Related case:
SAIDS 2015_01 SAIDS vs Zanmare Terblanche
December 22, 2015

On 22 September 2015 the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the cyclist Zanmare Terblanche after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Metandienone. The Athlete failed to file a statement in her defence nor did she attend the hearing of the Anti-Doping Hearing Panel.

Hereafter in April 2016 the Athlete appealed the decision of the Anti-Doping Hearing Panel with the SAIDS Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal.
The Athlete accepted the test results, argued that the violation was not intentional and that there are grounds for a reduced sanction. She explained that she suffered from overweight and in order to loose weight she had purchased on the internet a product Extreme Lava she thought was a fat burner. She asserted that previously she had not received any education around doping issues and was totally unaware of the existence of SAIDS and WADA or the Rules.

The Appeal Tribunal accepted the Athlete’s explanation and that the violation was not intentional.
Therefore the SAIDS Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal decides on 3 May 2016 to annul the sanction of 4 years and to impose a 2 year period of ineligiblility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 30 April 2015.

In June 2015 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the powerlifter Faik Pregnolato after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Clenbuterol. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel.

The Athlete argued that the violation was not intentional and he could not explain how the substance came into his system. He had mentioned the medication and supplements he used on the Doping Control Form and non of them listed Clenbuterol as an ingredient. The Athlete assumed that the positive test was the result of a contaminated supplement he had used although he researched the label of the supplements before using.

The Panel finds that the Athlete failed to establish how the substance entered his system and that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction. Therefore the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decides on 10 October 2015 to impose a 4 year period of ineligiblility on the Athlete starting on de date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 12 June 2015.

In June 2015 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the powerlifter Papa Peter Lekopa after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone (Nandrolone).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete only indicated that he had used a product Hellfire without further explanation and he did not attend the hearing of the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel.

Without the Athlete’s response the Panel concludes that the prohibited substances in his sample establish that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation without grounds for a reduced sanction. Therefore the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decides on 10 November 2015 to impose a 4 year period of ineligiblility on the Athlete starting on de date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 12 June 2015.

In July 2015 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Sandile Ngunuza after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine) and Oxilofrine (methylsynephrine).

After notification a provisional suspenstion was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel.

During the proceedings the charge against the Athlete was amended by SAIDS in September 2015 and Oxilofrine excluded because re-analysis in the accredited laboratory of the Athlete’s A-sample showed that the previous reported substance Oxilofrine was in fact Hydroxy-pseudoephedrine (Pseudo-oxilofrine) a metabolite of Pseudoephedrine. Also the concentration Pseudoephedrine found in the Athlete's sample was below the WADA threshold.
In this matter WADA previously had issued a Guideline on 7 May 2015. However the accredited laboratory in South-Africa failed to introduce a timely procedure in accordance with the WADA Guideline to test for Pseudo-oxilofrine.

The Athlete admitted the violation and assumed that one of the supplements he had used contained the prohibited substance. However analysis of the Athlete’s supplements in question revealed that they didn’t contain prohibited substances. Also the Athlete suggested that the fluids he ingested from the different water stations along the 89 km route of the marathon could have been the source of the positive test.

Considering the evidence and circumstances in this case the Panel concludes - as accepted by SAIDS - that the anti-doping violation was not intentional and also finds that the Athlete could not establish on a balance of probability to the satisfaction of the Panel how the prohibited substance entered his system.

Therefore the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decides on 26 February 2016 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 2 July 2015.

Initially during the proceedings against the Athlete the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel had already reached an unanimous decision before the charge was amended by SAIDS in September 2015 because of the new test result. For this reason the Panel renders in this case a full reasoned decision as required under the Rules. In addition the Panel notes in the Annex their concerns dealing with the possible constitutional imperatives, anomalies and unintended consequences of the application of the Rules.

In November 2015 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the bodybuilder Adrian Cole after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Stanozolol and Drostanolone.

