Back
6 November 2025
The ITA reports that athlete Yernaz Myrzabekov was sanctioned with a two-year period of ineligibility after testing positive for furosemide following two in-competition doping controls on 3 May 2024 and 25 October 2024 during the 2024 Ju-Jitsu Asian Championship – Youth and Adults, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates and then2024 Ju-Jitsu World Championships, Heraklion, Greece, respectively.
The athlete’s sample of 3 May 2024 initially returned an Atypical Finding (ATF)¹ for furosemide. Furosemide is prohibited under the WADA Prohibited List as S5 Diuretics and Masking Agents. It is prohibited at all times (in- and out-of-competition) and is classified as a specified substance. Furosemide can be used by athletes to excrete water for rapid weight loss.
As required by the WADA stakeholder notice regarding potential diuretic contamination cases (WADA Stakeholder Notice)², the ITA initiated an investigation into whether the ATF was caused by inadvertent contamination from a pharmaceutical product taken by the athlete prior to sample collection.
Accordingly, a follow-up sample was collected on 25 October 2024 which returned an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) ³ also for furosemide.
The athlete was unable to establish that the 3 May 2024 ATF was a result of pharmaceutical contamination and hence both the 3 May and 25 October 2024 samples were pursued as anti-doping rule violations (ADRV) under Article 2.1 and 2.2 of the JJIF anti-doping rules (JJIF ADR) for the presence / use of a prohibited substance.
The athlete did not challenge the ADRV and a sanction was issued by the ITA on behalf of JJIF in accordance with article 8.3.3 of the JJIF ADR (and equivalent provision in the World Anti-Doping Code).⁴ The period of ineligibility is effective from 11 July 2025 until 10 July 2027 and the athlete’s results have been disqualified from 3 May 2024 onwards.
Parties with a right of appeal may challenge the decision before the appeals division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in accordance with article 13.2 of the JJIF anti-doping rules.
The ITA will not comment further on this case.
¹A report from a WADA-accredited laboratory or other WADA-approved laboratory which requires further investigation as provided by the International Standard for Laboratories or related Technical Documents prior to the determination of an Adverse Analytical Finding.
² The Stakeholder Notice is available at: https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/stakeholder_notice_regarding_contamination_with_certain_diuretics_final_1_june_2021.pdf
³ A report from a WADA-accredited laboratory or other WADA-approved laboratory that, consistent with the International Standard for Laboratories, establishes in a Sample the presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers or evidence of the Use of a Prohibited Method.
⁴ When an athlete does not challenge the assertion of an ADRV and does not request a hearing, anti-doping organisations have the possibility to issue a written decision sanctioning the athlete and imposing the applicable consequences without having to refer the case to a hearing panel. This is provided in articles 8.3.2 and 8.3.3 of the JJIF Anti-Doping Rules and article 8.3 of the World Anti-Doping Code.
