In July 2015 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Sandile Ngunuza after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine) and Oxilofrine (methylsynephrine).
After notification a provisional suspenstion was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel.
During the proceedings the charge against the Athlete was amended by SAIDS in September 2015 and Oxilofrine excluded because re-analysis in the accredited laboratory of the Athlete’s A-sample showed that the previous reported substance Oxilofrine was in fact Hydroxy-pseudoephedrine (Pseudo-oxilofrine) a metabolite of Pseudoephedrine. Also the concentration Pseudoephedrine found in the Athlete's sample was below the WADA threshold.
In this matter WADA previously had issued a Guideline on 7 May 2015. However the accredited laboratory in South-Africa failed to introduce a timely procedure in accordance with the WADA Guideline to test for Pseudo-oxilofrine.
The Athlete admitted the violation and assumed that one of the supplements he had used contained the prohibited substance. However analysis of the Athlete’s supplements in question revealed that they didn’t contain prohibited substances. Also the Athlete suggested that the fluids he ingested from the different water stations along the 89 km route of the marathon could have been the source of the positive test.
Considering the evidence and circumstances in this case the Panel concludes - as accepted by SAIDS - that the anti-doping violation was not intentional and also finds that the Athlete could not establish on a balance of probability to the satisfaction of the Panel how the prohibited substance entered his system.
Therefore the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decides on 26 February 2016 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 2 July 2015.
Initially during the proceedings against the Athlete the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel had already reached an unanimous decision before the charge was amended by SAIDS in September 2015 because of the new test result. For this reason the Panel renders in this case a full reasoned decision as required under the Rules. In addition the Panel notes in the Annex their concerns dealing with the possible constitutional imperatives, anomalies and unintended consequences of the application of the Rules.
