Related case:

TJD-AD 2024-014 Appeal Decision - Taekwondo
July 3, 2024


In December 2023 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Taekwondo Athlete. ABCD deemed that the Athlete had 3 Whereabouts Failures within a period of 18 days:

• a Filing Failure on 1 October 2023;
• a Filing Failure on 11 October 2023; and
• a Filing Failure on 18 October 2023.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence. The Athlete did not accept the sanction proposed by ABCD and the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal.

The Rapporteur assessed and addressed the evidence and determines that:

• ABCD reported 3 Whereabouts Failures within a period of only 18 days.
• The Athlete had received hardy time to properly respond to the notifications within the set time periods.
• The Athlete had not followed any anti-doping education.
• He not received proper support regarding his anti-doping duties.
• Because of his background he lacked knowledge to use properly a cell phone, internet, email and social media.
• At the material time he was abroad participating in international championships.
• Previously and afterwards the Athlete was tested several times by ABCD and abroad by the anti-doping organisations without issues.
• There was no evidence that the Athlete acted intentionally.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 30 April 2024 to dismiss the charges and for the acquittal of the Athlete.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2024-017 Appeal Decision - Gymnastics
August 12, 2024

In June 2023 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the gymnastics Athlete after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Hydrochlorothiazide and its metabolites Chlorothiazide and 4-amino-6-chloro-1,3-benzenedisulfonamide (ACB) (diuretics and masking agents). Previously in 2019 the Athlete was sanctioned for 12 months for the presence of Furosemide in her sample.

Following notification the Athlete filed a statement in her defence. She did not accept the sanction proposed by ABCD and the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substances and requested for a reduced sanction. She asserted that she had used a diet and supplements under supervision of her doctors and nutritionists.

The Athlete acknowledged that she also had used a slim product in March 2023 recommended by her pharmacist as treatment for her swellings. Yet, she stopped using this product within days because she had to urinate more frequently.

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

He deems that the Athlete failed to demonstrate with corroborating evidence that a contaminated product had caused the positive result, nor that the violation was not intentional. Neither was demonstrated that her products analysed in the laboratory were the products she had used at the material time.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 17 May 2024 by majority to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on 20 May 2024.

Related cases:

• TJD-AD 2023-004 Disciplinary Decision - Volleyball
  August 3, 2023
• TJD-AD 2024-002 Disciplinary Decision - Volleyball
  April 2, 2024
• TJD-AD 2024-016 Appeal Decision - Volleyball
  August 12, 2024

On 3 August 2023 the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD Panel) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Parathlete after his sample tested positive for Cocaine in a high concentration above the WADA threshold.

Hereafter the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) and the prosecution appealed this decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Panel. They contended that in first instance the hearing occurred without the representation of counsel and requested the Appeal Panel to annul the Appealed Decision.

The TJD-AD Appeal Panel agrees and accordingly it decides on 4 October 2023 to annul the Appealed Decision and to refer the case back to the first instance Tribunal.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2024-010 Appeal Decision - Cycling
April 29, 2024

In April 2022 the cyclist informed the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) and the Brazilian Cycling Confederation (CBC) that he retired from professional cycling. As a result in July 2022 the Athlete's CBC membership was concluded and he was excluded from the Registered Testing Pool by ABCD.

Hereafter in August 2022 the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) informed ABCD that the Athlete as an amateur cyclist had evaded doping control at a competition in France. Moreover the presence of the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO) had been established in the Athlete's sample provided at another competition in France.

Consequently in October 2022 ABCD reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for tampering with any part of the Doping Control.

Following 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 that he deliberately had deceived ABCD and CBC with his retirement and thus there was no anti-doping rule violation committed in Brazil. He argued that after his exclusion from the Registered Testing Pool he was not subjected anymore to doping control as an amateur cyclist. 

Further he disputed the competence of ABCD and TJD-AD since his anti-doping rule violations only occurred in France under the jurisdiction of the AFLD. As a result there was one single anti-doping rule violation, not a second anti-doping rule violation.

In view of the evidence the Rapporteur determines that the Athlete through his retirement had intentionally tampered with the doping control in order to be excluded from the testing pool. Nevertheless, although retired from professional cycling, he remained as amateur subjected to doping control under the Rules.

Moreover there was evidence that that Athlete after his retirement from professional cycling continued to train intensively, not merely as a hobby to improve his health. He participated in competitions as an Athlete, even though he is an amateur.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 26 October 2023 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 9 December 2022.

In two separate decisions in this case the TJD-AD addressed  issues raised by the Parties for clarification. The TJD-AD Panel decides that:

• The 4 year sanction shall start on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 9 December 2022.
• Despite the Athlete retired from professional cycling he remained subjected to the Anti-Doping Rules as an amateur cyclist.
• The Athlete intentionally evaded doping control through his false retirement from sport.
• Two seperate anti-doping rule violations under different jurisdictions were committed by the Athlete.
• The first and second anti-doping rule violation can't be considered as one single first anti-doping rule violation.

