On 20 July 2022 the Alberta Cheer Association decided to sanction the cheer athlete and coach Alex Marcus Vargas for the use of Cocaïne including the administration and trafficking of Cocaine to a protected person.

After review in February 2023 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) reported multiple anti-doping rule violations against this coach for his use of Cocaine and administration and trafficking of Cocaïne to a protected person.

Previously the coach had already admitted these violations committed during the Alberta Cold Snap Classic in January 2022. Following a notice of charge by the CCES in March 2023 he failed to respond.

Because the coach failed to dispute the asserted violations within the deadline under the Rules follows that he is deemed to have admitted the violations, to have waived his right for a hearing and to have accepted the sanction proposed by the CCES.

Therefore the CCES decides on 18 April 2023 to impose a lifetime period of ineligibility on the coach starting on 13 March 2023.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2022-006 Disciplinary Decision - Swimming
November 11, 2022

On 4 November 2022 the Panel of the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) decided to impose a warning on the swimmer after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Chlorothiazide, Furosemide, Hydrochlorothiazide and Sibutramine.

In first instance the Panel accepted that the Athlete had demonstrated that a contaminated supplement was the source of the positive test. Moreover analysis in the Rio Laboratory had revealed the presence of contaminants in her supplement.

Hereafter in December 2022 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) appealed this Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Panel. ABCD requested the Appeal Panel to annul the Appealed Decision and to impose an appropriate sanction on the Athlete because of her degree of fault.

Following assessment of the case the Rapporteur determines that:

• The Athlete's violation was not intentional and she had acted with only a light degree of fault;
• A contaminated supplement was the source of the positive test;
• The Athlete had cooperated with the proceedings and she was tested before without issues.
• There had been delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete;
• Based on case law a sanction of 6 months would be appropriate in this case.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 13 March 2023 to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. 14 January 2022. The Athlete has already served this suspension and is free to participate in trainings and competitions.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2022-004 Disciplinary Decision - Rowing
September 23, 2022

On 23 September 2022 the Panel of the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for his 3 whereabouts filing failures and missed tests within a 12 month period. Hereafter both the Athlete and ABCD appealed this decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal.

ABCD requested the Appeal Panel to impose a more severe sanction following reassessment of the Athlete's degree of fault and to start the sanction on the date of the provisional suspension. The Athlete requested the Panel to annul the Appealed Decision or alternatively to start the sanction on the date of his third whereabouts failure, i.e. 22 December 2022.

The Athlete denied the 3 whereabouts failures and he disputed the evidence in this matter. He asserted that he acted not intentionally and prior he was tested several times without issues.

The Rapporteur reassessed the Athlete's conduct in this case and concludes that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Rapporteur confirms that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete had acted with a light degree of fault.

Further the Rapporteur deems that there were insufficent grounds for the imposition of a more severe sanction on the Athlete because of an alleged higher degree of fault.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 13 March 2023 to dismiss both appeals and to uphold the Appealed Decision. Accordingly a sanction of 1 year is imposed on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 6 April 2022.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2022-019 Disciplinary Decision - Football
November 7, 2022

On 7 November 2022 the TJD-AD Panel by majority decided to dismiss the charge that the manager of a football club had attempted to tamper with any part of the doping control process in November 2021 during an out-of-competition doping control.

In first instance the Panel established that indeed the doping control in question was not conducted appropriately. However there were no grounds to conclude that the manager intentionally had attempted to obstructed the Doping Control Officers (DCOs). One arbitrator produced a dissenting opinion in this case.

Also a majority of the Panel accepted that the football club had restricted the access to the football players and the locker room because of COVID-19 measures. Only people had access to the football club that had shown proof of vaccination or a recent negative COVID-19 test result. 

Hereafter in December 2022 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) appealed the Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal. ABCD requested to set aside the Appealed Decision and to sanction the manager for committing anti-doping rule violations for Tampering and Complicity.

