2 May 2013
The Athlete Ludwick Mamabolo participated in the Comrades Marathon in South-Africa on 3 June 2012 where he crossed the finish line in first place. Hereafter he provided a sample for drug testing.
In June 2012 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Ludwick Mambolo after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).
In this case the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee Panel notes that there are certain concerning features about the evidence and conduct of certain of the SAIDS witnesses. The documents that emerged at different stages of the hearing revealed significant discrepancies between what actually took place and what was recorded:.
1.) The magnitude of the Comrades Marathon 2012 and the lack of sufficient trained and accredited SAIDS personnel meant that most athletes were not chaperoned by SAIDS officials but rather by Comrade appointed individuals;
2.) No investigations were carried out as to whether the chaperones on the day – SAIDS or Comrades appointed – had any conflicts of interest that excluded them from the event or perhaps dealing with particular athletes;
3.) Certain functions were carried out by persons who did not have the appropriate accreditation for the function on question;
4.) Arrangements between Comrades and SAIDS were such that SAIDS did not have control of the finishing area – where athletes completed the race – this being the reason for Mr Hattingh’s role in watching athletes in this area. This caused a delay in the notification of athletes which was exacerbated by the shortage of SAIDS chaperons able to notify on the day;
5.) The Athlete Mr Mamabolo completed Comrades 2012 at approximately 11:01. According to the athlete log form and the doping control form completed on the day, he was only notified at 11:25 that he had been selected for a drug test.
6.) In fact despite finishing Comrades 2012 in first position, he was only notified last that he had been selected for a drug test. In this period he appears to have been provided with at least one unsealed drink;
7.) When Mr Mamabolo was notified – SAIDS says this was by Ms Von Finckenstein – he was not informed of his rights and responsibilities once notified and he was also not provided with the notification copy of the doping control form, as he should have been.
8.) After he was notified Mr Mamabolo was not chaperoned by Ms Von Finckenstein or any SAIDS chaperone. Due to the shortage of chaperones this responsibility was left to Mr Padayachee who only assumed it sometime after Mr Mamabolo was notified. In this period Mr Mamabolo was provided with another unsealed drink;
9.) The various forms relating to particular athletes that required completion – in general at Comrades 2012 and with particular reference to Mr Mamabolo – did not record the true facts; omitted to record information that was clearly important – such as the fact that Mr Mamabolo had consumed two, or perhaps three, unsealed drinks – the correct times when steps were taken; and did not even reflect the correct persons as carrying out the functions recorded as having taken place;
10.) There was little control over the Doping Control Station as regards who entered it, when, the reasons for athletes leaving and returning (in at least one instance this occurred with an athlete being tested); and the record keeping in this regard was misleading and unhelpful to anyone seeking to understand what happened or perhaps investigate a particular matter.
The SAIDS Disciplinary Committee Panel finds the circumstances applicable to Mr Mamabolo himself, taken together with the systemic failure which was of application generally at Comrades 2012, would almost certainly have resulted in SAIDS coming to the view that the validity of the adverse analytical finding had been undermined. SAIDS should certainly reasonably have come to such a view if any regard is to be given to the importance of the SAIDS Anti-Doping Code and the SAIDS manual, as well as the rights of athletes.
Consequently, and after all the evidence has been heard, the view of the Panel is that the test in respect of Mr Mamabolo is void. It cannot be relied upon, and while the application for cessation was not one the Panel felt comfortable granting at the particular stage of the proceedings when it was sought, the Panel is of the view that the grounds for bringing an end to the proceedings are present.
Therefore the SAIDS Disciplinary Panel decides:
1.) The application for cessation of the proceedings succeeds. The test results in respect of Mr Mamabolo are declared void.
2.) In any event, the departures from the international standards and/or other anti-doping rules that took place at Comrades 2012 could reasonably have caused the adverse analytical finding in respect of Mr Mamabolo.
3.) Consequently the Athlete Mr Mamabolo is not guilty of the charges preferred against him.
