Facts
The South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) charges Lwandile Zino (the athlete) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The presence of a prohibited substance was detected in the Athlete’s sample. substance identified was cannabinoids metabolites, in a concentration of 66ng/ml (nanograms/millilitre), which is significantly above the permitted threshold of 15ng/ml.

History
The Athlete accepted the evidence relating to the presence and concentration level of the prohibited substance, but pleaded not guilty as it was argued that the presence of the prohibited substance cannabinoids was due to the inhalation of second hand smoke. The Athlete explained the circumstances relating to his living arrangements with his siblings who are chronic marijuana users that resulted in the inhalation of second hand smoke. The Athlete stated that he is a non-drinker and a non-smoker due to his profession. There was no intention to enhance his sport performance due to the incidental nature of the transgression.

Considerations panel
The concentration of cannabinoids metabolites in the sample is too high for being the result of passive smoking.

Decision
A) Imposition of a period of ineligibility of twelve (12) months of which six (6) months are suspended. The Panel concurred that the period of ineligibility be credited against the period for which he had been provisionally suspended. Accordingly, the Athlete would be prohibited from competing as a boxer until Saturday 25th September 2010;
B) Furthermore, that during the six (6) month suspended period (26th September 2010 until 25th March 2011) the boxer will be subject to a series of voluntary urine test at the behest of SAIDS;
C) Should the Athlete test positive again for any prohibited substance during the period 26th September 2010 until 25th March 2011 the maximum sentence of two years will automatically come into effect and the Athlete would have to be formally enrolled into a drug rehabilitation program.

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 metandienone.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the Disciplinary Committee.
Hereafter the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 7 September 2010 until 7 September 2012.

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

The Athlete gave evidence under oath. He admitted to having been notified of the sample collection test, as well as being accompanied by a chaperone when watching the main bout of the evening as he was not ready to provide his urine sample. He conceded that he left the venue without providing the sample and explained that he had been put under pressure by his brother-in-law to leave with him as this was his form of transport home.

The Athlete’s evidence focussed on the fact that he is illiterate, uneducated and does not understand English. There was no evidence suggesting otherwise. He pointed out that although he had signed the Doping Control Form he does not read or write English and he did not fully understand or appreciate the seriousness of the implications of not providing the sample. He conceded however that the DCO had communicated verbally in Xhosa that he was required to provide the sample.

The panel considers that while no compelling justification for the failure to submit to the sample collection existed there nevertheless exists factors which detracted from the degree of fault or negligence on the part of the Athlete. The test relating to fault or negligence should be flexible enough to accommodate very real factors such as the illiteracy and lack of education of the Athlete. These factors did impact upon the Athletes ability to fully understand the significance and seriousness of his actions. The Committee notes that it is perhaps worth consideration by SAIDS for the future that in circumstances where an athlete clearly does not read, write or understand English that an informal script be read out to such athlete by the DCO in his home language.

The SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the hearing. The period of the interim suspension of six weeks would be credited against this sanction.

Related case:
SAIDS 2010_07 WADA vs Vaughn van Jaarsveld & SAIDS - Appeal
September 23, 2011

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 sibutramine.
The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete stated he had used a not sports related prescription for weight loss medication Ciplatrim by his physician that contained a specified substance unbeknownst to all concerned. The Athlete’s physician testified and confirmed that he had checked WADA’s (outdated) prohibited list 2009 and that sibutramine was not listed. The Athlete argued he indicated the medication on the Doping Control Form and he informed his coach.

Considering the circumstances and the evidence the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a reprimand on the Athlete.

In addition the Committee recommends that Cricket South Africa (CSA) Medical Committee look at instituting appropriate protocols for their professional athletes at a franchise level, semi professional and under 19 level.
CSA must contractually compel franchise cricketers to verify the status of all prescribed medicine and other supplements provided for by third parties with their respective franchise doctors.

Hereafter WADA appealed this decision.

Related case:
SAIDS 2010_07 SAIDS vs Vaughn van Jaarsveld
December 2, 2010

On 2 December 2010 the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee imposed a reprimand on the Athlete for committing an anti-doping rule violation after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance sibutramine.

WADA appealed against this SAIDS decision to impose a reprimand on the Athlete as non appropriate sanction in this case. Also WADA lodged a Statement of Appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in which WADA requested at stay of the CAS proceedings pending the outcome of this Appeal.

Considering the circumstances and the factors in this case the Appeal Tribunal rules to set aside the decision of the Disciplinary Committee and to impose a 4 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, less the 1 month period already served.

Therefore the Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal of South Africa decides to impose a 3 month period on the Athlete starting on the date of the decision.

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 methylhexaneamine.
After the notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete stated he was provided with a supplement by his training partner that contained the prohibited substance unknown to all concerned and he had no intention to enhance his performance.
The Committee accepts the Athlete’s statement and finds that the evidence has established the criteria that will qualify for the elimination or reduction of the period of ineligibility for specified substance under specified circumstances.
Therefore the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 7 week period of ineligibility starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 15 December 2010 to 1 February 2011.

The South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances clenbuterol and testosterone.
Therefore SAIDS recommends to the Disciplinary Committee to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the notification.

Related case:
SAIDS 2011_03 WADA vs Johnny Young & SAIDS - Appeal
April 19, 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 19-norandrosterone (metabolite of nandrolone).
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete’s medical doctor confirmed that nandrolone was prescribed to treat a medical condition and that he was unaware that his patient would take part in a sports event. The Athlete acknowledged that he did not apply for a TUE.

The SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 2 year period on the Athlete starting on 18 November 2010 until 18 November 2012. The Committee decides that a possible reduction in sanction of 6 months would be revisited should SAIDS receive documented evidence of educational programmes undertaken by the Athlete beforehand.

On 29 November 2011 SAIDS concludes that the Athlete has satisfied the requirements for the reduction of his period of ineligibility by 6 months. Therefore the Athlete’s period of ineligibility expire on 15 November 2011.

Hereafter WADA appealed this revision decision.

Related case:
SAIDS 2011_03 SAIDS vs Johnny Young
February 17, 2013

On 17 February 2011 SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decided to impose a 2 year period on the Athlete for committing an anti-doping rule violation after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance nandrolone.
On 29 November 2011 SAIDS granted the Athlete a reduction of his period of ineligibility by 6 months because of his assistance in educating triathlone athletes. WADA appealed against this SAIDS revision decision to reduce the Athlete’s period of ineligibility by 6 months.

The Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal of South Africa decides to dismiss WADA’s appeal on the fact that the Athlete is neither an International-Level Athlete nor a National-Level Athlete. The Appeal Tribunal finds that WADA has not established a proper locus standi to bring the appeal against the revision decision made by SAIDS.

In October 2010 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the minor Athlete Simone Button after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances hydrochlorothiazide and amiloride.
After notification the Athlete filed a statement in her defence and was heard for the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete stated she was menstruating at the time of the incident. She felt bloated, heavy and with a broken scale at home she panicked about her possible increase in weight. Unbeknown to her father she took one of his ‘water tablets’ to lose weight.

Considering the circumstances the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 9 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 16 October 2010.