The South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone and 19-noreticholanolone (metabolites of Nandrolone). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the Disciplinary Committee. The Athlete stated he used prescribed medication for his shoulder injury, a variety of supplements and had received a B12 injection administered by his trainer.

Considering Athlete’s statement the Committee concludes that the Athlete failed to lead evidence to the comfortable satisfaction of the Committee establishing how the prohibited substance entered his system. Therefore the Committee finds that there were no grounds for a reduction of the sanction.
The SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 17 June 2011 to 16 June 2013.

Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) charges Russell Ward (the player) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. He was selected for an in competition doping test on 17 May 2008 following the match between Canada East and Canada West at the IRB North American 4 Tournament held in Markham, Ontario, Canada. His sample contained the prohibited substance 11-nor-delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol-9-carbosylic acid (a metabolite of cannabis) at a concentration level of 41ng/ml, which is a higher level than that prescribed by WADA (15ng/ml).

History
The player had previously smoked cannabis at high school.
On 20 April 2008 following his university exams, during the evening whilst socializing with his student friends at a private party he smoked cannabis not to enhance his playing performance on the rugby field, but for enjoyment.

Decision
The board considers that an appropriate starting point is a period of suspension of four months reduced to three months on account of the player's early acknowledgement of guilt, his expressed regret and remorse that his conduct had the potential to tarnish the image of rugby particularly in relation to the recently introduced North American IRB tournament.
Accordingly the period of suspension should commence from 30 May 2008 (being the date of the provisional suspension) until 30 September 2008 (both dates inclusive).

Related case:

World Athletics 2020 WA vs Luvo Manyonga
June 11, 2021

The South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methamphetamine (d-). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete admitted that he was guilty of the charge and stated he had used the social drug TIK, a highly addictive methamphetamine drug, for a period of three months.

The Committee concludes that the Athlete is at fault but finds that there are exceptional social circumstances that are relevant to the degree of fault.

Therefore the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 18 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. 20 March 2012 to 20 September 2013.

The South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after he refused to provide a sample for doping control. The Athlete has been tested 4 times previously and has a gym where he trained as coach young athletes. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete admitted that he was guilty of the charge and gave extensive evidence as to the difficulties that he experienced in the sport, and specifically in relation to the South African Weightlifting Federation (SAWF). His actions were meant as a protest. In objecting the test he believed he was objecting/protesting against the SAWF. He was not aware that SAIDS was a body separate to SAWF. The Athlete regretted his actions and was remorseful and asked that he be allowed to coach.

The Committee concludes that the circumstances as set out by the Athlete are not truly exceptional. The Committee finds it regrettable that his actions will impact upon his work as a coach in the community as it is evident that he has been fulfilling an important social function.
Therefore the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the notification. Also the Athlete is ineligible to perform duties as a coach and his result of the competition is disqualified where he refused to provide a sample for doping control.

SAIDS 2012_09 SAIDS vs Chazlin Lamini
April 24, 2012

The South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his samples, provided on 10 September, 22 September and 24 October 2011, tested positive for the prohibited substance prednisone and prednisolone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the Disciplinary Committee.

Because of the Athlete’s bronchitis the Disciplinary Committee finds that the Athlete was entitled to apply for a retroactive TUE and that the sequence of events showed that the athlete has made concerted attempts to have his doctor provide the necessary documentation for considering.

The SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides as follows:

1.) That the period of suspension be lifted with immediate effect.
2.) That the present hearing be finalised should a retroactive TUE be granted once the TUE Committee has finalised its decision on the matter.
3.) That the present hearing is adjourned to a date and time to be set should a retroactive TUE not be granted once the TUE Committee has finalised its decision on the application.
4.) That the medical representative on the Panel be mandated to assist the athlete and his doctor in providing the necessary information required to the TUE Committee as a matter of urgency with the proviso that the assistance offered was ex gratia and that ultimately the responsibility to provide the documentation was the responsibility of the athlete who would face the consequences in respect of failure to produce same.
5.) That SAIDS be requested to review its protocols and procedures in respect of communicating with an athlete and the TUE Committee with a view to ensuring that clear documentary requirements are communicated to the athlete which would ensure that the athlete would be in a position to obtain the necessary documentation from his/her doctor and any other relevant parties thereby avoiding similar scenarios arising in future.

Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) charges Rabah Slimani for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On 10 June 2008 he was selected for an in-competition doping test after his match. His sample tested positive on the prohibited substance tuaminoheptane. Tuaminoheptane is a specified substance on the prohibited list of the Word Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).

History
The day before the Match, the Player’s nose clogged up. He went to see one of the team doctors, Dr. Julia, who gave him some paracetamol, which the Player took. The next day the Player’s cold was worse. His nose was running. He again consulted Dr. Julia. Dr. Julia decided to treat the Player with a nasal decongestant called Rhinofluimucil. The Player took two successive inhalations of this medication through each nostril. That was his only use of Rhinofluimucil. The prohibited substance was found in this medication (nasal spray) for treating colds.

Decision
The Player is reprimanded and warned that any further anti-doping rule violation in the future will likely result in serious consequences for him. The provisional suspension imposed on the Player is lifted with immediate effect.

Costs
Submission should be provided on time.

Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) charges Steven Shortly (the player) for committing an anti-doping violation. During an in-competition testing he tested positive on Finasteride metabolite which is an alpha-reductase inhibitor, classified under Section 5 -
Diuretics and other Masking Agents - of the 2008 WADA Prohibited List.

History
The player has established on a balance of probabilities his taking of Finasteride (commercially known as "Proscar") was unintentional, in that it was not to enhance his performance in rugby but for hair loss. The medication has been prescribed to him since 2005 by his doctor, who conducts a full time specialist practice in medical and surgical hair restoration. Until recently both the doctor and the player were unaware Finasteride was a banned substance. Further, the IRB has properly indicated that Finasteride will not be retained on the 2009 WADA Prohibited
List which comes into effect on 1 January 2009.

Decision
It has been determined that the mandatory minimum sanction whereby the player receives a warning and is reprimanded for his anti-doping violation. For the sake of clarity it follows the player's provisional suspension will lapse forthwith.

The South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone and 19-noreticholanolone (metabolites of Nandrolone).

The Athlete testified he had used a supplement which he had purchased from a person known to a fellow sprinter.
The Committee concludes the Athlete acted recklessly by purchasing supplements from an unknown source and without consulting anybody regarding the safe use of the supplement.
Therefore the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 15 March 2012.

The South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance stanozolol.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The minor Athlete and his father filed a statement in his defence and the father was heard for the Disciplinary Committee.

The father stated that the Athlete only ingested the substances which he had declared on his Doping Control Form. He, the Athlete and his trainer were unable to explain the presence of the prohibited substance in his sample.
Without exceptional circumstances to take into consideration the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 6 March 2012.

Facts
Following the match played on 10th May 2008 between Upolu Samoa and Savai'i in the IRB Pacific Rugby Cup Tournament 2008 Muliufi Salanoa (the player) during in-competition testing, provided a urine sample which subsequently tested positive for the substance Salbutamol. Salbutamol is classified under S.3 of the World Anti-Doping Agency's (WADA) 2008 List of Prohibited Substances.

History
During the morning of 10th May 2008 before the match played between Upolu Samoa (which he was scheduled to captain for the first time) and Savai'i, due to "anxiety and nervousness" (his words), he experienced shortness of breath. As a child, he had suffered from asthma but he had not experienced shortness of breath since he was 12 and because of this was unable to produce any medical documentary material verifying that he previously suffered from asthma. He did not have a current TUE for asthma. Because of his condition and without a medical prescription, the player then obtained from Evile Telea (a team mate and, the Board Judicial Committee ( BJC), was told, a qualified pharmacist) two tablets which were immediately taken orally in the latter's presence. When tested, the player informed the testing officer that he had taken an unknown tablet(s) for asthma. Mr Telea confirmed he gave the player two salbutamol (also known as Ventolin) tablets and they were taken
in his presence.

Decision
The sanction imposed for this anti-doping rule violation is a period of ineligibility of two years commencing from 7th July 2008 (the date upon which the player's provisions suspension commenced)
and concluding (but not inclusive of) 7th July 2010.