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.

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.