ON FIRE, FLAMENGO! AUDITOR ACCUSES COLLECTORS OF LYING TO INCRIMINATE GABIGOL OF FRAUD

The Court of Justice Anti-Doping made available the full ruling of the session in which Gabigol was suspended for two years for attempted doping fraud. In it, it is possible to know how each auditor voted in the 5×4 division, in addition to knowing the arguments of each one to justify their vote.

In this sense, the vote of the vice-president of the Selma Fátima Melo Rocha Court. According to her: “the testimonies of the DCOs [officials responsible for the collection] are full of contradictions and take away all the credibility they would have had at that time.”

“Sometimes they claim that they were prevented from escorting the athlete, sometimes deny this fact. Each DCO assigns the other the responsibility for escorting the athlete to the room. It is therefore clear that they are lying, and their testimony should be completely discarded”, he states.

Selma then makes an even more serious accusation against the collectors.

“I see malicious behavior on the part of the DCOs to incriminate the athlete at any cost. But to be incriminated, very serious facts must be presented, which were not the case in this case”, he stated.

Selma admits that Gabigol was rude, but emphasizes that “getting angry with someone cannot be a reason to impute a period of 2 or 4 years of suspension.”

“If the sample provided by the athlete was not within technical and safety standards, it would be up to the DCOs to deny the sample. However, at a hearing, one of the DCOs confirmed that the sample was within standards. Thus, all protocols were complied with”, understood the auditor.

In Selma's conclusion, “there is no conduct on the part of the athlete capable of violating the CBA or causing any damage to the sport”.

Auditors do not see attempted fraud by Gabigol

In addition to Selma, auditors Jean Batista Nicolau, Fernanda Farina Mansur and Ivan Pacheco voted against Gabigol's conviction. p>

Nicolau said that Gabigol's behavior does not constitute an attempt at fraud.

“The accused did not receive the DCO properly and treated them with little civility. However, I do not see fraud or attempted fraud occurring in this case. I am not convinced by the theory that the athlete acted intentionally with the aim of defrauding the collection procedure. He acted, yes, to vilify the inspectors but not with the specific purpose of defrauding the procedure”, stated the auditor.

He emphasizes that, as there is no provision for legislation to punish this type of conduct, there is no had no other option than to vote for Gabigol's acquittal.

Fernanda Farina Mansur exposes in detail several contradictions of those responsible for the collection, the main one being that the leader of the collection mission said that he saw Gabigol arrive at Flamengo after the team when video evidence was offered that the attacker was already training before the auditors arrived.

“Regarding what happened on 4/8/2023, I think it is important to highlight the difficulty of elucidating how events occurred that day. A series of doubts and statements that contradict each other made the task of being sure of what actually happened difficult. Three points seem right to me. Firstly, the athlete was rude, impolite and uncooperative with the DCOs, which does not mean plan fraud. Second, the DCOs were unable to be definitive on some important points of what happened on that date. And thirdly, the mission occurred due to mishaps and difficulties, but not only because of the athlete”, he considered.

Finally, Ivan Pacheco warned of the risk of Gabigol's conviction paving the way for arbitrariness by the court in the future.

“Under no circumstances can a relationship conflict be confused with fraud or attempted fraud in the collection of samples, under penalty of subjective interpretation and, worse, creating a precedent for future arbitrariness to arise from this judgment. I understand that there was a failure of communication between the collection team and the athlete due to differences in relationship”, he stated.

Gabigol's defense must use the votes of the four rapporteurs for Gabigol's acquittal as part of its argument at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, in Switzerland, to reverse the conviction. Also this Tuesday, the Swiss court defined the last of the three arbitrators who will analyze Gabigol's appeal. The defense hopes to have a decision on the suspensive effect by the beginning of May.