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

The Athlete argued that the cost of testing the B-Sample was excessive and denied his fundamental right to have his B-Sample analysed. In support the Athlete gave evidence as to his personal financial position.
The Athlete did not dispute the test result and stated he used various supplements. He gave evidence that he conducted extensive research into the products he purchased, the ingredients and referring to the WADA list. The Athlete believed the positive test result could have come from two products he had taken.
The hearing was adjourned for testing of the two products mentioned at the South African Doping Control Laboratory. Hereafter the test results did not indicate the presence of testosterone in these two products.

In the matter of the B-Sample the Committee finds that the Athlete had the right, but at no stage attempted to exercise the right by engaging with SAIDS. On this basis, the Committee finds that this point has no merit, and is therefore dismissed. Considering Athlete’s statement and the evidence the Committee concludes that the Athlete has not been able to the satisfaction of the Committee how the prohibited substance entered his system.
The SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a period of two years on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 16 January to 15 January 2014.

Related case:
SAIDS 2012_05 WADA vs Johan Pieterse & SAIDS – Appeal
September 20, 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 methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete pleaded guilty and stated he had used the supplement Jack 3D to enhance his energy levels. When he purchased the supplement he was told it is safe and contains no illegals substances. In addition the Athlete did research the ingredients of the supplement before using it. he performed an internet search on the WADA and SAIDS website and the results did not cause any alarm as in fact the searches showed no results.

The Committee concludes that the Athlete had no real intention to take a performance enhancing substance. The committee finds it also disturbing that the WADA and SAIDS websites do not feature prominent warnings about the very real risks of using supplements.
Considering the circumstances the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 4 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 21 February 2012 to 20 June 2012.

Hereafter the WADA appealed this decision.

Related case:
SAIDS 2012_05 SAIDS vs Johan Pieterse
March 6, 2012

On 6 March 2012 the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decided to impose a 4 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete for committing an anti-doping rule violation after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).

WADA appealed this SAIDS decision to impose a 4 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.
The Athlete stated regarding to the supplement he performed an internet search on the WADA and SAIDS website and the results did not cause any alarm as in fact the searches showed no results.
WADA argued that the WADA website contains a warning: “Extreme caution is recommended regarding supplement use”. In addition the WADA website warns that “the misuse of supplements and taking a poorly labelled dietary supplement is not an adequate defence in a doping hearing”.

The Appeal Tribunal concludes that the athlete voluntarily took a performance enhancing supplement with the precise aim of enhancing his performance. He was on guard as to the potential risks but still apparently satisfied himself with scant and inadequate internet checks. In addition the athlete failed to disclose his use of the supplement on the Doping Control Form.

The Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal of South Africa decides as follows:
1.) The Appeal of WADA is admissible.
2.) The decision rendered by the SAIDS Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee on 6 March 2012 is set aside.
3.) The Athlete is sanctioned with a 2 period of ineligibility starting on the 20th September 2012. Any period of ineligibility, whether imposed on, or voluntarily accepted by the Athlete before such date shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility to be served.
4.) No order is made as to costs

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 and stated prior to the match he was at a party where he took some puffs of a hubbly bubbly apparatus which contained dagga (cannabis) without his knowledge.
Hereafter he admitted he had smoked cannabis daily since his injury some three week prior to the testing.

Considering the Athlete had used cannabis many weeks prior to the match and without intention to enhance performance the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension starting on the date of the notification, i.e. on 2 February 2012 to 3 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 and stated he had smoked cannabis at a social function and admitted his mistake.
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. 14 March 2012 to 14 June 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.

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 (1)
July 11, 2012

After two hearings, on 12 April and 1 July 2012, the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee finds Mr. Livingstone Jabanga guilty for the administration or attempted administration to an athlete of the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).
On 15 November 2012 the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee convened to deal with the issue of the sanction in the case of Mr. Livingstone Jabanga.

Considering the evidence the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee concludes that an appropriate sanction in this matter would be one of five years ineligibility. SAIDS requested a period of four years, but the Panel is of the view that it is the responsibility on the Panel to consider all relevant circumstances and fix a sanction which it believes is fair and appropriate in the circumstances.
In all of these circumstances in this case the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee, after much debate, decides to impose a 5 year period of ineligibility on Mr. Livingstone Jabanga.

SAIDS 2012_09 SAIDS vs Chazlin Lamini
April 24, 2012

The South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his samples, provided on 10 September, 22 September and 24 October 2011, tested positive for the prohibited substance prednisone and prednisolone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the Disciplinary Committee.

Because of the Athlete’s bronchitis the Disciplinary Committee finds that the Athlete was entitled to apply for a retroactive TUE and that the sequence of events showed that the athlete has made concerted attempts to have his doctor provide the necessary documentation for considering.

The SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides as follows:

1.) That the period of suspension be lifted with immediate effect.
2.) That the present hearing be finalised should a retroactive TUE be granted once the TUE Committee has finalised its decision on the matter.
3.) That the present hearing is adjourned to a date and time to be set should a retroactive TUE not be granted once the TUE Committee has finalised its decision on the application.
4.) That the medical representative on the Panel be mandated to assist the athlete and his doctor in providing the necessary information required to the TUE Committee as a matter of urgency with the proviso that the assistance offered was ex gratia and that ultimately the responsibility to provide the documentation was the responsibility of the athlete who would face the consequences in respect of failure to produce same.
5.) That SAIDS be requested to review its protocols and procedures in respect of communicating with an athlete and the TUE Committee with a view to ensuring that clear documentary requirements are communicated to the athlete which would ensure that the athlete would be in a position to obtain the necessary documentation from his/her doctor and any other relevant parties thereby avoiding similar scenarios arising in future.

Related case:

World Athletics 2020 WA vs Luvo Manyonga
June 11, 2021

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 methamphetamine (d-). 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 stated he had used the social drug TIK, a highly addictive methamphetamine drug, for a period of three months.

The Committee concludes that the Athlete is at fault but finds that there are exceptional social circumstances that are relevant to the degree of fault.

Therefore the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 18 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. 20 March 2012 to 20 September 2013.

In November 2012 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete David George after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance erythropoetin (EPO).
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete admitted the violation and failed to attend the hearing of the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee.
The SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the notification, i.e. on 5 November 2012.