Related case:

TJD-AD 2023-002 Disciplinary Decision - Cycling
April 25, 2023

In April 2021 the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) decided to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the cyclist for the use of the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO), starting on 21 August 2019.

However in June 2022 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) reported a new anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete.

ABCD's investigation had revealed that the Athlete had acted as a coach of a cycling team during the imposed period of ineligibility. ABCD also reported a violation against the official coach of the cycling team for his prohibited association with the sanctioned Athlete.

Consequently the TJD-AD Panel decided on 25 April 2023 to impose an additional 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. Furthermore a 2 year period of ineligibility was imposed on the coach of the cycling team.

Hereafter the Athlete and the coach filed an apeal with the TJD-AD Appeal Panel. They requested to set aside the Appealed Decision and argued that there were grounds for a reduced sanction.

The Rapporteur of the Appeal Panel assessed and addressed the evidence and the Athlete's conduct in this case. Nevertheless the Rapporteur rejected the preliminary issues raised by the Athlete and deemed that she clearly had breached the imposed period of ineligibility as acting coach of the cycling team.

Accordingly the Rapporteur confirms and specifies the sanctions that had been imposed in first instance:

• 3 years as additional sanction on the Athlete, starting on 20 August 2022; and
• 2 years on the coach, starting on 25 April 2023.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 3 August 2023 to dismiss the appeal filed by the Athlete and the coach and to uphold the Appealed Decision.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2023-003 Disciplinary Decision - Basketball
August 3, 2023


On 3 August 2023 the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the basketball player after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis.

Although in first instance the violation was deemed not intentional, the Athlete made no admission and did not accept a provisional suspension. He also failed to demonstrate with evidence that the use of Cannabis occurred out-of-competition.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Panel. He requested the Appeal Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a reduced sanction, starting on the date of the sample collection.

This time the Athlete admitted the violation and explained that he had used Cannabis for health reasons. With evidence he attempted to demonstrate that he had used the substance out-of-competition in a context unrelated to sport performance.

Considering the evidence in this case the Rapporteur accepts that the violation was not intentional and that the substance was not used in a context to sport performance. However in view of the Athlete's conduct the Rapporteur deems that there are insufficient grounds to reduce the imposed sanction.

Nevertheless the Rapporteur determines that indeed there had been delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete. Consequently this justifies the modification of the starting date of the sanction.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 4 October 2023 to uphold the Appealed Decision and the imposition of a 2 year period of ineligibility. The Appeal Panel decides to modify the starting date of the sanction to be set on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 17 January 2023.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2023-002 Disciplinary Decision - Cycling
August 3, 2023

On 3 August 2023 the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) decided to impose a severe 6 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. Not only tested the Athlete positive for multiple prohibited substances, he also had breached the ordered provisional suspension.

Hereafter both the Athlete and the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) appealed the Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Panel.

The Rapporteur deems to dismiss the Athlete's appeal as he failed to establish grounds to set aside the Appealed Decision. However ABCD's appeal is deemed to be admissible regarding the Athlete's Provisional Suspension.

ABCD contended that in first instance the Athlete was erroneously sanctioned for 6 years because he had breached the Provisional Suspension. ABCD argued that under the Rules when an athlete breached the Provisional Suspension, then a standard sanction of 4 years shall be imposed, starting on the date of the decision.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 4 October 2023:

• The Athlete's appeal is dismissed;
• The appeal made by ABCD is admissible;
• The 6 year period of ineligibility is set aside;
• Imposed on the Athlete is a 4 year period of ineligibility;
• The sanction shall not start on the date of the Provisional Suspension;
• The sanction shall start on the date of the Appealed Decision, i.e. on 3 August 2023.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2023-003 Disciplinary Decision - Football
July 10, 2023

On 10 July 2023 the TJD-AD Panel decided to impose an 8 month period of ineligibility on the football player after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Tamoxifen.

In first instance the TJD-AD Panel deemed that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete acted with some degree of negligence. The Panel accepted that he by mistake had purchased and used Tamoxifen Citrate instead of Tadalafil Citrate.

Herafter the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) appealed this Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Panel. ABCD requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a more servere sanction on the Athlete.

ABCD contended that the Athlete had not demonstrated how the substance had entered his system. Moreover he failed to produce corroborating evidence that he indeed had purchased Tamoxifen Citrate instead of Tadalafil Citrate in a pharmacy.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied he acted intentionally. He asserted that he had cooperated with the proceedings and that only a low concentration of the substance was found in his samples.

Although Tamoxifen was used by athletes to treat the side effects of anabolic steroids, he argued that no other prohibited substances had been detected in his samples. He acknowledged that he had not checked his medication after purchase in the pharmacy.

The Rapporteur upholds the conclusion that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation. He finds that he failed to demonstrate how the substance had entered his system.

The Rapporteur regards that the Athlete had not mentioned his medication on the Doping Control Form, nor produced corroborating evidence about the alleged purchase of his medication in the pharmacy.

Further the Rapporteur holds that there are inconsistencies in the Athlete's explanation that the original medication was used to improve his erectile function without a prescription. He failed to check his medication, nor made an application for a TUE.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 18 October 2023 to annul the Appealed Decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 11 November 2022.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2023-001 Disciplinary Decision – Athletics
March 5, 2023

On 3 May 2023 the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD Panel) decides on 3 May 2023 to impose a 16 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete for 3 Whereabouts Failures within a 12 month period:

• a Filing Failure on 31 March 2021;
• a Missed Test on 8 November 2021;
• a Missed Test on 5 March 2022

In first instance the Rapporteur concluded that the Athlete acted negligently regarding his Whereabouts Failures. Nevertheless he accepted that the violation was not intentional and that there are grounds for a reduced sanction.

