In November 2016 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Raydall Walters after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Hydrochlorothiazide and Sibutramine. 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 admitted the violation and acknowledged that he acted recklessly when he used a supplement from one of his team mates. He knew he took a risk but nevertheless he used the supplement and disregarded the risk that his conduct might result in an anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the Doping Hearing Panel decides on 15 March 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 24 November 2016.

In December 2016 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Mixed Martial Arts Athlete Michiel Opperman after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (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 Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete admitted the violation and stated that he had used the prescribed medication Testis Compositum as treatment for his condition. The Athlete asserted that the violation was not intentional and that he researched the WADA website to establish whether the medication was included on the Prohibited List. The Athlete also argued that his medication triggered an elevation of his endogenous 19-Norandrosterone and as a result caused an endogenous elevation of his bodily Nandrolone.

SAIDS contended that the Athlete failed to show that the violation was not intentional and argued that he disregarded the risk that his conduct might result in an anti-doping rule violation.
The Athlete mentioned his medication and supplements on the Doping Control Form but didn’t mention the medication in question. Further the Athlete conducted only a limited research on the internet about the safety of the medication.

The Panel dismissed the Athlete’s argument that his medication triggered the elevation of endogenous Nandrolone in his body nor did he produce any evidence in confirmation of this matter. Instead the Laboratory Analysis Test Report clearly mentioned that the 19-Norandrosterone found in his sample was consistent with an exogenous origin.

The Panel concludes that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional and finds that the Athlete’s risky conduct could lead to an anti-doping violation and that he disregarded that risk.
Therefore the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee decides on 9 June 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of de sample collection, i.e. on 2 September 2016.

Related case:
CAS 2017_A_5369 WADA vs SAIDS & Gordon Gilbert
June 21, 2018

In March 2017 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist Gordon Gilbert after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Testosterone. 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 denied that the violation was intentional and asserted that he did research the ingredients of the supplements he used. He was sponsored by the international company Biogen and they assured him that their products he used were safe and did not contain any prohibited substances. The Athlete explained that he suffered from a condition and therefore had used the recommended product Biogen Testoforte.

After the Athlete tested positive his supplements were analysed and the Laboratory Analysis Test Report revealed that the product Biogen Testoforte contained the prohibited substance.
The Panel accepts the Athlete’s explanation on a balance of probability that the prohibited substance entered his system as a result of the ingestion of a contaminated product Biogen Testoforte. Further the Panel acknowledge that the Athlete did take a number of significant steps to minimize any risk associated with the use of supplements.

The Panel observes that the Athlete had a personal doctor and had access to a number of medical experts. However he failed to demonstrate that he sought medical advice before taking the supplements while he followed the recommendations of someone without qualifications as a pharmacologist or nutritionist.
In the view of the Panel the Athlete did fall short, if not excessively, of the high standards imposed to exercise utmost caution to avoid even inadvertent ingestion of a prohibited substance.

Therefore the Doping Hearing Panel decides on 30 August 2017 to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 2 March 2017.

Related case:
SAIDS 2017_01 SAIDS vs Stean Pienaar - Appeal
July 4, 2017

In January 2017 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Stean Pienaar after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Letrozole. 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 denied the intentional use of the substance and he admitted that previously he had used a testosterone booster in 2016 for several months. Because of the medical side effects he ceased using this testosterone booster and he was advised to use Letrozole as treatment for his medical condition. He purchased the Letrozole without the necessary prescription as he was told and he was convinced that this substance was not prohibited. In addition he conducted an insufficient search on the internet for this substance and he acknowledged that he didn’t consult his general practitioner or his team doctor about this matter.

The Panel establish that the Athlete explained how the prohibited substance entered his system and that the violation was not intentional. However the Panel finds that the Athlete’s degree of fault was significant because he had options available to determine the true status of the substance Letrozole, but failed to act on these options.

Considering the circumstances in this case the Doping Hearing Panel decides on 6 April 2017 to impose a 20 month period of ineligiblility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 24 January 2017.

Related case:
SAIDS 2017_01 SAIDS vs Stean Pienaar
April 6, 2017

On 6 April 2017 the Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decided to impose a 20 month period of ineligibility on the rugby player Stean Pienar after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Letrozole.
In this case the Panel established that the Athlete explained how the prohibited substance entered his system and that he acted without intention to enhance his sport performance. However the Panel ruled that the Athlete’s degree of fault was significant due to he had options available to establish the true status of the substance Letrozole, but failed to act on these options.

Hereafter the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) appealed the decision of 4 April 2017 with the Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal of South Africa.
During the appeal proceedings SAIDS and the Athlete reached a Settlement Agreement. In this Agreement SAIDS accepted that the violation was not intentional and the Athlete admitted that his negligence was significant.

