Fact
The International Rugby Board (IRB) alleges Miguel Ángel Garcés van Heurck and Paolo Urquieta Ruiz (the players) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On 10 March 2012 they each underwent in-competition doping control. Analysis of the samples provided by the Players disclosed the presence of Methylhexaneamine (“MHA”), which is listed in category S6. Stimulants on the 2012 List of Prohibited Substances published by the World Anti-Doping Agency (“WADA”).

History
The players participated in the Las Vegas Invitational Seven-a-Side Rugby Tournament which took place from 7 – 10 February 2012. While in Las Vegas, they visited a store which sold (Sports) supplements. There they purchased a product called “HemoRage”. They were told it was “good”.
The players were responsible for what product they use but they never received the IRB Anti-Doping Handbook in Spanish.
The use of the supplement was used for recovery, they didn't intent to enhance their sport performance.

Decision
On 10 March 2012 each of the Players committed an anti-doping rule violation, namely the presence in their bodily samples of Methylhexaneamine. Methylhexaneamine is a Prohibited Substance under both Regulation 21 and the World Anti Doping Code.
The sanction imposed for these anti-doping rule violations is a period of Ineligibility of 12 months for each of the Players, commencing 2 May 2012 (the date upon which the Players were notified of the Adverse Analytical Finding and provisionally suspended) and concluding on (but inclusive of 1 May 2013).

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 substances Prednisone and Prednisolone.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete stated he had used medication prescribed by his medical doctor a few days prior to the event. The Athlete’s doctor confirmed that the Athlete had been suffering from a severe ear infection and that he prescribed medication containing prednisone. The doctor indicated that the medication had no performance enhancing effect for the Athlete. The doctor had neglected to apply for a TUE, or to advise the Athlete to do so himself.

The Committee concludes that the Athlete had used the prescribed medication for a legitimate medical condition. The Athlete has a low degree of fault and he did not know that he could, or should, have applied for a TUE.
Considering the circumstances and to impose an appropriate sanction, the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 2 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 4 May 2011 to 4 July 2011. Therefore the Athlete serves a nominal 2 week period of ineligibility from the date of the hearing, i.e. on 22 June to 4 July 2011.

Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) alleges Christopher Hitch for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On 23 March 2012 the Player provided a urine sample during a in-competition Test. When the Player provided the sample he failed to declare he had taken a
supplement prior to the match. Subsequently, the sample returned an Adverse Analytical Finding for the substance Methylhexaneamine ("MHA").

History
Because he felt very tired, he took the recommended dose of the supplement in lieu of "NODoz" (a caffeine tablet) which the Team Physiotherapist (Mr Raper) distributed to players prior to the match in which he afterwards was tested. The product lists "Geranium (sic) oil extract as an ingredient. The Player was unaware he had consumed a specified substance (ie. MHA) and therefore did not intend to use it to enhance performance.

Decision
The period of suspension should be for a period of six months
commencing on 17'' April 2012 (being the date the Player's provisional suspension commenced) and concluding (but inclusive of) 17 October 2012).

Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) alleges Marcin Wilczuk (the player) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On 6 October 2012, after playing for Poland in a Rugby World Cup 2015 qualifying match, the Player underwent in-competition doping control procedures. His sample showed the presence of benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of cocaine. Subsequent analysis of the “B” sample confirmed this Adverse Analytical Finding.

History
The player asserted that he had not knowingly used any drug, he has know idea how the prohibited substance entered his body. He believes his drink was spiked visiting a bar.

Decision
The sanction imposed for these anti-doping rule violations is a period of Ineligibility of two years, commencing 31 October 2012 (the date upon which the Player was notified of the Adverse Analytical Finding and provisionally suspended) and concluding on (but inclusive of 30 October 2014).

Costs
Written submissions should be provided on time.

Related case:
SAIDS 2011_03 SAIDS vs Johnny Young
February 17, 2013

On 17 February 2011 SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decided to impose a 2 year period on the Athlete for committing an anti-doping rule violation after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance nandrolone.
On 29 November 2011 SAIDS granted the Athlete a reduction of his period of ineligibility by 6 months because of his assistance in educating triathlone athletes. WADA appealed against this SAIDS revision decision to reduce the Athlete’s period of ineligibility by 6 months.

The Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal of South Africa decides to dismiss WADA’s appeal on the fact that the Athlete is neither an International-Level Athlete nor a National-Level Athlete. The Appeal Tribunal finds that WADA has not established a proper locus standi to bring the appeal against the revision decision made by SAIDS.

Related case:
SAIDS 2011_03 WADA vs Johnny Young & SAIDS - Appeal
April 19, 2012

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 19-norandrosterone (metabolite of nandrolone).
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete’s medical doctor confirmed that nandrolone was prescribed to treat a medical condition and that he was unaware that his patient would take part in a sports event. The Athlete acknowledged that he did not apply for a TUE.

The SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 2 year period on the Athlete starting on 18 November 2010 until 18 November 2012. The Committee decides that a possible reduction in sanction of 6 months would be revisited should SAIDS receive documented evidence of educational programmes undertaken by the Athlete beforehand.

On 29 November 2011 SAIDS concludes that the Athlete has satisfied the requirements for the reduction of his period of ineligibility by 6 months. Therefore the Athlete’s period of ineligibility expire on 15 November 2011.

Hereafter WADA appealed this revision decision.

Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) alleges Rachelle Geldenhuys (the player) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The player provided an urine sample during a doping control on November 30, 2012 as part of the IRB’s Anti-Doping Program at the Dubai Sevens Tournament (Tournament) forming part of the IRB Women's Sevens World Series 2012-2013 (Series). The Player was a member of the South African women’s team. Her sample tested positive on a Carboxi-THC which indicates the administration of Cannabis and/or marijuana.

History
The player was performing her sport on a regional level. She was selected for playing with the South Africa women’s 7’s team in Dubai. On November 25, 2012, after the end of the Player’s season (as she then thought), she attended a party at a friend’s house. She was invited to smoke an ocra pipe (which she described as a “hubbly bubbly”), and she did so. She knew it contained cannabis. In her sworn statement and in her evidence-in-chief, made no reference to reluctance to smoke from the pipe. It was only towards the end of cross-examination that she testified that she did not initially want to smoke the pipe, but was subject to peer pressure to do so. Later in the evening, she was told that the cannabis she smoked was not normal but a stronger version called “cronic.” Also later that evening at the party, the Player ate half a muffin which she was subsequently told contained cannabis. In her sworn statement the Player said she did not use cannabis during the 2012 rugby season and she did not use cannabis at the party with the intent to enhance her sporting performance.

Decision
The Player committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation. The period of ineligibility will be nine months.
The Player was provisionally suspended on January 14, 2013 according to Regulation 21.19.8 In accordance with Regulation 21.22.12,9 the period of ineligibility will run from that date.

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 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 had used several supplements as advised by his training partner and purchased over the counter. He admitted he took the substances for the sole purpose of enhancing his performance and used the substance on regular basis.

The SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the notification, i.e. 14 June 2012.

Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) alleges Rushan Yagudin, Vitaly Zhivatov (the players) and Andrey Kosarev (the
physiotherapist) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On the 23th March 2012 the two Players provided urine samples during an in-competition test. Both samples returned an Adverse Analytical Findings for the substance 4-phenylpiracetam (aka carphedon). Under Regulation 21 of the IRB Anti-Doping Regulations 4-phenypiracetam is classified as a Non Specified Stimulant under s. 6(a) of the World Anti-Doping Agency's ONADA) 2012 List of Prohibited Substances and Methods. It is prohibited for use In-Competition.

History
The player were suffering from jetlag and the physiotherapist of the team gave Phenotropil to each of the Players on 14th March 2012. He acknowledged in a written statement he failed to search the current WADA List of banned substances and omitted to contact a qualified Doctor to ascertain whether Phenotropil contained a banned substance.

Decision
The sanctions imposed for each of the Player's anti-doping violations are a 2 year period of ineligibility commencing from 18th April 2012 (Yagudin) and 19th April 2012 (Zhivatov) - being the dates the Players' provisional suspensions commenced and concluding (but inclusive of) 18th and 19th April 2014 respectively.

The sanction which is imposed for the Physiotherapist's anti-doping violations is a lifetime period of in eligibility.

Costs
Written submissions should be provided in time

Related case:
SAIDS 2011_35 SAIDS vs Harald Pieter van Staden
December 19, 2011

On 19 December 2011 the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for committing an anti-doping rule violation after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance drostanolone. According to the Disciplinary Committee there was no indication from the Athlete that he had refrained from participating in the sport from the date he received the notification of the provisional suspension.
Therefore the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to commence the 2 year period of ineligibility on the date of the hearing.

The International Rugby Board (IRB) appealed the decision of the Disciplinary Committee on the fact that the Committee failed to give the Athlete credit for the period of the Provisional Suspension as required by Article 10.9.2 of the SAIDS Anti-Doping Rules.
SAIDS submitted that the onus was on the Athlete to prove that he served his provisional suspension. No such proof was placed before the Commission and it was therefore correct for the Committee not to give the Athlete credit for the period of the provisional suspension.
The Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal of South Africa concludes that there is no evidence that the Athlete did not respect his provisional suspension.

Therefore the Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal of South Africa rules:

1.) The appeal of the IRB is admissible.
2.) An Athlete who has been served with a provisional suspension notice is presumed to have respected such suspension until the contrary is proved.
3.) The decision of the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee related to the date of the start of the sanction (19 December 2011) is set aside and substituted with 2 November 2012 as the start date of the 2 year period of ineligibility.