appeal Decision - Swimming
  December 16, 2021

In August 2020 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) 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.

The TJD-AD Panel concluded that the violation was not intentional and was the result of a contaminated supplement. By majority the TJD-AD decided on 6 May 2021 to impose a warning on the Parathlete.

Hereafter ABCD appealed and the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decided on 5 July 2021 to refer the case back to the TJD-AD Disciplinary Panel and to annul the parathlete's provisional suspension because of established failures in the Appealed Decision.

When referred back, the TJD-AD Disciplinary Panel agrees that the source of the positive test was a prescribed supplement that became contaminated in a compounding pharmacy.

In view of the evidence and the Parathlete's conduct the Panel is again devided whether to impose a sanction of 4 months or only a warning on the Parathlete.

As a result by majority the TJD-AD decides on 1 October 2021 to impose a warning on the Parathlete.

Previously the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) decided to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the football player after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaïne in a low concentration.

Hereafter the Brazilian Doping Control Authority appelad the Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal and requested the Panel for the imposition of a 3 year period of inelibibility on the Athlete.

ABCD contended that the Athlete had denied the violation and failed to establish how the substance entered his system due to his lack of cooperation. Accordingly he failed to demonstrate that the use of Cocaïne occurred out-of-competition, nor in a context unrelated to sports performance.

In view of the evidence in this case the Rapporteur concludes that the Athlete's use of Cocaïne was not intentional and unrelated to sports performance, whereas the concentration found in the Athlete's sample was below the WADA threshold.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal decides on 30 September 2021 to uphold the imposed sanction of 3 months on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e on 2 March 2021.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2021-013 Disciplinary Decision - Football
August 16, 2021

On 16 August 2021 the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) decided to impose an 8 month period of ineligibility on the football player after he tested positive for the prohibited substances Hydrochlorothiazide and Sibutramine related to a product he had used.

In First Instance the TJD-AD Rapporteur had considered the circumstances and the Athlete's conduct in this case. He established that the label of the Athlete's product in question did not list the prohibited substances although the Athlete had failed to demonstrate sufficiently that this product in question was the source of these substances.

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

The Rapporteur of the Appeal Tribunal assessed the conduct of the Athlete and the alleged precedent of the Appealed Decision. He concludes that under the Rules there are no grounds for mitigating circumstances that justifies the sanction of 8 months, nor grounds to address the precedents in the Appealed Decision.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal decides on 30 September that the ABCD Appeal is partially admissible and to impose a 24 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Related cases:

• TJD-AD 2020-019 Disciplinary Decision - Football
  September 3, 2020
• TJD-AD 2021-019 Disciplinary Decision - Football
  September 23, 2021
• TJD-AD 2022-001 Appeal Decision - Football
  March 10, 2022

On 4 July 2019 the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) decided to impose a sanction of 3 years on two doctors because of complicity for their alleged involvement in producing falsified medical information committed by another doctor. The latter doctor received a sanction of 4 years regarding a football player who had used the substance Triamcinolone acetonide.

However the TJD-AD decided on 23 September 2021 to annul the TJD-AD Decision of 4 July 2019 against one of the first mentioned doctors and to refer the case back to the TJD-AD for a new trial. Apparently ABCD and TJD-AD had submitted their communications for this doctor to the wrong e-mail address and consequently he had not received the opportunity to present his defence.

The doctor denied the violation, neither that he was Athlete Support Personnel. He testified, corroborated by the Athlete in question, that he was not the personal doctor of the football player and had only 1 consult about his knee injury.

Thereupon the doctor had signed in good faith a medical document about the football player while he was unaware that it was falsified by the other convicted doctor.

The Rapporteur determines that the doctor acted as Athlete Support Personnel although there was no evidence that he acted intentionally and in complicity with the other convicted doctors.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 2 December 2021 to dismiss the charges and to acquit the doctor.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2021-010 Disciplinary Decision - Cycling
July 1, 2021

On 1 July 2021 the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) decided to impose a 40 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Higenamine related to a supplement he had used.

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

ABCD contended that the Athlete's violation was undisputed, yet asserted that there was no evidence that showed that this violation was committed intentionally.

The Rapporteur of the Appeal Tribunal assessed the Appealed Decision and the Athlete's conduct in this case and established that the Athlete after notification had accepted the test results and admitted the use of a product containing the prohibited substance.

The Rapporteur concludes that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and that the Athlete had acted with a degree of Fault or Negligence. This leads to a sanction of 2 years without grounds for a further reduction of the sanction.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal by majority decides on 5 October 2021 to impose a reduced 24 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 21 January 2021.