Thu, October 16, 2025
ITIA v Gonçalo Oliveira
A decision in the case of International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) against Gonçalo Oliveira has been issued by the Independent Panel.
On 25 November 2024, during the Manzanillo Open, an ATP Challenger Tour event held in Manzanillo, Mexico (the ‘Event’), Mr Oliveira, a professional tennis player and dual Portuguese and Venezuelan national, (the ‘Player’), provided an In-Competition urine Sample that resulted in an Adverse Analytical Finding (‘AAF’).
On 17 January 2025, the ITIA notified the Player that he may have committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV) for the Presence of Methamphetamine in his A Sample. Methamphetamine is a Prohibited Substance in the category of Stimulants which is listed in section S6.A of the 2024 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited list. It is a non-Specified Substance and is prohibited In-Competition.
On 4 February 2025, the ITIA informed the Player by letter that an analysis of Sample B was conducted on 23 and 28 January 2025, which confirmed the finding reported for Sample A, namely the presence of Methamphetamine. The Player initially denied the possible ADRV.
On 31 March 2025, the ITIA sent a Notice of Charge to the Player, notifying him that he was being charged with the commission of an ADRV on the basis that Methamphetamine, which is prohibited, was found to be present in the Player’s urine Sample. The Player admitted the Charge however, he disputed the default Consequences as they are set out in the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme (TADP). The Player stressed that the ADRV he committed was unintentional and the result of contamination.
The hearing took place on 11 September 2025, and the Independent Tribunal was comprised of Mr Jonathan Bellamy C.Arb, sitting as Chair, and Ms Tamara Gaw and Mr Nilo Effori sitting as wing members.
The Player alleged that the ADRV was not committed intentionally, and that, consequently, the sanction should be at most, a period of two (2) years Ineligibility. The Player argued that the Prohibited Substance found in his Sample was the result of either Kissing or Environmental contamination. For the first possible source, it was submitted that the Player’s acquaintance had ingested a pill that contained Methamphetamine before kissing the Player and that he would have been contaminated by the Substance through the saliva exchanged whilst kissing. For the second possible source, it was submitted that the Player might have been contaminated from the prevalence of residues of Methamphetamine in or around the area of the Event and the surrounding areas in Manzanillo, Mexico. Once the Player learned of the positive test result, he spent considerable time, effort, and money trying to establish source, for instance by obtaining a hair analysis from an expert in the field.
As the Player admitted liability to the Charge, the only issue to be determined by the Independent Tribunal was in relation to that of sanction. On the argument of the possible Kissing contamination, the Independent Tribunal considered there was no direct evidence that the Player’s acquaintance had ingested the Substance as they were either unwilling or unable to say what the recreational pill they consumed contained. The Player was also unable to give direct evidence on this point. The expert evidence called by both parties did not change the position as the experts had not seen evidence that the acquaintance had ingested Methamphetamine. One of the experts had been instructed by the Player on the basis that the acquaintance had ingested the Substance. The Tribunal concluded that this factual error undermined the expert’s evidence and that there was no clear, cogent, persuasive or concrete direct evidence on the point.
On the argument of the possible Environmental contamination, the Independent Tribunal considered that the Player gave general unchallenged evidence about the environment in Manzanillo. The experts instructed did not undertake any tests on the environment described by the Player. The experts only referred to potential sources of contamination and no specific source of contamination was identified.
The Independent Tribunal was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the Player had failed to establish the source of the Prohibited Substance. The Player had failed to adduce clear, cogent, persuasive or concrete evidence showing that the source of the Methamphetamine in the Sample was more likely than not because of either of the alleged contaminations. As a result, the Player was unable to rely on the further defence of No Fault or Negligence.
The Independent Tribunal thereby determined that a period of Ineligibility of four (4) years should be imposed. The period of Ineligibility commenced on the date of the decision, 2 October 2025, but credit was given for the period the Player was provisionally suspended, therefore running from 17 January 2025.
Sport Resolutions is the Independent Secretariat to the International Tennis Integrity Agency Independent Panel.
A copy of the full decision can be accessed via the related links tab on the right-hand side.
Related Documents
- ITIA v Gonçalo OliveiraDecision
