TJD-AD 2020-032 Appeal Decision - Football

24 Jun 2020

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-007 Disciplinary Decision - Football
May 7, 2020

On 7 May 2020 the TJD-AD Panel decided to impose only a warning on the football player after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Enobosarm (Ostarine) due to a prescribed contamined supplement he had used.

Hereafter het Prosecution appealed the Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal and requested for a more severe sanction.

The Prosecutor contended that the Athlete had acted with a higher degree of Negligence because he didn't mention his supplements on the Doping Control Form. Further he disputed the doping incidents that occurred within the Athlete's football club where prescriptions were issued for supplements as for prohibited substances.

In view of the evidence the Rapporteur confirmes the conclusion of the TJD-AD Panel in first instance that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and that he acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence. The source of the prohibited substance was a contaminated supplement compounded in a pharmacy.

The Rapporteur agrees that an investigation is needed into the football club's Athlete Support Team where besides prescriptions for supplements also prohibited substances were prescriped.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 24 June 2020 to dismiss the Appeal and to uphold the Appealed Decision of 7 may 2020 for the imposition of a warning on the Athlete without a period of ineligibility. Further the Appeal Panel ordered an investigation into the conduct of the Athlete Support Personnel of the football club in question.

TJD-AD 2020-027 Appeal Decision - Sailing

12 May 2020

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-003 Disciplinary Decision - Sailing
March 17, 2020

On 17 March 2020 the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) decided to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Tamoxifen.

Here the TJD-AD Panel accepted that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete underwent legitimate medical treatment for his condition with prescribed medication.

Hereafter the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) appealed the Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Panel and requested for a more severe sanction.

ABCD contended that the Athlete had acted with a higher degree of negligence since he failed to apply in advance for a TUE. As an experienced Athlete, submitted frequently for Doping Control, he had to be aware to apply timely for a TUE.

The TJD-AD Appeal Panel agrees that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and that the Athlete had to use prescribed medication for his condition whereas a valid TUE was required.

In view of the circumstances the Appeal Panel deems that the Athlete had acted with a higher degree of negligence. Furthermore the Panel considers that prior World Sailing had granted a retroactive TUE and that there had been substantial delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete. 

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 12 May 2020 by majority to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. 15 August 2019.

TJD-AD 2020-007 Disciplinary Decision - Cycling

21 Feb 2020

In September 2019 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 Heptaminol and Octodrine.

After 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 could not explain how the prohibited substances had entered his system. He believed that in one supplement the ingredient Metylhexane had metabolized into Octodrine. However the Rio de Janeiro Lab dismissed this possibility.

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

The Rapporteur accepts that the violation was not intentional although the Athlete was unable to demonstrate how the substance had entered his system.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 11 February 2020 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 25 November 2019.

TJD-AD 2020-007 Disciplinary Decision - Football

7 May 2020

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-032 Appeal Decision - Football
July 15, 2020

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 subsance Enobosarm (Ostarine) in a low concentration.

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

The Rapporteur establishes that the Athlete had demonstrated with corroborating evidence that the prescribed supplement he had used had been contaminated with the substance Ostarine compounded in a pharmacy. Further the Rio Lab confirmed that he low concentration found in the Athlete's sample was consistent with the concentration of contamination found in the supplement in question.

Accordingly the Rapporteur deems that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and that he acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 7 May 2020 to impose on the Athlete a warning without a period of ineligibility.

TJD-AD 2020-004 Disciplinary Decision - Ju-Jitsu

13 Mar 2020

In December 2018 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-nortestosterone, 19-noretiocholanolone (Nandrolone), Androsterone, Etiocholanolone, Testosterone and its adiols.

Also ABCD reported that the Athlete had attemped to tamper with any part of the Doping Control. The Control Officers reported that the Athlete acted suspiciously and had discarded a plastic holder containing a yellowish liquid, apparently urine, in the trash between the Doping Control Station and the venue. ABCD considered both violations as one single violation and did not pursue the charge of tampering against the Athlete.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered whereas the Athlete didn't respond to any of the ABCD communications. Prior on the Doping Control Form the Athlete had mentioned the use of supplements, hormone replacement therapy and a marrow donation.

Following the Athlete's failure to filed a statement in his defence the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Rapporteur establishes that ABCD has jurisdiction and that the Athlete under the Rules anyhow was subjected to submit to sample collection despite he was unregistered as an Athlete with the Brazilian Ju-Jitsu Confederation.

The Rapporteur finds that the presence of multiple prohibited substances had been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Without the Athlete response the Rapporteur deems that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor how the substances had entered his system. There are no mitigation circumstances and there was evidence of attempted tampering with the sample collection.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 13 March 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 27 December 2018.

TJD-AD 2020-006 Disciplinary Decision - Powerlifting

11 Feb 2020

In May 2019 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the powerlifter after his sample tested positive for multiple prohibited substances: Androsterone, Drostanolone, Etiocholanolone, Metandienone, Stanozolol, Testosterone and its Adiols.