ABCD's Appeal is based on the dissenting opinion of one arbitrator in favour for the imposition of a sanction of 2 years. ABCD contended that the manager had intentionally obstructed the doping control and that a sanction must be imposed between 2 and 4 years.

Following assessment of the evidence and the Parties' written submissions the Appeal Panel concludes:

• There was no evidence that the football manager intentionally had attempted to tamper with any part of the doping control process.
• The manager during his career had always complied with the anti-doping rules.
• The doping control at the football club was not conducted appropriately because of the restrictions imposed on the DCOs.
• Ultimately all football players were notified and tested by the DCOs whereas non of the football player tested positive.
• Immediate and full access to the football players and the locker room at the football club was restricted because of the COVID-19 measures.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 13 March 2023 to dismiss ABCD's Appeal and to uphold the Appealed Decision regarding the acquittal of the manager of the football club.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2023-002 Appeal Decision - Football
March 13. 2023

In January 2022 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the manager of a football club for tampering with any part of the doping control process. The Manager filed a statement in his defence and the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD)

The Doping Control Officers (DCOs) reported that during out-of-competition doping control in November 2021 the manager obstructed the DCOs to approach immediately the football players and thereupon prevented the DCOs to keep these players under supervision after notification.

The manager of the football club denied he acted intentionally and requested for a reduced sanction. He only had requested the DCOs not to enter the field during training while access to the locker room was prevented due to COVID-19 measures.

The manager asserted that ultimately all the football players were notified and tested by the DCOs. Futhermore no football player was tested positive and the next doping control in November 2021 was conducted without issues.

Following assessment of the circumstances in this case the Rapporteur finds that the doping control indeed was not conducted appropriately. However there are no grounds to conclude that the manager had attempted to obstruct the doping control.

In view of the evidence the Rapporteur accepts that the football club had restricted the access to the locker room because of COVID-19 measures. In fact only people had access to the football club that had shown proof of vaccination or a recent negative COVID-19 test result.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides by majority on 7 November 2022 to dismiss the charge that the manager had attempted to tamper with any part of the doping control process. Accordingly the football club manager was acquitted.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2023-004 Appeal Decision - Swimming
March 13, 2023

In February 2022 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the swimmer after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Chlorothiazide, Furosemide, Hydrochlorothiazide and Sibutramine.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and did not accept the sanction proposed by ABCD. Hereafter the case was referred to the TJD-AD Tribunal.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substances and requested the Panel for a reduced sanction. She established with evidence that a contaminated supplement was the source of the prohibited substances.

Analysis in the Rio Laboratory confirmed the presence of the contaminants in this product. The Athlete acknowledged that she had mentioned a list of supplements on the Doping Control Form, yet not this product.

She explained that this product was advertised as 100% natural and recommended by her sister. She asserted that it was used only for weight loss whereas the use of diuretics and low body weight gave her no advantage in swimming.

In view of the evidence the Rapporteur accepts that the Athlete's violation was not intentional. She also had demonstrated that a contaminated supplement was the source of the prohibited substances.

Further the Rapporteur considers that the Athlete was tested before without issues and that this product did not list prohibited substances as ingredient. Moreover the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (Anvisa) had opened an investigation into the company that had manufactured this product.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 4 November 2022 to impose a warning on the Athlete for the reported anti-doping rule violation.

In April 2022 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rower for 3 whereabouts filing failures and missed tests within a 12 month period. The Doping Control Officers (DCO) reported that they were unable the locate the Athlete in May, November and December 2021.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he did not accept a sanction of 2 years proposed by ABCD. Thereupon the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Athlete provided no justification for his first missed test in May 2021. Regarding the missed test in November the Athlete claimed that the DCO already had left the location before the one-hour-timeslot had passed.

Regarding the missed test in December 2021 he explained that communication problems prevented him to update timely his whereabouts in ADAMS. Because of his fatique he failed hereafter to update his whereabouts on arrival at his new location from a long journey from Paraguay .

