TJD-AD 2023-001 Disciplinary Decision – Athletics

3 May 2023

Related case:

TJD-AD 2023-017 Appeal Decision - Athletics
October 18, 2023

In October 2022 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) reported and an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for his 3 Whereabouts Failures within a 12 month period:

  • a Filing Failure on 31 March 2021;
  • a Missed Test on 8 November 2021;
  • a Missed Test on 5 March 2022

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

The Athlete denied that he acted intentionally and argued that prior he had been tested multiple times without issues. He asserted that ABCD had to support athlete's when having problems updating their Whereabouts.

Regarding the first Whereabouts Failure he explained that in the United States he had technical problems in updating his Whereabouts. He showed his e-mails with ABCD about these problems and could only update his Whereabouts when he returned to Brazil.

Additionally his trip to the United States was complicated by the Covid pandemic. Moreover their trip was uncertain because they still had not received their tickets.

The Athlete acknowledged that his second Whereabouts Failure happened because he had already lef home at the end of the one-hour-timeslot while anticipating that no Doping Control Officer would come.

In the matter of the third Whereabouts Failure the Athlete confirmed with evidence that he was at home while his phone was off. Furthermore his intercom was faulty and the doorbell was not heard because of the noise outside the building and the noise of his air conditioning inside his house.

Regarding the first Whereabouts Failure ABCD contended that the Athlete had plenty opportunity to update his Whereabouts information before his trip to the United States. ABCD also rejected his justifications for his second and third Whereabouts Failures.

Regarding the first Whereabouts Failure the Rapporteur determines that the Athlete indeed had not timely updated his Whereabouts within the set deadline. Also for participation in the United States the schedules for the competitions were  already publicly available.

The Rapporteur corrects that the deadline to file Whereabouts was 31 March 2021 and not 20 March 2021. ABCD contended that they could solve these update problems within 48 hours, whereas the Athlete did not solve any of these technical problems during his 40 day stay in the United States.

Further the Rapporteur concludes that the Athlete acted negligently regarding his second and third Whereabouts Failures. Nevertheless he accepts that his violation was not intentional and that there are grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 3 May 2023 to impose a 16 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 6 October 2022.

World Aquatics - Report of the Anti-Doping Audit Review Committee to the World Aquatics Bureau

13 Jul 2024

Report of the Anti-Doping Audit Review Committee to the World Aquatics Bureau / Anti-Doping Audi Review Committee. - Lausanne, Switzerland : World Aquatics, 2024


On 3 May 2024, the World Aquatics Bureau established an anti‐doping audit review committee (the Committee) to review the matter involving 23 Chinese swimmers whose samples collected in 2021 were found to have trimetazidine (TMZ) present in them (the TMZ Case).

The Committee was tasked with examining the processes and procedures employed by World Aquatics, previously known as FINA, in addressing not only the TMZ Case, but all doping cases under its jurisdiction. The objective of this review was to provide World Aquatics with recommendations that could fortify its anti‐doping protocols for the future and ensure that its systems and controls are best‐in‐class.

For the avoidance of doubt, the Committee was not tasked to review if CHINADA’s decision not to sanction the 23 Chinese swimmers who tested positive to TMZ in 2021 was right. Similarly, the Committee was not tasked with reviewing whether CHINADA handled this matter in accordance with the World Anti‐Doping Code. No forensic examination or investigation of those issues took place in preparing this report.

This report represents the culmination of rigorous examination, thoughtful deliberation, and collaborative effort undertaken by the members of the Committee and the Aquatics community. Hundreds of pages of documentation were examined, a summary of the actions taken by FINA in 2021 in relation to this case, and the operating procedures of World Aquatics effective in 2021 (and still currently in force). The Committee also consulted with more than twenty Aquatic stakeholders, including international‐level swimmers and coaches, National Federations, the International Testing Agency (ITA), the Executive Director of World Aquatics, the Athletes Committee of World Aquatics, a member of the Anti‐Doping Advisory Body of the Aquatics Integrity Unit, a senior representative of the United States Anti‐Doping Agency (USADA), and other leading anti‐doping organisations.

Through this report, the Committee wishes to provide a comprehensive assessment of the processes involved and to offer recommendations that, once implemented, will assist in strengthening the fight against doping in Aquatic sports.

World Athletics 2022 WA vs Lawrence Cherono

2 Jul 2024

In July 2022 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf of World Athletics, reported and anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Lawrence Cherono after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Trimetazidine. 

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete responded and filed a statement in his defence.

The Athlete initially alleged that he had stomach problems and that a doctor had given him erythromycin and an injection with an unknown substance. However the AIU did not accept this explanation.