Related cases:

• TJD-AD 2023-012 Appeal Decision - Volleyball
  October 4, 2023
• TJD-AD 2024-002 Disciplinary Decision - Volleyball
  April 2, 2024
• TJD-AD 2024-016 Appeal Decision - Volleyball
  August 12, 2024

In January 2023 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Parathlete after his sample tested positive for Cocaine in a high concentration above the WADA threshold.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Parathlete 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 asserted that his use of Cocaine occurred out-of-competition in a context unrelated to sport performance. Because of the high concentration in the sample ABCD concluded that the Parathlete's use occurred during the competition period and was related to sport performance.

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

In view of the evidence the Rapporteur deems that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional. Further he considers that there had been substantial delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 3 August 2023 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Parathlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 10 December 2022.

Related cases:

• TJD-AD 2023-004 Disciplinary Decision - Basketball
  August 22, 2023
• TJD-AD 2024-005 Appeal Decision - Basketball
  February 21, 2024
• TJD-AD 2024-008 Appeal Decision - Basketball
  April 18, 2024
• TJD-AD 2024-015 Appeal Decision - Basketball
  July 3, 2024
  
  

On 22 August 2023 the Panel of the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) decided by majority to impose an 8 month period of ineligibility on the basketball player after his tested tested positive for the prohibited substances Furosemide, Hydrochlorothiazide and Sibutramine.

In this case the Athlete demonstrated that a contaminated supplement was the source of the positive test. Despite dissenting opinions the Panel deemed that there were grounds for a more reduced sanction.

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

ABCD contended that in first instance the Panel had erroneously assessed the Athlete's conduct and his degree of fault. The Athlete asserted that there had been substantial delays in the proceedings and that the sanction must start on the date of the sample collection.

The Appeal Panel determines that the Athlete was an experienced high level basketball player and that he acted with Significant Fault or Negligence with his supplements. Consequently the Panel finds that the imposition of a more severe sanction is justified.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 6 December 2023 by majority to set aside the Appealed Decision, to dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension.

Effects of erythropoietin on cycling performance of well trained cyclists : a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial / Jules A.A.C. Heuberger, Joris I. Rotmans, Pim Gal, Frederik E. Stuurman, Juliëtte van 't Westende, Titiaan E. Post, Johannes M.A. Daniels, Matthijs Moerland, Peter L.J. van Veldhoven, Marieke L. de Kam, Herman Ram, Olivier de Hon, Jelle J. Posthuma, Jacobus Burggraaf, Adam F. Cohen

• The Lancet Haematology 4 (2017) 8 (August), p. e374-e386
• PMID: 28669689
• DOI: 10.1016/S2352-3026(17)30105-9

Abstract

Background: Substances that potentially enhance performance (eg, recombinant human erythropoietin [rHuEPO]) are considered doping and are therefore forbidden in sports; however, the scientific evidence behind doping is frequently weak. We aimed to determine the effects of rHuEPO treatment in well trained cyclists on maximal, submaximal, and race performance and on safety, and to present a model clinical study for doping research on other substances.

Methods: We did this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial at the Centre for Human Drug Research in Leiden (Netherlands). We enrolled healthy, well trained but non-professional male cyclists aged 18-50 years and randomly allocated (1:1) them to receive abdominal subcutaneous injections of rHuEPO (epoetin β; mean dose 6000 IU per week) or placebo (0·9% NaCl) for 8 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by age groups (18-34 years and 35-50 years), with a code generated by a statistician who was not masked to the study. The primary outcome was exercise performance, measured as maximal power output (Pmax), maximal oxygen consumption VO2 max, and gross efficiency in maximal exercise tests with 25 W increments per 5 min, as lactate threshold and ventilatory threshold 1 (VT1) and 2 (VT2) at submaximal levels during the maximal exercise test, and as mean power, VO2, and heart rate in the submaximal exercise tests at the highest mean power output for 45 min in a laboratory setting and in a race to the Mont Ventoux (France) summit, using intention-to-treat analyses. The trial is registered with the Dutch Trial Registry (Nederlands Trial Register), number NTR5643.

Findings: Between March 7, 2016, and April 13, 2016, we randomly assigned 48 participants to the rHuEPO group (n=24) or the placebo group (n=24). Mean haemoglobin concentration (9·6 mmol/L vs 9·0 mmol/L [estimated difference 0·6, 95% CI 0·4 to 0·8]) and maximal power output (351·55 W vs 341·23 W [10·32, 3·47 to 17·17]), and VO2 max (60·121 mL/min per kg vs 57·415 mL/min per kg [2·707, 0·911 to 4·503]) in a maximal exercise test were higher in the rHuEPO group compared with the placebo group. Submaximal exercise test parameters mean power output (283·18 W vs 277·28 W [5·90, -0·87 to 12·67]) and VO2 (50·288 mL/min per kg vs 49·642 mL/min per kg [0·646, -1·307 to 2·600]) at day 46, and Mont Ventoux race times (1 h 40 min 32 s vs 1 h 40 min 15 s [0·3%, -8·3 to 9·6]) did not differ between groups. All adverse events were grade 1-2 and were similar between both groups. No events of grade 3 or worse were observed.

