TJD-AD 2019-036 Disciplinary Decision - Football

18 Oct 2019

Related case:

TJD-AD 2020-057 Appeal Decision - Football
January 15, 2020

In June 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 Isometheptene.

After notification no provisional suspension was ordered. In this matter ABCD regarded that the widely used pain killer Neosaldine was used. This product contained Isometheptene, yet it did not mention this substance on the label. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for 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 she committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Rapporteur accepts that the violation was not intentional and the result of the use of a pain killer Neosaldine wheras the Athlete only later during the proceedings provided an explanation on how the substance had entered her system.

In view of previous cases, involving Isometheptene and Neosaldina, the Rapporteur considers that reduced sanctions were imposed due to No Significant Faul or Negligence.

Therefore the TJD-AD decides on 18 October 2019 by majority to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

TJD-AD 2019-030 Disciplinary Decision - Powerlifting

9 Aug 2019

In April 2019 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the powerlifter after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Metandienone, Methasterone and Trenbolone.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. Initially the Athlete failed to respond to the ABCD communications and only later he produced a statement in his defence. He claimed his ignorance of the anti-doping rules, he had not received anti-doping education from ABCD, nor had he participated in any competition of his Confederation.

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

Based on the evidence in this case the Panel dismisses the Athlete's assertions and finds that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional. The Panel deems that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction nor grounds to start the sanction on the date of the provisional suspension.

Therefore the TJD-AD decides on 9 August 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

TJD-AD 2019-029 Disciplinary Decision - Canoeing

2 Aug 2019

In May 2018 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the canoeist after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Oxandrolone. In addition ABCD reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete's sports doctor for the administration of the prohibited substance.

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 had used several supplements, purchased abroad and from a compounding pharmacy in Brazil. He claimed that one of these supplements was contaminated.

The Panel deems that there were several inconsistencies in the Athlete's evidence and statements and it had also received information that the Athlete had participated in a competition during the ordered provisional suspension.

The Panel establishes that on behalf of the Athlete the compounding pharmacy had received 7 orders for perscribed Oxandrolone between January and May 2017. The alleged contaminated supplement the Athlete had send for analysis was compounded in May 2017 whereas the Athlete was tested months later in March 2018.

For this supplement in question the Athlete had produced a prescription without a date whereas his doctor refused to cooperate with the investigation. On the other hand for this supplement the compounding pharmacy produced a prescription from the sports doctor for the use of Oxandrolone and Testosterone.

The Panel considers the Athlete's conduct and notes that he  was tested before, had received anti-doping education and was aware that Oxandrolone was prescribed. Yet he claimed to be unaware of the anti-doping rules, had used carelessly several supplements and he failed to mention these on the doping control form.

Therefore the TJD-AD decides on 2 August 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete and his doctor. The sanction shall start on the date of this decision because of the Athlete's breach of his provisional suspension.

TJD-AD 2019-026 Appeal Decision - Football

26 Sep 2019

Related case:

TJD-AD 2018-090 Disciplinary Decision - Football
September 26, 2018

On 26 September 2018 the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the football player after he tested positive for the prohibited substances Furosemide and Sibutramine.

Hereafter the football player was granted several extentions of the deadline to appeal in order to produce new evidence in his defence. Yet after months the TJD-AD Appeal Panel establishes that the Athlete had failed to file any new appeal nor had he presented any new evidence in his defence.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 26 September 2019 not the consider the Athlete's appeal and to uphold the TJD-AD Decision of 26 September 2018 for the imposition of a 4 year period of ineligibility, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 13 March 2017.

TJD-AD 2019-024 Disciplinary Decision - Swimming

11 Oct 2019

In July 2019 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the swimmer after her sample tested positive for the prohibited subtance Furosemide.

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

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and asserted that her out-of-competition use of a contaminated product had caused the positive test. The Athlete argued that she was tested before without issues and that this product was recommended by a nutritionist affiliated to the Brazilian Olympic Committee.

