Brazilian footballer Gabigol bags 2-year ban
Flamengo striker Gabigol has been banned for two years for an alleged drug test breach and may not return until 2025, according to reports.
The forward, whose real name is Gabriel Barbosa, was reportedly tried on Monday by the Brazilian Sports Anti-Doping Court and suspended at the conclusion of the case.
Ge.balloon He states that his punishment came into effect on April 8, 2023, the date his sample was taken at Flamengo’s training camp, and will last until April 2025.
READ ALSO Dominican Rep. 2024: Flamingos rout CAR in Douala
Gabigol, 27, is now likely to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
He was allegedly accused of violating Article 122 of the Brazilian Anti-Doping Code, which refers to “fraud or attempted fraud in any part of the testing process.”
Gabigol, Flamengo player, will now appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport
Gabigol is alleged to have obstructed officials before the exam, and the complaint reports that he delayed the delivery of the sample and failed to comply with instructions. According to the examiners, the player also disrespected them
Gabigol is said to have failed to comply with the team’s test before training and then ignored them after lunch. He later reportedly took the collection container without informing anyone before being escorted to the bathroom by an officer.
Reports say he returned the container containing the urine sample open.
According to reports, even if Gabigol had tested negative, his behavior could have constituted “fraud or attempted fraud,” as stated in anti-doping regulations.
READ ALSO Brazil wonderkid Endrick stuns England at Wembley
With the exception of Gabigol, who was sanctioned in court after a majority of five to four, the Flamengo squad underwent its tests before training on April 8.
A statement from Flamengo, provided to ge.globo, said: “Flamengo received the aforementioned decision with surprise and will help the athlete to file an appeal before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), as it understands that there was no type of fraud.” , not even an attempt, to justify the punishment applied.’