After notification the Athlete only submitted an admission to the ABCD. Hereafter he didn't respond to the communications, nor filed a statement in his defence, nor attended the hearing of the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

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

In his submission the Athlete only admitted the violation and failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional. Furthermore the Rapporteur determines that there had been substantial delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date over de sample collection, i.e. on 23 February 2019.

TJD-AD 2020-003 Disciplinary Decision - Athletics

29 Jun 2020

In July 2019 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the blind Parathlete after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 5-Methylhexan-2-amine (1,4-dimethylpentylamine).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Parathlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

Following a preliminary investigation ABCD also reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete's Guide for the administration of a prohibited substance to the Parathlete. After notification the Guide failed to cooperate, nor responded to the communications, nor attended the TJD-AD hearing.

The Parathlete accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the substance. She argued that she was tested before without issues and requested for a reduced sanction.

Because of her blindness the Parathlete needed the assistance of her Guide regarding the supplements she used. She stated that the source of the positive test was a supplement Mr. Veinz provided by her Guide whereas she was unaware that it contained a prohibited substance.

Undisputed is that available on the market there were two versions of the supplement Mr. Veinz . One version containing the prohibited substance was purchased by the Guide and issued to the Parathlete.

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.

Further the Rapporteur finds that there is no evidence that the Athlete acted intentionally. Yet, he deemed that she rather acted negligently in borrowing a supplement belonging to her Guide.

The Rapporteur holds that the Guide failed to respond, nor cooperated in this case and accordingly deemed that he failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional.

In a dissenting opinion one Arbitrator in the Panel finds that the Parathlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional due to the many inconsistencies in her statements.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 29 June 2020 by majority to impose a 20 month period of ineligibility on the Parathlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e on 7 August 2019.

Furthermore the TJD-AD Panel decides to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Guide for the administration of a prohibited substance, starting on the date of the Decision.

TJD-AD 2020-003 Disciplinary Decision - Sailing

17 Mar 2020

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-027 Appeal Decision - Sailing
May 22, 2020

In September 2019 the sailing Athlete tested positive for the prohibited substance Tamoxifen. Previously World Sailing had granted a retroactive TUE which was revoked in October 2019 and thereupon by WADA in January 2020.

Hereafter World Sailing referred the case to the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD). The Athlete accepted a provisional suspension in January 2020 and filed a statement in his defence and the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD)

The Athlete explained with corroborating evidence that he suffered from a bilateral gynecomastia and that he had used prescribed Tamoxifen medication as non-surgical treatment.

He was unaware that in advance he had to apply for a TUE becasue he had used the medication in June 2019, 40 days before the start of the competition, whereas he only had to mention on the Doping Control Form the medication he had used the last 7 days.

The TJD-AD Panel accepts that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete underwent legitimate medical treatment for his condition with prescribed medication. Further the Panel agrees that he was only required to mention on the Doping Control Form his medication he had used the last 7 days.

In view of the circumstances the Panel considers that the Athlete had acted with a low degree of negligence because he failed to apply in advance for a TUE. Also the Panel considers that there had been substantial delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete due to the revoked TUE applications.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 17 March 2020 to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 15 August 2019, which the Athlete had already served.

TJD-AD 2019-027 Appeal Decision - Handball

26 Sep 2019

Related case:

TJD-AD 2018-137 Disciplinary Decision - Handball
December 11, 2018

On 13 June 2019 the TJD-AD Panel decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Clenbuterol.

Hereafter the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) appealed the Decision with the TJD-AD Apppeal Tribunal and requested for a sanction of 4 years.

ABCD contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor how the substance had entered his system. It argued that the Athlete did not produce any corroborating evidence on how and when he had ingested contaminated meat in June 2018 in countries where food contaminations have been established such as China and Mexico.

The Appeal Panel finds that the presence of the prohibited substance Clenbuterol has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Appeal Panel agrees that there is no corroborating evidence that shows that the positive test was caused by food contamination. However the Panel deems that the established low concentration Clenbuterol in the Athlete's sample is more consistent with an unintentional violation.

Therefore The TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 26 September 2019 by majority to dismiss the ABCD Appeal and to uphold the sanction of 2 years imposed on the Athlete.

TJD-AD 2020-036 Appeal Decision - Athletics

12 Aug 2020

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-009-2 Disciplinary Decision - Athletics
June 25, 2020

On 25 June 2020 the TJD-AD Panel decided to impose a 46 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO).

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal. Again the Athlete asserted that there had been irregularities during the sample collection and within the chain of custody while he had received protein injections from his nutritionist.

The Rapporteur assessed the Athlete's arguments and concludes that there are no grounds to annul the Appealed Decision. The Rapporteur deems that the Athlete had acted with a high degree of negligence and failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional. 

The Rapporteur determines that in this case there were no departures of the ISTI or ISL; the Athlete failed to apply for a TUE; nor had mentioned the injections or his supplements on the Doping Control Form.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 12 August 2020 to dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to uphold the imposed sanction of 46 months, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 10 September 2019.

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