TJD-AD 2020-013 Disciplinary Decision - Football

19 Nov 2020

In July 2020 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Prednisolone and Prednisone. ABCD also charged the Athlete's doctors for complicity regarding these prohibited substances.

After notification the accused filed statements in their defence 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 she had used prescribed medication for her injury and that she had mentioned this medication on the Doping Control Form.

The Athlete acknowledged that at the time when she was tested she very late became aware that she needed a TUE for her medication. Thereupon her TUE application was denied in September 2019 and again in May 2020. Later the South American Football Confederation (CONMEBOL) her application for a TUE.

The Athlete's medical specialist testified that the Athlete had a serious injury and that the prescribed medication was necessary as treatment. He asserted that the TJD-AD had no competence in his case because as a medical specialist he was not affiliated to any sports club.

The Athlete's sports doctor denied the violation and stated that the Athlete's medication was prescribed by her medical specialist. He assisted in the TUE application and had not recommended that the Athlete could participate in competitions.

The Rapporteur determines that at the material time the Athlete had not a valid TUE and only made an application following Doping Control. The Rapporteur accepts that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and considers that she mentioned her medication on the Doping Control Form.

Further the Rapporteur considers that ultimately CONMEBOL granted the Athlete's TUE application and that there had been substantial delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

The Rapporteur establishes that the TJD-AD has competence regarding medical doctors involved in the treatment of Athletes whether they are affiliated to sport or not. The Rapporteur concludes that in this case there is no evidence that the doctors acted intentionally.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 19 November 2020:

  • to impose a 14 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 29 September 2019; and
  • to dismiss the charges and to acquit the doctors.

TJD-AD 2020-012 Disciplinary Decision - Football

19 Nov 2020

In April 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 substance Cocaine.

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 admitted the violation and denied the intentional use. becaus the Cocaine was used recreational. The Rapporteur accepts that the violation was not intentional although he tested positive in-competition for use of Cocaine and acted negligently as an experienced Athlete.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 19 November 2020 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 11 April 2019.

TJD-AD 2020-011 Disciplinary Decision - Cycling

18 Aug 2020

In December 2018 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist after his sample 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 admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He stated that he had used an injectable vitamin supplement en assumed that EPO was administered by mistake.

The Rapporteur finds that there are inconsistencies in the Athlete's explanation and that he failed to produce corroborating evidence in his defence whereas he also failed to mention his injectable vitamin supplement on the Doping Control From.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 18 August 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 19 December 2018.

TJD-AD 2019-238 Appeal Decision - Football

4 Jul 2019

Related case:

TJD-AD 2019-205 Disciplinary Decision - Football
April 5, 2019

On 5 April 2019 the TJD-AD Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the football player after he tested positive for the prohibited substances Androsterone, Etiocholanolone and  Testosterone with its Adiols.

In first instance the Panel concluded that the Athlete failed to demonstrate how the substances had entered his system. Also he had acted negligently with his supplements and he failed to mention the alleged contaminated supplement in question on the Doping Control Form.

Hereafter in May 2019 the Athlete appealed this Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal and requested for a reduced sanction.

The Appeal Panel determines that the presence of the prohibited substances had been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Rapporteur concludes that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional. There was insufficient evidence of supplement contamination, nor had he demonstrated how the substances had entered his system.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 4 July 2019 to dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to uphold the Appealed Decision for the imposition of a period of ineligibility of 4 years, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 21 January 2018.

TJD-AD 2019-215 Disciplinary Decision - Swimming

7 Jun 2019

In June 2018 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the minor swimmer after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Higenamine. Further ABCD charged the sports doctor for complicity regard the Athlete's prescription for Higenamine.

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 the prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. There is also sufficient evidence that the sports doctor had prescribed Higenamine for the minor Athlete.

The Rapporteur deems that the minor Athlete's violation was not intentional and that he acted with a low degree of negligence. However he deemed that the sports doctor had acted with a high degree of negligence with aggravating circumstances due to the prescription of Higenamine for a minor Athlete.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides by majority on 7 June 2019:

  • to impose a 2 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 23 February 2018; and
  • to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the doctor, starting on the date of the sample collection.

TJD-AD 2019-208 Disciplinary Decision - Bodybuilding

24 May 2019

In March 2018 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the bodybuilder after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Anastrozole, Clenbuterol, Hydrochlorothiazide, Methasterone and Oxandrolone.

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 admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He asserted that he only had used supplements for his diet, had no knowledge of doping, nor received anti-doping education.

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

The Rapporteur deems that the Athlete failed to demonstrate the violation was not intentional. He had used multiple substances for the enhancement of sport performance whereas he failed to mention these substances on the Doping Control Form. Further the Rapporteur considers that there had been delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 24 May 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 9 December 2017.

