TJD-AD 2021-019 Disciplinary Decision - Cycling

19 Dec 2021

Related cases:

  • TJD-AD 2020-018 Disciplinary Decision - Cycling
    February 11, 2020
  • TJD-AD 2022-007 Appeal Decision - Cycling
    May 11, 2022

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.

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

In this matter ABCD also charged GranClub's cycle team, its captain and its coach for complicity in breaching the Athlete's ineligibility. The accused filed statements in their defence and the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The accused denied the violations and argued that GranClub's trainings and events are only recreational and non-professional. The organisation is not affiliated, nor a Signatory, nor subjected to the anti-doping rules.

The Rapporteur finds that prior the TJD-AD had imposed a 4 year sanction on the Athlete and that she had breached ineligibility. In view of GranClub's activities the Rapporteur concludes that under the Rules it has the characteristics of a sports club and therefore is submitted to the anti-doping rules.

The Rapporteur establishes that the cycle team had participated in several trainings in preparation for cycle competitions organised by Granciclismo. Also there is evidence that the Athlete had participated in these trainings. Consequently the Rapporteur deems that the cycling team, its captain and coach were involved in complicity in the Athlete's breach of ineligibility.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides 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.

Futhermore the TJD-AD Panel decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the cycling team, its captain and its coach including registration of this decision with the Cycling Federation of the State of Rio de Janeiro and the Brazilian Cycling Confederation.

TJD-AD 2021-018 Disciplinary Decision - Football

4 Nov 2021

In June 2021 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 substance Dexamethasone.

ABCD also reported an anti-doping rule violation against the doctor of the Athlete's football club for the administration of Dexamethasone.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete and the doctor filed statements in their defence and the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance whereas he had mentioned all his supplements on the Doping Control Form and reseached his medication. He assumed that the football club's doctor erroneously had administered this medication.

The doctore admitted the violation and denied that he had acted intentionally. He confirmed that by mistake he had administered this medication and not the intented one.

The Rapporteur accepts that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and that he bears a low degree of negligence. In view of the evidence and circumstances in this case the Rapporteur establishes that the doctor had acted with Significant Fault or Negligence.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 4 November 2021 to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 10 June 2021.

Furthermore the Panel decides to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the doctor for his negligence regarding the administration of the prohibited substance.

TJD-AD 2021-017 Appeal Decision - Football

30 Jun 2021

Related cases:

  • TJD-AD 2021-003 Disciplinary Decision - Football
    April 22, 2021
  • TJD-AD 2021-018 Disciplinary Decision - Football
    September 23, 2021
  • TJD-AD 2021-027 Appeal Decision - Football
    November 12, 2021

On 22 April 2021 the TJD-AD Panel decided by majority to impose a 2 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete after his samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Dexamethasone.

In first instance the Panel was troubled whether ABCD had established with sufficient evidence that the Athlete had acted intentionally, rather that it had established that the football club's Athlete Support Personell were responsible for the violation.

Hereafter ABCD appealed the Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal.

The Appeal Panel assessed the Appealed Decision and determines that the Rapporteur in first instance had not voted, nor had provided foundations for his arguments. Consequently the Appeal Panel deems that the Appealed Decision was not valid because its Decision had not been established by Panel Majority.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 30 June 2021 to annul the Appealed Decision and to refer the case back to the TJD-AD First Instance Tribunal.

TJD-AD 2021-003 Disciplinary Decision - Football

22 Apr 2021

Related cases:

  • TJD-AD 2021-017 Appeal Decision - Football
    June 30, 2021
  • TJD-AD 2021-018 Disciplinary Decision - Football
    September 23, 2021
  • TJD-AD 2021-027 Appeal Decision - Football
    November 12, 2021


In June 2020 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 Dexamethasone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and argued that he acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence. He stated that he and two other football players had received Citoneurin and Miofibrax injections administered by the football club's physiotherapist as recommended by a doctor.

In view of the evidence in this case the Panel was troubled whether ABCD had established with sufficient evidence that the Athlete had acted intentionally, rather it had established that the football club's Athlete Support Personell were responsible for the violation.

Furthermore it remained unclear for the Panel whether the physiotherapist by mistake the medication Dexa Cetoneurim had administered instead of the Citoneurin and Miofibrax medication. Finally the Panel considers that there had been delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides by majority on 22 April 2021 to impose a 2 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. 12 August 2019. The Athlete already had served this sanction.

TJD-AD 2020-057 Appeal Decision - Football

12 Dec 2019

Related case:

TJD-AD 2019-036 Disciplinary Decision - Football
October 18, 2019

On 18 October 2019 the TJD-AD Panel decided to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete after she tested positive for the prohibited substance Isometheptene.

