TJD-AD 2020-003 Disciplinary Decision - Athletics

29 Jun 2020

In July 2019 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the blind Parathlete after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 5-Methylhexan-2-amine (1,4-dimethylpentylamine).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Parathlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

Following a preliminary investigation ABCD also reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete's Guide for the administration of a prohibited substance to the Parathlete. After notification the Guide failed to cooperate, nor responded to the communications, nor attended the TJD-AD hearing.

The Parathlete accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the substance. She argued that she was tested before without issues and requested for a reduced sanction.

Because of her blindness the Parathlete needed the assistance of her Guide regarding the supplements she used. She stated that the source of the positive test was a supplement Mr. Veinz provided by her Guide whereas she was unaware that it contained a prohibited substance.

Undisputed is that available on the market there were two versions of the supplement Mr. Veinz . One version containing the prohibited substance was purchased by the Guide and issued to the Parathlete.

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.

Further the Rapporteur finds that there is no evidence that the Athlete acted intentionally. Yet, he deemed that she rather acted negligently in borrowing a supplement belonging to her Guide.

The Rapporteur holds that the Guide failed to respond, nor cooperated in this case and accordingly deemed that he failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional.

In a dissenting opinion one Arbitrator in the Panel finds that the Parathlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional due to the many inconsistencies in her statements.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 29 June 2020 by majority to impose a 20 month period of ineligibility on the Parathlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e on 7 August 2019.

Furthermore the TJD-AD Panel decides to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Guide for the administration of a prohibited substance, starting on the date of the Decision.

TJD-AD 2020-003 Disciplinary Decision - Sailing

17 Mar 2020

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-027 Appeal Decision - Sailing
May 22, 2020

In September 2019 the sailing Athlete tested positive for the prohibited substance Tamoxifen. Previously World Sailing had granted a retroactive TUE which was revoked in October 2019 and thereupon by WADA in January 2020.

Hereafter World Sailing referred the case to the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD). The Athlete accepted a provisional suspension in January 2020 and filed a statement in his defence and the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD)

The Athlete explained with corroborating evidence that he suffered from a bilateral gynecomastia and that he had used prescribed Tamoxifen medication as non-surgical treatment.

He was unaware that in advance he had to apply for a TUE becasue he had used the medication in June 2019, 40 days before the start of the competition, whereas he only had to mention on the Doping Control Form the medication he had used the last 7 days.

The TJD-AD Panel accepts that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete underwent legitimate medical treatment for his condition with prescribed medication. Further the Panel agrees that he was only required to mention on the Doping Control Form his medication he had used the last 7 days.

In view of the circumstances the Panel considers that the Athlete had acted with a low degree of negligence because he failed to apply in advance for a TUE. Also the Panel considers that there had been substantial delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete due to the revoked TUE applications.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 17 March 2020 to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 15 August 2019, which the Athlete had already served.

TJD-AD 2019-027 Appeal Decision - Handball

26 Sep 2019

Related case:

TJD-AD 2018-137 Disciplinary Decision - Handball
December 11, 2018

On 13 June 2019 the TJD-AD Panel decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Clenbuterol.

Hereafter the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) appealed the Decision with the TJD-AD Apppeal Tribunal and requested for a sanction of 4 years.

ABCD contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor how the substance had entered his system. It argued that the Athlete did not produce any corroborating evidence on how and when he had ingested contaminated meat in June 2018 in countries where food contaminations have been established such as China and Mexico.

The Appeal Panel finds that the presence of the prohibited substance Clenbuterol has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Appeal Panel agrees that there is no corroborating evidence that shows that the positive test was caused by food contamination. However the Panel deems that the established low concentration Clenbuterol in the Athlete's sample is more consistent with an unintentional violation.

Therefore The TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 26 September 2019 by majority to dismiss the ABCD Appeal and to uphold the sanction of 2 years imposed on the Athlete.

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

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

The Athlete claimed that the source of the positive test was a contaminated supplement he had used. In this matter he handed over a supplement 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

In November 2018 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for possession of 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 thereupon the club had 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.

TJD-AD 2019-236 Disciplinary Decision - Modern Pentathlon

15 Jul 2019

In March 2019 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) referred a reported anti-doping rule violation to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) after the Modern Penthathlon Athlete tested positivie for the prohibited substances GW501516 and Oxandrolone.

ABCD contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor how the substances had entered her system. The Athlete claimed that she by accident had used the prescribed Oxandrolone for her parent, yet she did not explain the presence of the substance GW501516.

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 Rapporteur agrees that the Athlete could not explain the high concentration found in her sample whereas there was any explanation regarding the presence ow GW501516. Nevertheless the Rapporteur deems that the Athlete acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence for the imposition of a reduced sanction.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides by majority on 15 July 2019 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

TJD-AD 2019-232 Disciplinary Decision - Rowing

12 Jul 2019

In July 2018 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rower after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Prednisolone and Prednisone.

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

The Athlete denied the intentional use and requested for a reduced sanction. He explained with evidence that he had used medication as self-treatment for his condition in the week before the competition. The product he used is an over-the-counter medication and he acknowledged that he failed to mention this on the Doping Control Form. Further he asserted that he was retired from rowing since 2012 and only participated in low level recreational competitions. 

ABCD established that the Athlete was still listed as a registered Athlete and had particpated in competitions although other information about the Athlete in the database of the Brazilian Rowing Confederation was corrupted.

ABCD accepts that the Athlete's violation was not intentional,  besides his request for a retroactive TUE was dismissed due to other permitted medications are available.

The Rapporteur finds the presence of the prohibited substances 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 deems that the violation was not intentional because due to an over-the-counter medication and in a context unrelated to sport performance. With grounds for a reduced sanction the Rapporteur considers that that there were delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the TJD-AD decides on 12 July 2019 to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 17 June 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