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, filed a statement in his defence and waived his right to be heard for the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel.
Considering the Athlete’s co-operation and prompt admission in this case the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decides on 11 December 2015 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 8 August 2015.

In October 2015 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the powerlifter Willem van der Walt after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Stanozolol and Metandienone.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete admitted the violation, filed a statement in his defence and waived his right to be heard for the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel. Considering the Athlete’s admission the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decides on 17 December 2015 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 15 October 2015.

In October 2015 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Chase Benito after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone.

After notification the Athlete pleaded guilty to the charge, he filed a statement in his defence and attended the hearing of the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel.

Considering the Athlete’s admission and statement in this case the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decides on 19 January 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Related cases:

• SAIDS 2015_11 SAIDS vs Cole Henning
  February 8, 2016
• CAS 2016_A_4716 Cole Henning vs SAIDS
  March 9, 2017

On 8 February 2016 the South Africa Independent Doping  Hearing Panel (IDHP) decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the MMA Athlete Cole Henning after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).

In first instance the Panel concluded that the Athlete acted intentionally and failed in his responsibility to ensure that no prohibited substance enters his system. Hereafter the Athlete appealed this Decision with the Anti-Doping Appeal Committee of South Africa.

The Athlete requested the Appeal Committee to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a reduced sanction. He argued that the IDHP and its Appealed Decision was erroneous and that there are grounds for no Significant Fault or Negligence.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He asserted that the substances Methylhexaneamine or Dimethylpentylamine were not listed as ingredient on the label of the supplement TNT-Mercury Napalm he had used.

SAIDS contended that the Athlete acted intentionally because his conduct was reckless or alternatively was significantly negligent.

The Appeal Committee finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. Further the Committee holds that not had been demonstrated that the supplement TNT-Mercury Napalm was the source of the positive test, nor how the prohibited substance has entered his system.

The Appeal Committee did not accept the Athlete's assertions and deemed that he acted intentionally. The Committee finds that the Athlete muse have known that there was a significant risk that his conduct might result in an anti-doping rule violation and manifestly disregarded that risk.

Therefore the Appeal Committee decides on 8 July 2016 to dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to uphold the Appealed Decision to impose a sanction of 4 years on the Athlete.

Related cases:

• SAIDS 2015_11 Cole Henning vs SAIDS - Appeal
  July 8, 2016
• CAS 2016_A_4716 Cole Henning vs SAIDS
  March 9, 2017
  
  

In December 2015 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violationa against the MMA Athlete Cole Henning after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).

After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Independant Doping Hearing Panel.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He explained that he had was unaware that the supplement TNT-Mercury Napalm he had used contained a prohibited substance.

The Athlete stated that this gave him an energy boost and he stopped using this product the day before the match. The Panel established that 1.3 dimethylamylamine (DMAA) was listed on the label of this product.

Considering the Athlete's conduct the Panel concludes that the Athlete acted intentionally and failed in his responsibility to ensure that no prohibited substance enters his system.

Therefore the Panel decides on 8 February 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In August 2015 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Lukhanyo Nomzanga after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine). 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 accepted the test results and he explained that he had purchased and used the product Hellfire as mentioned on the Doping Control Form. He didn’t know that it contained a prohibited substance and before he used the product he had researched the ingredients listed on the label. Prior he had not received doping education nor received any advise on supplements from the clubs he played for.

SAIDS confirmed that some of the different Hellfire supplements are safe to use and others not. Analysis in the laboratory of the Athlete’s Hellfire product in question showed that it contained the prohibited substance Methylhexaneamine. SAIDS agrees that the Athlete’s negligence was not significant and finds that the Athlete was inexperienced, had not received anti-doping education and was not in the position to have access to internet to research a product.

Considering the evidence and circumstances in this case the Panel finds that the anti-doping violation was not intentional and that the Athlete was a credible and consistent witness with a very limited perception of doping. The Panel concludes that the Athlete’s Fault and Negligence was less than significant.
Therefore the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decides on 18 March 2016 to impose an 8 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension i.e. on 13 August 2015.