In August 2015 World Rugby has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Jayson Smith from the Turks and Caicos Islands after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis in a concentration above the WADA threshold. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered.

In his submission the Athlete admitted the violation, expressed his apologies for his actions and waived his right to be heard for the World Rugby Judicial Committee. The Judicial Committee notes that the Athlete failed to demonstrate in his submission that his use of cannabis was unrelated to sport performance as ground for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the World Rugby Judicial Committee decides on 19 February 2016 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 19 August 2015.

In June 2015 World Rugby has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Welsh rugby player Carl Townsend after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance oxandrolone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered.

The Athlete filed a statement in his defence, gave a prompt admission, waived his right to be heard and accepted the sanction proposed by World Rugby for his non intentional violation. He stated that during his period of retirement he had purchased and used over the counter protein, preworkout powders and testosterone boosters which were not quality assured and batch tested.

Considering the Athlete’s degree of Fault and his admitted reckless conduct the World Rugby Judicial Committee decides on 13 August 2015 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 29 June 2015.

Related case:
World Rugby 2014 WR vs Maxim Gargalic (1)
November 28, 2014

On 28 November 2014 the World Rugby Judicial Committee decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Moldovian Athlete Maxim Gargalic after he tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone) starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 3 July 2014.

Hereafter World Rugby received information that the Athlete had played in 8 matches between July 2014 and September 2014 as breach of the previous ordered provisional suspension.
The Athlete did not dispute he played the matches during the provisional suspension and explained that he mistakenly believed that he was entitled to continue to play until the final decision was rendered.

The Judicial Committee finds that the Athlete is either wilfully blind or untruthful as to his understanding of the terms of the provisional suspension. There is no other plausible interpretation of the words “provisionally suspended” such that the Player might have reasonably believed that he was entitled to continue to play rugby. Further, the Regulations themselves are abundantly clear on the Player’s status while under provisional suspension.

Without mitigating circumstances the Judicial Committee decides on 29 June 2015 that the originally imposed sanction (two years) shall start over again on the date of the latest violation, i.e. 15 September 2014, including disqualification of his results obtained during the provisional suspension.

Related cases:

• SARU 2011 SARU vs Mahlatse Chiliboy Ralepelle & Bjorn Basson
  January 27, 2011
• SAIDS 2019_18 SAIDS vs Mahlatse Chiliboy Ralepelle
  June 25, 2020

In April 2014 World Rugby has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the South African rugby player Mahlatse Chiliboy Ralepelle after his A and B samples, provided out-of-competition in March 2014, tested positive for the prohibited substance drostanolone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the World Rugby Judicial Committee.

Previously the Athlete was reprimanded on 27 January 2011 by the South-African Rugby Union after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine) related to contaminated supplements.

The Athlete’s B sample was frozen in a bottle. When the bottle in the laboratory was placed into a Berlinger machine to open the glass bottle it broke. The largest portion of the frozen sample was recovered, put into a container, defrosted and analysed.

The Athlete denied the anti-doping violation and stated that he underwent surgery in France for a serious knee injury in February 2014 and had used nutritional supplements in the week before the doping test. After surgery no drostanolone was administered and analysis by an independent laboratory ruled out the Athlete’s supplements as possible sources of the drostanolone. Investigations on the Athlete’s behalf failed to reveal the source of the drostanolone.
The Athlete argued that there was a departure of the ISL: due to the broken bottle the integrity of the B sample had been so comprised that the result of that analysis must be dismissed.

Considering the evidence the Judicial Committee finds that the Athlete failed to prove that the reported departure could reasonably have caused the positive test result and rules to their comfortable satisfaction that it did not cause the positive test result. The Athlete did not submit that there were any grounds for imposing a reduced sanction.

The Committee also reviewed the written 2010 decision of the South-African Rugby Union and disagrees with the conclusion of No Fault and imposing only a reprimand on the Athlete. Because it would be unfair to rewrite the 2010 decision, the Committee holds that the 2010 violation was not a first anti-doping rule violation. As a result the current violation counts as a first anti-doping rule violation for sanctioning.
The Committee is also comfortably satisfied that World Rugby discharged the burden and established that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the World Rugby Judicial Committee decides on 16 June 2015 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 10 April 2014.

In January 2015 World Rugby has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Bermudan rugby player Antonio Perinchief after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance clenbuterol.