The Rapporteur establishes that previously the Athlete since 2018 was tested several times without issues. On these occasions he timely had updated his whereabouts in ADAMS.

Considering the Athlete's conduct in this case the Rapporteur deems that the Athlete acted not intentionally, yet rather acted with a degee of negligence. Nevertheless the Rapporteur determines that the Athlete failed to be available at the whereabouts location in November 2021 and he failed to update his new whereabouts location in December 2021.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 23 September 2022 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 5 April 2022.

Hereafter ABCD filed two motions for clarification with the TJD-AD regarding the Athlete's fault or negligence in this case. However the TJD-AD determines that the Panel made a vailid assesment of the Athlete's degree of fault and there were no grounds for the imposition for a more severe sanction on the Athlete.

In October 2017 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the armwrestler after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrostenedione and 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

Following 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 denied the violation and disputed the reliability of the test result. He claimed that the presence of a prohibited substance has not been established in his sample.

ABCD dismissed the Athlete's claims and contended that after new analysis the Rio Laboratory had duly established the presence of the prohibited substances in his sample.

The Rapporteur finds that there is sufficient evidence 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. Reanalysis of his sample confirmed the presence of the prohibited substances.

The Rapporteur deems that the Athlete failed to demonstrate with corroborating evidence 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 30 November 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 29 July 2017.

In October 2017 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the armwrestler after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone) and Tamoxifen.

Following notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence. He admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substances. He explained that he underwent surgery after a car accident and pins and plates were placed in his lower limb.

The Athlete stated that as self-treatment he had used Deca-Durabolin in order to recover from muscle loss after his car accident. Tamoxifen was used as prevention from the side effects.

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) assessed this case and deemed that the substances could be used for both medical and sport enhancement purposes. However there was no medical justification for the use of Tamoxifen and the Athlete had failed to apply for a TUE.

WADA approved only a reduction of 1 month. Thereupon the Athlete signed an Acceptance of Consequences Form and agreed with the sanction proposed by ABCD.

Hereafter the Parties in this case requested the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) to render a decision based on the admitted violation and the proposed sanction. Therefore the TJD-AD decides on 4 April 2018 to impose a 3 year and 11 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In February 2022 the International Testing Agency (ITA) on behalf of World Athletics reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Bahamian swimmer Joanna Evans after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Clostebol.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in her defence. She refused to accept a sanction of 3 years proposed by the ITA and the case was referrered to the FINA Doping Panel.

The Athlete accepted the test result, denied the intentional use of the substance and requested for a reduced sanction. She explained that the source of Clostebol was the Trofodermin cream that she had used for her injuries purchased in September 2021 in a pharmacy in Napels, Italy.

She had used this creme for 3 months and was unaware that it contained Clostebol because she expected that this cream was similar to the Trofodermin creme available over the counter in the United States. She acknowledged that she had not checked this product for prohibited substances before using.

For the ITA NADO Italia conducted an investigation into the purchase of this creme. It determinded that the pharmacy in Napels had no record of the purchase of Trofodermin creme in September 2021. Also it was mandatory in Italy that the Trofodermin creme contains a Doping pictogram including a warning and a leaflet.

FINA contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor the source of the prohibited substance. She could also not establish with corroborating evidence that the Trofodermin creme was purchased in the pharmacy in Napels, neither that it was purchased in September 2021.

The Doping Panel 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.

In view of the evidence the Panel deems that on a balance of probabilities that the Athlete has established the source of the prohibited substance. The Panel also finds that the Athlete has demonstrated with evidence that the cream only was used for the treatment of her injuries.

Considering the Athlete's conduct in this case the Panel concludes that she acted with significant negligence due to she failed to check properly the ingredients of the Trofodermin creme whereas recently she had received anti-doping education.

Therefore the FINA Doping Panel decides on 15 February 2023 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 14 February 2022.