Related case:

TJD-AD 2021-020 Disciplinary Decision - Cycling
September 30, 2021

On 30 September 2021 the TJD-AD decided to impose a sanction of 3 years on the cyclist after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Androsterone, Clomifene, Recombinant Erythropoietin (rhEPO), Exemestane and Etiocholanolon. These substances were prescribed and administered by his doctor.

Also on 30 September 2021 the TJD-AD decided not to sanction the doctor because there was insufficient evidenc that these substances were prescribed in a context related to sports performance. Instead the TJD-AD notified the Conselho Federal de Medicina (CFM) regarding the doctor's wrongful nomenclature of sports doctor.

Hereafter the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) appealed this Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal regarding the doctor's administration of prohibited substances.

ABCD disputed the doctor's conduct and rejected his arguments. It contended that the doctor, acting as an Athlete Support Personnel, intentionally had administered prohibited substances. Further the doctor had posed himself as a sports doctor whereas there was no medical justification for the prescription of these prohibited substances as treatment for the Athlete's diagnosed conditions.

The Rapporteur of the Appeal Tribunal establishes that under the Rules the doctor had acted as Athlete Support Personnel. Meanwhile he had already had retracted his qualification and title of sports doctor.

The Rapporteur determines that the Athlete had received treatment from the doctor for more then 5 years as patient and concludes that the doctor was aware that the Athlete was subjected to Doping Control. Moreover the doctor, as alleged sports doctor, failed to apply a TUE because of the prescribed prohibited substances that would enhance the Athlete's sports performance.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal decides on 8 November 2021 the ABCD Appeal is admissible and to impose a 30 year period of ineligibility on the doctor, starting on 1 November 2020.

Related cases:

• TJD-AD 2021-003 Disciplinary Decision - Football
  April 28, 2021
• TJD-AD 2021-017 Appeal Decision - Football
  July 7, 2021
• TJD-AD 2021-018 Disciplinary Decision - Football
  September 23, 2021
  
  

On 27 September 2021 the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) decided to impose a 2 month period of ineligibility on the football player after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Dexamethasone.

Here the Athlete admitted the violation and explained that he had received medication for his injury administered by a physiotherapist. The Athlete believed that the physiotherapist possibly had administered a medication containing a prohibited substance.

In First Instance the Rapporteur deemed it plausible that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and that he had demonstrated how the substance had entered his system with grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Hereafter the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) appealed the Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal and requested for a sanction of 4 years.

ABCD finds that there were insufficient grounds in the Appealed Decision for the imposed sanction of 2 months. It contended that the Athlete failed to establish how the substance had entered his system because the medication Cytoneurin in question does not contain Dexamethasone. Also there was evidence that this medication was purchased by the club just 23 days after the sample collection.

The Rapporteur of the Appeal Tribunal upholds the conclusion that the Athlete's violation was not intentional. Yet, he agrees with ABCD's contention that the Athlete failed to demonstrate how the prohibited substance had entered his system.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal decides on 12 November 2021 to impose a 24 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 12 August 2019.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2021-016 Disciplinary Decision - Boxing
September 14, 2021

On 14 September 2021 the TJD-AD decided to impose a 9 month period of ineligibility on the boxer after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Enobosarm (Ostarine) in a low concentration. In First Instance the TJD-AD concluded that the violation was not intentional and was the result of a contaminated supplement.

Hereafter the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) appealed with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal and requested to annul the Appealed Decision and to impose a sanction of 4 years.

ABCD and the prosecutor did not accept that a contamination had caused the positive test result. Further it contended that the Athlete had acted intentionally regarding his conduct with his supplements.

The Appeal Panel has serious doubts whether the compounding pharmacy in question had acted with utmost care considering the amount of prohibited substances it compounded and the high risk of supplement contamination. The Panel concludes that the Athlete had demonstrated how the substance had entered his system and that the violation was not intentional.

