In May 2016 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player Thandani Ntshumayelo after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances Cocaine. 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 admitted the intentional use of the substance 3 days prior to the competition while he was aware that this substance was prohibited.

The SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel concludes that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation and decides on 16 August 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 17 May 2016.

On 16 August 2016 the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decide to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the football player Thandani Ntshumayelo, after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances Cocaine. The Athlete had admitted the use of the substance 3 days prior to the competition while he was aware that this substance was prohibited.

Hereafter the Athlate appealed the First Instance Decision with the SAIDS Appeal Tribunal.
The Athlete admitted that he had used the substance 3 days prior to the competition and requested for a reduced sanction. He asserted that his use was only recreational, out-of-competition and not intentional to enhance his sport performance.

SAIDS accepted that the Athlete had intentionally used the substance but that it was not related to sport performance.
The Appeal Tribunal agrees that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete established grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the SAIDS Appeal Tribunal decides on 7 September 2018 that the Athlete's appeal is admissible and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension.

In July 2016 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the powerlifter Kyle Noonan after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Tamoxifen. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the SAIDS Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete gave a prompt admission, denied the intentional use of the substance and explained that he underwent treatment for his thyroid and had used prescribed medication which contained the prohibited substance.

The Panel finds that the anti-doping violation has been established and that the Athlete has demonstrated how the substance entered his system without intention to enhance his sport performance.

Considering the Athlete’s prompt admission and his degree of negligence in this case the SAIDS Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee decides on 12 September 2016 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 19 March 2016.

Related case:
SAIDS 2016_34 Tyrone White vs SAIDS - Appeal
April 19, 2017

In July 2016 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist Tyrone White after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Dexamethasone. After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the SAIDS Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete accepted the test results and stated that the violation was not intentional. He explained that he participated in a nine day race. At the beginning of the competition he became very ill and severely dehydrated and underwent medical treatment at the medical center. The Athlete hereafter recovered and could compete in the last stage of the race where he was tested.

The Athlete contended that the prohibited substance entered his system through the intravenous fluids administered by the doctor at the medical center. The Athlete acknowledged that he failed to mention to administered substances on the Doping Control Form and he didn’t succeed in obtaining the medical records on the day in question.

The medical doctor on duty at the race was an emergency doctor and not a sports medicine doctor. He testified that the medical center where the Athlete underwent treatment was extremely busy and that in this situation he believed there was a mix up of medication with the administration of Dexamethasone instead of the intended Promethazine.

The Panel finds it highly probable that the prohibited substance came into the Athlete’s system at the time he underwent treatment. The Panel accepts the medical evidence about the Athlete’s condition and the prescribed medication and that on a balance of probability has been established that Dexamethasone was administered at the medical center.

The Panel is concerned about the chaotic situation at the medical centre during the race with limited medical staff where the Athlete most probably negligently the prohibited substance was administered. Further the medical records of this event, kept by the company that handled the medical centers, were not accessible and could not be produced for the Panel. Because of this chaotic situation de Panel expected that the Athlete ensured that the administered medication did not contain a prohibited substance before his competed in the last race.

Considering the circumstances in this case and the Athlete’s degree of fault the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee decides on 14 December 2016 to impose a 18 month period of ineligibility starting on the date of the decision.

In addition the Panel recommended:

1.) The medical personal providing care at sport events must maintain a high level of medical and administrative propriety, in spite of their surroundings and facilities available to them, with particular reference to:
- a.) Double checking medicines before their administration;
- b.) Keeping accurate and comprehensive medical records;
2.) Multi-stage cycle race organizers are advised to limit their liability in these matters by providing adequate staffing and appropriate funding of the medical service at these events.

Related case:
SAIDS 2016_34 SAIDS vs Tyrone White
December 14, 2016

On 14 December 2016 the SAIDS Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee decided to impose an 18 month period of ineligibility on the cyclist Tyrone White after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Dexamethasone.

The Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee considered it highly probable that the prohibited substance came into the Athlete’s system at the time he underwent treatment for his illness. The Panel established on a balance of probability that Dexamethasone was intravenous administered at the medical center of the race instead of the intended prescribed medication Promethazine.

Hereafter in April 2017 the Athlete appealed the decision of the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel with the Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal of South Africa.

The Athlete argued that the violation was not intentional and that his degree of fault was insignificant. He asserted - sustained by witnesses - that due to miscommunication the medical staff by mistake administrated the substance Dexamethasone intravenous into his system when he underwent medical treatment.

