In September 2016 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist Mark Doffay after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 5α-androstane-3α,17β-diol and 5β-androstane-3α,17β-diol (Testosterone). 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 accepted the test results and stated that he had used prescribed medication containing these substances in 2016 as treatment for his excessively low testosterone levels and not to enhance his sport performance. When administered the medication would last for 3 months in his system and his doctor was not informed that he was a competitive cyclist.

The Athlete acknowledged that he failed to apply for a TUE and he didn’t mention his medication on the Doping Control Form. He admitted that the medication did effect his performance in cycling although it was used solely as medical treatment. After he tested positive the Athlete’s application for a retroactive TUE was denied.

The Panel considers the Athlete conduct and failures in this case and finds that the Athlete was aware that he used medication that contained the prohibited substance and as a result that he is guilty of committing an anti-doping rule violation without grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel decides on 15 December 2017 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 August 2017 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the senior bowler Cheryl Ann Edelkraut (60) after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Cathine, Chlorothiazide and Hydrochlorothiazide. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel.

The Athlete accepted the test result, admitted the violation and stated that she used prescribed medication as treatment for her high blood pressure sinds 2004. She was unaware that her medication contained prohibited substances and her doctor was not informed that she participated in bowls. She mentioned her medication on the Doping Control Form and she wasn’t tested before. Previously she had not received anti-doping education from Bowls South Africa. After she tested positive the Athlete applied for a retroactive TUE which was denied in September 2017.

The Panel finds that the Athlete did fall short in exercising utmost caution to avoid an anti-doping rule violation and concludes that she acted with a light degree of fault. Therefore the Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decides on 2 December 2017 to impose a 4 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 19 August 2017.

In July 2017 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Cecilia Raath after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 3α-hydroxy-5α-androstan-17-one (androsterone) 5α-androstane-3α,17β-diol 5β-androstane-3α,17β-diol and Etiocholanolone (Testosterone). Previously SAIDS had received information from an anonymous source about the Athlete. After notification the Athlete failed to obey the provisional suspension. She filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel.

The amateur Athlete, a Physiotherapist, gave a prompt admission, denied the intentional use and requested for a reduced sanction. She explained with evidence that she underwent dermal Testosterone treatment prescribed by her doctor for her condition. The Athlete mentioned her supplements and her medication on the Doping Control Form and afterwards she made an application for a TUE which was denied by SAIDS in October 2017.

The Panel accepts the Athlete’s explanation and finds that she established how the substanc entered her system and that the violation was not intentional. The Panel holds that the amateur Athlete consulted a doctor for her condition but also acted negligently as she failed to research the content of her prescribed medication for prohibited substance before using.

Therefore the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decides on 9 February 2018 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the hearing, i.e. on 2 February 2018.

In October 2017 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Jandre Maree after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Methasterone and Stanozolol. 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 violation, denied the intentional use and accepted the provisional suspension and the test results. He explained that he had used pills from an individual at a gym to improve recovery from the injuries he suffered. The Athlete had not consulted his team doctor after being injured and he admitted his failure in trusting an unknown individual at the gym.

The Panel concludes that the Athlete lacked anti-doping education and acted with significant negligence. Further he failed to produce evidence in support of his explanation nor established that the violation was not intentional.

Therefore the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decides on 20 February 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 16 October 2018.

In November 2017 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Willem Parker after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Stanozolol and Testosterone. 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.

SAIDS requested the Panel to impose a sanction of 4 years on the Athlete and contended that the Athlete acted neglegintly with his supplements and medication and failed to establish how the prohibited substances entered his system.

The Athlete admitted his negligence, accepted the test results and denied the intentional use of the substances. He explained that he had used a variety of supplements and medications which he mentioned on the Doping Control Form. He was unable to identify the source of the positive test and he believed that non of his supplements contained the prohibited substances. He stated that he was unaware of the Prohibited List but acknowledged that he was aware that certain products might contain prohibited substances.

