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.

The Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the wrestler after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol. Further ABCD charged the Athlete's doctor for the administration of this prohibited substance.

Following notification the Athlete and her doctor filed a statement in their defence and the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Athlete stated that she underwent medical treatment for her injury and that her doctor had administered prescribed medication containing Stanozolol. The doctor acknowledged the administration of this substance as medication and argued that he was unaware that the wrester was an Olympic Athlete.

The Rapporteur did not accept the explanations provided by the Athlete and the doctor. As an experienced doctor he had admitted the administration of Stanozol and produced a prescription, yet no information about the Athlete's injury. Regarding her injury the Athlete should have checked her medication and made an application for a TUE.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 5 August 2022:

• to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension; and
• to impose a 30 year period of ineligibility on the doctor.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2022-016 Appeal Decision - Football
November 7, 2022

In October 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 substances Chlorothiazide and Hydrochlorothiazide. In this matter ABCD also reported violations committed by the Athlete's football club and the club's doctor.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his 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 substance. He could not explain the source of the substances whereas he only had used the supplements provided by his football club.

In this case the TJD-AD, the Athlete and ABCD were hampered by the football club's lack of cooperation and negligence. The club repeatedly failed to provide the requested information and the Athlete had no access to his medical record. The football club also failed to provide the supplements in question to ABCD and as a result analysis was not possible in the Rio Laboratory.

Witnesses corroborated that the club's distribution of the medication and supplements was badly coordinated. There were no medical records of the players and they received no information about the unlabelled medication and supplements that were distributed.

The club's doctor confirmed that there was no medical record of the Athlete because of his recent arrival at the club. Following his arrival he also underwent no medical examination and there was no further medical support arranged.

The Rapporteur finds that the presence of the prohibited substances has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Rapporteur deems that not has been demonstrated that the Athlete acted intentionally, nor that he had acted with significant fault or negligence.

Although supplement contamination could not be established, the Rapporteur finds that the unlabelled medication and supplements, distributed by the football club, were the likely source of the prohibited substances. Further the Rapporteur considers that there had been delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 22 August 2022 by majority to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 12 September 2021.

The TJD-AD also decides to impose a substantial fine on the football club and a fine including a 120 days suspension on the club's doctor. Finally the TJD-AD notified their findings to several authorities to consider any further action within their own competence against the football club and the club's doctor.

In April 2022 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rower for 3 whereabouts filing failures and missed tests within a 12 month period. The Doping Control Officers (DCO) reported that they were unable the locate the Athlete in May, November and December 2021.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he did not accept a sanction of 2 years proposed by ABCD. Thereupon the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Athlete provided no justification for his first missed test in May 2021. Regarding the missed test in November the Athlete claimed that the DCO already had left the location before the one-hour-timeslot had passed.

Regarding the missed test in December 2021 he explained that communication problems prevented him to update timely his whereabouts in ADAMS. Because of his fatigue he failed hereafter to update his whereabouts on arrival at his new location from a long journey from Paraguay .

The Rapporteur establishes that previously the Athlete since 2018 was tested several times without issues. On these occasions he timely had updated his whereabouts in ADAMS.

Considering the Athlete's conduct in this case the Rapporteur deems that the Athlete acted not intentionally, yet rather acted with a degee of negligence. Nevertheless the Rapporteur determines that the Athlete failed to be available at the whereabouts location in November 2021 and he failed to update his new whereabouts location in December 2021.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 23 September 2022 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 5 April 2022.

Hereafter ABCD filed two motions for clarification with the TJD-AD regarding the Athlete's fault or negligence in this case. However the TJD-AD determines that the Panel made a vailid assesment of the Athlete's degree of fault and there were no grounds for the imposition for a more severe sanction on the Athlete.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2022-001 Disciplinary Decision - Cycling
March 18, 2022

On 18 March 2022 the TJD-AD Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete after she tested positive for the prohibited substance Enobosarm (Ostarine).

In first instance the Panel deemed that without corroborating evidence the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor how the substance had entered her system. There was no evidence of supplement contamination, neither evidence that the analysed supplements were purchased by the Athlete.

Following analysis of the her supplements the Rio de Janeiro Lab found no Ostarine. However it established the presence of the substances Canrenone, Indapamide and Spironolactone.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed this Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal and requested for a reduced sanction.

The Athlete alleged that there was an inconsistency that would invalidate the test result and asserted that she was tested twice in 2 days, yet only tested positive once. She maintained that her supplements were contaminated in the compounding pharmacy and analysis of these supplements in the Rio Lab had confirmed this.

After assessment of the case the Rapporteur finds that the sample collection and test result were valid. Despite the compounding pharmacy did not respond at once, the produced evidence from this pharmacy showed that there was no  contamination of the Athlete's supplements.

Following investigations ABCD and other authorities determined that the substance Ostarine was not prescribed and compounded in this pharmacy for another person at the material time. Furthermore the Rapporteur considers that the Rio Lab reported that the Athlete's supplements for analysis were delivered in unsealed open containers. Also there was not evidence that she had purchased these supplements, neither was there evidence of tampering. 

As a result the Rapporteur confirmed the conclusion that without corroborating evidence the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor how the substance(s) had entered her system.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 18 March 2022 to dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to uphold the Appealed Decision of 18 March 2022.