The Athlete provided a sample during his participation in the Tournament in Mexico City in December 2014. The WADA accredited laboratory reported that the low concentration clenbuterol found in the Athletes samples is consistent with the consumption of contaminated meat (Mexico and China).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the World Rugby Judicial Committee.
The Athlete denied the intentional use of clenbuterol and requested to lift the provisional suspension. He asserted that the positive test results were caused by eating contaminated meat in Mexico without his knowing that the meat was contaminated.

The Committee accepts the Athlete explanation and evidence, unchallenged by World Rugby, and finds that the Athlete did not know or suspect that the meat he consumed was contaminated with clenbuterol. There is no other known or possible source or explanation for the clenbuterol and World Rugby did not suggest one.

Therefore the World Rugby Judicial Committee decides on 29 June that the Athlete has discharged his burden under the Rules and no period of ineligibility or any other sanction was imposed.

Related cases:
IRB 2012 IRB vs Dyland Coetzee
August 27, 2013
IRB 2012 IRB vs Ian Wilson Muza
February 13, 2013

In June 2012 the Zimbabwe Rugby Union has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Junior Athlete Michael Chirara after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone (Nandrolone). The Athlete was one of the three members of the Zimbabwe rugby team who tested positive at the IRB Junior World Rugby Trophy 2012 in Utah, USA.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Judicial Committee of the International Rugby Board (IRB).

The Athlete admitted the violation and indicated that he wished to provide substantial assistance. He stated that he had used the products Deca-Durabolin (Nandrolone) and Proviron (Mesterolon). The doping product were provided by AB, a friend and training partner of the rugby player Dyland Coetzee. Coetzee also tested positive and testified about the doping involvement of his training partner AB.

The Judicial Committee considers that the assistance provided by the Athlete Chirara has been genuine and his explanations for the delay in providing that information are largely credible. The Committee holds that the provided information enabled the IRB to notify the rugby player AB and to provisionally suspend him from rugby pending further proceedings against him for his doping involvement.
On the contrary the Committee finds that the Athlete’s violation was very serious and that he acted at best recklessly indifferent due to he accepted AB’s assurances about the safe use of the product and he systematically used Nandrolone in order to enhance his sport performance.

Therefore the IRB Judicial Committee decides on 8 March 2013 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 15 June 2012.
6 months of the sanction will be imposed as suspended sanction due to the Athlete’s substantial assistance.

In January 2013 the International Rugby Board (IRB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the New Zealand rugby player Lavinia Gould after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the IRB Judicial Committee.

The Athlete did not challenge the test results, admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. She stated that she had used supplements of which she was informed they were “safe”. Laboratory analysis of her supplements showed that the product Genetix beta-alanine powder she had consumed was contaminated, but not the newly and unopenend Genetix product.

The Athlete’s sister Harmony Gould, a fitness trainer, stated that she used a number of supplements. At the time she was using the supplement Jack 3D, which was known to contain methylhexaneamine. She had bought Jack 3D in bulk (10 tubs) in July/August when she heard it was no longer going to be available and she used the last of these tubs in March 2013. She resided with the Athlete and mixed ‘shakes’ using her (the Athlete’s) supplements together with her own. She mixed drinks with her own spoon comprising her Jack 3D and the Athlete’s beta-alanine “a minimum of a dozen times dating back to August 2012 through to March 2013”.

However in June 2013 the IRB filed a report of the WADA accredited laboratory in Switzerland stating that the concentration of the prohibited substance found in the Athlete’s A and B samples were not consistent with the hypothesis upon which the Athlete was contaminated with the substance originating from the incriminated Genetix beta-alanine container.

Hereafter the Athlete acknowledged that she failed in her attempt to explain how the Methylhexaneamine entered her system in order to obtain a reduced sanction. The Judicial Committee also considered whether there are proven aggravating circumstances in this case due to the Athlete provided fraudulent information to the Committee. After deliberations it rules that there are no aggravating circumstances to the comfortable satisfaction of the Committee.

Therefore the IRB Judicial Committee decides on 27 October 2013 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 11 January 2013.

In June 2012 the International Rugby Board (IRB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Fiji rugby player Isake Katonibau for his refusal without compelling justification to submit to sample collection after notification. After notification of the violation a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the IRB Judicial Committee.

The Athlete denied the allegation. He stated he agreed to be tested, although he was variously “angry”, “offended”, “embarrassed” “felt he was being discriminated” because during family time at his parents’ residence he again had been selected. Thus, he stated he waited at his parents’ residence for “not less than 30 minutes” and then for reasons relating to his wife and infant child he chose to leave the property. As a result the Doping Control Officer (DCO) and her male chaperone were thwarted in their attempt to obtain a sample from the Athlete.

