Related case:
SAIDS 2017_08 Tiaan Smit vs SAIDS - Appeal
November 7, 2017

In May 2017 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Tiaan Smit after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Clenbuterol. 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 Panel.

The Athlete admitted the violation and stated that he had used the prohibited substance for the purpose of losing weight. He acknowledged that he was negligent, failed to research the product nor to consult his doctor or coach. He stopped using the product due to the medical side effects of the substance.

The Panel finds that the Athlete committed the anti-doping violation and failed to establish that the use of the substance was not intentional. Therefore the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 14 July 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 25 May 2017.

In 2016 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) decided to impose an 18 month period of ineligibility on the powerlifter Tracy Ludwig after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Indapamide. Here the Athlete admitted the violation, accepted the test result and waived her right to be heard.

The Athlete applied for a retroactive TUE for her use of Indapamide, the active ingredient in the prescribed medication Adco Dapamax. She explained that she suffered from various medical conditions and used medication as treatment prescribed by 3 specialists while previously she also mentioned her medication on the Doping Control Form. However on 27 September 2016 the SAIDS TUE Commission denied the Athlete’s application for a retroactive TUE which the Athlete appealed with the SAIDS Appeal Tribunal.

The Panel of the Appeal Tribunal established that previously the Athlete had applied for a TUE in 2014 but failed to apply for a TUE in 2016 for the use of the prescribed medication. After the ADRV had occurred the Athlete applied for a retroactive TUE but provided confusing and insuffient medical information in support. The Panel finds that the decision of the TUE Commission of 27 September 2016 was valid and that it provided alternaves afterwards in their submission to the Athlete in July 2017.

The Appeal Panel considers that the Athlete failed to seek an alternative medication long before the ADRV with all implications against the Athlete. The Panel accepts that the Athlete had no intention to enhance her performance and that the prescribed medication was needed as treatment for her condition.

The Appeal Panel further finds that the Athlete may make submission to the TUE Commission to reconsider her TUE application in light of the new information, and in light of the fact that an alternative has now been prescribed and is found to be a suitable alternative treatment.

Therefore the SAIDS Appeal Panel decides on 22 June 2018:

1.) The decision of the TUE Commission to deny the retroactive TUE is upheld;
2.) Each party to pay its own costs in regard to the Appeal hearing of 24 April 2018.
3.) The Athlete to pay the Respondent’s wasted costs for the hearing which was meant to be held on 28 March 2018.

In June 2017 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player Keenon Blignaut after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis in a concentration above the WADA threshold (766 ng/ml). 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 Panel.

The Athlete admitted the violation and stated that he had smoked Cannabis recreationally out of competition for an extended period on the night before the competition in question. He acknowledged that he knew Cannabis was a prohibited substance, he was aware of the anti-doping rules and he mentioned the use on the Doping Control Form.

The Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel considers the circumstances and the Athlete’s degree of fault in this case and decides to impose a 4 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 21 June 2017.

In July 2016 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Barend Steyn after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone (Nandrolone). After notification 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, denied the intentional use of the substances and could not explain how they entered his system. He assumed that the source were the supplements or the medication he had used prior to the sample collection. He complained that because of the delays in the testing and the notification, establishing the origin of the prohibited substances through testing of his supplements in question was without success. Due to a 6 months delay he had no longer the evidence available to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional. Also neither of his medications contained the substances.

The Panel holds that there was no unfair delay in this case as he was not suspended during this period and still continued to play rugby and received an income. He is an experienced athlete, he was tested before, had applied for a TUE in another matter, while he failed to mention any of his supplements on the Doping Control Form.

The Panel considers that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that his Fault or Negligence was not Significant as he failed to show the duty of care or exercise “utmost caution” to ensure that whatever he took was not on the prohibited list. Consequently the Panel concludes that the Athlete failed to establish how the prohibited substances entered his system nor that the violation was not intentional.

Therefore the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decides on 29 August 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 7 July 2016.

In April and in May 2017 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported multiple anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete Louisa Leballo for Evasion / Tampering and for testing positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO). The Doping Control Officer (DCO) reported that during the out-of-competition test in March 2017 the Athlete offered money to the DCO in exchange for cancellation of the test.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the Anti-Doping Hearing Panel.

The Athlete accepted the test results and acknowledged that her conduct amounted to a corrupt attempt to subvert the control process. She explained that she was nervous because she had taken pain medication before the test. She also stated that she underwent treatment for her medical condition she suffered and that the medical practitioner administered her an injection with an unknown substance.

The Panel did not accept the Athlete’s explanation because she could not explain how the EPO entered her system. Her testimony was vague and her replies to questions were elusive and evasive regarding the medical practitioner she allegedly consulted. The Panel concludes that it is highly probably that the Athlete willfully took EPO for the purpose to enhance her sport performance and finds that she showed little remorse for her attempt to corrupt the DCO.

Considering the serious nature of the multiple anti-doping rule violations committed by the Athlete the Panel rules that the two periods of ineligibility for these violations should not run concurrently. Therefore the Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decides on 19 July 2017 to impose a 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In May 2017 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist Michael Pawlowski for Evading, Rufusing or Failing to Submit to Sample Collection at an in-competition test on 3 March 2016.

After notification the Athlete admitted the violation, waived his right to be heard and accepted in a settlement the sanction proposed by SAIDS.

