TJD-AD 2019-165 Disciplinary Decision - Cycling

25 Feb 2019

In April 2018 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO). After notification the Athlete admitted the violation, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by ABCD.

Hereafter the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) established that the Athlete had breached the accepted provisional suspension through his participation into a competition on 6 May 2018.

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.

In view of the evidence the Rapporteur concludes that the Athlete during the accepted provisional suspension had participated in a competition of a non-signatory organisation. As a result the Athlete violated the terms of the Acceptance of Consequences he had signed, whereas the agreement between the cyclist and ABCD had not been approved yet by the TJD-AD. Further the Rapporteur considers that there had been delays in the proceeding not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 25 February 2019 to impose a 90 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete for the 2 violations, starting backdated on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 26 November 2017.

TJD-AD 2019-065 Disciplinary Decision - Gymnastics

17 Dec 2019

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-024 Appeal Decision - Gymnastics
April 3, 2020

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

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

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and claimed that she acted from ignorance. She asserted that she struggled with her body and felt ashamed. In order to improve her body image and to lose weight she had used the substance one week before the sample collection.

ABCD contended that the minor Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor when the substance had been used. She was an experienced Athlete, had participated in many national en international competitions and had received anti-doping education.

ABCD considered that the Athlete failed to apply for a TUE and the high concentration found in her sample was not consistent with her alleged use of the subsance one week before the sample collection. Further her postings on social media showed that she was very proud of her body, contradicting her allegation that she felt ashamed about her body image.

The Rapporteur agrees that there are inconsistencies in the Athlete's statements about the use of the substance and the concentration found in her sample.

Therefore the TJD-AD decides on 17 December 2019 by majority to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 7 June 2019.

TJD-AD 2019-058 Appeal Decision - Rowing

9 Dec 2019

On 12 July 2019 the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) decided to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the rower after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Prednisolone and Prednisone.

Hereafter the TJD-AD decision was appealed by the Attorney General (PG-JDA) and the Panel was requested for a more severe sanction. The PG-JDA contended that the Athlete's violation was not intentional, yet he acted with a high degree of negligence without mitigating circumanstances.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides by majority on 9 December 2019 to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 17 June 2018.

TJD-AD 2019-056 Disciplinary Decision - Football

17 Oct 2019

In February 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 1,3-Dimethylbutylamine (1,3-DMBA), Enobosarm (ostarine) and Ibutamoren.

The ABCD made several attempts to contact the Athlete in order to notifiy him. 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 multiple prohibited substances has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Without any response of the Athlete the Rapporteur deems that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 17 October 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibiltiy on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 15 February 2019.

TJD-AD 2019-055 Disciplinary Decision - Football

25 Nov 2019

In May 2019 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis in a concentration above the WADA threshold (1012 ng/mL).

When the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) ABCD already assumed that the violation was not intentional, occurred out-of-competition and recreational while the she voluntarily had accepted a provisional suspension.

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

The Rapporteur deems that the violation was not intentional, that the Athlete acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence and cooperated with the proceedings. Meanwhile her club had also terminated her contract.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 25 November 2019 to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 22 May 2019.

TJD-AD 2019-054 Disciplinary Decision - Cycling

20 Nov 2019

In December 2018 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO).

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived her right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by ABCD. The Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal was requested to render a decision accordingly.

The Athlete testified that the substance was purchased in a pharmacy without a prescription and used for 10 days until the sample collection. Through cycling she tried to cope with her depression after the death of her 4 year old daughter and the EPO was used in a moment of weakness. 

The Panel finds that it was undisputed that the Athlete intentionally had committed an anti-doping rule violation. Prior the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) had granted a reduction of 6 months due to the Athlete gave a prompt admission and cooperated with the proceedings.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 20 November 2019 to impose a 3 year and 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 18 November 2018.

TJD-AD 2019-053 Disciplinary Decision - Basketball

20 Nov 2019

In October 2018 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 substances Prednisolone, Prednisone and Salbutamol.

After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal TJD-AD.

