In 2016 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) decided to impose an 18 month period of ineligibility on the powerlifter Tracy Ludwig after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Indapamide. Here the Athlete admitted the violation, accepted the test result and waived her right to be heard.
The Athlete applied for a retroactive TUE for her use of Indapamide, the active ingredient in the prescribed medication Adco Dapamax. She explained that she suffered from various medical conditions and used medication as treatment prescribed by 3 specialists while previously she also mentioned her medication on the Doping Control Form. However on 27 September 2016 the SAIDS TUE Commission denied the Athlete’s application for a retroactive TUE which the Athlete appealed with the SAIDS Appeal Tribunal.
The Panel of the Appeal Tribunal established that previously the Athlete had applied for a TUE in 2014 but failed to apply for a TUE in 2016 for the use of the prescribed medication. After the ADRV had occurred the Athlete applied for a retroactive TUE but provided confusing and insuffient medical information in support. The Panel finds that the decision of the TUE Commission of 27 September 2016 was valid and that it provided alternaves afterwards in their submission to the Athlete in July 2017.
The Appeal Panel considers that the Athlete failed to seek an alternative medication long before the ADRV with all implications against the Athlete. The Panel accepts that the Athlete had no intention to enhance her performance and that the prescribed medication was needed as treatment for her condition.
The Appeal Panel further finds that the Athlete may make submission to the TUE Commission to reconsider her TUE application in light of the new information, and in light of the fact that an alternative has now been prescribed and is found to be a suitable alternative treatment.
Therefore the SAIDS Appeal Panel decides on 22 June 2018:
1.) The decision of the TUE Commission to deny the retroactive TUE is upheld;
2.) Each party to pay its own costs in regard to the Appeal hearing of 24 April 2018.
3.) The Athlete to pay the Respondent’s wasted costs for the hearing which was meant to be held on 28 March 2018.
