Related case:
SAIDS 2019_07 SAIDS vs Tega Odele
July 22, 2019
On 22 July 2019 the SAIDS Anti-Doping Tribunal decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Metenolone.
In first instance the Panel deemed that the Athlete failed to demonstrate with any evidence that the violation was not intentional, nor how the prohibited substance had entered his system. Hereafter the Athlete appealed the Decision of 22 July 2019 with the SAIDS Appeal Committee.
The Athlete argued that in first instance the Panel failed to assist the unrepresented Athlete, SAIDS had not established that there was an anti-doping rule violation, nor had it discharged the required burden of proof. He had no funds to test the B sample and the imposed sanction was erroneous.
SAIDS contended that the Athlete was informed on numerous occasions of his right to legal representation by SAIDS whereas the Athlete had received anti-doping education. Although the first Doping Control Form got wet the Athlete had confirmed on the second Doping Control Form its contend while this matter could not have caused the positive test result. Also the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional nor how it had entered his system.
The Appeal Committee establishes that the Athlete was duly informed about his right of legal representation and that the Panel had assisted the Athlete during the proceedings where the Athlete had no representation. The Committee holds that SAIDS indeed had discharged the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation had occurred.
The Appeal Committee finds that the Athlete failed to explain the positive test result, neither had he demonstrated that there was any cross-contamination that could have caused the positive test result. The Committee agrees that a wet Doping Control Form could not have caused the Athlete's positive test result.
Finally the Appeal Committee concludes that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor the origin of the prohibited substance.
Therefore the SAIDS Appeal Committee decides on 9 March 2021 to dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to uphold the Appealed Decision and the imposed sanction of 4 years.
