Related case:
SAIDS 2014_05 SAIDS vs Brandon Stewart
August 8, 2014

On 8 August 2014 the South African Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the rider Brandon Stewart after his sample tested positive for the prohibited Testosterone. Here the Panel deemed that the Athlete acted with significant departure form the required duty of utmost care due to he used the substance as medication for his condition before a TUE was granted. In addition the Athlete violated his provisional suspension.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the decision of 8 August 2014 with the Appeal Board of the Anti-Doping Tribunal of South Africa.

The Athlete admitted the violation and accepted the test result. He argued, substantiated with evidence, that the Testosterone was used not intentional as treatment for his medical condition, that he applied for a TUE and that he mentioned the use of the substance on the Doping Control Forms. The Athlete requested for a reduced sanction and asserted that the appealed decision was personally influenced and prejudiced. He explained that his previous public disclosure to the media was made to protect his own rights and reputation and not to bring SAIDS into disrepute.

SAIDS requested to dismiss the appeal and contended that it was undisputed that the Athlete had used a prohibited substance while the Athlete was an experienced professional rider who underwent numerous doping tests with knowledge of the anti-doping rules.

The Appeal Board deems that the Athlete failed to establish grounds for a reduced sanction, and neither that he bears No Significant Fault or Negligence in this case. Therefore the Appeal Board decides on 17 November 2014 to dismiss the Athlete’s appeal and to uphold the decision of 8 August 2014.

Related case:
SAIDS 2014_05 Brandon Stewart vs SAIDS - Appeal
November 11, 2014

In October 2013 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Brandon Stewart after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance testosterone with at a T/E ratio above the WADA threshold. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. While the Athlete was suspended SAIDS also reported that the Athlete had assisted riders in his team in March 2014.

Previously in April 2013 the Athlete's TUE application for the use of Testosterone was rejected by SAIDS. The Athlete did not accept this rejection and appealed while he already underwent medical treatment and was tested in that period. The Athlete’s sample provided on 7 July 2013 tested positive for Testosterone at the same time that his TUE application was finally rejected on 9 July 2013.

The Athlete accepted the test results, admitted the use of the Testosterone and denied that he used this to enhance his sport performance. He argued that he underwent medical treatment for his condition and that the Testosterone was used as prescribed and recommended medication. He asserted that he had the right to continue the use of the medication and took all the necessary steps to obtain the TUE. He mentioned the use of the medication on his Doping Control Form and he ceased using this medication when his first TUE application was rejected in April 2013. The Athlete confirmed that he had assisted riders in his team on 27 March 2014 and that the UCI investigated his role at the race.

SAIDS argued that the Athlete was in the registered testing pool, and was therefore subject to have a valid TUE under the Rules. It was conceded that the Athlete had disclosed his Testosterone use in subsequent races, but the evidence of his medical practitioners contradicted his evidence. There was no basis to argue a reduction in sanction, and as such the two year sanction should be imposed.

The Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel finds that it was undisputed that the Athlete had used the medication Nebido as the source of the Testosterone and mentioned the use of the medication on the Doping Control Forms. The Panel holds that the Athlete had accepted the test results, admitted the use of the prohibited substance and established how the substance entered his system.
The Panel regards that the Athlete gave significant weight in argument to the fact that the SAIDS employee advised him that treatment cannot be withheld and he could continue using the Nebido. This was disputed by SAIDS while the employee in question also didn’t have the authority to grant the TUE.

Considering the evidence and the Athlete’s conduct in this case the Panel deems that the Athlete was aware that the TUE Committee could approve the TUE, that he started using the medication Nebido simultaneously when he applied for a TUE and proceeded to use the medication before a TUE was granted. The Panel concludes that the Athlete, as a senior professional rider and member of the national testing pool, acted with significant departure from the required duty of utmost care and consequently failed to establish No Significant Fault or Negligence. Further the Panel considers that the Athlete violated the imposed provisional suspension on 27 March 2014 and as a result shall not receive credit for it.

Therefore the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 8 August 2014 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 27 March 2014.

In August 2014 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Daryl Impey after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance probenecid. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement with evidence in his defence and was heard for the SAIDS Disciplinary Panel.

The Athlete admitted the violation and stated that he spent considerable time to determine how the substance had entered his system. The Athlete showed, sustained with evidence, that to positive test result was caused by gelatin capsules purchased in a pharmacy which were contaminated by probenecid residue in the pharmacy’s pill counter. The pharmacist confirmed that two hours earlier the pharmacy had dispensed powder coated probenecid tablets to a customer, which tablets were dispensed from the same pilldispenser later used to dispense the Athlete’s gelatin capsules.
An expert witness stated that the low concentration of the substance found in the Athlete’s sample was possibly the result of cross-contamination. He concluded that is was entirely possible that the probenecid detected in the sample was due to gelatin capsules contaminated with probenecid residue during the counting process in the pharmacy.

The Panel accepts the Athlete’s evidence and concludes that the Athlete did not know or suspect, and could not reasonable have known or suspected that the gelatin capsules were contaminated.
Due to exceptional circumstance the SAIDS Disciplinary Panel decides on 28 August 2014 not to impose a period of ineligibility on the Athlete and to lift the provisional suspension.
Nevertheless due to he tested positive, the Athlete committed an anti-doping and therefore his results obtained in competition between 4 and 9 February 2014 are disqualified.

In November 2014 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist Austin Steyn after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Phentermine. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel.

The Athlete gave a prompt admission, accepted the test results and denied the intentional use of the substance. He explained that the positive test was caused by ingestion of a diet product Duromine prior to the competition in question in order to suppres his appetite without eating. Afterwards he found out that the Duromine tablet he used contained the prohibited substance.

