In January 2023 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athelte 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 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.

On 16 October 2022 the boxer Thomas 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.

In September 2022 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the minor judoka after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Prednisolone and Prednisone.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. Meanwhile the Athlete continued to participate into multiple rowing competitions between October 2022 and March 2023. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the SAIDS Independent Doping Hearing Panel.

The minor Athlete admitted the violation and accepted the test result. He explained that he had used Prednisone tablets as treatment for his condition provided by his mother. He requested the Panel not to disqualify his results obtained in the rowing competitions.

SAIDS finds that the violation was not intentional and seeked for the imposition of a sanction of 6 months on the minor Athlete. Further SAIDS wanted disqualification of all the Athlete's competititve results obtained since the sample collection.

The Panel agrees that the Athlete's violation was not intentional, yet deems that the minor Athlete had acted with some degree of negligence regarding the medication he had used. The Panel determines that there are no grounds for fairness regarding the disqualification of his competitive results.

The Panel establishes that the Athlete and his mother knew, or at the very least ought to have known, that there was a risk of disqualification of his results obtained at the rowing competitions. Yet, he continued regardless and did not, at all, consider that would be fair in the circumstances.

Therefore the Panel decides on 14 June 2023 to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision. Finally the Panel decides to disqualify all the Athlete's results obtained at the judo and rowing competitions from 26 june 2022 to the date of this decision.

Related case:

SAIDS 2018_36 SAIDS vs Mamorallo Tjoka
August 16, 2019

In June 2019 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Lesotho Athlete Mamorolla Tjoka for evading, refusal or failing to submit to sample collection and tampering with any part of the doping control in October 2018.

Consequently on 16 August 2019 the SAIDS Independent Doping Hearing Panel decided to impose an 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete due to her second anti-doping rule violation.

Thereupon the SAIDS Appeal Committee ruled on 17 November 2022 that SAIDS had the requisite jurisdiction to conduct out-of-competition testing.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the first instance decision. She argued that the hearing in first instance should have been held in Lesotho and not in South Africa. Also she disputed the jurisdiction of SAIDS and wished to introduce new evidence.

SAIDS contended that it had jurisdiction to test the Athlete out-of-competition and to hear the matter in first instance. Furthermore it argued that the Athlete voluntarily had decided not to attend the hearing in first instance.

The Appeal Committee confirmes that SAIDS has jurisdiction and determines that in first instance the Athlete voluntarily decided not to be present at the hearing in first instance. Accordingly in first instance she failed to introduce evidence in her defence.

Therefore on 18 July 2023 the Appeal Committee decides to confirm the sanction of 8 years and to uphold the first instance decision of the SAIDS Independent Doping Hearing Panel.

Annual Report 2021 / Intitute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO). - Bonn : iNADO, 2023

Contents:

• Introduction
  
  • Note from the Chair of the Board and the CEO
• Governance
  
  • Annual General Assembly
  • 2022 Board Members
  • Governing Board Meetings
• Review of Activities 2022
  
  • Activities of the New Plan: Our New Way of Thinking
  • Guiding Principles for the Future of Anti-Doping 
  • Activities Conducted in 2022
• Speaking up for NADOs & RADOs Globally
• Improving Practice Everywhere
• Building a Supportive Community
• Communication Channels
  
  • Review of Communication Strategy
• iNADO Staff
• Financial Report
  
  • Financial Statement 2022
• Our members
• Annex A

Annual Report 2021 / Intitute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO). - Bonn : iNADO, 2022

Contents:

• I. Introduction
• Note from the Chair of the Board and the CEO
• II. Governance
• III. Report of Strategic Priorities
• IV. Financial Report

Annual Report 2020 / Intitute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO). - Bonn : iNADO, 2021

Contents:

• Introduction
• Note from the Chair of the Board
• Note from the CEO
• Governance
• 2020 Board Members
• Board meetings
• 2020 Annual General Meeting
• Report of strategic priorities
• An influential international voice
• Seek, share, promote best practices.
• Create, lead, and grow a supportive member community.
• Financial Report.
• Annex A
• Annex B

iNADO Update (2023) 7/8 (27 July)
Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO)

Contents:

Improving Practice Everywhere

• Register now to DoCoLab Anniversary Symposium
• Overview of International Collaboration Projects
• iNADO Webinar: (Clean) Athlete Vulnerability
• Summary of iNADO Member-only Webinar: Prevention programs for Para athletes: Experiences from SLOADO
• Anti-Doping Norway's 20th Anniversary Seminar: Strengthening Justice and ADO Governance for the Future of Anti-Doping
• New Signatories of the Guiding Principles for the Future of Anti-Doping
• Best Practice Examples in the application of the Guiding Principles

Speaking up for NADOs and RADOs Globally

• Second RADO Round Table Discussion

Monthly Features

• International Seminars by JADA and CHINADA

iNADO Sponsors and Partners

• New at the Anti-Doping Knowledge Center

In April 2016 the Football Federation Australia (FFA) reported anti-doping rule violations against the football player Jake Bagoly for the use and administration of the prohibited substance Sustanon (Testosterone).

The Athlete failed to attend the hearing and the FFA Anti-Doping Tribunal renders a decision based on the written submissions of the parties.

The Tribunal determines that:

• In September 2014 the Athlete had already admitted these violations to the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA)
• He admitted that in 2013, when he was playing as rugby player, he had purchased, used and administered multiple times the substance Sustanon (Testosterone).
• Following his admission in September 2014 the Athlete voluntary accepted a provisional suspension.
• ASADA notified the FFA 18 months later in February 2016 about the Athlete's violations.
• Under the applicable Rules the FFA has jurisdiction to hear this case.
• There have been substantial delays in this case attributed to ASADA.
• The admitted violations shall be considered as one single first violation.
• A period of ineligibility of 4 years shall be imposed on the Athlete.
• The commencement date is backdated to 1 October 2016.
• For accepting a provisional suspension the Athlete is credited for 8 months

Therefore the FFA Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on 21 March to impose a 3 year and 4 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on 1 October 2016 until 1 February 2020.