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 Prednisone and Prednisolone.
After 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 had used medication prescribed by his medical doctor a few days prior to the event. The Athlete’s doctor confirmed that the Athlete had been suffering from a severe ear infection and that he prescribed medication containing prednisone. The doctor indicated that the medication had no performance enhancing effect for the Athlete. The doctor had neglected to apply for a TUE, or to advise the Athlete to do so himself.

The Committee concludes that the Athlete had used the prescribed medication for a legitimate medical condition. The Athlete has a low degree of fault and he did not know that he could, or should, have applied for a TUE.
Considering the circumstances and to impose an appropriate sanction, the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 2 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 4 May 2011 to 4 July 2011. Therefore the Athlete serves a nominal 2 week period of ineligibility from the date of the hearing, i.e. on 22 June to 4 July 2011.

In June 2011 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Unathi Nteta after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances metandienone and methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete had no explanation for the positive test result and only used three supplements, recommended by the person in the shop where he purchased these products.
Laboratory analysis showed that the supplement Wired contained the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine and the label of this product warned in fine print that it contained banned substances.
The Panel noted that the Athlete, who spoke Xhosa, had obvious difficulty in reading what was written in English on the label of the product.
The Athlete suggested that the presence of metandienone could have come from vitamin B he took, or even the meat of one of the cows which had previously been injected, which had died and was eaten in December 2010.

The Committee considers exceptional circumstances in this case due to the Athlete’s disadvantaged position. Therefore the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 18 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the notification, i.e. on 21 April 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 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.

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

The Athlete disputed the process relating to compliance with the International Standards for Testing (IST). The Athlete argued that the Doping Control Station; the collection of the sample; and the official responsible for the sample collection did not comply with these requirements.

Considering the evidence the Committee concludes that there was no departure of the IST which could reasonably have caused an adverse analytical finding.
Therefore the SAIDS Disciplianry Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 5 April 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 substance 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 was unable to confirm that he had taken any other substance or medication other than that declared on the Doping Control Form. He stated that he had not received any injections since 2008.
Considering the Athlete’s statement and the evidence the Committee concludes that it is unable to establish how the nandrolone entered the Athlete’s body. The Athlete was unable to produce any evidence at all in this regard.
Therefore 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.

In August 2011 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Russell Lund after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances hydrochlorothiazide, amiloride and furosemide. After notification the Athlete filed a statement in her defence and did not attend the hearing of the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete stated that the diuretics she used were medication prescribed by her gynaecologist and declared by the Athlete on the Doping Control Form. The Athlete’s application for a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) for diuretics and a progesterone in August 2001 was denied in September 2011.

The Committee considered that the Athlete mentioned her medication on the Doping Control Form, co-operated with the investigation and that she used prescribed prohibited substances for her medical condition.
Therefore the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the notification and the provisional suspension, i.e. on 5 August 2011.

The South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after she refused to provide a sample for drug testing on 5 August 2011.
The Athlete and the Doping Control Officer (DCO) were heard for the Disciplinary Committee.

The DCO testified that she was unable to conduct the required out-of-competition testing on the Athlete.
The Athlete pleaded not guilty to the charge and stated she was never notified to submit to a doping test; no request was made to her; she was never requested to submit any sample; she never refused to give a sample; and no warning was given to her.

The Committee concludes that the mere presence of the DCO at the Athletes home whilst engaging only the Athlete’s husband in discussion and failing to communicate with the Athlete, does not assist the SAIDS in discharging its onus of proving that notification of the requirement to submit to an out-of-competition test was given to the Athlete on 5 August 2011. The evidence before the Panel failed to establish that notification of the requirement that the Athlete submit to an out-of-competition test was given to the Athlete on 5 August 2011.
The failure on part of SAIDS and the DCO in this case means that the charge brought against the Athlete that she had committed an anti-doping rule violation is unsustainable.
Therefore The SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to dismiss the charge brought against the Athlete.

The South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported two anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete after her samples tested positive for the use of diuretics in 2010 and 2011.

At the first hearing on 13 August 2010 the Athlete was found guilty of an anti-doping rule violation and the sanction imposed was a period of ineligibility of fifteen months.
At this hearing she testified that the diuretics were prescribed for chronic swelling of her face, hands and feet, a medical condition diagnosed as oedema. She applied for a TUE after the positive test but the application was refused. She appeared at the first hearing without legal assistance and her Federation also did not assist her at all.
At this first hearing it was recorded in the decision that the athlete was clearly uneducated in respect of anti-doping rules and implications and in respect of what was needed to obtain a proper TUE. It was also accepted by the panel that the she suffered from the chronic medical condition of fluid retention (oedema) for which she took the prescribed diuretic medication, and that she had no intention of enhancing her performance.