TJD-AD 2019-207 Disciplinary Decision - Canoe

24 May 2019

In 2018 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Canoe Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Clenbuterol. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in his defence.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He asserted that as an amateur Athlete he acted with ignorance and requested for a reduced sanction.

He explained that at a gym he had used a product for weight loss about a week before the competition called Pulmonil. This is a horse medication that contains the substance Clenbuterol.

Based on the Athlete's degree of fault WADA only approved a reduced sanction of 42 months, which the Athlete refused to accept. Thereupon 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 did not accept the Athlete's explanation and deems that he failed to demonstrate that he not intentionally had used a substance that enhance sport performance. Neither was demonstrated that he acted with a low degree of Fault or Negligence. Further the Rapporteur considers that there had been delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 24 May 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 6 May 2017.

TJD-AD 2019-205 Disciplinary Decision - Football

5 Apr 2019

Related case:

TJD-AD 2019-238 Appeal Decision - Football
July 4, 2019

In April 2018 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 substances Androsterone, Etiocholanolone and  Testosterone with its Adiols. After notification the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substances and explained that he had used 8 supplements prescribed by an orthomolecular nutritionist. He alleged that supplement contamination had caused the positive test because analysis of 4 supplements in a laboratory revealed that one supplement was contaminated.

ABCD did not accept the Athlete's contamination assertion due to he had used multiple supplements and thereupon tested positive for multiple prohibited substances. Further he provided only 4 supplements to the laboratory for analysis and they were delivered in open unsealed containers. There was also no corroborating evidence that he had purchased and used these supplements in question.

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

The Rapporteur agrees that there was a lack of corroborating evidence to establish how the substances had entered the Athlete's system. He deems that the Athlete had acted negligently with his supplements and he failed to mention the alleged contaminated supplement in question on the Doping Control Form.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 5 April 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 21 January 2018.

TJD-AD 2019-199 Appeal Decision - Handball

17 May 2019

Related case:

TJD-AD 2018-129 Disciplinary Decision - Handball
November 30, 2018


On 30 November 2018 the TJD-AD Panel decided to impose a 42 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete after she tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

The Athlete acknowledged that in December 2017 she had used Deca-Durabolin as self-medication because of her persistent knee injury and the pain she suffered.

Hereafter both the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) and the Athlete appealed this Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal. ABCD requested the Panel for a more severe sanction, whereas the Athlete requested for more reduced sanction.

ABCD contended that the Athlete gave no prompt admission and accordingly there were no grounds to allow a reduction of the sanction. She also failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional. The Athlete argued that the violation was not intentional, out-of-competition and that she acted with a low degree of negligence.

The Rapporteur dismissed the Athlete's assertions and deemed that there were no mitigating circumstances for a reduced sanction. He agrees that only ABCD and WADA could approve a reduction of the sanction based on a prompt admission, neither had the Athlete waived her right for a hearing.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides by majority on 17 May 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 2 April 2018.

TJD-AD 2019-193 Appeal Decision - Basketball

26 Apr 2019

Related cases:

  • TJD-AD 2018-060 Disciplinary Decision - Basketball
    August 14, 2018
  • TJD-AD 2019-152 Disciplinary Decision - Basketball
    February 21, 2019


In May June 2018 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the basketball player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Betamethasone.

Additionally ABCD filed charges against the Athlete's doctor for the administration of Betamethason and charges against the basketball coach and assistant coach for complicity.

Consequently on 21 February 2019 the TJD-AD Panel decided:

  • to impose a 2 month period of ineligibility on the basketball player, starting on the date of the hearing and deducting the time already served;
  • to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the basketball coach and assistant coach, starting on the date of the decision; and
  • to acquit the doctor.

Hereafter in February 2019 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) appealed this Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal regarding the doctor's acquittal. ABCD contended that the doctor had acted negligently because he made no effort to select an approved medication. Instead he administered Betamethasone as treatment for the Athlete's injury which is prohibited in-competition.

The basketball coach and assistant coach also appealed and requested the Appeal Panel for a further reduced sanction. They denied that they acted intentionally nor in complicity and asserted that they were unaware that the Athlete had used the medication Betamethasone.

The Appeal Panel assessed the conduct of the doctor and the Athlete in this case and concludes that the acquittal of the doctor was justified.

Considering the circumstances the Panel deems that the basketball coach and assistant coach had acted with some degree of negligence and that there are grounds to reduce the imposed sanction.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides by majority on 21 February 2019 to dismiss ABCD's appeal and to uphold the Appealed Decion regarding the doctor's acquittal.

Furthermore regarding the coach and assistant coach the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides by majority to impose a reduced 2 month period of ineligibility, deducting the time already served.

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