Interpretation: Although rHuEPO treatment improved a laboratory test of maximal exercise, the more clinically relevant submaximal exercise test performance and road race performance were not affected. This study shows that clinical studies with doping substances can be done adequately and safely and are relevant in determining effects of alleged performance-enhancing drugs.

Funding: Centre for Human Drug Research, Leiden.

In November 2022 the Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Indian para-powerlifter Sudhir Sudhir after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Morphine.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in his defence. The case was referred to the CGF Tribunal and a decision was rendered based on the written submissions of the Parties. 

CGF deemed that the Para Athlete had tested positive for the presence of a prohibited substance and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. Consequently his results obtained at the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games shall be disqualified.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He argued that was tested before without issues and requested that he should not be disqualified from the Games.

He submitted that he only had used prescribed painkillers for his chest and shoulder injury. He assumed that the substance inadvertently had entered his system because of a contaminated medication he had used.

Following assessment of the evidence the Panel determines that the CGF has established that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation to its comfortable satisfaction. The Panel deems that the Athlete failed to demonstrate the source of the prohibited substance.

Therefore the CGF Court decides on 17 May 2023 to disqualify the Athlete's results obtained at the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games with all resulting consequences.

In August 2023 an Expert Panel of the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) concluded unanimously in their Joint Expert Opinion that the hematological profile of the Ethiopian Athlete Tsehay Gemechu Beyan “highly likely” showed that she had used a prohibited substance or a prohibited method: the use of EPO or Blood doping. 

This conclusion of the AIU Expert Panel was based on assessment of blood samples, collected in the period from 24 October 2018 until 15 May 2023 reported in the Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP). 

After notification the Athlete submitted multiple explanations with documentation for the abnormal values in her ABP. However after consideration the Expert Panel rejected the Athlete’s explanations and arguments in their 2nd and 3rd  Experts Opinions.

Consequently in November 2023 the AIU, on behalf of World Athletics, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete. Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal. 

The AIU deems that the abnormalities in the Athlete's ABP were caused by a prohibited substance or a prohibited method and that she failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional.

The Athlete denied the charges and claimed that there was no plausible anti-doping scenario. Supported by an expert witness she argued that the ABP abnormalities had been caused by:

• her lack of training;
• variations between location at altitude or at sea level;
• her pregnancy, injury or illness; 
• other natural variations, and/or inaccuracy of measurement.

The Panel assessed and addressed the evidence and issues raised by the Parties and determines:

• The ABP analysis of the AIU Expert Panel is accepted.
• The explanations provided by the Athlete's expert witness are rejected.
• The Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation.
• She was engaged in some form of deliberate manipulation of her blood.
• The Athlete's results obtained between 22 March 2020 and 30 November 2023 are disqualified.

Therefore the Panel decides on 21 October 2024 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 30 November 2023.

Clenbuterol storage stability in the bovine urine and liver samples used for European official control in the azores islands (Portugal) / Isabel Pinheir, Bruno Jesuino, Jorge Barbosa, Humberto Ferreira, Fernando Ramos, José Matos, Maria Irene Noronha da Silveira

• Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 57 (2009) 3 (11 February), p. 910-914
• PMID:19138075
• DOI: 10.1021/jf802995e

Abstract

Clenbuterol is a well-known growth promoter, illegally used in farm animals, especially in cattle. Samples collected for the screening of beta(2)-agonist residues in Portuguese Azores Islands must travel through all the nine islands until they reach Azores Central Laboratory. If any suspicious sample is detected, it must be further transported to the National Reference Laboratory in Lisbon for confirmation. As a consequence of these circumstances, samples are submitted to different transport and storage times, as well as different temperature conditions and in some cases successive freezing and thawing cycles. As clenbuterol is the most detected beta(2)-agonist growth promoter in the Portuguese Residue Monitoring Plan, studies were conducted on the stability of this compound in incurred samples (bovine liver and urine) at +4, -20 and -60 degrees C over time. Samples kept at -20 degrees C were also analyzed over time after successive freezing and thawing cycles. The analyses of clenbuterol over time were performed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) with selected ion monitoring (SIM). Clenbuterol in incurred urine and liver samples was significantly stable up to 20 weeks at -20 and -60 degrees C and after, at least, six consecutive freezings and thawings. At +4 degrees C, clenbuterol remained stable, at least until 12 weeks in urine and up to 20 weeks in liver.