Furthermore the Panel holds that the Athlete was tested before without issues and that he had sought to find a reputable compound pharmacy for his supplements whereas he had acted with some degree of fault or negligence.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal decides on 16 December 2021 to uphold the Appealed Decision of 14 September 2021 for the imposition of 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 2021-004 Disciplinary Decision - Swimming
  May 6, 2021
• TJD-AD 2021-016 Appeal Decision - Swimming
  July 5, 2021
• TJD-AD 2021-021 Disciplinary Decision - Swimming
  October 1, 2021
  
  

Previously on 6 May 2021 in First Instance the TJD-AD had decided by majority for the imposition of a warning on the Parathlete after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Ostarine related to a contaminated supplement.

However the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) appealed this decison. Thereupon the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal established that the Appealed Decision of 6 May 2021 was accomplished erroneously and decided by majority on 5 July 2021 to refer the case back to the TJD-AD Disciplinary Tribunal.

When referred back in First Instance and by majority the TJD-AD decided on 1 October 2021 to impose a warning on the Parathlete. Here the Disciplinary Panel accepted that the source of the prohibited substance was a prescribed supplement that became contaminated in a compounding pharmacy.

Again the ABCD appealed the Parathlete's case and the TJD-AD Decision of 1 October 2021 with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal.

ABCD contended that in the matter of the contaminated  supplements the Athlete had acted with a higher level of negligence and thus requested the Appeal Panel for the imposition of a sanction of 12 months instead of a warning.

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 agrees that the Parathlete had not demonstrated that he had acted with a low degree of Negligence with his supplements as an experienced Athlete that allows the imposition of only warning.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal decides by majority on 16 December 2021 to impose a reduced 4 month period of ineligibility on the Parathlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 21 February 2020.

Related cases:

• TJD-AD 2020-019 Disciplinary Decision - Football
  September 3, 2020
• TJD-AD 2021-019 Disciplinary Decision - Football
  September 23, 2021
• TJD-AD 2021-023 Disciplinary Decision - Football
  December 2, 2021

Previously an 8 month period of ineligibility was imposed on the football player after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Triamcinolone acetonide. Also on 3 September 2020 the TJD-AD Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the football player's Doctor for complicity

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 the latter doctors contacted TJD-AD and requested to receive all relevant documents because he had been unaware that in absentia a sanction had been imposed.

After review the TJD-AD decided on 23 September 2021 to annul the TJD-AD Decision of 4 July 2019 regarding this doctor and to refer the case back to the TJD-AD for a new trial.

Thereupon on 2 December 2021 the TJD-AD Panel decided to dismiss the charges and to acquit the doctor. The Panel deemed that there was no evidence that this doctor acted intentionally in complicity with the other convicted doctors.

Hereafter in January 2022 ABCD appealed this acquittal Decision of 2 December 2021 with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal.

The Rapporteur assessed the Appealed Decision and the filed evidence in the related cases and determines that there are no grounds to conclude that the doctor had acted intentionally in complicity with the other doctors and the football player.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 10 March 2022 to dismiss the appeal and to confirm the Appealed Decision regarding the acquittal of the doctor.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2022-005 Appeal Decision - Cycling
May 11, 2022

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

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence, she refused to accept a sanction of 3 years and requested to lift the provisional suspension. The case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Athlete believed that her prescribed supplements were contaminated or tampered in the compounding pharmacy whereas this pharmacy also failed to respond to the Athlete's submissions.

Analysis of the Athlete's supplements in question in the Rio de Janeiro Lab revealed not the presence of Ostarine. Instead the Lab established the presence of the prohibited substances Canrenone, Indapamide and Spironolactone in these supplements.

The Rio Lab reported that the Athlete's supplements were delivered in open unsealed containers and that there was no evidence of tampering. Furthermore the Lab provided an explanation regarding the detection methods for the differend substances that had been found in the Athlete's sample.

The Rapporteur finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation. There are also no grounds to lift the provisional suspension as requested by the Athlete.

The Rapporteur deems that without corroborating evidence the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor how the substance(s) had entered her system. There was no evidence of supplement contamination, nor evidence that the analysed supplements in question were purchased by her.

Following lack of cooperation from the compounding pharmacy in question the TJD-AD and ABCD requested the authorities to open an investigation into the conduct of this pharmacy. Ultimately the compounding pharmacy provided the requested documentation.

