In October 2022 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Bafana Dube after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 5-Methylhexan-2-amine (1,4-dimethylpentylamine, 1,4-dimethylamylamine, 1,4-DMAA).

Following 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 result and denied the intentional use of the substance. He could not explain the source of the positive test and stated that he checked the labels of the supplements he purchased.

The Panel 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.

In view of the Athlete's conduct the Panel deems that the Athlete had acted negligently as he failed to take reasonable standard of care as expected from a reasonable persion in the Athlete's situation.

Therefore the Hearing Panel decides on 29 March 2023 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension,

Related case:

SAIDS 2022_41 Thomas William Oosthuizen vs SAIDS - Appeal
February 13, 2024

On 16 October 2022 the boxer Thomas William Oosthuizen was selected to submit to sample collection. However he only provided 2 partial invalid samples and thereafter failed to produce an additional 3rd valid sample. Although the Bloemfontein Laboratory established no prohibted substances in the Athlete's samples they were deemed to be invalid.

Consequently in November 2022 SAIDS reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for his refusal or failure to submit to sample collection in October 2022. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Anti-Doping Tribunal of South Africa.

The Athlete argued that he was tested before without issues and denied that he refused sample collection. Neither that he was influenced to refuse a 3rd sample, rather that he had requested to be tested after he had dinner with his wife.

Following assessment of the evidence the Panel deemed that the Athlete had refused to provide a 3rd sample and that his wife/manager/promoter had an impact on the Athlete's conduct in this matter.

Therefore the Panel decides on 23 June 2023 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

Related case:

SAIDS 2022_41 SAIDS vs Thomas William Oosthuizen
June 23, 2023

On 23 June 2023 the SAIDS Anti-Doping Tribunal decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the boxer Thomas William Oosthuizen for his refusal or failure to submit to sample collection.

On 16 October 2022 the Athlete was selected to submit to sample collection. Yet, he only provided 2 partial invalid samples and thereafter failed to produce an additional 3rd valid sample. Although the Bloemfontein Laboratory established no prohibted substances in the Athlete's samples they were deemed to be invalid.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the Tribunal decision with the SAIDS Appeal Board. He reguested the Appeal Board to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a reduced sanction.

The Athlete asserted that he gave his full cooperation and denied that he had refused to provide a third sample. His samples tested clean and also he was not ever warned of the consequences of his refusal by the Doping Control Officers in term of the ADR.

SAIDS contended that the Athlete had no compelling justification for not submitting and/or completing the sample collection session on the day of the boxing event. The fact remains that he refused to provide a third valid sample as requested.

The Panel finds that it is undisputed that the Athlete's samples did not contain any prohibited substances. Yet, the Athlete failed to submit a third sample and accordingly committed an anti-doping rule violation.

In view of the evidence the Panel accepts that the violation was not intentional. The Panel determines that the Athlete had been negligent and that there are grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the SAIDS Appeal Board decides on 13 February 2024 to uphold the Athlete's appeal and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the Decision, i.e. 23 June 2023.

In February 2023 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) reported 2 anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete Paul Ramolefi Motsieloa:

• Presence of the prohibited substance Dexamethasone; and
• Tampering when he identified himself at the Marathon in September 2022 with race number #169 during Doping Control using the false name Thabo Ntoko.

Following notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the SAIDS Anti-Doping Panel. The Athlete denied all the charges and alleged that he was never tested at the Marathon.

SAIDS contended that there was sufficient evidence that at the Marathon the Athlete had used a false name during sample collection. After an investigation into the name Thabo Ntoko several witnesses and sports officials had confirmed that Thabo Ntoko in fact was the Athlete Ramolefi Motsieloa who had participated at the Marathon with race number #169.

In view of the evidence the Panel concludes that the Athlete had tampered with any part of the Doping Control at the Marathon and had committed a second anti-doping rule violation. Therefore the Panel decides on 10 June 2023 to impose an 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Related case:

SAIDS 2023-09 Tebogo Tsotetsi vs SAIDS - Appeal
December 12, 2023

In May 2023 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Tebogo Tsotetsi after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Salbutamol.

