In August 2012 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Charmaine Barnard for tampering or attempted tampering with the doping control process. After notification the Athlete filed a statement in her defence and was heard for the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee.

At the hearing the prosecution argued that there were numerous violations of protocol that the Athlete was required to observe – she was instructed not to enter the cubicle at the testing station, but proceeded to disobey this instruction; she had a brown bottle with ointment in her hand in breach of protocol; she refused to hand over the bottle; she could not produce the prescription for the ointment that she said she had; she failed to listen to the Doping Control Officer (DCO) after being instructed 4 times to comply. These actions constituted a breach of the rules.

The Athlete denied that she did co-operate with the process, and she did not try and to avoid any part of the sample collection. When she was selected for the test, she complied and was at all times aware that she may be tested. The sample was ultimately provided without any problem. It was placed on record that the Athlete was not present when the sample bottle was sealed and she was not informed that it would be tested. It was submitted that the administration of the test was not properly undertaken. The leading DCO had failed to inform the Athlete of her rights, and given her experience this was unacceptable.

The Committee finds that the Athlete is guilty of an anti-doping violation but does not consider this a second anti-doping violation due to the Athlete’s first violation took place in 1992, outside the 8 years limitation.
Therefore the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

The Athlete Ludwick Mamabolo participated in the Comrades Marathon in South-Africa on 3 June 2012 where he crossed the finish line in first place. Hereafter he provided a sample for drug testing.

In June 2012 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Ludwick Mambolo after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).

In this case the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee Panel notes that there are certain concerning features about the evidence and conduct of certain of the SAIDS witnesses. The documents that emerged at different stages of the hearing revealed significant discrepancies between what actually took place and what was recorded:.
1.) The magnitude of the Comrades Marathon 2012 and the lack of sufficient trained and accredited SAIDS personnel meant that most athletes were not chaperoned by SAIDS officials but rather by Comrade appointed individuals;
2.) No investigations were carried out as to whether the chaperones on the day – SAIDS or Comrades appointed – had any conflicts of interest that excluded them from the event or perhaps dealing with particular athletes;
3.) Certain functions were carried out by persons who did not have the appropriate accreditation for the function on question;
4.) Arrangements between Comrades and SAIDS were such that SAIDS did not have control of the finishing area – where athletes completed the race – this being the reason for Mr Hattingh’s role in watching athletes in this area. This caused a delay in the notification of athletes which was exacerbated by the shortage of SAIDS chaperons able to notify on the day;
5.) The Athlete Mr Mamabolo completed Comrades 2012 at approximately 11:01. According to the athlete log form and the doping control form completed on the day, he was only notified at 11:25 that he had been selected for a drug test.
6.) In fact despite finishing Comrades 2012 in first position, he was only notified last that he had been selected for a drug test. In this period he appears to have been provided with at least one unsealed drink;
7.) When Mr Mamabolo was notified – SAIDS says this was by Ms Von Finckenstein – he was not informed of his rights and responsibilities once notified and he was also not provided with the notification copy of the doping control form, as he should have been.
8.) After he was notified Mr Mamabolo was not chaperoned by Ms Von Finckenstein or any SAIDS chaperone. Due to the shortage of chaperones this responsibility was left to Mr Padayachee who only assumed it sometime after Mr Mamabolo was notified. In this period Mr Mamabolo was provided with another unsealed drink;
9.) The various forms relating to particular athletes that required completion – in general at Comrades 2012 and with particular reference to Mr Mamabolo – did not record the true facts; omitted to record information that was clearly important – such as the fact that Mr Mamabolo had consumed two, or perhaps three, unsealed drinks – the correct times when steps were taken; and did not even reflect the correct persons as carrying out the functions recorded as having taken place;
10.) There was little control over the Doping Control Station as regards who entered it, when, the reasons for athletes leaving and returning (in at least one instance this occurred with an athlete being tested); and the record keeping in this regard was misleading and unhelpful to anyone seeking to understand what happened or perhaps investigate a particular matter.

The SAIDS Disciplinary Committee Panel finds the circumstances applicable to Mr Mamabolo himself, taken together with the systemic failure which was of application generally at Comrades 2012, would almost certainly have resulted in SAIDS coming to the view that the validity of the adverse analytical finding had been undermined. SAIDS should certainly reasonably have come to such a view if any regard is to be given to the importance of the SAIDS Anti-Doping Code and the SAIDS manual, as well as the rights of athletes.
Consequently, and after all the evidence has been heard, the view of the Panel is that the test in respect of Mr Mamabolo is void. It cannot be relied upon, and while the application for cessation was not one the Panel felt comfortable granting at the particular stage of the proceedings when it was sought, the Panel is of the view that the grounds for bringing an end to the proceedings are present.

