Related case:
SAIDS 2014_05 Brandon Stewart vs SAIDS - Appeal
November 11, 2014
In October 2013 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Brandon Stewart after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance testosterone with at a T/E ratio above the WADA threshold. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. While the Athlete was suspended SAIDS also reported that the Athlete had assisted riders in his team in March 2014.
Previously in April 2013 the Athlete's TUE application for the use of Testosterone was rejected by SAIDS. The Athlete did not accept this rejection and appealed while he already underwent medical treatment and was tested in that period. The Athlete’s sample provided on 7 July 2013 tested positive for Testosterone at the same time that his TUE application was finally rejected on 9 July 2013.
The Athlete accepted the test results, admitted the use of the Testosterone and denied that he used this to enhance his sport performance. He argued that he underwent medical treatment for his condition and that the Testosterone was used as prescribed and recommended medication. He asserted that he had the right to continue the use of the medication and took all the necessary steps to obtain the TUE. He mentioned the use of the medication on his Doping Control Form and he ceased using this medication when his first TUE application was rejected in April 2013. The Athlete confirmed that he had assisted riders in his team on 27 March 2014 and that the UCI investigated his role at the race.
SAIDS argued that the Athlete was in the registered testing pool, and was therefore subject to have a valid TUE under the Rules. It was conceded that the Athlete had disclosed his Testosterone use in subsequent races, but the evidence of his medical practitioners contradicted his evidence. There was no basis to argue a reduction in sanction, and as such the two year sanction should be imposed.
The Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel finds that it was undisputed that the Athlete had used the medication Nebido as the source of the Testosterone and mentioned the use of the medication on the Doping Control Forms. The Panel holds that the Athlete had accepted the test results, admitted the use of the prohibited substance and established how the substance entered his system.
The Panel regards that the Athlete gave significant weight in argument to the fact that the SAIDS employee advised him that treatment cannot be withheld and he could continue using the Nebido. This was disputed by SAIDS while the employee in question also didn’t have the authority to grant the TUE.
Considering the evidence and the Athlete’s conduct in this case the Panel deems that the Athlete was aware that the TUE Committee could approve the TUE, that he started using the medication Nebido simultaneously when he applied for a TUE and proceeded to use the medication before a TUE was granted. The Panel concludes that the Athlete, as a senior professional rider and member of the national testing pool, acted with significant departure from the required duty of utmost care and consequently failed to establish No Significant Fault or Negligence. Further the Panel considers that the Athlete violated the imposed provisional suspension on 27 March 2014 and as a result shall not receive credit for it.
Therefore the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 8 August 2014 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 27 March 2014.
