TJD-AD 2020-031 Appeal Decision - Canoeing

4 Jun 2020

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-010 Disciplinary Decision - Canoe
April 28, 2020

On 28 April 2020 the TJD-AD Panel decided for the acquittal of the President of the Brazilian Canoe Confederation (CBCa) regarding Complicity. In this matter the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) had established that a Kayak Athlete had breached the imposed provisional suspension with involvement of the CBCa.

Although the CBCa President's complicity was not intentional the TJD-AD deemed that he failed to apply properly the anti-doping rules and had acted with disregard, disrespect and incompetence.

Hereafter in May 2020 the Prosecution appealed the Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal. It requested to set aside the Appealed Decison and to sanction the CBCa President for his complicity.

After assessment of the evidence and circumstances in this case the TJD-Appeal Panel deems that there are no grounds to conclude that the CBCa President was involved in intentional complicity regarding the Athlete's breach of the provisional suspension.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 24 June 2020 to dismiss the appeal and to uphold the Appealed Decision of 28 April 2020.

TJD-AD 2020-030 Appeal Decision - Football

24 Jun 2020

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-004 Disciplinary Decision - Football
May 7, 2020

Previously in 2019 the TJD-AD Tribunal imposed a 2 year period of ineligibility on the football player for the use of Cocaine.

Thereupon in January 2020 the football player requested the TJD-AD Tribunal for a revision of his case because the new WADA Code, coming into force in January 2021, introduced stipulations for substances of abuse and reduced sanctions.

Following the request for revision the TJD-AD decided on 7 May 2020 to allow the Athlete to return to training in November 2020 based on the principle of lex mitior and pending the new 2021 WADA Code.

Hereafter the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) appealed this Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Panel. ABCD requested to set aside the Revision and to uphold the sanction of 2 years.

ABCD contended that the TJD-AD Disciplinary Panel had no competence. Instead under the applicable Rules the Athlete had to address his request for revision to ABCD. Also in this matter the principle of lex mitior is not applicable because a retroactive reduction of the Athlete's sanction is not allowed.

The TJD-AD Appeal Panel establishes that it has competence to settle this case and that the ABCD Appeal is admissible. The Panel agrees that under the applicable Rules there are no grounds for a reduction of the Athlete's sanction.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 24 June 2020 to set aside the Appealed Decision for revision and to uphold the imposed sanction of 2 year.

TJD-AD 2020-010 Disciplinary Decision - Canoeing

28 Apr 2020

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-031 Appeal Decision - Canoe
June 4, 2020

On 2 August 2019 the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Kayak Athlete after he tested positive for a prohibited substance.

Previously in June 2019 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) also had reported that the Athlete had participated as a coach and as an athlete of the Kayak Team of the Brazilian Canoe Confederation (CBCa) during the Provisional Suspension.

ABCD reported that the Athlete was caught 3 times in competition; there were postings on social media showing the Athlete in competition; and the Athlete apparently received support from the CBCa lawyer.

Consequently an anti-doping rule violation was ordered by ABCD against the CBCa President for complicity. The President denied the charge while he acknowledge that in May 2018 he and the Manager of the technical department had been informed about the Athlete's Provisional Suspension.

The CBCa President testified that he was unaware that the Athlete had received permission from the CBCa. The Manager in question confirmed that he granted permission to the Athlete to participate into the competitions during the Provisional Suspension. However the Athlete was never authorised to operate as a coach, only as staff member of the Kayak Team and his registration was changed accordingly.

The Athlete confirmed that he was present at the competitions and he denied that he had breached the provisional suspension. In accordance with his instructions from the CBCa he did not operate there as a coach, nor did he participate into the matches. He asserted that he only had assisted the athletes during these competitions.

In view of the evidence in this case the Rapporteur determines that the Athlete indeed clearly had breached the Provisional Suspension whereas the CBCa was involved into this breach.

Although there were several inconsistencies in the evidence and testimonies in this case the Rapporteur finds that the CBCa President was not intentionally involved in the breach of the Athlete's Provisional Suspension. Nevertheless the Rapporteur deems that the CBCa President had failed to apply properly the anti-doping rules and acted with disregard, disrespect and incompetence.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 28 April 2020 for the acquittal of the President regarding the Complicity violation.