Therefore the SAIDS Disciplinary Panel decides:

1.) The application for cessation of the proceedings succeeds. The test results in respect of Mr Mamabolo are declared void.
2.) In any event, the departures from the international standards and/or other anti-doping rules that took place at Comrades 2012 could reasonably have caused the adverse analytical finding in respect of Mr Mamabolo.
3.) Consequently the Athlete Mr Mamabolo is not guilty of the charges preferred against him.

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.

The Athlete indicated that he is not guilty and explained that he had used the supplement Testoboost purchased over the counter. When he purchased the supplement he was told it is safe and contains natural substances. In addition the Athlete did research the ingredients of the supplement before using it. He took four capsules before the event where he was requested to provide a sample.

Considering the evidence the Committee finds there is no basis to reduce the sanction. Therefore the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 28 June 2012 to 27 June 2014.

In May 2012 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Olebogeng Jonas Masire after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone). After notification a provision suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Tribunal of the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete denied the use of prohibited substance and could not explain how it entered his system. Confirmed was that the Athlete's prescribed medication was not the source of the positive test. Also his supplements were tested but the analysis revealed no prohibited substances.

The Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee finds that the test results establish the presence of the prohibited substance, that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation and that the Athlete failed to demonstrate how the substance entered his system.

Without grounds for a reduced sanction the Committee considers that there were delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.
Therefore the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee decides on 3 December 2012 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 14 April 2012.

The South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Marnus Jurrius for refusing or failing to submit for sample collection after het was notified of his selection for an in-competition doping control test.

After written notification the Athlete did not attend the hearing of the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee and filed a statement in his defence.
The Athlete admitted he used the substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine) and stated he refused to provide a sample for drug testing due he could be fined R5000 by Powerlifting South-Africa, which he could not pay if his sample tested positive.

The SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on 4 July 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-noranstrosterone and 19-noreticholanolone (metabolites of Nandrolone).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in his defence. The Athlete informed SAIDS that he accepts the 2 years suspension that may be imposed against him and stated he will not attend the hearing of the Disciplinary Committee.

Therefore the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting from the date of the notification, i.e. on 19 July 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 SAIDS Disciplinary Panel.

The Athlete admitted the violation and stated that he smoked an OKA piped two days before the competition, which was spiked with cannabis by a friend as act of jealously.

Without intention to enhance his sport performance and with a low degree of fault the SAIDS Disciplinary Panel decides on 23 October 2012 to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on de date of the notification, i.e. on 11 September 2012.

In September 2012 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete André Smith after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methandienone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete could not explain how the prohibited substance entered his body and had not investigated the matter and the source from which the prohibited substance could be traced.
Therefore 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 18 September 2012.

SAIDS 2012_42 SAIDS vs Viwe Mdletyeni
January 13, 2013

In October 2012 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Viwe Mdletyeni after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances furosemide and methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine). After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete admitted responsibility for the prohibited substances found in his system and had no intention to enhance his sport performance. He stated that he used furosemide, provided by his weight training instructor, a week before the competition as he suffered from swollen knuckles. He used the supplement Evox Muscle Punch 3DT on advice of his instructor in the week before the competition and did not know it contained the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine.

The Committee considerered the Athlete’s statements and the evidence and concludes that the Athlete had no intention to enhance his sport performance or mask the use of a performance enhancing substance.
Therefore the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides:
1.) to impose on the Athlete a 4 month period of ineligibility for the stimulant methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine);
2.) to impose on the Athlete a 15 month period of ineligibility for the diuretic furosemide;
starting on the date of the notification, i.e. on 22 August 2012.

In October 2012 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Renier Erasmus after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).
After notification the Athlete was heard for the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete admitted the violations and stated that laboratory analysis of his supplements showed that the energy drink Muscletech Neurocore contained the prohibited substance, which he used on the morning of the mach.
The Athlete argued that he suffered from bronchitis a few weeks before the competition, which was treated with prescribed antibiotics. In addition he used the drink Muscletech Neurocore, recommended by his friend, to give him energy.

The Committee considered that the Athlete had no intention to enhance his sport performance and that he attended 3 schools meetings to create awareness and inform about the dangers of taking substances. In addition he selected 3 schools to speak to the learners.
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. on 1 October 2012.