The Appeal Panel considers the circumstances and finds that the Athlete bears a degree of negligence in this case. The Panel upholds the decision of the SAIDS Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee of 14 December 2016 but also rules that there are grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal of South Africa decides on 19 April 2017 to reduce the 18 months sanction and instead to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In September 2016 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Heinrich Otto after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone)

After notification the Athlete admitted the violation, waived his right for a hearing, accepted the provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by SAIDS.

Therefore SAIDS decides on 25 November 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 26 September 2016.

In November 2016 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the hockey player James Drummond after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Ephedrine and Cannabis in a concentration above the WADA threshold.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the SAIDS Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee.
The Athlete accepted the test results and gave a prompt admission for smoking Cannabis out of competition. The Athlete argued that the Sunlife energy drink tablets he had used were the source of the prohited substance Ephedrine.

The Panel finds that the Athlete intentionally used Cannabis in a context unrelated to sport performance and that he failed to establish how the substance Ephedrine entered his system.
The Panel considers that Laboratory analysis of the drink tablets in question showed they only contained some Ephedrine within permissible limits and these levels found are inconsistent with the hight concentration Ephedrine detected in the Athlete’s sample.

In addition the Panel notes that there appears to be a widespread use of Cannabis amongst young sport stars at school and university level. Also the Panel observes that there is a large scale promotion of supplements and energy drinks through product sponsorships of certain players while it is not communicated that these products may contain an element of Ephedrine.

Finally the SAIDS Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee decides on 17 July 2017 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 6 November 2016.

Related case:
SAIDS 2016_53 Timothy Abbot vs SAIDS - Appeal
October 30, 2017

In July 2016 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist Timothy Abbot (54) after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances Testosterone, 5α-androstane-3α,17β-diol and 5β-androstane-3α,17β-diol.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the SAIDS Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete accepted the test results, denied the intentional use en could not explain how the prohibited substances entered his system. The Athlete stated that he underwent treatment for his low testosterone levels and had used prescribed over the counter supplements to enhance his testosterone production.

The Panel finds that the Athlete failed to establish how the substances entered his system nor could he demonstrate that the prohibited substances did not enhance his performance in any way. The Panel considers that in the past the Athlete had served a period of ineligibility in 1989 and that he should have known better. The Panel further notes that there were delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the SAIDS Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee decides on 9 March 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 26 December 2015.

Related case:
SAIDS 2016_53 SAIDS vs Timothy Abbot
March 9, 2017

On 9 March 2017 the SAIDS Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee decides on 9 March 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the cyclist Timothy Abbot (54) after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances Testosterone, 5α-androstane-3α,17β-diol and 5β-androstane-3α,17β-diol.

The Panel ruled that the Athlete failed to establish how the substances entered his system nor could he demonstrate that the prohibited substances did not enhance his performance in any way. The Panel considered that in the past the Athlete had served a period of ineligibility in 1989 and that he should have known better. The Panel further noted that there were delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

Hereafter in March 2017 the Athlete appealed the decision of the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee with the Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal of South Africa.

The Athlete requested the Appeal Panel for a reduced sanction and argued that the violation was not intentional. He denied that he knowingly or deliberately had used the prohibited substances and had demonstrated how these substances entered his system. The Athlete asserted that the Disciplinary Panel erred in considering his prior anti-doping violation committed in 1989 and had ignored the fact that he is an amateur veteran cyclist.

The Appeal Panel finds that the Athlete failed to provide any reasonable explantation as to how the substances entered his system nor that his degree of fault had to be interpreted differently.

Therefore the Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal decided on 2 October 2017 to dismiss the Athlete’s appeal and to uphold the decision of 9 March 2017 of the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee.

In December 2016 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Brendan Coetzer 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 Doping Hearing Panel.

The Athlete gave a prompt admission and denied that the substances were used for enhancing his sport performance. He stated that recommended by a friend at the gym he had used Deca-Durabolin (Nandrolone) in 2016 in order to gain weight and to recover from a hamstring injury. When he started to play rugby he stopped using the product a week before the first competition in October 2016. The Athlete asserted that he was unaware that the product was prohibited in sport and in the past he never had received any anti-doping education.

The Panel finds that the Athlete didn’t produce any evidence in support of statement, he failed to establish how the prohibited substances entered his system nor did he demonstrate that these substances didn’t enhance his performance in any way.

Considering the Athlete’s negligence and prompt admission in this case the Doping Hearing Panel decides on 20 March 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 8 October 2016.