Related case:

TJD-AD 2022-010 Appeal Decision - Basketball
October 19, 2022

In February 2022 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the basketball player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Canabis in a concentration above the WADA threshold.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional in-competition use of the substance. He explained that use of Cannabis was recreational and out-of-competition. The asserted that the high concentration in his system was due to his frequent use of Cannabis in 2020 and 2021.

Following assessment of the evidence the Rapporteur accepts that the Athlete had used Cannabis out-of-competition and that there are grounds to impose a reduced sanction on the Athlete. The Rapporteur considers that a 1 month period of ineligibility can be imposed when the Athlete follows a Substance of Abuse treatment program.

However ABCD acknowledged that it has not such an approved program available. The Athlete meanwhile demonstrated that he already had consulted specialists and had started a treatment program.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 22 August 2022 to impose a 1 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the hearing.

In December 2021 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, Etiocholanolone and Testosterone with its metabolites.

Previously in 2016 a sanction of 4 years was imposed on the Athlete after he tested positive for multiple prohibited substances.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in his defence. He did not accept a sanction of 7 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 of Testosterone and claimed that he only participated in competitions as an amateur cyclist. He explained with medical evidence that he underwent prescribed hormone replacement therapy for his diagnosed hypogonadism.

ABCD contended that the filed medical evidence did not demonstrate sufficiently that the Athlete suffered from hypogonadisme, nor the justification for hormone replacement therapy. Furthermore the Athlete failed to apply for a TUE nor did he mention his medication on the Doping Control Form.

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 did not accept the Athlete's assertions and considers that prior in 2016 the Athlete had committed a first anti-doping rule violation. The Rapporeur considers that the Athlete failed to mention his medication on the Doping Control Form and after months he also failed to make an application for a TUE.

Finally the Rapporteur questions the medical practice of the Athlete's doctor and deems that his unethical conduct must be reported to the Brazilian Federal Council of Medicine to consider any further action within their own competence.

Therefore the TJD-AD Tribunal decides on 21 October 2022 to impose an 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 20 December 2021.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2022-018 Appeal Decision - Football
November 7, 2022

In March 2022 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 Stanozolol.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and 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 accepted the test results and denied the intentional use of the substance. He explained that he had used supplements prescribed by his endocrinologist and specialist in sports nutrition whereas his supplements were provided by a recommended compounding pharmacy.

Analysis of these prescribed compounded supplements in the Rio Laboratory revealed the presence of Stanozolol contaminants in 2 of the Athlete's supplements. The Athlete argued that the concentration of Stanozolol in his sample was to low to be effective for sport enhancement.

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 determines:

• The Athlete's violation was not intentional and likely the result of the use of a contaminated supplement.
• The Athlete acted with a low degree of fault or negligence although he failed to mention his supplements on the Doping Control Form.
• The football player was an experienced athlete, had received anti-doping education and was tested before without issues.
• His supplements were prescribed by a specialist and  compounded by a recommended pharmacy.
• The established concentration Stanozolol was low and consistent with the concentration found in the contaminated supplements.
• Another contamination case had surfaced in the matter of a tennis player who had used supplements provided by this pharmacy in question.
• The Pharmacy acted negligently, lacked to cooperate and only provided insufficient information to ABCD.
• This pharmacy shall be reported to the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency to consider any further action.
• There were substantial delays in this case not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the TJD-AD Tribunal decides on 10 October 2022 by majority to impose a 10 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of sample collection, i.e. on 5 February 2022.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2023-004 Appeal Decision - Swimming
March 13, 2023

In February 2022 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the swimmer after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Chlorothiazide, Furosemide, Hydrochlorothiazide and Sibutramine.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and did not accept the sanction proposed by ABCD. Hereafter the case was referred to the TJD-AD Tribunal.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substances and requested the Panel for a reduced sanction. She established with evidence that a contaminated supplement was the source of the prohibited substances.

Analysis in the Rio Laboratory confirmed the presence of the contaminants in this product. The Athlete acknowledged that she had mentioned a list of supplements on the Doping Control Form, yet not this product.

She explained that this product was advertised as 100% natural and recommended by her sister. She asserted that it was used only for weight loss whereas the use of diuretics and low body weight gave her no advantage in swimming.