Hereafter in May 2023 the Athlete appealed the Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Panel. 

Following assessment of the evidence regarding the Athlete's first Whereabouts Failure the Rapporteur determines that several failures had occurred:

• In the Notification to the Athlete the deadline to update Whereabouts in ADAMS was incorrect set on 20 March 2021 instead of 31 March 2021;
• An e-mail addressed to ABCD was found confirming that the Athlete indeed had updated his Whereabouts information.
• As a result the 1st Whereabouts Failure should not have been recorded.
• Accordingly the Athlete had not committed an anti-doping rule violation for 3 Whereabouts Failures within a 12 month period.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 18 October 2023 by majority to set aside the Appealed Decision of 3 May 2023 and to acquit the Athlete.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2023-002 Disciplinary Decision - Football
October 13, 2023

In March 2023 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) reported two anti-doping rule violations:

• against the football player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).
• against his sports doctor for the administration of the prohibited substance.

Consequently the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) decided on 16 October 2023:

• to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 4 March 2023.
• to impose a 30 year sanction on the doctor and to report his conduct to the Federal Council of Medicine and the Brazilian Society of Sports Exercise Medicine.

The Panel ruled that there was no medical justification for the use of Nandrolone as treatment for the Athlete's injury. No medical evidence had been produced, nor was there an application of a TUE.

Hereafter the Athlete and the doctor appealed the Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Panel. Yet, in view of the evidence, the Rapporteur dismissed the doctor's appeal completely.

Regarding the Athlete the Rapporteur considers his actions as intentional and as an anti-doping rule violation. Nevertheless, he acknowledged the Athlete's substantial assistance in the case against the doctor which accordingly serves as a justification for a reduction of his sanction.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 21 February 2024:

• to dismiss the doctors appeal and to uphold the sanction of 30 years; and
• to set aside the 4 year sanction imposed on the Athlete and to impose a 2 year sanction because of his substantial assistance in the case against the doctor.

In March 2019 NADO Italia has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Maltese boxer Steve Martin after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Heptaminol and
Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Italian National Anti-Doping Tribunal.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substances. He explained that he had used a fatburner for weight loss needed to relief his injured meniscus.

The prosecutor finds that the violation was intentional due to the inconsistencies in the evidence and statements provided by the Athlete. He contended that the filed medical information was brief and produced after the Athlete was tested positive. The Athlete failed to apply for a TUE and the fat burner was already used by the Athlete before the alleged meniscus injury occurred.

The prosecutor further finds that the Athlete's weight loss made it possible for him to participate in the 67 kg weight category matches. Also he had admitted the use of the product 19 Anabol Testo to preserve mussle power during weight loss. Finally the prosecutor holds that the used fat burner could not explain the presence of the other prohibited substance Heptaminol found in his sample.

The Tribunal dismissed the Athlete’s explanation and finds that he failed to establish that the violation was not intentional. The Tribunal deems that the medical information was produced only afterwards in support of the Athlete’s defence and his use of the substances in question were not for the recovery of the alleged meniscus injury.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on 15 July 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ingeligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the decision.

In October 2018 the Argentinian Anti-Doping Commission reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol. After notification the Athlete failed to file a statement in his defence.

Accordingly the National Disciplinary Anti-Doping Tribunal (TNDA) decided in February 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. Hereafter the Athlete appealed the TNDA Decision with the Appeal Tribunal. 

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and argued that he is only an amateur rugby player acting due to ignorance. He explained with evidence that in August 2018 his written defence was submitted to the previous address of the TNDA. After it was rejected due to unknown address he tried to deliver this letter personally at the that address in August 2018 and finally succeeded in March 2018 at the TNDA office. 

The TNDA Panel finds that the appeal is admissible and acknowledged that the Athlete’s failure to timely file a statement is his defence was not attributed to the Athlete.

Nevertheless the Panel deems that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional nor grounds for a reduced santion. 

Therefore the TNDA decides on 4 October 2019 to uphold the Appealed Decision for the imposition of a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension.

In June 2019 the Argentinian Anti-Doping Commission has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Betametasone. After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and failed to attend the hearing of the National Disciplinary Anti-Doping Tribunal (TNDA). 

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He explained with evidence that as treatment for his asthma prescribed medication was used. He argued that he had mentioned his medication on the Doping Control Form whereas his application for a retroactive TUE was denied by the TUE Panel. 

The Tribunal finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete’s sample and accordingly without a valid TUE he had committed an anti-doping rule violation. 

The Tribunal accepts that the violation was not intentional and considers the Athlete’s degree of fault and negligence in this case. Further it holds that there were delays in the proceedings attributed to the Athlete. Therefore the TNDA decides on 13 March 2020 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In October 2018 the Argentinian Anti-Doping Commission reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Clomifene. After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and did not attend the hearing of the National Disciplinary Anti-Doping Tribunal (TNDA). 

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He stated that he has used a medication suggested at a gym where he trained. He failed to consult the club’s medical team about this medication and he also suffered from health problems due to the side effects of this substance. 

The Tribunal 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. Further the Tribunal considers that there is no evidence that the violation was intentional. 

Therefore the TNDA decides on 21 October 2019 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.