TJD-AD 2020-009 Disciplinary Decision - Athletics

25 Jun 2020

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-036 Appeal Decision - Athletics
August 12, 2020


The Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample - collected in September 2019 - tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO).

After 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 stated that his nutritionist had administered protein injections. Further he asserted that during the sample collection and the chain of custody several irregularities occurred as departures of the ISTI and ISL.

In view of the evidence 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 holds that the Athlete failed to demonstrate with corroborating evidence that there had been departures of the ISTI or ISL that could invalidate the test result. He failed to apply for a TUE, nor had mentioned the injections on the Doping Control Form, nor his supplements. 

Furthermore the B-sample was not analysed because the Athlete repeatedly failed to make payments within the set deadlines. Also there were no grounds to conduct DNA-analysis, neither grounds for ordering ABCD to conduct analysis of the B-sample.

Following assessment of the Athlete's conduct the Rapporteur finds that the Athlete had acted with a high degree of negligence and failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional. Finally the Rapporteur considers that there had been delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 25 June 2020 by marjority to impose a 46 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 10 September 2019.

TJD-AD 2020-028 Appeal Decision - Cycling

12 May 2020

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-020 Disciplinary Decision - Cycling
February 11, 2020

On 11 February 2020 the TJD-AD Panel decided to impose a 36 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete after she tested positive for the prohibited substance Gestrinone.

In first instance the Panel accepted that the Athlete's prescribed Gestrinone chip was used in a context unrelated to sport performance despite she acted with a high degree of negligence.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal and request for acquittal or for a further reduced sanction.

She argued that she only acted and competed as an amateur cyclist and that the substance was used in the prescribed implanted Gestrinone contraceptive chip in order to control her menstruation.

The Rapporteur dismissed the Athlete's assertion that she is an amateur cyclist because there is sufficient evidence that she participated as an national level Athlete and as a member of a professional cycling team whereas she also had received anti-doping information..

The Rapporteur agrees that the prescribed implanted Gestrinone contraceptive chip was used in a context unrelated to sport performance. Due to the Gestrinone chip also has an anabolic effect to gain muscle mass the Athlete failed to mention the use of the substance on the Doping Control Form, nor made an application for a TUE.

Finally the Rapporteur deems that the Athlete had acted with a high degree of negligence and that there are no grounds for a further reduction of the sanction.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 12 May 2020 to dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to uphold the Appealed Decision for the imposition of a 36 month period of ineligibility.

TJD-AD 2020-020 Disciplinary Decision - Cycling

11 Feb 2020

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-028 Appeal Decision - Cycling
May 12, 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 Gestrinone.

The Athlete denied the intentional use and asserted that she acted and competed only as an amateur Athlete. She explained that since 2018 she use a prescribed implanted Gestrinone contraceptive chip in order to control her menstruation.

ABCD contended that the Athlete was a national level Athlete and failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional. She didn't mention the use of the substance on the Doping Control Form, neither did she apply for a TUE.

Furthermore ABCD argued that the Gestrinone chip has an anabolic effect to gain muscle mass and it imporved sport performance.

The Rapporteur concludes that the prescribed Gestrinone chip was used in a context unrelated to sport performance. Nevertheless he deemed that as an experienced Athlete she had acted with a high degree of negligence with grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 11 February 2020 to impose a 36 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the hearing.

TJD-AD 2022-001 Disciplinary Decision - Football

17 Feb 2022

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.

TJD-AD 2022-005 Appeal Decision - Cycling

18 Mar 2022

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.

TJD-AD 2022-003 Appeal Decision - Football

11 May 2022

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.

TJD-AD 2022-001 Appeal Decision - Football

10 Mar 2022

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.

TJD-AD 2022-001 Disciplinary Decision - Cycling

18 Mar 2022

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.

TJD-AD 2021-023 Disciplinary Decision - Football

2 Dec 2021

Related cases:

  • TJD-AD 2020-019 Disciplinary Decision - Football
    September 3, 2020
  • TJD-AD 2021-019 Disciplinary Decision - Football
    September 23, 2021
  • TJD-AD 2022-001 Appeal Decision - Football
    March 10, 2022

On 4 July 2019 the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) decided to impose a sanction of 3 years on two doctors because of complicity for their alleged involvement in producing falsified medical information committed by another doctor. The latter doctor received a sanction of 4 years regarding a football player who had used the substance Triamcinolone acetonide.

However the TJD-AD decided on 23 September 2021 to annul the TJD-AD Decision of 4 July 2019 against one of the first mentioned doctors and to refer the case back to the TJD-AD for a new trial. Apparently ABCD and TJD-AD had submitted their communications for this doctor to the wrong e-mail address and consequently he had not received the opportunity to present his defence.

The doctor denied the violation, neither that he was Athlete Support Personnel. He testified, corroborated by the Athlete in question, that he was not the personal doctor of the football player and had only 1 consult about his knee injury.

Thereupon the doctor had signed in good faith a medical document about the football player while he was unaware that it was falsified by the other convicted doctor.

The Rapporteur determines that the doctor acted as Athlete Support Personnel although there was no evidence that he acted intentionally and in complicity with the other convicted doctors.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 2 December 2021 to dismiss the charges and to acquit the doctor.

TJD-AD 2021-019 Disciplinary Decision - Football

23 Sep 2021

Related cases:

  • TJD-AD 2020-019 Disciplinary Decision - Football
    September 3, 2020
  • TJD-AD 2021-023 Disciplinary Decision - Football
    December 2, 2021
  • TJD-AD 2022-001 Appeal Decision - Football
    March 10, 2022


On 3 September 2020 the TJD-AD Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on a Doctor for complicity regarding the use of the substance Triamcinolone acetonide by a football player. 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 these doctors contacted TJD-AD and requested to receive all relevant documents because he had been unaware that in absentia a sanction was imposed.

TJD-AD established that in this case ABCD and TJD-AD had submitted their communications to the wrong e-mail address. As a result the TJD-AD deemed that the doctor had not received the opportunity to present his defence.

Therefore the TJD-AD decides on 23 September 2021 to annul the TJD-AD Decision of 4 July 2019 and to refer the case back to the TJD-AD for a new trial.

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