In this matter ABCD was aware that the widely used pain killer Neosaldine was used. This product contained Isometheptene, yet this substance was not mentioned as ingredient on the label. In previous cases, involving Isometheptene and Neosaldina, reduced sanctions were imposed due to No Significant Faul or Negligence.

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

The Appeal Panel accepts that the violation was not intentional. However within the Panel there were different opinions regarding the Athlete's degree of negligence because of:

  • the use of the pain killer was not mentioned on the doping control form;
  • the failue to cooperate properly with the proceedings;
  • the failure to timely demonstrate the source of the prohibited substance; and
  • the circumstances on how the substance had entered her system.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 12 December 2019 by majority to impose a reduced 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

TJD-AD 2020-026 Appeal Decision - Cycling

12 May 2020

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-019 Disciplinary Decision - Cycling
March 17, 2022

On 11 February 2020 the TJD-AD Panel decided to impose an 18 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide.

In first instance the Panel concluded that the Athlete acted with a high degree of negligence. He failed to provide details about his supplier and use of his supplements. Also the presence of the contamination in question was detected only in an unsealed open supplement container.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal and requested to annul the Appealed Decision. He alleged that contamination had caused the positive test result and that analysis in the Rio Lab had established this contamination in the supplement in question.

After assessment of the case the Rapporteur finds that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that there was supplement contamination, nor that he acted with a low degree of negligence, nor grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the TJD-Appeal Panel decides on 12 May 2020 by majority to dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to uphold the Appeal Decision.

TJD-AD 2020-025 Appeal Decision - Football

9 Apr 2020

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-016 Disciplinary Decision - Football
March 5, 2020


On 11 February 2020 the TJD-AD Panel decides to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the football player after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Isometheptene. In first instance the Panel accepted that the violation was not intentional, that the substance was used as medication and mentioned on the Doping Control Form.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal and requested for acquital. The Athlete argued that the violation was not intentional, that he acted with a low degree of negligence and that he had cooperated with the investigation.

Following assessment of the case the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 31 March 2020 by majority to dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to uphold the Appealed Decision of 5 March 2020.

TJD-AD 2020-024 Appeal Decision - Gymnastics

31 Mar 2020

Related case:

TJD-AD 2019-065 Disciplinary Decision - Gymnastics
December 17, 2019


On 17 December 2019 the TJD-AD Panel decides by majority to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide.

In first instance the Panel deemed that there were inconsistencies in the Athlete's statements about the use of the substance and the concentration found in her sample.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal and requested for a reduced sanction. She argued that she was a minor, gave a prompt admission and had demonstrated how and when the substance had entered her system.

In view of the evidence the Rapporteur concludes that the Athlete's violation was not intentional despite that she was an experienced Athlete as a minor and had acted with a medium degree of negligence.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 31 March 2020 by majority to impose a reduced 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 7 June 2019.

TJD-AD 2020-023 Appeal Decision - Football

31 Mar 2020

Related case:

TJD-AD 2019-047 Disciplinary Decision - Football
October 17, 2019


On 17 October 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 Cocaine. In first instance the Panel deemed that the violation was not intentional although the Athlete had acted negligently.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal and requested for a reduced sanction of 3 months invoking the principle of lex mitior.

Following assessment of the case the Rapporteur accepts that the violation was not intentional and occurred in a context unrelated to sport performance. The Rapporteur considers that the Athlete continued to receive psychological treatment for his depression and deems that there are grounds for a further reduction of the sanction.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 31 March 2020 by majority to impose a reduced 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 16 March 2019.

TJD-AD 2020-021 Appeal Decision - Swimming

31 Mar 2020

Related cases:

  • TJD-AD 2019-024 Disciplinary Decision - Swimming
    October 11, 2019
  • TJD-AD 2020-005 Disciplinary Decision - Swimming
    February 19, 2020


On 19 February 2020 the TJD-AD Panel decided to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete after she testes positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide.

In first instance the Panel deemed that the Athlete was unable to demonstrate with sufficent corroborating evidence that the source of the substance was a contaminated supplement. Nevertheless the Panel was willing to accept that the violation was not intentional.

Prior the TJD-AD Panel on 11 October 2019 had granted the Athlete's request to lift the provisional suspension in order to compete in major international sports events.

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

ABCD requested for a more severe sanction and contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate how the substance had entered her system while she had acted with a high degree of negligence. By contrast the Athlete requested for a more reduced sanction and asserted that she had acted with a low degree of negligence.

Following assessment of the case the Rapporteur deems that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete had acted with a medium degree of negligence.

Therefore the TJD-Appeal Panel decides on 31 March 2020 the dismiss the appeals filed by ABCD and the Athlete and to uphold the Appealed Decision for the imposition of a 12 month period of ineligibility.

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