In view of the evidence the Rapporteur accepts that the Athlete's violation was not intentional. She also had demonstrated that a contaminated supplement was the source of the prohibited substances.

Further the Rapporteur considers that the Athlete was tested before without issues and that this product did not list prohibited substances as ingredient. Moreover the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (Anvisa) had opened an investigation into the company that had manufactured this product.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 4 November 2022 to impose a warning on the Athlete for the reported anti-doping rule violation.

Related cases:

• TJD-AD 2020-018 Disciplinary Decision - Cycling
  February 11, 2020
• TJD-AD 2021-019 Disciplinary Decision - Cycling
  December 19, 2021
  
  

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.

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

Consequently the TJD-AD Panel decided 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.

For their complicity the TJD-AD Panel decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the GranClub's cycling team, its captain and its coach including registation of this decision with the Cycling Federation of the State of Rio de Janeiro and the Brazilian Cycling Confederation.

Hereafter all Parties appealed this Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal. ABCD requested for the imposition of a more severe sanction. The Athlete and the cycling team's captain and coach requested the Appeal Panel to annul the Appealed Decision including their individual registration.

The Rapporteur finds that there was sufficient evidence, such as postings on social media, that the Athlete had participated in trainings with the GranClub's cycling team in preparation of cycling competitions organised by Granciclismo. Nervertheless there is no reason to impose a more severe sanction on the Athlete.

In view of the evidence the Rapporteur upholds the conclusion that the cycling team, its captain and coach were involved in complicity in the Athlete's breach of ineligibility. The Rapporteur agrees that there are no grounds for registration of the individual names of the cycling team's captain and coach.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 11 May 2022 to dismiss the Appeal filed by ABCD and the Athlete and to uphold the Appealed Decision. Regarding the GranClub's cycle team, its captain and its coach the Appeal Panel partially upholds the Appeal Decision.

In this part the Appeal Panel grants the requests to remove the names of the cycling captain and coach from the registration with de Cycling Federation of the State of Rio de Janeiro and the Brazilian Cycling Confederation.

Finally the Appeal Panel recommends an investigation into legislation violations committed by the State Cycling Federation and the Brazilian Cycling Confedration in their alleged affiliation to cycling teams such as GranClub.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2023-005 Appeal Decision - Weightlifting
May 10, 2023

In October 2021 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the minor weightlifter (16) after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Enobosarm (ostarine) and GW501516.

ABCD also reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete's doctor for the prescription of prohibited substances for the minor Athlete.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete and the doctor filed statements in their defence and they were heard for the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Athlete and the doctor admitted that prohibited substances had been administered and used. Further they alleged that there had been irregularities in the chain of custody of the samples between the sample collection and the Rio Laboratory.

The Athlete and his coach testified that the doctor was not informed that the Athlete participated in competitions. The coach stated that the doctor was merely requested to guide the athletes during training and assist them in improving their performances.

The doctor acknowledged that he was aware of the anti-doping rules and that he had prescribed prohibited substances to the minor Athlete. He argued that he was not involved as Athlete Support Personnel and that the TJD-AD had no competence because only the Federal Council of Medicine (CFM) has jurisdiction to resolve the charges against him.

The compounding pharmacy in question that provided the substances stated that they had no prescription on file for the Athlete's medication. A prescription was not necessary while there was also no invoice of purchase available.

Preliminary the Rapporteur establishes that the test results were valid and that there had been no irregularities during the chain of custody that could invalidate these test results. Further the Rapporteur determines that under the Rules the doctor had acted as Athlete Support Personnel.

The Rapporteur finds that the presence of the prohibited substances had been established in the Athlete's sample and that he doctor had administered these prohibited substances. Accordingly both the minor Athlete and the doctor committed the alleged anti-doping rule violations.

