WADA The 2009 Monitoring Program – Results
1 October 2010

Results of the WADA monitoring program regarding substances which are not on the 2009 Prohibited List, but which WADA wishes to monitor in order to detect patterns of misuse in sport. These substances are:
- Caffeine
- Pseudoephedrine
- Bupropion

Results of the WADA monitoring program regarding substances which are not on the 2008 Prohibited List, but which WADA wishes to monitor in order to detect patterns of misuse in sport. These substances are:
- Caffeine
- Pseudoephedrine
- Synephrine
- Bupropion

Results of the WADA monitoring program regarding substances which are not on the 2007 Prohibited List, but which WADA wishes to monitor in order to detect patterns of misuse in sport. These substances are:
- Caffeine
- Pseudoephedrine
- Synephrine
- Bupropion

Results of the WADA monitoring program regarding substances which are not on the 2006 Prohibited List, but which WADA wishes to monitor in order to detect patterns of misuse in sport. These substances are:
- Caffeine
- Pseudoephedrine
- Phenylpropanolamine
- Synephrine
- Phenylephrine
- Pipradrol
- Bupropion
- Morphine / Codeine

Results of the WADA monitoring program regarding substances which are not on the 2005 Prohibited List, but which WADA wishes to monitor in order to detect patterns of misuse in sport. These substances are:
- Caffeine
- Pseudoephedrine
- Phenylpropanolamine
- Synephrine
- Phenylephrine
- Pipradrol
- Bupropion
- Morphine / Codeine

Results of the WADA monitoring program regarding substances which are not on the 2004 Prohibited List, but which WADA wishes to monitor in order to detect patterns of misuse in sport. These substances are:
- Caffeine
- Pseudoephedrine
- Phenylpropanolamine
- Synephrine
- Phenylephrine
- Pipradrol
- Morphine / Codeine

In August 2012 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Charmaine Barnard for tampering or attempted tampering with the doping control process. After notification the Athlete filed a statement in her defence and was heard for the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee.

At the hearing the prosecution argued that there were numerous violations of protocol that the Athlete was required to observe – she was instructed not to enter the cubicle at the testing station, but proceeded to disobey this instruction; she had a brown bottle with ointment in her hand in breach of protocol; she refused to hand over the bottle; she could not produce the prescription for the ointment that she said she had; she failed to listen to the Doping Control Officer (DCO) after being instructed 4 times to comply. These actions constituted a breach of the rules.

The Athlete denied that she did co-operate with the process, and she did not try and to avoid any part of the sample collection. When she was selected for the test, she complied and was at all times aware that she may be tested. The sample was ultimately provided without any problem. It was placed on record that the Athlete was not present when the sample bottle was sealed and she was not informed that it would be tested. It was submitted that the administration of the test was not properly undertaken. The leading DCO had failed to inform the Athlete of her rights, and given her experience this was unacceptable.

The Committee finds that the Athlete is guilty of an anti-doping violation but does not consider this a second anti-doping violation due to the Athlete’s first violation took place in 1992, outside the 8 years limitation.
Therefore the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

Facts
The French Federation of Full Contact Sports (Fédération Française de Full Contact, FFFC) charges respondent M13 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a full contact match on April 21, 2007, the athlete didn't provide a sample for doping control.

History
The respondent was unable to provide enough urine for a correct sample collection.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of three months in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFFC.
2. The decision starts on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

In September 2012 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Thabiso Kekana after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone and 19-noreticholanolone, metabolites of nandrolone.

At the hearing the Athlete denied the use of the prohibited substance and stated that he was treated by a doctor with medication due he had a headache prior to the competition and suffered an injury during the competition. The doctor concerned submitted that the Athlete’s injury was minor and the prescribed medication for the Athlete could not have been the source of the positive test result.

The Committee considered that the quantity of the prohibited substance was high in the test result and that the Athlete failed to establish how the substance entered his system. Therefore the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the notification, i.e. on 22 December 2012.

In August 2012 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Bongamusa Mbatha after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).

At the hearing the Athlete stated that he didn’t use any medication prior to the competition and only used three supplements. Laboratory analysis showed these supplements didn’t contain prohibited substances.

The Athlete disputed the sample collection procedure and claimed that the prohibited substance was in the drink that a black male Doping Control Officer (DCO) gave him in an unsealed bottle of water at the Doping Control Station after he could not provide a urine sample. However evidence showed that there was no African male DCO on duty on the day in question.
The DCO which was on duty on that day testified that he gave the Athlete sealed drinks and that he had the Athlete under observation for more than two hours.
Therefore the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee concludes that the Athlete failed to identify how the substance entered his body and decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 14 june 2014.