Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) charges Kasun De Siva for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On 3 November 2007, Mr. De Silva provided an urine sample as part of the in-competition anti-doping programme conducted at the Asian Rugby Championships (ASIAD). The Player’s “A” sample was found to contain Carboxy-THC (Cannabinoids) at a concentration greater than the set threshold of 15ng/ml. This is a Prohibited Substance listed under s. 8.Cannabinoids on the 2007 World Anti-Doping Agency Prohibited List. The Player waived his right to have his “B” sample analysed.

History
The Player asserts that he is a non-smoker. He does not drink alcohol. He has never used recreational drugs. He advises that he comes from a very religious Christian background and is a devoted church goer. On 27 October 2007 the Player apparently had a serious lapse of judgment. His best friend from childhood was leaving for overseas employment and the Player attended his farewell party. In a letter written to the Union on 22 November 2007 the Player stated: …all my friends were having a good time and during the night a few of my friends were smoking cigarettes and I too had a few puffs just for the fun of it. I now realise that some of the cigarettes may have been lazed with cannabis.”

Decision
The Player committed an anti-doping rule violation. The sanction imposed for this anti-doping rule violation is a period of Ineligibility of three (3) months, commencing on 21 November 2007 (the date upon which the Player was provisionally suspended) and concluding (but inclusive of) 20 February 2008.

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 cannabis.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete pleaded guilty to the charge, stated he had used cannabis in a period of stress and regrets his indiscretion.
The SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 4 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 28 September 2011 to 27 January 2012.

Related cases:
SAIDS 2011_22 SAIDS vs Lebogang Phalula
December 13, 2011
SAIDS 2011_22 WADA vs Lebogang Phalula & SAIDS - Appeal
January 10, 2012
SAIDS 2012_08 SAIDS vs Livingstone Jabanga (2)
November 20, 2012

The South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against Livingstone Jabanga, the chairman of the Gauteng Striders Athletics Club. SAIDS alleged
Mr. Jabanga for the administration or attempted administration to an athlete of pills with the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine.

In August 2011 the Athlete Lebogang Phalula tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine.
At the Disciplinary hearing the Athlete did not dispute the presence of a banned substance in her body. The Athlete was found guilty and sanctioned although her sanction was reduced as the Athlete’s panel accepted, inter alia, her explanation that the pills had been provided by Mr. Jabanga.

Before the Disciplinary Committee Mr. Jabanga pleaded not guilty and stated he had in fact not provided any pills to the Athlete in question prior to the race in respect in which the matter arose.
The Athlete’s version of events was supported and endorsed by her twin sister. Mr. Jabanga’s version was supported by his wife and a young Athlete.

The Committee concludes that the evidence of the Athlete and her sister is true and that Mr. Jabanga’s version is not a truthful one. Therefore the Disciplinary Committee finds Mr. Jabanga guilty for the administration or attempted administration to an athlete of a prohibited substance.

Hereafter on 20 November 2012 the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee imposed a 5 years period of ineligibility on Mr. Jabanga.

Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) charges Davit Zhamutashvili and Alexander Todua (the Players) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The players were tested In-Competition at the IRB Sevens World Series in Edinburgh on 3 June 2007. They both tested positive for Carboxy-THC (a metabolite of cannabis) at a concentration higher than the cut-off of 15ng/ml set by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). Carboxy-THC is a Prohibited Substance listed under S8 Cannabinoids on the WADA Prohibited List 2007.

History
On 17 May 2007, after a lengthy series of training session and on the eve of the Georgia team’s departure to Poland stage of FIRA-AER European Sevens Championship, and, thereafter, three other international sevens tournaments, the Players attended a party hosted by a close friend. Both Players acknowledge that they “simply allowed ourselves to relax and even accepted an invitation to taste marijuana”. Both players claim that they had not tried marijuana before. They deny that their use of marijuana was intended to enhance or otherwise affect their sport performance.

Decision
The sanction imposed for this anti-doping rule violation is a period of Ineligibility of three months, commencing 3 July 2007 (the date upon which the Players’ provisional suspensions commenced) and concluding (but inclusive of) 2 October 2007.

Costs
Written submissions should be provided on time.

Related case:
SAIDS 2012_01 SAIDS vs Juan-Dre Du Toit
January 31, 2012

On 31 January 2012 the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete after he tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone and 19-norethicholanolone (metabolites of Nandrolone).