In August 2022 the Athlete explained that in May 2022 his wife inadvertently had provided him a Carvidon tablet instead of a painkiller for his muscle pain. He submitted medical documents issued by the Wayside Medical Centre about his wife's condition and the prescribed medications, including the Carvidon tablets.

The AIU determined that there were several inconsistencies in the Athlete's explanations about his wife's alleged medical treatments in May 2022. Therefore the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) conducted for the AIU an investigation into his explanations and supporting medical documents. 

In December 2022 ADAK's investigation revealed that the filed medical documents from the clinic were falsifications. Thereupon between December 2022 and March 2024 further investigations conducted by the AIU and ADAK were obstructed, delayed and undermined by the clinic and the Athlete.

After a Court Order in April 2024 the clinic finally cooperated and stated that there were no records available about any medical treatment given to the Athlete's wife. The clinic confirmed that the medical documents in question were falsifications produced by unauthorised persons.

Consequently in June 2024 the AIU reported two anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for:

  • presence of a prohibited substance; and
  • tampering with any part of the doping control.

After notification of these charges the Athlete gave a timely admission and accepted the sanction proposed by the AIU. The AIU deems that the Athlete had failed to demonstrate that these two violations were not intentional, nor exceptional circumstances for a reduced sanction.

Because the Athlete had signed and submitted the Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violation and Acceptance of Consequences Form he received a 1 year reduction from the AIU. The Athlete must serve the imposed two sanctions consecutively.

Therefore the AIU decides on 2 July 2024 to impose a 7 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 16 July 2022.

World Athletics 2024 WA vs Jose Eduardo Rodriguez

10 Jul 2024

In July 2024 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf on World Athletics, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Mexican Athlete Jose Eduardo Rodriguez after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Boldenone.

Following notification the Athlete timely admitted the violation, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the AIU.

The Athlete assumed without corroborating evidence that the positive test likely had been caused by:

  • an injection administered by a doctor in April 2024;
  • medication used in Brazil in May 2024; 
  • a pre-workout supplement purchased and used in Brazil in May 2024; 
  • meat consumption in Brazil in May 2024.

The AIU deems that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional. Because he had signed and submitted the Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violations and Acceptance of Consequences Form he received a 1 year reduction from the AIU.

Therefore the AIU decides on 10 July 2024 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 1 July 2024.

World Athletics 2024 WA vs Lucy Karimi

9 Jul 2024

In May 2024 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf on World Athletics, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Lucy Karimi after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO).

Following notification the Athlete initially failed to respond. Yet, in June 2024 she timely admitted the violation, waived her right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the AIU.

The AIU deems that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional. Because she had signed and submitted the Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violations and Acceptance of Consequences Form she received a 1 year reduction from the AIU.

Therefore the AIU decides on 9 July 2024 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 23 May 2024.

SDRCC 2024 CCC vs CCES & Tarek Dahab - Appeal

12 Feb 2024

Related case:

SDRCC 2023 CCES vs Tarek Dahab
February 12, 2024


In April 2017 the cyclist Tarek Dahab (50) was struck by a vehicle which caused him serious injuries, including a traumatic brain injury. He underwent many surgical procedures on his back, neck and wrists.

The injuries significantly impacted his life. He suffered from several medical conditions including severe headaches, loss of muscular strength and sleep problems.

In August 2021, Dahab was prescribed Testosterone which greatly improved the sequalae of some of his injuries. As a Para-cyclist in October 2023 he was admitted to Cycling Canada's National Athlete Pool.

In November 2023 he was tested whereas his 3rd TUE application was rejected at the same time. As a result in December 2023 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Para-cyclist.

Consequently the SDRCC Doping Tribunal decided on 12 February 2024 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Para-cyclist, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 20 December 2023.

Hereafter Cycling Canada Cyclisme (CCC) appealed the SDRCC decision with the SDRCC Doping Appeal Tribunal. CCC requested the Appeal Tribunal to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a reduced sanction on the Para-cyclist.

CCC argued that mitigating factors have not been properly considered related to intent and the Para-cyclist's admission of his use of the substance. CCC also asserted that neither a reduction of the sanction had been properly considered by the Sole Arbitrator in first instance.

In first instance the Para-cyclist made the following assertions:

  • He admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance.
  • He acted with no fault or negligence and with due diligence.
  • He took every precaution to comply with the Rules and demonstrated transparency. 
  • He kept both Cycling Canada Cyclisme (CCC) and the Quebec Sport Cycling Federation (FQSC) informed about his prescribed use of Testosterone.
  • He relied on the advice of the experts at CCC and FQSC.
  • At no time he was told to stop using Testosterone so that he could compete at provincial, national or international events. 