After assessment of this documentation it was not possible to determine that the Athlete's supplements had been contaminated in this pharmacy. Because of the risk of using compounding supplements the Rapporteur regards that the Athlete possibly acted negligently.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 18 March 2022 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 31 October 2020.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2022-003 Appeal Decision - Football
May 12, 2022

In July 2021 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 Sibutramine.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete file a statement with evidence in his defence. He did not accept a sanction of 2 years proposed by ABCD and the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Athlete denied the intentional use and explained with evidence how the substance had entered his system. He stated that in June he had stomach problems and had received omeprazole capsules while he was unaware that by mistake he had reciveid Sibutramine capsules. These capsules were practically indentical and as a result there was a mix up of capsules.

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.

In view of the evidence the Rapporteur accepts that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete acted with a low degree of negligence.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 17 February 2022 by majority to impose an 8 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 3 August 2021.

the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the powerlifter after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Chlorothiazide, Gestrinone, Hydrochlorothiazide and Methylphenidate.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete did not accept a sanction of 2 years proposed by ABCD. She filed a statement with evidence in her defence and she was heard for the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the prohibited substances and requested for a reduced sanction. She explained that she received medical treatment for her condition and used prescribed medication. Also she requested to lift the provisional suspension and argued that she was tested before without issues.

The Rapporteur deems that the Athlete's medical condition and prescribed medication could not explain the presence of all the prohibited substances found in her sample. Furthermore she failed to mention all her medication on the Doping Control Form nor had she applied for a TUE.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 23 May 2022 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2022-001-3 Disciplinary Decision - Football
February 17, 2022

On 17 February 2022 the TJD-AD Panel decided to impose an 8 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Sibutramine. In first instance the Panel accepted that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete acted with a low degree of negligence following a mix up of self-medication.

Hereafter the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) appealed the Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal and requested the Panel for a more severe sanction. The Athlete also appealed and requested for a more reduced sanction  starting backdated from the date of the sample collection.

The Rapporteur confirms that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation and that this violation was not intentional. In view of the evidence the Rapporteur deems that the Athlete acted with a normal degree of fault. Furthermore the Rapporteur considers that there had been delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 11 May 2022 to partially uphold the Appealed Decision and to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 4 June 2021.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2022-008 Appeal Decision - Rowing


In January 2022 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rower after his sample tested poisitive for the prohibited substance Oxandrolone.

Following 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 because he was tested before without issues and had prompt cooperated with the latest sample collection. He stated that he had used supplements prescribed by a recommended medical specialist and compounded in a recommended pharmacy of Naturativa Farmácia.

The Athlete believed that these compounded supplements from Naturativa Farmácia were the source of the prohibited substance. Analysis of 5 supplements in the Rio Lab, delivered in open unsealed bottles, revealed the presence of multiple prohibited substances: Clomifene, Oxandrolone, Hydrochlorothiazide, Furosemide and Spironolactone.

Naturativa Farmácia confirmed that supplements for the Athlete had been compounded in their pharmacy. Yet it denied that at the material time Oxandrolone and the other substances had been compounded that could have contaminated the his supplements. It alleged that these supplements in question were compounded by a third party.

Thereupon the Athlete did not accept a proposed sanction of 4 years because the Rio Lab had established that his supplements were contaminated. Further the Athlete alleged that Naturativa Farmácia had omitted relevant information from its prescription records and lacked cooperation.

The Athlete challenged the assertion that he had provided tampered third party contamined supplements to the Rio Lab. He argued that it would be impossible for him to produce in detail and in a short time such supplements without signs of tampering and containing several prohibited substances.

Following deliberations Naturativa Farmácia complied and produced all relevant prescription records. These records showed that indeed Oxandrolone and the other prohibited substances had been compounded in this pharmacy at the material time the Athlete's supplements were compounded.

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.

Following assessment of the evidence the Rapporteur accepts that the violation was not intentional and that there are mittigating circumstances for No Significant Fault or Negligence.

The Rapporteur deems that the Athlete had demonstrated with corroborating evidence that the compounding supplements from Naturativa Farmácia were contaminated.

Further the Rapporeur considers that the Athlete was tested before and that the found concentration of Oxandrolone in his sample was consistent with the concentration of contaminants found his supplements by the Rio Lab.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 29 July 2022 by majority to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 13 January 2022.