The International Rugby Board (IRB) appealed the decision of the Disciplinary Committee on the fact that the Committee failed to give the Athlete credit for the period of the Provisional Suspension as required by Article 10.9.2 of the SAIDS Anti-Doping Rules.

SAIDS submitted that the onus was on the Athlete to prove that he served his provisional suspension. No such proof was placed before the Commission and it was therefore correct for the Committee not to give the Athlete credit for the period of the provisional suspension. In addition SAIDS argued that the period of ineligibility was not set to start on the date of the provisional suspension because the Athlete nor his mother were willing to co-operate with SAIDS.

The Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal of South Africa notes that neither SAIDS nor the Committee has the authority to make such a determination on the basis of the non-co-operation of the Athlete. There is also no evidence to the effect that the Athlete did not honour his provisional suspension.

Therefore the Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal of South Africa rules:
1.) The appeal of the IRB is admissible.
2.) An Athlete who has been served with a provisional suspension notice is presumed to have respected such suspension until the contrary is proved.
3.) The decision of the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee related to the date of the start of the sanction (19 January 2012) is set aside and substituted with 11 Augustus 2011 as the starting date of the 2 year period of ineligibility period.

Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) charges Alireza Iraj for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. Following the Iran vs Pakistan rugby match the Asian Rugby Championships 2007 during in-competition testing, the player provided an urine sample. The sample tested positive on 19-norandrosterone with a concentration greater than the threshold level of 2ng/ml.

History
The player stated that quite by accident the 19-norandrosterone was given to him by the doctor.

Decision
The sanction imposed for this antidoping rule violation is a period of ineligibility of two years commencing from the 12th December 2007 (the date upon which the player's provisional suspension commenced) and concluding (but Inclusive of) the 12th December 2009.

Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) charges Titi Esau Junior (the player) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. Following the' Samoa vs Wales match at the IRB Under 19 World Championships 2007 played at Belfast on the 9,h April 2007 the player provided a urine sample which subsequently tested positive for the substance Furosemide.

History
After unsuccessfully using a local plant remedy known as Aloe Vera, he was treated for an infected leg in hospital where he was prescribed antibiotics and Panadol. He stated he took no other drugs, including Furosemide.

Decision
The sanction imposed for this anti-doping rule violation is a period of ineligibility of two years commencing from the 16th April 2007 (the date upon which the player's provisional suspension commenced) and concluding (but inclusive of) the 16th April 2009.

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-noranstrosterone and 19-noreticholanolone (metabolites of Nandrolone).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in his defence. The Athlete informed SAIDS that he accepts the 2 years suspension that may be imposed against him and stated he will not attend the hearing of the Disciplinary Committee.

Therefore the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting from the date of the notification, i.e. on 19 July 2012.

Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) alleges Martin Bustos Moyano (the player) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On 7 June 2006 the Player complied with a request to undergo Out of Competition Doping Control. The resulting analysis concluded that the sample contained the presence of 3 hydroxystanozolol, which is a metabolite of stanozolol. Stanozolol is a Prohibited Substance under the World Anti-Doping Code.

History
The Player was taking a cocktail of vitamins and proteins at the time of his sample collection. The glutamina supplement he used was contaminated and was the cause of the Prohibited Substance, stanozolol, entering his system.

Decision
The sanction imposed for this anti-doping rule violation is a period of Ineligibility of eighteen months, commencing 12 June 2006 (the date upon which the Player’s provisional suspension commenced) and concluding (but inclusive of) 12 December 2007.

Costs
Written submissions should be provided on time.

Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) alleges Sireli Naqelevuki (the player) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The player provided an urine sample in the course of a doping control test taken in George, South Africa, following the Fiji vs New Zealand match on the 9th December 2006, the sample contained 11-nor-delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol-9-carboxylic acid a metabolite of cannabis (cannabinoids) at a concentration greater than the threshold level set by the World Anti-Doping Agency ("WADA").

History
The player stated that on the 13th November 2006 over a period of two to three hours, he smoked "two joints" of cannabis with two others (including one "old friend') following a particularly traumatic and difficult period in his life. At the time it was used there was no intention on the Player's part to enhance performance but that irresponsibly it was consumed for a recreational purpose. During this period he had been detained over the preceding period of twentyeight days at Fiji Naval Bases on a charge of being absent without leave from the Fiji Navy between July and October 2006 when he had played rugby for Western Province in the South African Currie Cup competition.

Decision
The sanction for this offending should be a four month period of suspension but allowing for the mitigating factors, that period will be reduced to three months.