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

The Athlete admitted his guilty and stated he used Dianabol (methandienone), provided by his friend. He had taken the steroids knowing he felt good after taking them and that they would enhance his performance.
The Committee finds that there were no grounds for elimination or reduction of the sanction.
Therefore the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting from the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 8 August 2011 to 7 August 2013.

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.

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

The Athlete stated he had used prednisone tablets from his girlfriend to assist pain relief for his physical injury.
The Committee concludes that there was no intention to enhance performance or mask usage. In addition the affidavit by Athlete’s girlfriend confirming his version of events.
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. 25 October 2011 to 23 January 2012.

Related case:
SAIDS 2011_35 SAIDS vs Harald Pieter van Staden
December 19, 2011

On 19 December 2011 the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for committing an anti-doping rule violation after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance drostanolone. According to the Disciplinary Committee there was no indication from the Athlete that he had refrained from participating in the sport from the date he received the notification of the provisional suspension.
Therefore the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to commence the 2 year period of ineligibility on the date of the hearing.

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.
The Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal of South Africa concludes that there is no evidence that the Athlete did not respect 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 December 2011) is set aside and substituted with 2 November 2012 as the start date of the 2 year period of ineligibility.

SAIDS 2011_35 IRB vs Harald Pieter van Staden & SAIDS - Appeal
July 2, 2012

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 drostanolone.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete submitted that he will not attend the hearing of the Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete gave no explanation to the Committee as to how the substance entered his bode due to his failure to attend the hearing. The Committee notes that there was no indication from the Athlete that he had refrained from participating in the sport from the date he received the notification of the provisional suspension.
Therefore the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility starting on the date of the hearing.

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.

Related case:
SAIDS 2012_01 IRB vs SAIDS & Juan-Dre Du Toit – Appeal
July 26, 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 substances 19-norandrosterone and 19-norethicholanolone (metabolites of Nandrolone). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered on 11 August 2011.
The Athlete didn’t file a statement in his defence and declined to attend the hearing of the Disciplinary Committee.
Without Athlete’s co-operation the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the hearing, i.e. on 19 January 2012.

Related case:
SAIDS 2012_02 WADA vs Sloane Goosen & SAIDS - Appeal
July 5, 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.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete admitted he had used Lasix (furosemide) a water pill to lose weight to participate at his normal weight for wrestling and had no intention to enhance his performance.
The Committee is satisfied that the Athlete did not take the water pill intending to enhance his performance or mask the use of another substance. However the Committee finds that the Athlete was negligent when he did not take all the steps he could have to establish the facts relative to water pills.
Considering all the facts and circumstances the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of Athletes last competition, i.e. on 22 October 2011.

Hereafter WADA appealed this decison.

Related case:
SAIDS 2012_02 SAIDS vs Sloane Goosen
January 19, 2012

On 19 January 2012 the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for committing an anti-doping rule violation after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance furosemide.

WADA appealed against the SAIDS decision to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.
WADA argued that the Athlete took the water pill to enhance his performance and he acted very negligently by ingesting a medicine without taking reasonable precautions to ensure that it was safe to do so.

The Appeal Committee concludes that the Athlete had no intention to enhance his performance. However the Athlete should have done more to satisfy himself that it was safe to take the water pills.

The Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal of South Africa decides as follows:
1) The Appeal of WADA is admissible.
2) The decision of the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee relating to the sanction is set aside.
3) The Athlete is sanctioned with an 18 month period of ineligibility as from 22 October 2011.
4) All competitive results obtained by the Athlete from 22 October 2011 through the commencement of the applicable period of ineligibility shall be disqualified with all of the resulting consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

Facts
The South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) charges Frikkie Veldman (the athlete) for a violation of the Anti-Doping rules.
On 22 October 2011 he provided an urine sample during an in-competition test. The sample contained a prohibited substance, namely a metabolite of the Anabolic Agent Drostanolone. The B sample was also tested on request of the Athlete and produced the same result.

History
There is no substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the Athlete and not a single fact to prove, apart from mere speculation, the possibility that he may have taken a contaminated supplement.

Decision
1. An anti-doping rule violation in terms of Article 2.1 of the said Rules has been established.
2. The Athlete shall be subjected to a period of ineligibility of two (2) years from all sport calculated from 16 November 2011 up to and including 15 November 2013.