Further she requested to lift the provisional suspension as she already had served 88 days of the suspension. In this matter it was necessary that she could participate in the FINA Championship in South Korea in December 2019 and in the 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games as part of the Brazillian team.

The Rapporteur accepts the Athlete's assertions and considers that the product was used in a context unrelated to sport performance, nor for weight loss, nor to mask other prohibited substances.

Therefore the TJD-AD decides on 11 October 2019 to lift the Athlete's voluntary provisional suspension immediately.

TJD-AD 2019-023 Disciplinary Decision - Powerlifting

11 Oct 2019

In March 2019 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the powerlifter after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol.

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 denied the intentional use of the substance, neither that he acted with Fault or Negligence.

The Rapporteur 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 Rapporteur deems that the Athlete failed to demonstrate with any evidence that the violation was not intentional, nor grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the TJD-AD decides on 11 October 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 28 March 2019.

TJD-AD 2019-022 Appeal Decision - Modern Pentathlon

26 Sep 2019

On 16 May 2018 the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal decided by majority to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Pentathlon Athlete after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances GW501516 and Oxandrolone.

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

The Athlete provided an explanation for the presence of Oxandrolone as a result of the mix up of her father's prescribed Oxandrolone capsules with her supplement capsules. Nevertheless the Athlete could not explain the presence of GW501516 because her supplements were not analysed for contaminations. ABCD deemded that due to inconsistencies in her conduct she failed to establish the violation was not intentional.

The Rapporteur regards 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.

Considering the circumstances in this case the Rapporteur deems that she could not demonstrate with corroborating evidence that contamination had cause the positive test result.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 15 December 2019.

TJD-AD 2019-020 Appeal Decision - Football

26 Sep 2019

On 12 July 2019 the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) decided to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the football player after he tested postive for the prohibited substance Dexamethasone.

Further the TJD-AD decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete's Doctor for the intentional administration of the prohibited substance.

Hereafter both the Athlete and the Doctor appealed the Disciplinary Decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Panel.

In view of the evidence in this case the Rapporteur establishes that the two medications the Athlete had mentioned on the Doping Control Form could not have caused the concentration Dexamethasone found in his sample. Without corroborating evidence the Athlete also failed to demonstrate that had used a prescribed medication for a legitimate medical treatment, nor that he had applied for a TUE.

Further the Rapporteur deems that the Athlete's doctor had acted in complicity and with high degree of negligence whereas he denied any responsibility and involvement.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 26 September to dismiss both appeals and to uphold the TJD-AD Disciplinary Decision of 12 July 2019.

ICC 2022 ICC vs Shohidul Islam

27 Jun 2022

In May 2022 the International Cricket Council (ICC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Bengalees cricket player Shohidul Islam after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Clomifene.

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right to be heard, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the ICC.

The Athlete explained with evidence that he had used a prescribed medication as treatment for his condition. He was unaware that it contained a prohibited substance whereas he mentioned this medication on the Doping Control Form. He acknowledged that he had not checked his medication before using, nor had applied for a TUE.

The ICC accepts that the violation was not intentional due to the Athlete had demonstrated that he had used a prescribed medication for a Legitimate Medical Treatment. The ICC considers that the Athlete gave a prompt admission and that he had mentioned his medication on the Doping Control Form.

Further the ICC deems that the Athlete had acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence because he had not researched his medication before using, nor consulted experts about his prescribed medication, nor applied for a TUE.

Therefore the ICC decides on 27 June 2022 to impose a 10 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 28 May 2022.

CCES 2022 CCES vs Taylor Shadgett

4 Jul 2022

In June 2022 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the powerlifter Taylor Shadgett after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis.

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by CCES.

Because the use of Cannabis occurred out-of-competition and the Athlete completed an approved Substance of Abuse treatment program he received a reduced sanction from CCES.

Therefore CCES decides on 15 September 2022 to impose a 1 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 29 June 2022.

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