The Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Clomifene.

After notification the Athtlete admitted the violation and explained that he underwent medical treatment for his diagnosed gynecomastia. With evidence he demonstrated that he had used prescribed medication containing Clomifene in order to avoid surgery.

ABCD accepted that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete's prescribed medication was the source of the positive tests results. ABCD proposed a sanction of 10 months whereas the Athlete aimed for a sanction of 6 months.

Following deliberations the Athlete accepted a proposed sanction of 8 months. Thereupon the parties reached an agreement as to sanction for approval into a decision of the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 30 June 2023 to approve the settlement and to impose an 8 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the settlement, i.e. 18 May 2023.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2023-007 Appeal Decision - Canoe
June 21, 2023

In April 2022 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the canoe Parathlete for his Whereabouts Filing Failures en 3 Missed Tests within a 12 month period.

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

ABCD contended that the Parathlete is an experienced sportman, had received anti-doping education and had been tested before without issues. ABCD deemed that the Athlete had acted negligently and reviewed the attempts to locate the Parathlete as reported by de Doping Control Officers (DCOs).

With evidence the Athlete provided explanations and justifications for the circumstances that resulted in de missed tests in February, April and December 2021. By contrast he alleged that the DCOs did not do what was reasonable in the circumstances to locate him for testing.

The Panel assessed the Athlete's conduct in this case and finds that he acted negligently, rather acted evasive with his Whereabouts.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides by majority on 7 December 2022 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 19 April 2022.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2023-005 Appeal Decision - Weightlifting
May 10, 2023

In October 2021 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the minor weightlifter (16) after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Enobosarm (ostarine) and GW501516.

ABCD also reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete's doctor for the prescription of prohibited substances for the minor Athlete.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete and the doctor filed statements in their defence and they were heard for the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

The Athlete and the doctor admitted that prohibited substances had been administered and used. Further they alleged that there had been irregularities in the chain of custody of the samples between the sample collection and the Rio Laboratory.

The Athlete and his coach testified that the doctor was not informed that the Athlete participated in competitions. The coach stated that the doctor was merely requested to guide the athletes during training and assist them in improving their performances.

The doctor acknowledged that he was aware of the anti-doping rules and that he had prescribed prohibited subtances to the minor Athlete. He argued that he was not involved as Athlete Support Personnel and that the TJD-AD had no competence because only the Federal Council of Medicine (CFM) has jurisdiction to resolve the charges against him.

The compounding pharmacy in question that provided the substances stated that they had no prescription on file for the Athlete's medication. A prescription was not necessary while there was also no invoice of purchase available.

Preliminary the Rapporteur establishes that the test results were valid and that there had been no irregularities during the chain of custody that could invalidate these test results. Further the Rapporteur determines that under the Rules the doctor had acted as Athlete Support Personnel.

The Rapporteur finds that the presence of the prohibited substances had been established in the Athlete's sample and that he doctor had administered these prohibited substances. Accordingly both the minor Athlete and the doctor committed the alleged anti-doping rule violations.

The Rapporteur deems that the minor Athlete and his doctor deliberately had acted in this case. As a Protected Person the Rapporteur determines that the minor Athlete had acted with a lower degree of fault and negligence and that the doctor had not been fully aware that the Athlete participated into competitions.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 4 November 2022:

• to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the minor Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 27 October 2021;
• to impose a 12 year period of ineligibility on the doctor;
• to recommend opening criminal proceedings into the doctor's conduct;
• to recommend opening proceedings into the coach's conduct;
• to inform the weightlifting sports organisations and the CFM regional council about the doctor's violation;
• to open an investigation into the pharmacy that had compounded and supplied the prohibited substances.

In October 2022 the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA), on behalf of the International Tennis Federation (ITF), reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Romanian tennis player Simona Halep after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Roxadustat (FG-4592).

Furthermore in May 2023 the ITIA reported a second anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after an Expert Panel concluded unanimously in April 2023 in their Joint Expert Opinion that the Athlete’s hematological profile “highly likely” showed that she used a prohibited substance or a prohibited method: the use of EPO or Blood doping. 

This conclusion of the Expert Panel was based on assessment of blood samples, collected in the period from 27 August 2013 until 3 March 2023 reported in the Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP). 

After notification about the ABP violation the Athlete submitted an explanation with documentation for the abnormal values in her ABP. However after consideration the Expert Panel rejected the Athlete’s explanations in their 2nd (May 2023) and 3rd (June 2023) Joint Expert Opinions.

In both cases a provisional suspension was ordered. Supported by expert witnesses the Athlete filed explanations and evidence in her defence and she was heard for the ITF Independent Tribunal.

Thereupon the Roxadustat charge and the ABP charge were resolved by the Tribunal in consolidated proceedings. Preliminary the Panel ruled that there were no grounds to lift the imposed provisional suspension(s) as requested by the Athlete.

In the matter of the Roxadustat charge the Athlete accepted the test results and denied the intentional use of the substance. She asserted that the source of the positive test was a contaminated Keto MCT supplement she had used in August 2022.

