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.

In June 2021 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 Dexamethasone.

ABCD also reported an anti-doping rule violation against the doctor of the Athlete's football club for the administration of Dexamethasone.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete and the doctor filed statements in their defence and the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance whereas he had mentioned all his supplements on the Doping Control Form and reseached his medication. He assumed that the football club's doctor erroneously had administered this medication.

The doctore admitted the violation and denied that he had acted intentionally. He confirmed that by mistake he had administered this medication and not the intented one.

The Rapporteur accepts that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and that he bears a low degree of negligence. In view of the evidence and circumstances in this case the Rapporteur establishes that the doctor had acted with Significant Fault or Negligence.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 4 November 2021 to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 10 June 2021.

Furthermore the Panel decides to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the doctor for his negligence regarding the administration of the prohibited substance.

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.