The case involves João Gabriel Schlittler, a Brazilian judoka, who appealed a two-year suspension imposed by the International Judo Federation (IJF) for an anti-doping rule violation. The violation stemmed from a positive test for chlortestosterone metabolites (Clostebol) during the 2011 Rio de Janeiro Grand Slam. The Brazilian Judo Confederation (CBJ) was initially named as a respondent but was later removed from the case due to its lack of involvement in the IJF's decision. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel, composed of Jacopo Tognon, Rui Botica Santos, and Ulrich Haas, addressed procedural and substantive issues, including the admissibility of new evidence and the athlete's burden of proof regarding how the prohibited substance entered his system.
Schlittler claimed the Clostebol entered his body through sexual intercourse with his girlfriend, Gisele, who had used Trofodermin cream, a medication containing Clostebol, for gynecological treatment. He argued that he was unaware of the cream's contents and thus bore no fault or negligence. The IJF contested this explanation, asserting that contamination was improbable given the timeline—intercourse occurred ten days after Gisele's treatment ended. The IJF also challenged the credibility of Gisele's testimony, noting inconsistencies and her lack of neutrality as a witness. Schlittler later revised his argument, stating Gisele continued using the cream beyond her prescribed treatment, but the IJF found this scenario unconvincing and tailored to fit scientific studies on contamination.
The CAS panel emphasized the strict liability principle under the IJF Anti-Doping Rules, placing the burden on Schlittler to prove how the substance entered his body. It ruled that his evidence, including Gisele's testimony and medical documents, was insufficient to meet the balance of probability standard required under Article 3.1 of the IJF ADR. The panel also noted procedural deficiencies, such as the late introduction of new evidence, which violated Article R56 of the CAS Code. Despite Schlittler's claims of unintentional contamination, the panel upheld the two-year suspension, finding no grounds for reduction under Article 10.5 of the IJF ADR.
The suspension period was adjusted to begin on June 19, 2011, the date of sample collection, rather than August 15, 2011, when the provisional suspension started, due to delays in the IJF's notification process. The suspension ended on June 19, 2013, and Schlittler's competition results from the 2011 event were disqualified. The panel dismissed Schlittler's appeal against the CBJ and rejected all other relief requests, affirming the IJF's decision while addressing procedural fairness. The case underscores the challenges athletes face in contesting doping violations and the rigorous scrutiny applied to contamination claims.