The Rapporteur deems that the minor Athlete and his doctor deliberately had acted in this case. As a Protected Person the Rapporteur determines that the minor Athlete had acted with a lower degree of fault and negligence and that the doctor had not been fully aware that the Athlete participated into competitions.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 4 November 2022:

• to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the minor Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 27 October 2021;
• to impose a 12 year period of ineligibility on the doctor;
• to recommend opening criminal proceedings into the doctor's conduct;
• to recommend opening proceedings into the coach's conduct;
• to inform the weightlifting sports organisations and the CFM regional council about the doctor's violation;
• to open an investigation into the pharmacy that had compounded and supplied the prohibited substances.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2022-003 Disciplinary Decision - Rowing
July 29, 2022

On 29 July 2022 the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD Panel) decided to impose a reduced 6 month period of ineligibility on the rower after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Oxandrolone.

In first instance the Panel accepted that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete had demonstrated with corroborating evidence that contaminated supplements were the source of the positive test.

Hereafter the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) appealed the TJD-AD Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Panel. ABCD contended that the Athlete had failed to demonstrate that the supplements in question were contaminated and requested for a more severe sanction.

The Athlete requested the Appeal Panel to dismiss the appeal on the basis that he is an international level Athlete. Accordingly an appeal had to be addressed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and not to the National Appeal Tribunal.

Following confirmation by World Rowing the Rapporteur establishes that the rower indeed is an international level Athlete and that CAS has jurisdiction.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 9 September 2022 by majority that it has no jurisdiction to settle this appeal.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2022-009 Appeal Decision - Cycling
September 9, 2022

In August 2021 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Enobosarm (ostarine).

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 and argued that he acted as recreational athlete with No Significant Fault or Negligence. He believed that his compounded supplement was contaminated. However analysis of two opened unsealed commercial supplements in the Rio Lab confirmed the presence of Ostarine in a Beta-Aline supplement.

ABCD contended that the Athlete failed to establish the source of the prohibited substance due to he only partially mentioned his supplements on the Doping Control Form. He claimed that a compounded supplement was the source, yet he failed to deliver this supplement to the Rio Lab. The commercial supplements were delivered to the Rio Lab opened and unsealed what would invalidate the test result.

The Rapporteur determines that the cyclist was not acting as a recreational athlete, more as a regional athlete because of his participation in competitions and the results he had obtained.

The Rapporteur concludes that the Athlete failed to demonstate that the violation was not intentional. He deems that there were several inconsistencies on what supplements the Athlete had used at the material time and on what he had mentioned on the Doping Control Form.

Further the Rapporteur considers that the alleged compounded supplement was not delivered to the Rio Lab whereas the analysed two commercial supplements were open and unsealed what would invalidate the test result.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 14 June 2022 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of provisional suspension, i.e. on 10 August 2021.

In November 2021 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the weightlifter after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

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

The Athlete disputed the reliability of the test result and raised several hypotheses that could have caused the postive test. Further she lacked to cooperate in the proceedings and failed to attend the hearing of the TJD-AD.

The Rapporteur finds that the presence of the prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation.

In view of the evidence the Rapporteur deems that the Athlete's assertions failed to explain the presence of exogenous Nandrolone in her system.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 7 December 2022 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 3 November 2021.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2022-008 Disciplinary Decision - Cycling
June 14, 2022

On 14 June 2022 the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) decides to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the cyclist after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Enobosarm (ostarine).

In first instance the Rapporteur concluded that the Athlete failed to demonstate that the violation was not intentional because of a contaminated supplement. He also deemed that there were several inconsistencies his statements.

Hereafter in July 2022 the Athlete appealed the disciplinary decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Panel. He requested the Appeal Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a reduced sanction.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and argued that he acted as a recreational cyclist. He acknowledged that he had failed to mention all his supplements on the Doping Control Form.

He alleged that he had demonstrated sufficiently with circumstantial evidence and analysis in the Rio Lab that a commercial supplement was contaminated. He asserted that a low concentration of Ostarine was found in this over-the-counter supplement, consistent with the low concentration Ostarine found in his sample.

Following assessment of the evidence the Appeal Panel accepts that the Athlete can be qualified as a recreational cyclist. Although the Athlete had provided two open unsealed supplement for analysis to the Rio Lab this fault can not invalidate the test result that showed that one supplement was contaminated.

Further the Panel considers that scientific studies showed that 15 procent of the industrial supplements can contain contaminants. The Athlete was tested before without issues and the concentration found in his system was very low and consistent with the concentration contaminants present in his supplement.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 9 September 2022 to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a reduced 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 10 August 2021.