TJD-AD 2020-019 Disciplinary Decision - Cycling

11 Feb 2020

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-026 Appeal Decision - Cycling
April 9, 2020

The Brazilian Doping Control Authority has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide. 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 stated that he was unaware that he had ingested a prohibited substance and claimed that a contaminated supplement was the source of the positive test. Analysis of one supplement in question by the Rio Lab revealed the presence of a contamination.

The Rapporteur established that the Athlete is extremely experienced, yet acted with a high degree of negligence regarding the 11 supplements he had purchased and ingested  without any reasearch.

Furthermore the Athlete failed to provide details about his supplier and use of his supplements. Also the presence of the contamination was detected in an open container of the supplement in question.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 11 February 2020 by majority to impose an 18 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. 20 July 2019.

TJD-AD 2020-018 Disciplinary Decision - Cycling

11 Feb 2020

Related cases:

  • TJD-AD 2021-019 Disciplinary Decision - Cycling
    December 19, 2021
  • TJD-AD 2022-007 Appeal Decision - Cycling
    May 11, 2022

The Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist after her sample - provided in July 2019 - tested positive for the prohibited substances Chlorothiazide, Hydrochlorothiazide and Stanozolol.

Further ABCD reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete's doctor for the prescription and administration of the prohibited substances.

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

The Athlete asserted that she only recently had started cycling and had not received anti-doping education. The substances were prescribed by her doctor whereas she used diuretics for many years because of her medical condition.

The doctor acknowledged the prescription and administration of the prohibited substances. He testified that only following the positive test the patient told the doctor that she is an Athlete submitted to doping control.

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

The Rapporteurs questions the Athlete's explanation and deems that the Athlete failed to apply for a TUE, nor mentioned her medication on the Doping Control Form.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 11 February 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension. Also the TJD-AD Panel decides for the acquital of the Athlete's doctor.

TJD-AD 2020-016 Disciplinary Decision - Football

11 Feb 2020

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-025 Appeal Decision - Football
April 9, 2020

In July 2019 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Isometheptene.

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 Rapporeur accepts that the violation was not intentional wheras the Athlete had used the substance as medication for his headache en mentioned this on the Doping Control Form.

It remained unclear whether the medication was prescribed by a physician or used as self-medication. Further the Rapporteur considers that there had been delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 11 February 2020 to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 23 June 2019.

TJD-AD 2020-015 Disciplinary Decision - Basketball

17 Dec 2019

In August 2019 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the basketball player after his sample tested positive for multiple prohibited substances: Anastrozole, Oxandrolone and Stanozolol.

The Athlete was tested out-of-competition in July 2019 and he acknowledged to the Doping Control Officer that he had used Cannabis and cycles of steroids. He declined to mention these substances on the Doping Control Form.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete failed to file a statement in his defence and the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Rapporteur finds that multiple prohibited substances had been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation. In view of the evidence the Rapporteur concludes that the Athlete clearly intentionally had used these prohibited substances.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 17 December 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension.

TJD-AD 2020-009 Appeal Decision - Athletics

12 Dec 2019

Related case:

TJD-AD 2019-246 Disciplinary Decision - Athletics
August 26, 2019


On 26 August 2019 the TJD-AD de Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for possesion of the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO).

Hereafter in September 2019 the Athlete appealed the Decision and requested for acquital. Despite the Athlete previously had admitted the violation he alleged that there was no evidence that he had puchased the prohibited substance.

However in view of the evidence the Rapporteur determines that the Athlete possessed the prohibited substance EPO and accordingly had committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 12 December 2019 to dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to uphold the imposed sanction of 4 years, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 30 April 2019.

TJD-AD 2020-006 Disciplinary Decision - Football

21 Feb 2020

In July 2019 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 substances Chlorothiazide and Hydrochlorothiazide.

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 gave a prompt admission, denied the intentional use and requested for a reduced sanction. He explained with evidence that the substances were used as medication for his hypertension. He mentioned his medication on the Doping Control Form and acknowledged that he failed to apply for a TUE.