ABCD contended that the Athlete had committed a second anti-doping rule violation because he was tested by FIBA in January 2018 and thereupon notified in March 2018 that he had tested positive for Prednisolone and Prednisone.

Consequently in February 2019 FIBA had imposed a sanction of 2 years on the Athlete. However the Athlete appealed and he could demonstrate that the substances were used as medication for his Asthma. As a result his sanction was reduced by FIBA to a 6 month period of ineligibility, ending on 18 August 2019.

The Athlete asserted that previously in March 2019 he was not notified about his first anti-doping rule violation in Chile in January 2019 because he had changed his e-mail. In this matter the Brazilian Basketball Confederation (CBB) reported that due to a break down at the relevant time it had no e-mail information about the FIBA notification to the Athlete.

In view of this evidence ABCD accepted that the Athlete was not notified in March 2018 due to his e-mail was incorrect. Nevertheless ABCD requested the Panel to impose a 2 year period of inelgibiility on the Athlete.

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 violation was not intentional and related to the use of the substances as medication for his Asthma. The Athlete had failed to inform his team about his medication and meanwhile he had appelied for a TUE.

Further the Rapporteur considers that prior the Athlete was not notified about the first anti-doping rule violation and that he already has served a 6 month period of ineligibility until August 2019.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides by majority on 20 November 2019 to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting backdated on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 10 October 2018.

TJD-AD 2019-049 Appeal Decision - Athletics

24 Oct 2019

On 7 June 2019 the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) decided to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Parathlete after he tested positive for the prohibited substances Metandienone and Oxandrolone.

Hereafter in August 2019 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed this decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Panel and requested for a 4 year period of ineligibility.

The Athlete alleged that contaminated supplements were the source of the positive test. Yet WADA contended, supported by the IPC, that the Athlete had failed to establish that he had acted without fault or negligence whereas his relative blindness was no ground for a reduced santion.

The Appeal Panel finds that it was undisputed that the presence of two prohibited substances had been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation. Further the Appeal Panel determines that the Athlete had failed to demonstrate that his supplements were contaminated, nor that he had acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 24 October 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 4 August 2018.

TJD-AD 2019-047 Disciplinary Decision - Football

17 Oct 2019

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-023 Appeal Decision - Football
April 1, 2020

In April 2019 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine.

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 admitted the violation and requested for a reduced sanction. He asserted that at the relevant time he suffered from a depression and thereupon had used the substance in a context unrelated to sport performance.

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

Considering the evidence in this case the Rapporteur deems that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete acted negligently.

The Rapporteur establishes that the Athlete prior also had used Cocaine, rather that the substance was used to cope with his depression. Rapporteur determines that the Athlete only had consulted a psychiatrist about his depression after he tested positive and that he had not received regular psychological treatments.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 17 October 2019 by majority to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 16 March 2019.

TJD-AD 2019-039 Disciplinary Decision - Football

16 Oct 2019

In February 2018 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 substance Fenoterol.

ABCD contended that the Athlete had committed a second anti-doping rule violation because the violation was committed after the Athlete had been notified that he had committed a first anti-doping rule violation.

In both proceedings the Athlete admitted the violation and demonstrated with evidence that the substance had been used as medication for his asthma which was mentioned on the Doping Control Form.

The Athlete asserted that ABCD's notification of his first anti-doping rule violation occurred on the same day he provided the second sample during his preparation for the match. Based on ne bis in idem and lis pendens the Athlete argued that he can't be prosecuted for one and the same anti-doping rule violation for which the TJD-AD already had imposed a sanction and appealed.

In view of the evidence the Rapporteur finds that ABCD has not proven that the Athlete was duly notified of his first anti-doping rule violation on the day of the second sample collection. The Rapporteur accepts that the two reported anti-doping rule violations must be considered as one single violation and that lis pendens had been established. Further the Rapporteur finds that the Athlete had not acted intentionally due to his Asthma, yet had failed prior to apply for a TUE.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 16 October 2019 that the Athlete had not committed a second anti-doping rule violation due the principle of lis pendens.

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