The South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete pleaded guilty to the charge and stated he used 2 supplements to lose weight because of his disability.
When he purchased the supplements he was told it did not contain any banned substances. It was the Athlete’s oversight he did not research the ingredients of the supplements before using it.

Considering the circumstances and without intention to enhance performance the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection.

Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) alleges Evgeny Pronenko for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On 12th July 2011, Evgeny Pronenko ("the Player") provided an urine Sample during an Out-of-Competition Test conducted. His sample tested positive on Furosemide, it is classified as a diuretic under s.5 of the World Anti-Doping Agency's (WADA) List of Prohibited Substances and Methods.

History
The Player stated that during he suffered a calf muscle injury which was successfully treated by his Club's Doctor. However on 1st July 2011 after testing the muscle the lower part of his leg became swollen and painful. Because the Club's Doctor in Krasnoyarsk (Siberia) was unavailable, his family insisted he obtained treatment from a local Licensed Medical and Diagnostic Clinic where he consulted Dr Sergey Skurat. Dr Skurat noted the Player had a "significant odema". He stated the Player's symptoms presented an "emergency situation" and he could not discount a diagnosis of Deep Vein Thrombosis. Thus, he prescribed the
diuretic to reduce the swelling. He was also prescribed a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (Movalis) and Nise Gel for pain relief. Over the following days the Player's condition improved. As a result he stopped taking the medication on 4th July 2011 and because the symptoms had settled on 12th July 2011 when he signed the Doping Control form, he inadvertently omitted to refer to any of the medication Dr Skurat had prescribed. He only referred to "Dexametason" (anti inflammatory medication) which had been prescribed on 8th July 2011 by the Russian National Team Doctor. By this stage, the Player was a participant in a Training Camp with the National Team which was preparing for RWC 2011 to be played in New Zealand.

Decision
For the reasons outlined, the sanction imposed for this anti-doping rule violation is a period of ineligibility of six months commencing from 21st July 2011 (being the date upon which the Player's provisional suspension commenced) and concluding (but inclusive of) the 21st January 2012.

Related case:
SAIDS 2010_07 SAIDS vs Vaughn van Jaarsveld
December 2, 2010

On 2 December 2010 the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee imposed a reprimand on the Athlete for committing an anti-doping rule violation after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance sibutramine.

WADA appealed against this SAIDS decision to impose a reprimand on the Athlete as non appropriate sanction in this case. Also WADA lodged a Statement of Appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in which WADA requested at stay of the CAS proceedings pending the outcome of this Appeal.

Considering the circumstances and the factors in this case the Appeal Tribunal rules to set aside the decision of the Disciplinary Committee and to impose a 4 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, less the 1 month period already served.

Therefore the Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal of South Africa decides to impose a 3 month period on the Athlete starting on the date of the decision.

Related case:
SAIDS 2010_07 WADA vs Vaughn van Jaarsveld & SAIDS - Appeal
September 23, 2011

The South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance sibutramine.
The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete stated he had used a not sports related prescription for weight loss medication Ciplatrim by his physician that contained a specified substance unbeknownst to all concerned. The Athlete’s physician testified and confirmed that he had checked WADA’s (outdated) prohibited list 2009 and that sibutramine was not listed. The Athlete argued he indicated the medication on the Doping Control Form and he informed his coach.

Considering the circumstances and the evidence the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a reprimand on the Athlete.

In addition the Committee recommends that Cricket South Africa (CSA) Medical Committee look at instituting appropriate protocols for their professional athletes at a franchise level, semi professional and under 19 level.
CSA must contractually compel franchise cricketers to verify the status of all prescribed medicine and other supplements provided for by third parties with their respective franchise doctors.

Hereafter WADA appealed this decision.

Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) allege Duncan Murray (the player) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On 29 April 2011, following a match in the Asian 5 Nations Tournament between the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Kazakhstan, in which he played, the Player provided a urine sample for doping control purposes. Following analysis, the Player’s sample was found to contain a methylhexaneamine (MHA), a prohibited substance listed in the 2011 Prohibited List under the World Anti-Doping Code under S6 (Stimulants).

History
The Player’s case was that the MHA had entered his body through his taking three or four sips of a drink containing the supplement Jack3d. The drink was taken shortly before the match, from a bottle that belonged to another (Quinn) and was mixed by Quinn. His ingestion of MHA was inadvertent in that he did not know at the time of consumption (1) what supplement was used to mix the drink nor (2) that the supplement, and therefore the drink, contained MHA. His reason for using the drink was not for enhancing his sport performance but because of the fact it was hot and he was thirsty.

Decision
On 29 August 2011 the Board Juridical Committee (BJC) issued a written, reasoned decision (the “Decision”). A majority of the members of the BJC found that the Player had failed to establish any basis for the elimination or reduction of the presumptive period of ineligibility of two years for a first anti-doping rule violation involving the Presence of Prohibited Substance in a Player’s Sample.1 Accordingly, the BJC imposed a period of ineligibility of two years, commencing on the date the Player’s provisional suspension took effect, namely 28 May 2011.
The Post-Hearing Review Body (PHRB) directs that the decision of the BJC on the sanction applicable to the finding, that the Player committed an anti-doping rule violation on 29 April 2011 by reason of the presence in his urine of methylhexaneamine, should be set aside and replaced with a sanction of 12 months Ineligibility, commencing on 28 May 2011 and concluding on (but inclusive of) 27 May 2012.