The IRB alleged the Athlete’s conduct amounted to either an intentional refusal, or failure or evasion to submit to a sample collection. Alternatively, it is alleged there was a negligent failure to submit to sample collection. Further it is alleged there was not a compelling justification for the Athlete’s refusal or failure to take the test.

Considering the evidence the Judicial Committee can understand the Athlete’s frustration at again being selected for sample collection, The Committee is unable to conclude that the Athlete has established there was a compelling justification for his refusal or failure to submit to sample collection. Essentially the Athlete should have made alternative arrangements for the care of his daughter and waited for the DCO so that he could provide his sample. Indeed, he could have made the necessary arrangements during the waiting period.

The Committee has not found it necessary to make a finding as to whether the DCO erred in giving advance Notice. The Committee considers it would have been preferable if the DCO had not given prior Notice but whether that amounted to what Counsel characterises as a “critical error” is a matter of conjecture. Further, when the DCO made the second telephone call the Athlete of his own volition and contrary to the DCO’s instruction had departed from his parents’ residence. Further, given the lack of relevant information provided by the Athlete and his parents as to his whereabouts, the DCO cannot be criticised for not attempting to locate the Athlete that evening. Indeed, the Committee does not consider the DCO was under any obligation to collect the sample from any other location.

The Committee is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete in leaving his parents’ residence in the circumstances described intentionally refused or failed without compelling justification to submit to sample collection following notification.

Therefore the IRB Judicial Committee decides on 21 January 2013 to impose a 2 year period of ineligiblility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 16 July 2012.

Related cases:
IRB 2012 IRB vs Dyland Coetzee
August 27, 2013
IRB 2012 IRB vs Simbarashe Michael Chirara
March 8, 2013

In June 2012 the Zimbabwe Rugby Union has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Junior Athlete Ian Wilson Muza after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol.
The Athlete was one of the three members of the Zimbabwe rugby team who tested positive at the IRB Junior World Rugby Trophy 2012 in Utah, USA.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Judicial Committee of the International Rugby Board (IRB).

The Athlete admitted the violation and stated that the substance was provided by an acquaintance and that he injected the stanozolol into his system on eight to ten occasions over a 4 week period. The Athlete wished to provide Substantial Assistance in order to potentially reduce his sanction. However the Athlete could only give the vaguest details about the acquaintance who provided the substance.

The Judicial Committee concludes that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation and that he failed in providing any meaningful Substantial Assistance.
Without grounds for a reduced sanction the IRB Judicial Committee decides on 15 February 2013 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 29 June 2012.

Related case:
IRB 2012 IRB vs Simbarashe Michael Chirara
March 8, 2013
IRB 2012 IRB vs Ian Wilson Muza
February 13, 2013

In June 2012 the Zimbabwe Rugby Union has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Junior Athlete Dyland Coetzee after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).
The Athlete was one of the three members of the Zimbabwe rugby team who tested positive at the IRB Junior World Rugby Trophy 2012 in Utah, USA.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Judicial Committee of the International Rugby Board (IRB).

The Athlete admitted the violation and stated that the positive test result was caused by the powder he had used, mixed with water, and consumed on multiple occasions over a number of weeks.
The white powder Deca was provided to him by his friend AB and training partner and purchased in South Africa. The Athlete didn’t research into the product Deca before using because het trusted his training partner AB. The Athlete accepted an offer to provide substantial assistance about the involvement of the his training partner AB for a possible reduction of the sanction.

The Judicial Committee finds that the Athlete systematically used an anabolic steroid during which time he observed changes in his physique. There can be no question that he used the substance (whether he knew what it was or not) in order to enhance his sport performance. He was at best recklessly indifferent when he failed to inquire into what Deca contained.

Therefore the IRB Judicial Committee decides on 31 January 2013 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 22 June 2012.
6 months of the sanction will be impose as suspended sanction due to the Athlete’s substantial assistance.

REVISION

Hereafter in June 2013 the IRB reported that after numerous efforts the Athlete failed to provide an affidavit as substantial assistance about the involvement of his training partner AB.
Therefore the IRB requested the IRB Judicial Committee to reinstate the suspended sanction period of 6 months.

The IRB Judicial Committee decides on 27 August 2017 to impose the full 2 year period of ineligiblility on the Athlete starting on 22 June 2012 and ending until and including 21 June 2014.