The Panel accepts the Athlete’s explanation and establish that there are grounds for a reduced sanction.
Therefore the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decides on 21 April 2015 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection i.e. on 12 October 2014.

In December 2014 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Thozama April after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone, 19-noretiocholanolone (Nandrolone), Phentermine, Prednisolone and Prednisone. After notification the Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of these substances and stated that they only could have entered her system through the prescribed medication she had used and mentioned on the Doping Control Form. Also the Athlete raised some procedural concerns in this case.

The Panel finds that the Athlete failed to establish how the prohibited substances entered her system nor did she demonstrate grounds for a reduced sanction. Also after notification of the violation the Athlete ignored a provisional suspension and continued to compete.

Therefore the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decides on 28 April 2015 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the notification, i.e. on 29 December 2014.

Related case:
SAIDS 2014_28 SAIDS vs Daniel Jacobus La Grange (2)
December 8, 2016

In February 2015 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the judoka Daniel Jacobus La Grage after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Hydrochlorothiazide. After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel.

The Athlete admitted the violation and claimed the it was not intentional. He explained that he had suffered from back pains and had used medication which contains the prohibited substance. However the evidence shows that he was advised by his pharmacist that the medication contained prohibited substances and would be present in his system for approximately 2 days.

SAIDS argued that the Athlete was extremely negligent by ignoring the advice of the pharmacist and he didn't consult a medical doctor. Further SAIDS asserted that he failed to establish how the substance entered his system because the substance would be present in his system for 2 days, while the Athlete claimed that he used this medication 7 days before he provided a sample.

The Panel did not accept the Athlete’s explanation and agrees that he was negligent and failed to establish how the substance entered his system without grounds for a reduced sanction.
Therefore the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decides on 17 March 2015 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the notification, i.e. 19 February 2015.

Related case:
SAIDS 2014_28 SAIDS vs Daniel Jacobus La Grange (1)
March 17, 2015

On 17 March 2015 the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Daniel Jacobus La Grange after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Hydrochlorothiazide.

In June 2016 SAIDS reported that the sanctioned Athlete had allegedly trained at a judo facility as breach of the imposed ineligibility. The Athlete didn't deny the violation and explained that he didn’t train or compete at the judo facility but only participated in a photoshoot.

The Panel accepts that the Athlete only participated in a photoshoot at the judo facility and considers the circumstances and his degree of fault for imposing a new reduced period of ineligibility.

Therefore the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decides on 8 December 2016 to impose 1 month period of ineligiblility on the Athlete starting on the date that the current sanction will end, i.e. on 19 February 2017.

SAIDS 2014_31 SAIDS vs Joseph Mphuthi - Appeal
February 11, 2016

In March 2015 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Joseph Mphuthi after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone (Nandrolone). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substances. Previously he was tested for three years without problems and he could not explain how the substances came into his system. The supplements he used were mentioned on the Doping Contol Form including the medication administered when he underwent a dental treatment two weeks before the sample collection.

The Panel finds that the Athlete was truthful and fully co-operative in this case and he could not establish how the substances entered his system nor present grounds for a reduced sanction. The Panel notes that it took 11 months to report the findings due to substantial delays in the laboratory not attributed to the Athlete.

While under provisional suspension sinds March 2015 the Athlete participated in 2 major events. In this matter the Panel concludes that the SAIDS letter of notification to the Athlete was ambiguously vague and therefore capable of being misunderstood and misinterpred and not in accordance with the Rules. Also there was no evidence of SAIDS having held any provisional or accelerated hearing in accordance with the Rules.

Considering the circumstances in this case the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decides on 20 August 2015 to impose 2 year period of ineligiblility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 12 April 2014.

Related case:
SAIDS 2014_31 SAIDS vs Joseph Mphuthi
August 20, 2015

On 20 August 2015 the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete after his A an B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone (Nandrolone).

In this case the Anti-Doping Hearing Panel considered the substantial delays not attributed to the Athlete and the procedural errors made by SAIDS when it reported that the Athlete had participated in two major events while under provisional suspension since March 2015. The Panel concluded regarding the provisional suspension that the SAIDS letter of notification to the Athlete in March 2015 was ambiguously vague and therefore capable of being misunderstood and misinterpred and not in accordance with the Rules. As a result the Panel decided to start the period of ineligibility on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 12 April 2014.

Hereafter in September 2015 SAIDS appealed the decision of the Anti-Doping Hearing Panel with the Appeal Tribunal. SAIDS asserted that the period of ineligibility should start on the date of the disciplinary hearing (8 July 2015) and not on the date of the sample collection (12 April 2015). In this matter SAIDS argued that the Athlete was duly notified in March 2015 about the anti-doping violation and the provisional suspension. Also after the formal notification in June 2015 the process was expedited efficiently.

The Appeal Tribunal agrees that the Anti-Doping Hearing Panel erred to set the commencement of the ineligibility period on the date of the sample collection. Further the Appeal Tribunal finds that in spite of the delays the Athlete didn’t suffer from undue prejudice.

Therefore the SAIDS Appeal Tribunal decides on 11 February 2016 to set the commencement of the Athlete's period of ineligiblility on the date of the hearing, i.e. on 8 July 2015.

Related case:
SAIDS 2015_01 Zanmare Terblanche vs SAIDS - Appeal
May 3, 2016

In April 2015 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist Zanmare Terblanceh after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Metandienone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete failed to file a statement in her defence nor did she attend the hearing of the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel.

The Panel concludes that the presence of the prohibited substance in the Athlete’s sample establish that she committed an anti-doping rule violation without grounds for a reduced sanction.
Therefore the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decides on 22 September 2015 to impose a 4 year period of ineligiblility on the Athlete starting on de date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 30 April 2015