Therefore on 4 July 2017 the Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal of South Africa decides to set aside the decision of 6 April 2017 and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility ont the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 24 January 2017.

Related case:
SAIDS 2017_04 SAIDS vs Marthinus Redelinhuys
May 19, 2017

In 2015 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist Marthinus Redelinhuys after his sample - provided on 29 August 2015 - tested positive for the prohibited substances Prednisolone and Prednisone.

After notification of the Adverse Analytical Finding the Athlete’s applications for a retrospective TUE were rejected by the TUE Committee due to the conditions for a TUE were not met and due to omissions in the applications.

The Athlete appealed against this rejection but the SAIDS Appeal Tribunal decided to uphold the TUE rejection and dismissed the Athlete's appeal on 15 February 2017.

Related case:
SAIDS 2017_04 Marthinus Redelinhuys vs SAIDS - Appeal
February 15, 2017

In April 2017 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist Marthinus Redelinhuys after his sample - provided in August 2015 - tested positive for the prohibited substances Prednisolone and Prednisone. After notification in April 2017 the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel.

Previously the Athlete’s applications for a retrospective TUE were rejected because the conditions for a TUE were not met and due to omissions. The Athlete’s appeal regarding the denied TUE was dismissed on 15 February 2017.

The Athlete admitted the violation and stated that it was not intentional. He explained that he had used prescribed medication two days before the competition in question as treatment for his condition and he misunderstood that the prohibited substance could not be used only on the day of the competition.

The Panel considers that the Athlete took outmost caution and established how the prohibited substances entered his system. The Athlete also provided the WADA prohibited list to his doctor in order to avoid prohibited substances. However by mistake the Athlete was prescribed medication with prohibited substances and the Athlete and the doctor failed to apply for a TUE in advance.

The Panel finds that the Athlete established that his degree of fault or negligence was insignificant and decides on 19 May 2017 to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the notification.

Related case:
CAS 2017_A_5260 WADA vs SAIDS & Demarte Pena
June 21, 2018

In February 2017 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Mixed Martial Arts Athlete Demarte Pena after his sample - provided in November 2016 - tested positive for the prohibited substance Testosterone. 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 accepted the test results and denied the intentional use of the prohibited substance. He stated that for his training he had used a variety of supplements provided by his sponsor Biogen and they assured him that their products he used were safe and did not contain any prohibited substances. The Athlete asserted that he checked the labels of the products and researched the ingredients of the products on the internet before using. After he tested positive his supplements were analysed and the Laboratory Analysis Test Report revealed that the product Biogen Testoforte contained the prohibited substance.

The Panel dismissed the arguments of SAIDS and finds that the Athlete showed that he is far from careless or reckless in what he consumes. The depth of information provided by the Athlete shows that he was meticulous in his preparation for a fight, seeks professional advice and takes great care in what he consumes during the preparation. Also the Athlete could explain adequately the apparent omission on his Doping Control Form.

The Panel concludes that the Athlete established No Significant Fault or Negligence and how the prohibited substance entered his system without intention to enhance his sport performance. The Athlete acted with the utmost care and that there is little more that he could have done to ensure that the supplements he used were safe.

Therefore the SAIDS Doping Hearing Panel decides on 25 May 2017 to reprimand the Athlete without a period of ineligibility including disqualification of his results.

In November 2016 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Inus Vermeulen after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine) and Stanozolol. 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 denied the intentional use of the prohibited substances and claimed that the samples were sabotaged or contaminated as his urine sample was left open, exposed and unattended for a period of time during the sample collection.

SAIDS contended that the Athlete failed to produce any evidence that show departures of the ISTI and he failed to explain how the prohibited substance entered his system.

The Panel agrees that Athlete failed to demonstrate that his samples were sabotaged and contaminated nor did he establish that it entered his system through the unintentional consumption of the prohibited substances. Therefore the Doping Hearing Panel decides on 10 July 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 3 November 2016.

Related case:
SAIDS 2017_08 SAIDS vs Tiaan Smit
July 14, 2017

On 14 July 2017 the SAIDS Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Tiaan Smit after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Clenbuterol.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the decision of the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel with the Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal of South Africa. The Athlete requested the Appeal Panel to impose a reduced sanction and argued that the violation was not intentional and the substance only used as for weight loss purposes.

Considering the evidence and the Athlete's statements in this case the Appeal Panel finds that the Athlete showed a gross negligence and intent. In view of the Panel the Athlete was clearly engaged in conduct for which he knew there was a significant risk that such conduct might result in an anti-doping rule violation and manifestly disregarded the risk.

Therefore the Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal of South Africa decides on 7 November 2017 to uphold the decision of 14 July 2017 of the SAIDS Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel and to dismiss the appeal of the Athlete.