Therefore SAIDS decides on 3 June 2017 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 1 June 2017.

Related case:
SAIDS 2017_19 SAIDS vs Ntando Kebe - Appeal
March 24, 2018

In July 2016 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Ntando Kebe after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol. After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel.

SAIDS requested the Panel to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility and contended that the Athlete failed to show that he had not been negligent nor that the violation was not intentional.

The Athlete admitted the violation, denied the intentional use, accepted the test result and the provisional suspension. He acknowledged that he didn’t mention all his supplements on the Doping Control Form and he failed to research his supplements before using. He claimed that the supplement Ripped EFX was the source of the positive test, provided by a former rugby player Monde Hadebe - confirmed by a witness - while he was unaware that this player was sanctioned for the use of Stanozol.

The Panel considers that the Athlete undertook a series of tests in order to find the source of Stanozolol and that there was the witness confirmation that the sanctioned player Monde Hadebe gave the container Ripped EFX to the Athlete. Here the Panel deems that the Athlete’s submissions and evidence go beyond speculation and that they are not merely firm denials. The Panel finds that the Athlete appears to offer a credible explanation as to how the prohibited substance entered his system.

Accordingly the Panel is willing to accept, on alle the evidence, that in these unusual circumstances the probable source of the Stanozolol was the Ripped EFX supplement. The Panel holds that it has been established on balance of probabilities that the Athlete did not intend to cheat and that the ingestion of Stanozolol was not intentional. Considering the Athlete’s conduct in this case and his degree of Fault the Panel concludes that there are no grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Therefore the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decides on 13 October 2017 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 7 July 2016.

Related case:
SAIDS 2017_19 SAIDS vs Ntando Kebe
October 13, 2017

On 13 October 2017 the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the rugby player Ntando Kebe after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol. Here the Panel was willing to accept, on all the evidence, that in these unusual circumstances the probable source of the Stanozolol was the Ripped EFX supplement.
The Panel deemed that it has been established on balance of probabilities that the Athlete did not intend to cheat and that the ingestion of Stanozolol was not intentional. Considering the Athlete’s conduct in this case and his degree of Fault the Panel concluded that there are no grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Hereafter the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) appealed the decision of 13 October 2017 with the SAIDS Appeal Tribunal. SAIDS requested the Appeal Panel to set aside the decision of the Anti-Doping Tribunal and to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

SAIDS argued that the Athlete intentionally had used the prohibited substance, that he failed to establish that he acted without fault or intent since he could not demonstrate how the prohibited substance entered his system.

Considering the evidence and the Athlete’s conduct in this case the Appeal Panel is not convinced that the Athlete proved on a balance of probabilities that the most probable source of the prohibited substance Stanozolol in his system was the supplement Ripped EFX.
The Appeal Panel deems that the Athlete should have been aware of what constituted prohibited substances and should have known better than to accept an unsealed substance from a third party. As such he should have acted with a higher degree of care when it came to taking the alleged supplements.
The Appeal Panel concludes that the Athlete’s conduct was reckless and in fact he did have the requisite intention in the circumstances.

Therefore the SAIDS Appeal Tribunal decides on 24 March 2018 to set aside the decision of 13 October 2018 and to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 7 July 2016.

In May 2017 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the boxer Aphiwe Boyiya after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Furosemide and Hydrochlorothiazide. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the SAIDS Anti-Doping Committee Panel.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substances and stated that he had used the over-the-counter medication for a swollen knee and ankle. Previously the Athlete nor his manager had received anti-doping education and the Athlete had difficulties with the language.

SAIDS contended that the Athlete’s medication in question did not contain the prohibited substances and that he didn't establish how theses susbstances entered his system. Also the Athlete failed to exercise utmost caution to avoid inadvertent ingestion of a prohibited substance.

The Panel considered in this case as non-doping explanation the probability that the diuretic were used intentionally in boxing for the purpose to lose weight in order to make a weight grade.
The Panel agrees that the Athlete failed to establish how the substances entered his system. However SAIDS did not prove to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel that the Athlete intentionally took the diuretics nor did it demonstrate that the Athlete’s conduct was reckless with total disregard for whether the substances he used were prohibited or not.

Therefore the Anti-Doping Committee decides on 15 September 2017 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 26 May 2017.

In July 2017 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Mixed Martial Arts Athlete Tumisane Madiba after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis in a concentration above the WADA threshold (429 ng/ml).

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 requested the Panel for a reduced sanction, admitted the violation and denied that he used it to enhance his sport performance. He stated that the use of Cannabis was recreational, out-of-competition and also for medical purposes for his injuries.

He argued that he consumed Cannabis periodically due to his religious beliefs as Rastafarian and that he exercised his right to practice his own religion. He acknowledged that he was aware that Cannabis was prohibited in-competition.

SAIDS rejected the Athlete’s explanation and argued that he failed to produce evidence that he is a Rastafarian nor did he establish with medical evidence that Cannabis was used for pain management and for its analgesic and anti-inflammatory properties. Further he failed to mention the use of Cannabis on the Doping Control Form.

The Panel concludes that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the anti-doping rule violation was the result of his personal circumstances and he failed to produce any evidence and witnesses in support of his testimony. The evidence in this case didn’t assist the Panel to come to a different conclusion.

Therefore the Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decides on 4 December 2017 to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 2 June 2017.