SAIDS 2018_07 Retshidisitswe Mlenga vs SAIDS - Appeal

Related cases:

• IAAF 2018 IAAF vs Reneilwe Aphane
  May 2, 2019
• SAIDS 2018_07 SAIDS vs Retshidisitswe Mlenga
  July 1, 2019
  
  

On 1 July 219 the SAIDS Anti-Doping Tribunal Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Retshidisitswe Mlenga after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol.

In First Instance the Panel deemed that the Athlete failed to explain how the prohibited substance had entered his system. He also provided contradictory evidence, and he appeared to be an unreliable witness.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the Decision of 1 July 2019 with the SAIDS Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal. The Athlete alleged that the Appealed Decision was erroneous and he requested for a redcued sanction.

The Athlete argued that the violation was not intentional, that he lacked the intention to cheat, nor acted with Significant Fault. He asserted that he was a young naïve amateur athlete, just turned 18, who trusted his coach. He used the amino acids, provided by his coach, without question or further investigation, instead of attending a medical facility when he felt ill.

SAIDS requested the Appeal Panel to reject the Athlete's appeal and contended that he failed to demonstrate that he lacked intention to cheat, neither proved the source of the prohibited substance on a balance of probabilities.

Considering the circumstances in this case the Appeal Panel concludes that there are no grounds to annul the Appealed Decision and to reduce the imposed sanction.
Further the Appeal Panel finds that the Athlete has not been fully forthcoming in regard to stating the whole truth of what he ingested and the source thereof.

In this regard the Appeal Panel deems that:

• The Prohibited Substance is a Non-Specified substance and is prohibited both in and out of competition.
• SAIDS is not required to prove anything more than ‘presence’ and no substantive factors have been advanced by the Athlete to suggest that there is a basis for reducing the period of ineligibility.
• The Athlete failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the violation was not intentional.
• Reducing the period of the sanction would be arbitrarily unfair to other athletes, who were minors at the time of testing, who were also from disadvantaged backgrounds and who also stood to lose their scholarships to various universities as well as their sponsorships.
• It is only when the Anti-Doping Rules are strictly applied that Athletes will begin to take what they ingest seriously and strive to perform at their best without the assistance of chemically prohibited substances and ensure the integrity of sport.

Therefore the SAIDS Appeal Panel decides on 23 January 2020 that:

1. The Appeal is dismissed;
2. The period of ineligibility shall be four years and the decision of the Tribunal is upheld;
3. In addition, that the Athlete receives a credit for the period of provisional suspension as well as the period of ineligibility already served with effect from the date of his provisional suspension
4. Each party to pay its own costs in regard to the Appeal.