In January 2012 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Enzo Lezzi after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone, metabolite of nandrolone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athelete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee.

The 48 years old amateur cyclist admitted the violation and stated that he suffered from an injury relating to arthritis in the knees. Therefore the prescribed substance Deca Durabolin was administered out of season through double injections in both knee joint by his sister, an apaediatrician. The Athlete’s statement was sustained by his medical file presented to the Committee.

Considering the circumstances in this case the Committee finds that the Athlete bears no significant fault or negligence. Therefore the SAIDS Discliplinary Committee decideds to impose a 15 month period of inelgilibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the notification, i.e. on 21 November 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 methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).
After notification the Athlete was heard for the Disciplinary Committee.
The Athlete stated he had only used the substances and supplements disclosed on the Doping Control form. According to laboratory tests none of the substances the Athlete had used contained the prohibited substance.

The Committee notes that it is reasonable to conclude the possibility that the supplement used by the Athlete was the probable source of methylhexaneamine due to the manufacturer also produces a supplement containing 1,3 dimethylhexanamine which is a stimulant very similar to methlyhexaneamine.

Without intention to enhance performance the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the hearing, i.e. on 8 November 2011 to 7 May 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 cannabis.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete pleaded guilty to the charge. He had smoked Dagga (Cannabis) approximately three weeks before he participated the event. He won the event and he had not used cannabis to enhance his performance.
The Athlete stated that his federation, the South African Powerlifting Federation (SAPF), has disseminated no information and neither were they conducting any education in regard to use of drugs and prohibited substances by athletes.
The Committee notes that SAIDS had prosecuted six another matters of a similar nature involving athletes from the SAPF. The Federation was also not present at these hearings despite being invited to attend. The Committee finds that their conduct should be reported to the Minister of Sport and Recreation as well as to South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee for investigation (SASCOC).

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. 5 August 2011 to 4 December 2011.

Related case:
SAIDS 2011_26 WADA vs Nzuzo Ngxongo & SAIDS – Appeal
May 3, 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 furosemide.

The Athlete stated that he had been given the tablet "a small white pill" by a person whose identity he did not wish to disclose and that he did so in order to define his muscles in that a diuretic would reduce the water in his system and consequently "make him more ripped". The tablet was ingested the day before the competition.

Considering mitigating factors the SAIDS Disciplinary Panel decides to impose a 18 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 30 August 2011 to 28 February.

Hereafter WADA appealed this decision.

Related case:
SAIDS 2011_ 26 SAIDS vs Nzuzo Ngxongo
November 15, 2011

On 15 November 2011 the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decided to impose a 18 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete for committing an anti-doping rule violation after he tested positive for the prohibited substance furosemide.

WADA appealed against the SAIDS decision to impose a 18 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete because it does not agree that the considered mitigating factors are indeed mitigating factors. WADA argued that in order to qualify for a reduction the Athlete must show that he exercised the utmost caution and made every conceivable effort to avoid taking the prohibited substance. This he failed to do.

The Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal of South Africa decides to set aside the Decision of the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee which is substituted with the following:

1) A 2 year period of ineligibility is imposed on the Athlete from date hereof;
2) The Athlete is to be credited with the period of ineligibility he served from 30 August 2011 to date hereof;
3) The period of ineligibility therefore expires on 29 August 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.

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

The Athlete admitted he was guilty and stated he did not know that the flu medication he had used contained Dagga (cannabis) and he had not previously used any illegal substances. His mother gave him this medication every year in the winter without telling the him what she put in her medication.

Considering the circumstances and without intention to enhance his performance the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 2 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the notification, i.e. 27 September 2011 to 27 November 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 methylhexaneamine. After the notification the Athlete was provisional suspended and heard for the Disciplinary Committee.

The Committee accepts that the Athlete ingested the banned stimulant without knowing that it was in violation of the SAIDS Anti-Doping Code. It would appear that he was simply acting on the advice of a person who recommended the supplement concerned. Of course, ignorance of the law is no defence, and as a high-performance Athlete, the Athlete should have and must have known that he should be more cautious and to first check that he would not fall foul of the SAIDS Anti-Doping Regulations.

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. 30 august 2011.

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

The Athlete denied the intentional use of dagga (cannabis) and was therefore confused after she had been notified about the positive test. She explained that she suffered from flu symptoms and had used Benylin. She had also received an injection from her doctor, but this had caused an allergic reaction.

Thereupon she approached a traditional healer (a family member) who gave her a traditional herb remedy (an imbiza/concoction). Following her positive test she confronted the traditional healer who confirmed that there was dagga in the herb that the Athlete was using. She had been using the herb for a number of months. This was the first test she underwent and she apologised for what had happened.

The Committee concludes that the Athlete had not intention to enhance her performance and had no knowledge that the traditional herb remedy contained dagga.
Therefore the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 28 September 2011 to 28 December 2011.

Furhter the Committee notes that it was regrettable that a representative of Boxing South Africa (BSA) was not present at the Inquiry. The facts of this matter highlighted the desperate need for education of athletes on issues of anti-doping in the sport of Boxing.

The ignorance of the Athlete as to anti-doping rules; the use of traditional remedies and the socio-economic circumstances of the Athlete highlight the challenges facing athletes in this sport. Urgent intervention is required by BSA and/or SAIDS to ensure that the above facts are not repeated.

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

The Athlete indicated that he was guilty of the charge. He had smoked Dagga (cannabis) two or three week before he participated in the event.
Considering the circumstances and without intention to enhance his performance 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.