Related case:
SAIDS 2011_35 SAIDS vs Harald Pieter van Staden
December 19, 2011
On 19 December 2011 the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for committing an anti-doping rule violation after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance drostanolone. According to the Disciplinary Committee there was no indication from the Athlete that he had refrained from participating in the sport from the date he received the notification of the provisional suspension.
Therefore the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to commence the 2 year period of ineligibility on the date of the hearing.
The International Rugby Board (IRB) appealed the decision of the Disciplinary Committee on the fact that the Committee failed to give the Athlete credit for the period of the Provisional Suspension as required by Article 10.9.2 of the SAIDS Anti-Doping Rules.
SAIDS submitted that the onus was on the Athlete to prove that he served his provisional suspension. No such proof was placed before the Commission and it was therefore correct for the Committee not to give the Athlete credit for the period of the provisional suspension.
The Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal of South Africa concludes that there is no evidence that the Athlete did not respect his provisional suspension.
Therefore the Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal of South Africa rules:
1.) The appeal of the IRB is admissible.
2.) An Athlete who has been served with a provisional suspension notice is presumed to have respected such suspension until the contrary is proved.
3.) The decision of the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee related to the date of the start of the sanction (19 December 2011) is set aside and substituted with 2 November 2012 as the start date of the 2 year period of ineligibility.