Following notification a provisional suspension was accepted, yet thereupon she continued to participate into a Marathon. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and was heard for the Anti-Doping Tribuanl Hearing Panel.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. She explained that at the material time she had used a cough syrup for her illness while she was unaware that this product contained Salbutamol.

The Athlete acknowleged that she had been negligently with her self-medication and had not mentioned all her medication on the Doping Control Form. She asserted that she is only a recreational Athlete and had never received anti-doping education.

SAIDS accepted that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and that she had acted negligently with grounds for a reduced sanction.

In view of the evidence the Panel agrees that the Athlete's violation was not intentional. Further the Panel determines that, as a recreational Athlete, she had acted with a degree of No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Therefore the Panel decides on 15 August 2023 to impose a 20 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

Related case:

SAIDS 2023-09 SAIDS vs Tebogo Tsotetsi
August 15, 2023

On 15 August 2023 the Anti-Doping Tribunal Hearing Panel decided to impose a 20 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete Tebogo Tsotetsi after she tested positive for the prohibited substance Salbutamol.

In First Instance the Panel accepted that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and deemed that she had acted negligently with grounds for a reduced sanction.

Hereafter in September 2023 the Athlete appealed the Decision of the Hearing Panel. The Athlete requested the Appeal Board to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a further reduced sanction.

The Athlete admitted the violation and explained that she was unaware that the cough syrup she had used for her illness contained Salbutamol. She asserted the she acted not intentional due to ignorance as a recreational athlete who had never received anti-doping education.

Although the violation was not intentional SAIDS contended that the Athlete acted negligently with her self-medication that clearly contained a prohibited substance. Further SAIDS rejected that she is a recreational athlete because of her participation in large marathons finishing in the top percentiles.

Following assessment of the Athlete's conduct with her self-medication the Appeal Board determines that the Athlete had acted with a degree of negligence and that there were no grounds to reduce the imposed sanction.

Therefore the Appeal Board decides on 12 December 2023 to dismiss the Athlete's appeal and to uphold the Appealed Decision and the sanction of 20 months.

In January 2023 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Seipati Peo after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Stanozolol and 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the SAIDS Anti-Doping Tribunal.

The Athlete accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the substances. Yet, she could not explain how the substances had entered her system. She assumed that the pre-race drinks she prior had used provided by her coach could be the source.

The Panel finds that the presence of the prohibited substances has been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Panel deems that the Athlete could not demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor the source of the prohibited substances.

Therefore the Panel decides on 4 July 2023 to impose a 4 year period of inelgibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 18 January 2023.

In September 2023 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rower Lebone Mokheseng. Following notification the Athlete was heard for the SAIDS Anti-Doping Tribunal. 

SAIDS contended that the Athlete had 3 Whereabouts Failures within a 12 month period:

• a Filing Failure / Missed Test on 8 June 2023;
• a Filing Failure / Missed Test on 14 June 2023; and
• a Filing Failure / Missed Test on 12 September 2023.

The Athlete denied the charges and he requested for a reduced sanction. He explained that he already had retired from rowing at the time of the first test.

He testified about his personal circumstances and the problems he had in the family whereas he was hampered by the lack of assistance from Rowing South Africa (RSA). After he officially had resigned he assumed that the RSA should have notified SAIDS about his resignation.

The Panel accepted the Athlete's explanations and finds that he acted not intentional since he offically had resigned from RSA. Further the Panel deems that there are grounds for a reduced sanction and that he can continue his current job as a rowing coach.

Therefore the Panel decides on 29 January 2024 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the 3rd Whereabouts Failure, i.e. on 12 September 2023.

Annual Report 2011 / South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS). - Cape Town : SAIDS, 2012
ISBN: 978-0-621-40324-4

Annual Report 2012 / South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS). - Cape Town : SAIDS, 2012
ISBN: 978-0-621-40324-4