CCES contended that the Para-cyclist had admitted the violation and failed to demonstrate that the acted not intentional. There are no grounds for a reduced sanction because he knew or should have known the risk inherent in taking Testosterone without a valid TUE.

The Appeal Tribunal 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 Appeal Tribunal agrees that the Para-cyclist had been transparent about his use of Testosterone for therapeutic purposes and attempted to obtain a TUE. He is not a cheat, yet he manifestly disregarded the risk of using the substance without a valid TUE.

The Appeal Tribunal determines that the Para-cyclist knew, or ought to have known, since February 2023, that using Testosterone was prohibited when persuing activites under the Rules unless he had a TUE.

Further the Appeal Tribunal considers that in October 2023 the Para-cyclist had completed the anti-doping training course. Moreover in October 2023 he was duly warned by the CCES about his medication while his TUE application had not been granted.

Therefore the SDRCC Doping Appeal Tribunal decides on 19 June 2024 to dismiss CCC's appeal and to uphold the Appealed Decision 12 February 2024.

SDRCC 2023 CCES vs Tarek Dahab

12 Feb 2024

Related case:

SDRCC 2024 24-0019 CCC vs CCES & Tarek Dahab - Appeal
February 12, 2024

In April 2017 the cyclist Tarek Dahab (50) was struck by a vehicle which caused him serious injuries, including a traumatic brain injury. He underwent many surgical procedures on his back, neck and wrists.

The injuries significantly impacted his life. He suffered from several medical conditions including severe headaches, loss of muscular strength and sleep problems.

In August 2021, Dahab was prescribed Testosterone which greatly improved the sequalae of some of his injuries. Thereupon in October 2023 he was admitted as Para-cyclist to Cycling Canada's National Athlete Pool.

In February 2023 and in August 2023 his two TUE applications were rejected. In October 2023 the Para-cyclist made a new application for a TUE while he was using prescribed Testosterone.

In November 2023 he was tested whereas at the same time his TUE application was rejected. Consequently in December 2023 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Para-cyclist.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Para-cyclist filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Doping Tribunal of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC).

The Para-cyclist made the following assertions:

  • He admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance.
  • He acted with no fault or negligence and with due diligence.
  • He took every precaution to comply with the Rules and demonstrated transparency. 
  • He kept both Cycling Canada Cyclisme (CCC) and the Quebec Sport Cycling Federation (FQSC) informed about his prescribed use of Testosterone.
  • He relied on the advice of the experts at CCC and FQSC.
  • At no time he was told to stop using Testosterone so that he could compete at provincial, national or international events.

CCES deemed that the Para-cyclist had committed an anti-doping rule violation and requested for a sanction of 4 years. CCES contended that the Para-cyclist failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional and that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction.

CCES considered that the Para-cyclist used the substance without a valid TUE. Following the anti-doping education course in October 2023 he knew or should have known the risk inherent in taking Testosterone.

The Sole Arbitrator 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 Arbitrator deems that the Para-cyclist failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional. He also determines that under the Rules there are no exceptional circumstances for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the SDRCC Doping Tribunal decides on 12 February 2024 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Para-cyclist, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 20 December 2023.

ADAK 2024 ADAK vs Tobias Elahatia Maube

2 May 2024

In December 2023 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Tanzanian bodybuilder Tobias Elahatia Maube after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Oxymetholone.

Following notification ADAK was unable to locate the Athlete and he failed to respond. Thereupon the case was referred to the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal.

In view of the evidence the Panel finds that the presence of the prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. 

Without the Athlete's response the Panel deems that he failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor how the substance had entered his system. Furthermore the Panel finds that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the Panel decides on 2 May 2024 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

ADAK 2024 ADAK vs Alfred Ouma Owino

2 May 2024

In December 2023 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the bodybuilder Alfred Ouma Owino after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Hydrochlorothiazide.

Following notification ADAK was unable to locate the Athlete and he failed to respond. Thereupon the case was referred to the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal.

In view of the evidence the Panel finds that the presence of the prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. 

Without the Athlete's response the Panel deems that he failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor how the substance had entered his system. Furthermore the Panel finds that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the Panel decides on 2 May 2024 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

ADAK 2024 ADAK vs George Juma Kajula

20 Jun 2024

In December 2023 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the bodybuilder George Juma Kajula after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Canrenone.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal.

The Athlete denied that he violation was intentional. He acknowledged that he had used a tablet, provided by another athlete, in order to reduce body mass, relying entirely on the infornation provided by the other athlete .

In view of the evidence the Panel finds that the presence of the prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. 

The Panel deems that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional as he had failed in his duty of care towards the substance of the tablet provided by a third person. The Panel finds therefore that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction.

Subsequently the Panel decides on 20 June 2024 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 26 December 2023.

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