The Panel assessed and addressed the issues raised by the Parties and their expert witnesses:

• Whether or not the Keto MCT supplement was contaminated;
• Admissibility of the hair test for Roxadustat;
• Whether or not the hair test established contamination;
• The concentration of Roxadustat in the Athlete's sample;
• The Athlete's use of the supplement;
• The specific gravity of the Athlete's sample.

The Panel concludes that on a balance of probability the Keto MCT supplement was contaminated with Roxadustat. However the Panel also concludes that the Athlete clearly must have ingested Roxadustat from some other source.

The Panel holds that it can not speculate on how the apparently highly unlikely coincidence of the two separate sources of Roxadustat came about. The evidence does not demonstrate that to the Panel.

In the matter of the ABP charge the Athlete also accepted the results of the 51 valid samples in her ABP and denied that she had used any prohibited substance of prohibited method. She alleged that the blood values in her ABP samples had been caused by: (a) blood loss during surgery; (b) a second redacted issue; or (c) periods of detraining.

Here the Panel also assessed and addressed the ITF evidence, the Athlete's explanations and the opinions of the Parties' expert witnesses.

Ultimately the Panel accepts the findings of the ABP Expert Panel and is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation because of her use of a prohibited substance and/or a prohibited method.

Furthermore the Panel assessed whether there are aggravating circumstances in this case. However It determines that there are insufficient grounds for the imposition of an increased period of ineligibility.

Therefore the ITF Independent Tribunal decides on 11 September 2023 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for committing two anti-doping rule violations:

• Presence and Use of the prohibited substance Roxadustat; and
• Use of a prohibited substance and/or a prohibited method.

The Panel rules that these violations are considered as one single first anti-doping rule violation, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 7 October 2022. Finally the Panel decides to disqualify the Athlete's results obtained between 29 August 2022 to 7 October 2022.

In June 2023 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the fencer Radhika Prakash Awati after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylprednisolone.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered, yet not accepted by the Athlete. She filed a statement in her defence and was heard for the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI).

The Athlete accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the substance. She stated that she underwent treatment for her diagnosed condition and had used prescribed medication which she had mentioned this on the Doping Control Form.

Previously In June 2023 the Athlete had applied for a retrospective TUE for her medication. However this TUE application was rejected in May 2023 and again rejected in July 2023 following the Athlete's appeal.

On both occasions the TUE Committees deemed that the application was incomplete and the filed prescriptions insufficient. Also the Athlete's doctor was deemed not qualified and the medical treatment inappropriate.

The 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 Athlete's conduct the Panel concludes that the violation was not intentional and that she had acted with a degree of negligence. Further the Panel considers that the she had not accepted the Provisional Suspension.

Therefore the Panel decides on 17 August 2023 to impose a 15 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

In April 2023 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the powerlifter Hariom Khari after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Trenbolone.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI).

The Panel 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 Panel determines that the Athlete fully admitted the use of the prohibited substance.

Therefore the Panel decides on 16 August 2023 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 12 April 2023.

In May 2023 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the powerlifter Pankaj after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI).

The Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's system and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Panel determines that the Athlete had admitted the use of the prohibited substance.

Therefore the Panel decides on 16 August 2023 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 10 May 2023.

In February 2023 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the weightlifter Akshata Basavant Kamati after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone, Metandienone and Stanozolol.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI).

The Panel finds that the presence of prohibited substances have been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Panel considers that the Athlete merely denied the intentional use of the substance and requested for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the Panel decides on 16 August 2023 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 15 February 2023.

In February 2022 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Radha Chaudhary after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Clomifene.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered, yet not accepted by the Athlete. She filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI).

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. She asserted that she underwent medical treatment for her condition and had used medication prescribed by her doctor.

INADA rejected the validity of the medical treatment the Athlete underwent. It contended that she had committed an anti-doping rule violation and failed to mention on the Doping Control Form her medication.

The Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Panel determines that she acted negligently with her medication, nor had applied for a TUE

In view of the evidence the Panel deems that the Athlete's diagnosis and treatment of her condition was inadequate. Further the Panel considers that she failed to mention her medication on the Doping Control Form and not had accepted the provisional suspension.

Therefore the Panel decides on 7 July 2023 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

Related case:

ADAPI 2023_27 Ajay Kumar vs INADA
September 4, 2023

In February 2023 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the volleyball player Ajay Kumar after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI).

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He alleged with evidence that he had received medical treatments in hospitals for his condition and had used prescribed medication that probably contained the prohibited substance.

INADA contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate with corroborating evidence that the violation was not intentional, nor the source of the prohibited substance whereas had acted negligently.

The Panel 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.

In view of the evidence Panel deems that the Athlete's medical information and prescribed medication did not identify the source of the prohibited substance, nor that the violation was not intentional.

Therefore the Panel decided on 5 July 2023 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 22 Februar 2023.