The South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after he refused to provide a sample for doping control.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete gave evidence under oath. He admitted to having been notified of the sample collection test, as well as being accompanied by a chaperone when watching the main bout of the evening as he was not ready to provide his urine sample. He conceded that he left the venue without providing the sample and explained that he had been put under pressure by his brother-in-law to leave with him as this was his form of transport home.

The Athlete’s evidence focussed on the fact that he is illiterate, uneducated and does not understand English. There was no evidence suggesting otherwise. He pointed out that although he had signed the Doping Control Form he does not read or write English and he did not fully understand or appreciate the seriousness of the implications of not providing the sample. He conceded however that the DCO had communicated verbally in Xhosa that he was required to provide the sample.

The panel considers that while no compelling justification for the failure to submit to the sample collection existed there nevertheless exists factors which detracted from the degree of fault or negligence on the part of the Athlete. The test relating to fault or negligence should be flexible enough to accommodate very real factors such as the illiteracy and lack of education of the Athlete. These factors did impact upon the Athletes ability to fully understand the significance and seriousness of his actions. The Committee notes that it is perhaps worth consideration by SAIDS for the future that in circumstances where an athlete clearly does not read, write or understand English that an informal script be read out to such athlete by the DCO in his home language.

The SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the hearing. The period of the interim suspension of six weeks would be credited against this sanction.

Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) alleges Keith Gurusinghe, Evanga Swarnathilake and Saliya Kumara (the players) for violations of the Anti-Doping Rules. Samples were provided during in-competition testing conducted by the IRB after Sri Lanka’s Match against UAE on 23 April 2011 in the case of Kumara and, in the cases of Gurusinghe and Swarnathilake, pursuant to In
Competition testing conducted by the IRB after Sri Lanka’s Match against Hong Kong on 7 May 2011.

History
This case involves three rugby players who used what they thought was a “creatine” type dietary supplement. No attempt was made by them to verify that the supplement did not contain any Prohibited Substances. They all subsequently failed drug tests. They blame the supplement and their lack of anti-doping knowledge for this.

Decision
On 23 April 2011 in the case of Kumara and 7 May 2011 in the cases of Gurusinghe and Swarnathilake, each of the Players committed an anti-doping rule violation, namely, the presence in his bodily Sample of Methylhexaneamine. Methylhexaneamine is a Prohibited Substance under both Regulation 21 and the WADA Code.
The sanction imposed for this anti-doping rule violation is a period of Ineligibility of 9 months for each of the Players, commencing on 3 June 2011 (the date upon which the Player was notified of the adverse analytical finding and provisionally suspended) and concluding on (but inclusive of) 2 March 2012.

Costs
Written submissions should be provided on time.

Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) alleges James Paterson (the player) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On 27th September 2011, the Player provided a urine sample during an In-Competition Test conducted on behalf of the Rugby World Cup (RWC), the Tournament Organiser of RWC 2011 held in New Zealand. His sample tested positive on for the substance Oxycodone. Oxycodone is classified as a narcotic under s.7 of the World Anti-Doping Agency's (WADA) List of Prohibited Substances and Methods. It is a specified substance.

History
The player used several medications because of the pain he suffered from a shoulder injury. The medication included the strong pain killer Oxycodone, an opium derivative narcotic. He did list the medication on the doping control form.

Decision
For the reasons outlined, the sanction imposed for this anti-doping rule violation is a period of ineligibility of four months from October 13, 2011 (being the date upon which the Player's provisional suspension commenced) and concluding (but not inclusive of) February 13, 2012.

Costs
Written submissions should be provided on time.

The South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of dagga (cannabis) and was therefore confused after she had been notified about the positive test. She explained that she suffered from flu symptoms and had used Benylin. She had also received an injection from her doctor, but this had caused an allergic reaction.

Thereupon she approached a traditional healer (a family member) who gave her a traditional herb remedy (an imbiza/concoction). Following her positive test she confronted the traditional healer who confirmed that there was dagga in the herb that the Athlete was using. She had been using the herb for a number of months. This was the first test she underwent and she apologised for what had happened.

The Committee concludes that the Athlete had not intention to enhance her performance and had no knowledge that the traditional herb remedy contained dagga.
Therefore the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 28 September 2011 to 28 December 2011.

Furhter the Committee notes that it was regrettable that a representative of Boxing South Africa (BSA) was not present at the Inquiry. The facts of this matter highlighted the desperate need for education of athletes on issues of anti-doping in the sport of Boxing.

The ignorance of the Athlete as to anti-doping rules; the use of traditional remedies and the socio-economic circumstances of the Athlete highlight the challenges facing athletes in this sport. Urgent intervention is required by BSA and/or SAIDS to ensure that the above facts are not repeated.

The South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methandienone.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete admitted his guilty and stated he used Dianabol (methandienone), provided by his friend. He had taken the steroids knowing he felt good after taking them and that they would enhance his performance.
The Committee finds that there were no grounds for elimination or reduction of the sanction.
Therefore the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting from the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 8 August 2011 to 7 August 2013.