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

The Rapporteur determines that the Athlete was duly notified by ABCD and deems that the violation was not intentional. Further the Rapporteur considers that the Athlete gave a prompt admission and that he acted with some degree of negligence.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 21 February 2020 to impose an 8 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 15 June 2019.

TJD-AD 2020-005 Disciplinary Decision - Swimming

19 Feb 2020

Related cases:

  • TJD-AD 2019-024 Disciplinary Decision - Swimming
    October 11, 2019
  • TJD-AD 2020-021 Appeal Decision - Swimming
    March 31, 2020

The Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the swimmer after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide. After notification the Athlete filed a statement in her defence.

The Athlete claimed that the source of the positive test was a contaminated supplement she had used. In this matter she handed over the supplement in question and a laboratory report stating that this supplement was contaminated.

Thereupon the analysis of this supplement in the Rio Lab did not reveal a prohibited substance. Further the Rio Lab did not accept the findings of the Athlete's laboratory report because this laboratory was not accredited and had used non appoved methods and technology. There was also no evidence that the analysed supplement came from the same batch the Athlete had consumed prior to the sample collection.

The TJD-AD Rapporteur agrees that only the approved testing results of the WADA accredited Rio Lab are acceptable and that there is no evidence that the analysed supplement in question came from the same batch the Athlete prior had used.

However the Rapporteur is willing to accept that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete had acted negligently.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 19 February 2020 to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 19 June 2019.

TJD-AD 2020-001 Appeal Decision - Rowing

15 Jan 2020

On 26 August 2019 the TJD-AD Panel decided to impose an 8 month period of ineligibility on the rower after she tested positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide in a low concentration due to the unintentional ingestion of a contaminated supplement.

Hereafter in August 2019 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) appealed the Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Panel. ABCD contended that the Athlete had acted with significant negligence and that a 2 year period of ineligibility must be imposed on the Athlete.

The Rapporteur finds that it is undisputed that the Athlete unintentionally had committed an anti-doping rule violation. Further the Rapporteur agrees that a sanction of 2 years must be imposed due to the Athlete's significant negligence.

Nevertheless the other Panel members considers that the analysis in a laboratory confirmed that the supplement in question was contaminated. Also the low concentration of Furosemide found in the supplement was consistent with the low concentration established in the Athlete's samples.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel Appeal Panel decides by majority on 15 January 2020 to dismiss ABCD's appeal and to uphold the Disciplinary Decison of 26 August 2019 for the imposition of a sanction of 8 months.

TJD-AD 2019-246 Disciplinary Decision - Athletics

26 Aug 2019

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-009 Appeal Decision - Athletics
December 12, 2019

In November 2018 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for possession of the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO).

The Athlete's club had established that the Athlete had received a parcel containing EPO. The Athlete admitted the purchase of EPO and consequently the club terminated his contract.

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

In view of the evidence and the Athlete's admission the Rapporteur finds that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation for possession of EPO without grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the TJD-AD Paneld decides on 26 August 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 30 April 2019.

TJD-AD 2019-245 Disciplinary Decision - Rowing

26 Aug 2019

In December 2018 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rower after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide.

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

The Athlete admitted the violation and explained with evidence that she had used a vitamine supplement from another athlete in her team, prescribed by the club's nutritionist and from a compounding pharmacy. Analysis of this supplement in question revealed Furosemide contamination consistent with the concentrations found in the Athlete's samples.

The Rapporeur finds that the presence of the prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Rapporteur deems that the violation was not intentional and the result of a supplement contamination, rather used to mask other prohibited substance, or used for weight control.

Considering the circumstances in this case the Rapporteur deems that the Athlete acted with some degree of negligently because she had used supplements from another athlete and failed to mention this on the Doping Control Form.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 26 August 2019 to impose an 8 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 21 October 2018.

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