TJD-AD 2020-004 Disciplinary Decision - Football

7 May 2020

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-030 Appeal Decision - Football
June 24, 2020

Previously in 2019 the TJD-AD Tribunal imposed a 2 year period of ineligibility on the football player after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine. Hereafter in January 2020 the football player requested the TJD-AD Tribunal for a revision of his case.

The Athlete invoked the principle of lex mitior to reduce his sanction for his use of Cocaine in view of the upcoming 2021 WADA Code which stipulates reduced sanctions for substances of abuse.

Pending the application of lex mitior the Athlete requested to return to training from November 2020 and to return to competitions from the date the new 2021 WADA Code comes into force in January 2021.

The TJD-AD Panel finds that the Athlete's request for revision is admissible. The Panel establishes that the principle of lex mitior is applicable and holds that the Athlete is allowed to return to training.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 7 May 2020 to grant the Athlete's request to return to training from November 2020 in view of the new WADA Code, coming into force in January 2021.

TJD-AD 2018-137 Disciplinary Decision - Handball

11 Dec 2018

Related case:

TJD-AD 2019-027 Appeal Decision - Handball
September 26, 2019


In November 2018 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the handball player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Clenbuterol. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered.

Hereafter the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal assessed the Athlete's request to lift the provisional suspension. The Panel deemed that there were no grounds raised by the Athlete to lift the provisional suspension.

The Athlete was unable to demonstrate with corroborating evidence that he could not pay for the analysis of the B-sample. Also there had been no departures of ISTI or ISL established.

However the Panel finds that the low concentration Clenbuterol in the Athlete's samples could be consistent with food contamination because these concentrations are in accordance with considerations of WADA, IOC and FIFA in this matter.

With the possibility of food contamination the TJD-AD Panel decides on 11 December 2018 by majority to lift the imposed provisional suspension.

TJD-AD 2017-007 Disciplinary Decision - Canoeing

6 Oct 2017

The Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Canoeist after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. She explained that Lasix was used as treatment for her condition. She mentioned her medication on the Doping Control Form whereas she was registered as Athlete with her Federation only 1 week before the competition.

Listed on the Doping Control Form was also the prohibited substance Isometheptene. Yet, the found concentration in the Athlete's sample was below the threshold.

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

The Rapporteur accepts that the violation was not intentional and that there are grouns for no Significant Fault or Negligence. Further the Rapporteur considers that the Athlete was registered as new Athlete for only 1 week and had mentioned her medication on the Doping Control.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 6 October 2017 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 7 May 2017.

TJD-AD 2017-005 Disciplinary Decision - Basketball

6 Oct 2017

In May 2017 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 Cannabis in a concentration above the WADA treshold.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

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 deems that the Athlete had admitted the violation and that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction. Further the Rapporteur is troubled about the substantial delays between the sample collection in February 2017 and shipping of the samples to the Los Angeles Lab in April 2017. He assigned ABCD to investigate this matter and take measures.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 6 October 2017 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 21 February 2017.

TJD-AD 2017-003 Disciplinary Decision - Canoeing

30 Aug 2017

In May 2017 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Canoeist after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Isometheptene. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and attended the hearing of the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. She explained with evidence that she had used prescribed Neosaldine for her headache. She was unaware that this product contained a prohibited substance whereas she mentioned this product on the Doping Control Form.

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.

The Rapporteur accepts that the violation was not intentional and that there are grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence. The Rapporteur considers that the Athlete demonstrated how the substance had entered her system and mentioned this medication on the Doping Control.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 30 August 2017 to impose a 9 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 23 April 2017.

TJD-AD 2017-001 Disciplinary Decision - Canoeing

30 Aug 2017

In June 2017 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Canoeist after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Isometheptene. After notification the Athlete filed a statement in her defence and attended the hearing of the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. She explained with evidence that she had used prescribed Neosaldine for her headache whereas she mentioned this medication on the Doping Control Form.

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.

The Rapporteur accepts that the violation was not intentional and that there are grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence. The Rapporteur considers that the Athlete demonstrated how the substance had entered her system and mentioned this medication on the Doping Control.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 30 August 2017 by majority to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 6 May 2017.

TJD-AD 2022-007 Appeal Decision - Cycling

11 May 2022

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.

Category
  • Legal Source
  • Education
  • Science
  • Statistics
  • History
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Legal Terms
  • Sport/IFs
  • Other organisations
  • Laboratories
  • Analytical aspects
  • Doping classes
  • Substances
  • Medical terms
  • Various
  • Version
  • Document category
  • Document type
Publication period
Origin