In August 2019 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for his refusal or failure to submit to sample collection in July 2019.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and failed to attend the hearing of the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal.

The Doping Control Officers reported that after notification the Athlete had attended the Doping Control Station, yet after 40 minutes the Athlete refused to cooperate and left the Doping Control Station.

In his submissions the Athlete asserted that during the Doping Control he was in an extremely uncomfortable situation, hungry, without changing clothes, with his wife, with a borrowed car, 200 km away from home, with a sick son waiting, with long waiting for sample collection, less information and believing he had to provide a blood sample.

In view of the evidence the Rapporteur establishes that the Athlete had been duly notified, he attended the Doping Control Station and thereupon refused to submit to sample collection and left.

After assessment of the Athlete's assertions the Rapporteur finds that the Athlete had produced several inconsistencies, untruths, omissions and important concealment attempts. Accordingly the Rapporteur deems that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation for intentional refusal and failure to submit to sample collection.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 29 May 2020 to impose a 4 year period of inelgibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 19 August 2019.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-004 Disciplinary Decision - Football
May 7, 2020

Previously in 2019 the the TJD-AD Tribunal imposed a 2 year period of ineligibility on the football player for the use of Cocaine.

Thereupon in January 2020 the football player requested the TJD-AD Tribunal for a revision of his case because the new WADA Code, coming into force in January 2021, introduced stipulations for substances of abuse and reduced sanctions.

Following the request for revision the TJD-AD decided on 7 May 2020 to allow the Athlete to return to training in November 2020 based on the principle of lex mitior and pending the new 2021 WADA Code.

Hereafter the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) appealed this Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Panel. ABCD requested to set aside the Revision and to uphold the sanction of 2 years.

ABCD contended that the TJD-AD Disciplinary Panel had no competence. Instead under the applicable Rules the Athlete had to address his request for revision to ABCD. Also in this matter the principle of lex mitior is not applicable because a retroactive reduction of the Athlete's sanction is not allowed.

The TJD-AD Appeal Panel establishes that it has competence to settle this case and that the ABCD Appeal is admissible. The Panel agrees that under the applicable Rules there are no grounds for a reduction of the Athlete's sanction.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 24 June 2020 to set aside the Appealed Decision for revision and to uphold the imposed sanction of 2 year.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-030 Appeal Decision - Football
June 24, 2020

Previously in 2019 the the TJD-AD Tribunal imposed a 2 year period of ineligibility on the football player after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine. Hereafter in January 2020 the football player requested the TJD-AD Tribunal for a revision of his case.

The Athlete invoked the principle of lex mitior to reduce his sanction for his use of Cocaine in view of the upcoming 2021 WADA Code which stipulates reduced sanctions for substances of abuse.

Pending the application of lex mitior the Athlete requested to return to training from November 2020 and to return to competitions from the date the new 2021 WADA Code comes into force in January 2021.

The TJD-AD Panel finds that the Athlete's request for revision is admissible. The Panel establishes that the principle of lex mitior is applicable and holds that the Athlete is allowed to return to training.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 7 May 2020 to grant the Athlete's request to return to training from November 2020 in view of the new WADA Code, coming into force in January 2021.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2019-027 Appeal Decision - Handball
September 26, 2019

In November 2018 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the handball player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Clenbuterol. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered.

Hereafter the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal assessed the Athlete's request to lift the provisional suspension. The Panel deemed that there were no grounds raised by the Athlete to lift the provisional suspension.

The Athlete was unable to demonstrate with corroborating evidence that he could not pay for the analysis of the B-sample. Also there had been no departures of ISTI or ISL established.

However the Panel finds that the low concentration Clenbuterol in the Athlete's samples could be consistent with food contamination because these concentrations are in accordance with considerations of WADA, IOC and FIFA in this matter.

With the possibility of food contamination the TJD-AD Panel decides on 11 December 2018 by majority to lift the imposed provisional suspension.

The Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Canoeist after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered 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 Lasix was used as treatment for her condition. She mentioned her medication on the Doping Control Form whereas she was registered as Athlete with her Federation only 1 week before the competition.

Listed on the Doping Control Form was also the prohibited substance Isometheptene. Yet, the found concentration in the Athlete's sample was below the threshold.

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

The Rapporteur accepts that the violation was not intentional and that there are grouns for no Significant Fault or Negligence. Further the Rapporteur considers that the Athlete was registered as new Athlete for only 1 week and had mentioned her medication on the Doping Control.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 6 October 2017 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 7 May 2017.

In May 2017 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the basketball player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis in a concentration above the WADA treshold.

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 a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Rapporteur deems that the Athlete had admitted the violation and that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction. Further the Rapporteur is troubled about the substantial delays between the sample collection in February 2017 and shipping of the samples to the Los Angeles Lab in April 2017. He assigned ABCD to investigate this matter and take measures.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 6 October 2017 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 21 February 2017.

In May 2017 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Canoeist after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Isometheptene. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and attended the hearing of the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. She explained with evidence that she had used prescribed Neosaldine for her headache. She was unaware that this product contained a prohibited substance whereas she mentioned this product on the Doping Control Form.

The Rapporteur 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.

The Rapporteur accepts that the violation was not intentional and that there are grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence. The Rapporteur considers that the Athlete demonstrated how the substance had entered her system and mentioned this medication on the Doping Control.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 30 August 2017 to impose a 9 month period of inelgibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 23 April 2017.

In June 2017 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Canoeist after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Isometheptene. After notification the Athlete filed a statement in her defence and attended the hearing of the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. She explained with evidence that she had used prescribed Neosaldine for her headache whereas she mentioned this medication on the Doping Control Form.

The Rapporteur 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.

The Rapporteur accepts that the violation was not intentional and that there are grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence. The Rapporteur considers that the Athlete demonstrated how the substance had entered her system and mentioned this medication on the Doping Control.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 30 August 2017 by majority to impose a 6 month period of inelgibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 6 May 2017.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-003 Disciplinary Decision - Sailing
March 17, 2020

On 17 March 2020 the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) decided to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Tamoxifen.

Here the TJD-AD Panel accepted that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete underwent legitimate medical treatment for his condition with prescribed medication.

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

ABCD contended that the Athlete had acted with a higher degree of negligence since he failed to apply in advance for a TUE. As an experienced Athlete, submitted frequently for Doping Control, he had to be aware to apply timely for a TUE.

The TJD-AD Appeal Panel agrees that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and that the Athlete had to use prescribed medication for his condition whereas a valid TUE was required.

In view of the circumstances the Appeal Panel deems that the Athlete had acted with a higher degree of negligence. Furthermore the Panel considers that prior World Sailing had granted a retroactive TUE and that there had been substantial delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete. 

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 12 May 2020 by majority to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. 15 August 2019.

In December 2018 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-nortestosterone, 19-noretiocholanolone (Nandrolone), Androsterone, Etiocholanolone, Testosterone and its adiols.

Also ABCD reported that the Athlete had attemped to tamper with any part of the Doping Control. The Control Officers reported that the Athlete acted suspiciously and had discarded a plastic holder containing a yellowish liquid, apparently urine, in the trash between the Doping Control Station and the venue. ABCD considered both violations as one single violation and did not pursue the charge of tampering against the Athlete.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered whereas the Athlete didn't respond to any of the ABCD communications. Prior on the Doping Control Form the Athlete had mentioned the use of supplements, hormone replacement therapy and a marrow donation.

Following the Athlete's failure to filed a statement in his defence the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Rapporteur establishes that ABCD has jurisdiction and that the Athlete under the Rules anyhow was subjected to submit to sample collection despite he was unregistered as an Athlete with the Brazilian Ju-Jitsu Confederation.

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

Without the Athlete response the Rapporteur deems that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor how the substances had entered his system. There are no mitigation circumstances and there was evidence of attempted tampering with the sample collection.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 13 March 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 27 December 2018.