Hereafter a TUE application was submitted and re-submitted by the general practitioner but the application was refused twice. The athlete continued to take the same prescribed diuretic medication on medical advice in order to relieve her chronic symptoms during her period of ineligibility. She was again tested during the period of ineligibility on 11 July 2011, and was again found to have an adverse analytical finding for diuretics.

The athlete was charged with an anti-doping rule violation for the presence of prohibited diuretics in her sample.
At the hearing on 25 October 2011 the athlete was again unrepresented and her National Federation was also not present and offered no assistance. She pleaded guilty to the charge that she committed an anti-doping rule violation by continuing to take her prescribed diuretic medication.
After careful consideration of the history of this matter the panel concluded that there is a strong possibility that the medical profession has failed the athlete by not obtaining a TUE for her condition, and that it would be wrong and unfair, especially as she was unrepresented, not to assist her to file a proper application for a retroactive TUE.

The hearing on 25 October 2011 was postponed to enable the Athlete to submit an application for a TUE.
At the resumption of the hearing on 10 May 2012 the Committee was informed that an initial TUE application submitted had been refused (no reasons given), and that it took more than six months before the TUE Committee finally granted a TUE. A satisfactory explanation for this long delay has not been received.
Hereafter a TUE that was granted was not for the diuretics initially prescribed for the athlete and for which an adverse analytical finding was returned.

On the evidence the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee finds as follows:
1) the athlete suffers from a genuine illness that has now been diagnosed as idiopathic oedema;
2) she was uneducated in relation to the fact that the diuretics she was taking were banned;
3) there was no intention to enhance performance.
4) her medical condition was difficult to diagnose and to treat with correct medication.
5) She was not in the Registered Testing Pool or the National Testing Pool and therefore she could apply for a Retroactive TUE for the use of diuretics in terms of section 4.4.2.1 of SAIDS Anti-Doping Rules 2009.
6) The fact that the TUE was granted for different diuretics than she tested positive for does not automatically result in a finding that the athlete is guilty of an anti-doping rule violation. The Disciplinary Committee is unanimously of the view that on the facts in this matter the granting of the TUE allows the Committee to find that in this case there was no anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee concludes that as a result of the granting of a retroactive TUE no anti-doping rule violation occurred.
In addition the Committee strongly recommends that SAIDS should consider reviewing the first Anti-Doping Rule Violation and the resulting Sanction. The Committee consider it regrettable that the athlete was not given the opportunity in 2010 to submit a proper TUE application.

Related cases:
SAIDS 2011_22 WADA vs Lebogang Phalula & SAIDS - Appeal
January 10, 2012
SAIDS 2012_08 SAIDS vs Livingstone Jabanga (1)
July 11, 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 the Athlete after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete stated that on the day of the competition she did not feel well. Mr. Livingstone Jabanga, the chairman of the Gauteng Striders Athletics Club, gave the her tablets, described as “vitamins”, which would assist her to feel better. After the race she tested positive. The Athlete requested Mr. Jabanga to attend the hearing which he failed to do. The Athlete’s statement was supported and endorsed by her twin sister and test result of the remaining tablets confirmed the presence of the prohibited substance.

The Committee concludes that the Athlete had no intention to enhance her performance and she gave substantial assistance in taking disciplinary actions against Mr. Jabanga.
Therefore the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the notification, i.e. 29 September 2011 to 28 December.

Hereafter WADA appealed this decision.

Related cases:
SAIDS 2011_22 SAIDS vs Lebogang Phalula
December 13, 2011
SAIDS 2012_08 SAIDS vs Livingstone Jabanga (1)
July 11, 2012
SAIDS 2012_08 SAIDS vs Livingstone Jabanga (2)
November 20, 2012

On 13 December 2011 the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decided to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete for committing an anti-doping rule violation after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine.

WADA appealed against the SAIDS decision to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete. WADA requested the Appeal Tribunal to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility.

The Tribunal finds that the Athlete provided substantial assistance to an Anti-Doping Organisation. She was a witness at the hearing of Mr. Jabanga and her evidence was accepted by the Disciplinary Committee and Mr. Jabanga’s denial rejected. Considering these factors the Appeal Tribunal rules that a suspension of a portion of the imposed period of ineligibility is justified.

The Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal of South Africa decides as follows:
1.) The Appeal of WADA is admissible.
2.) The sanction imposed by the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee on 13th December 2011 is set aside.
3.) The Athlete is sanctioned with a two-year period of ineligibility starting on 28 September 2011.
4.) Because of Athlete’s substantial assistance a period of 1 year is suspended in accordance with art. 10.5.3 SAIDS ADR.
5.) No order is made as to costs.