The South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported two anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete after her samples tested positive for the use of diuretics in 2010 and 2011.
At the first hearing on 13 August 2010 the Athlete was found guilty of an anti-doping rule violation and the sanction imposed was a period of ineligibility of fifteen months.
At this hearing she testified that the diuretics were prescribed for chronic swelling of her face, hands and feet, a medical condition diagnosed as oedema. She applied for a TUE after the positive test but the application was refused. She appeared at the first hearing without legal assistance and her Federation also did not assist her at all.
At this first hearing it was recorded in the decision that the athlete was clearly uneducated in respect of anti-doping rules and implications and in respect of what was needed to obtain a proper TUE. It was also accepted by the panel that the she suffered from the chronic medical condition of fluid retention (oedema) for which she took the prescribed diuretic medication, and that she had no intention of enhancing her performance.
Hereafter a TUE application was submitted and re-submitted by the general practitioner but the application was refused twice. The athlete continued to take the same prescribed diuretic medication on medical advice in order to relieve her chronic symptoms during her period of ineligibility. She was again tested during the period of ineligibility on 11 July 2011, and was again found to have an adverse analytical finding for diuretics.
The athlete was charged with an anti-doping rule violation for the presence of prohibited diuretics in her sample.
At the hearing on 25 October 2011 the athlete was again unrepresented and her National Federation was also not present and offered no assistance. She pleaded guilty to the charge that she committed an anti-doping rule violation by continuing to take her prescribed diuretic medication.
After careful consideration of the history of this matter the panel concluded that there is a strong possibility that the medical profession has failed the athlete by not obtaining a TUE for her condition, and that it would be wrong and unfair, especially as she was unrepresented, not to assist her to file a proper application for a retroactive TUE.
The hearing on 25 October 2011 was postponed to enable the Athlete to submit an application for a TUE.
At the resumption of the hearing on 10 May 2012 the Committee was informed that an initial TUE application submitted had been refused (no reasons given), and that it took more than six months before the TUE Committee finally granted a TUE. A satisfactory explanation for this long delay has not been received.
Hereafter a TUE that was granted was not for the diuretics initially prescribed for the athlete and for which an adverse analytical finding was returned.
On the evidence the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee finds as follows:
1) the athlete suffers from a genuine illness that has now been diagnosed as idiopathic oedema;
2) she was uneducated in relation to the fact that the diuretics she was taking were banned;
3) there was no intention to enhance performance.
4) her medical condition was difficult to diagnose and to treat with correct medication.
5) She was not in the Registered Testing Pool or the National Testing Pool and therefore she could apply for a Retroactive TUE for the use of diuretics in terms of section 4.4.2.1 of SAIDS Anti-Doping Rules 2009.
6) The fact that the TUE was granted for different diuretics than she tested positive for does not automatically result in a finding that the athlete is guilty of an anti-doping rule violation. The Disciplinary Committee is unanimously of the view that on the facts in this matter the granting of the TUE allows the Committee to find that in this case there was no anti-doping rule violation.
Therefore the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee concludes that as a result of the granting of a retroactive TUE no anti-doping rule violation occurred.
In addition the Committee strongly recommends that SAIDS should consider reviewing the first Anti-Doping Rule Violation and the resulting Sanction. The Committee consider it regrettable that the athlete was not given the opportunity in 2010 to submit a proper TUE application.