The Panel concludes that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation. Further the Panel considers the circumstances in this case and deems that there are no grounds for an exception to the gravity of the sanction.
Therefore the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decides on 28 February 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 20 September 2017.

In January 2018 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Mixed Martial Arts Athlete Wessel Mostert after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylphenidate. 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 te violation, denied the intentional use of substance and requested the Panel for a reduced sanction. He explained with medical information that he suffered from a condition and as treatment had used prescribed medication. Without this treatment he is most likely to deteriorate psychologically and physically.

Both SAIDS and the Panel accepted the Athlete’s explanation and evidence while the Panel deems that the Athlete established No Significant Fault or Negligence in this case and that the violation was not intentional. Therefore the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decides on 7 March 2018 to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 15 January 2018.

Related case:
CAS 2018_A_5695 Bernadette Coston vs SAIDS
February 8, 2019

In February 2018 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported and anti-doping rule violation against the hocky player Bernadette Coston after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine). After notification the Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the SAIDS Anti-Doping Tribunal.

The Athlete admitted the violation, accepted the test results and explained that she had used several supplements. She asserted that she had mentioned these supplements on the Doping Control Form and had researched the ingredients before using. She claimed that the recovery drink she had used was the possible source of the positive test. However analysis of this product in the Bloemfontein Lab revealed no prohibited substances.

SAIDS deems that the test result established the presence of multiple prohibited substances and accordingly that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation. SAIDS holds that the Athlete knew there was a significant risk that her conduct might consitute or result in an anti-doping rule violation and manifestly disregared that risk.

SAIDS contended that the Athlete failed to research properly this product and failed to consult professional experts she had access to. Instead she relied on the advice of a representative of supplements about this product while the website of this product clearly mentioned that it is to increase testosterone and growth hormones. SAIDS also argued that after analysis in the Lab there is no evidence that this product in fact was contaminated with Methylhexaneamine.

The Panel considers the Athlete’s degree of fault in this case and agrees that the Athlete did fall short of the high standards imposed on an athlete to exercise utmost caution to avoid an anti-doping rule violation. Therefore the SAIDS Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on 20 March 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the hearing, i.e. on 19 February 2018.

In January 2018 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the boxer Barend van Rooyen after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Hydrochlorothizide.

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

Therefore SAIDS decides on 24 October 2018 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 18 January 2018.

In November 2017 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the body builder Onke Mangxola after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide. 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, denied that the diuretic was used to mask the use of steroids, accepted the test result and the provisional suspension. The Athlete stated that the Furosemide was provided by a friend and student and used to make himself look leaner. He thought that the diuretic in question was permitted and he acknowledged that he failed to mention this product on the Doping Control Form.

The Panel holds that SAIDS has established the anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel and that the Athlete explained how the substance entered his system.
The Panel accepts that the violation was not intentional and considers that the Athlete gave a prompt admission. Therefore the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decides on 13 March 2018 to impose a 2 years period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 30 September 2017.

In September 2017 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist Max Know after an Expert Panel concluded unanimously in September 2017 in their Expert Report that the Athlete’s hematological profile “highly likely” showed that he used a prohibited substance or a prohibited method: the use of EPO or Blood doping between June 2015 and April 2017. This conclusion of the expert panel is based on assessement of blood samples, collected in the period from 4 February 2013 until 15 June 2017 reported in the Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP).
After notification the Athlete was heard for the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel.

The Athlete disputed the validity of the samples in his ABP, the reliability of the testing method and the accreditation of the Bloemfontein Lab. Further he argued that he had used an oxygen tent between May 2015 and June 2018 as explanation for the increased haemoglobin concentration in his samples.

Based on the evidence of the experts the Panel finds that the probabilities of the deviations from the thresholds established in the athlete's biological passport cannot be described to normal fluctuations in the populations and are a-typical. The probabilities of such deviations being described as an anti-doping rule violation is extremely high. As a result the Panel is comfortably satisfied that there has been an anti-doping rule violation established.

Therefore the SAIDS Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decides on 15 June 2018 to impose a 4 years period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the hearing, i.e. on 5 April 2018.