Related case:
SAIDS 2011_08 SAIDS vs Andrew Pretorius
September 29, 2011

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 substances hydrochlorothiazide and furosemide.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The minor Athlete and her father filed a statement in their defence and were heard for the Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete’s father admitted that he administered water tablets to his daughter to stabilize her weight. The tablets form part of his personal prescription. The father led his daughter to believe that he is providing her with supplements for training.

Considering the evidence and the circumstances the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. 18 November 2010 to 18 February 2011.
In addition the Committee recommends that the Athlete’s father Andrew Pretorius be charged for trafficking / attempting trafficking and administration / attempting administration in any prohibited substance or prohibited method to any athlete.

Hereafter the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 6 year period of ineligibility on Andrew Pretorius.

Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) alleges Mykola Demen (the player) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. He was tested as part of the Rugby World Cup 2011 Qualifying Terms of Participation, Tournament Anti-Doping Program. The urine sample was taken from him on 22 May 2010. His provided sample tested positive for stanozolol.

History
the Player apparently stated: “I am Nicolaj Demen, I confirm that I received all documents and I was acquainted with all translated documents”.
Within the body of the same email is the following: “We accept the finding of the A sample and accept the prescribed sanctions.”
In his letter of 31 August 2010 the player stated: “I do not wish to make any submissions with respect to the sanction to be imposed on me.”

Decision
The sanction for the anti-doping rule violation committed by the Player on 22 May 2010 by reason of the presence in the Player’s sample of stanozolol is a period of ineligibility of two (2) years.

Costs
Written submissions should be submitted on time.

Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) Mohamad Amin Jamaluddin (the player) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During the Rugby Sevens Tournament at the Commonwealth Games (CG) held in New Delhi, India on 11th and 12th October 2010. On 12th October he was tested for prohibited substances, his sample tested positive on a metabolite of cannabis at a concentration of 32ng/ml. This is a higher level than that prescribed by World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) which is 15ng/ml. Carboxy-THC is a Prohibited Substance listed under s.8 Cannabinoids of the WADA Prohibited List 2010. It is classified as a specified substance.

History
The player stated that on 6th October 2010, while at a party he was urged to “try something” after he joined a group of males and females. He agreed, because he wished to impress a female friend and this resulted in him smoking a cigarette not knowing it was a banned substance - cannabis. However, he knew “the thing” did not only contain cigarette tobacco. He stated his behaviour was affected by alcohol which he said had reduced him to a state whereby “he did not know what he was doing” – hence his failure to check the cigarette did not contain a banned substance. He stated he had previously never consumed or smelt cannabis. The player stated he stopped smoking the cannabis cigarette when his friend, Diego Kaslam intervened by pulling him away from the group of persons. Mr Kaslam informed him that he was smoking cannabis and reminded him that he had been selected to participate at the CG within a few days.

Decision
The sanction for the anti-doping rule violation committed by the player on 12th October 2010 by reason of the presence of the player’s sample of 11-nor-9-carboxy-tetrahydrocannabinol (Carboxy-THC) at a concentration of 32ng/ml with uncertainty of 5.0 at R=2 is a period of ineligibility of six (6) months.

Cost
Written submissions should be submitted on time

The South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported two anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete after her samples tested positive for the use of diuretics in 2010 and 2011.

At the first hearing on 13 August 2010 the Athlete was found guilty of an anti-doping rule violation and the sanction imposed was a period of ineligibility of fifteen months.
At this hearing she testified that the diuretics were prescribed for chronic swelling of her face, hands and feet, a medical condition diagnosed as oedema. She applied for a TUE after the positive test but the application was refused. She appeared at the first hearing without legal assistance and her Federation also did not assist her at all.
At this first hearing it was recorded in the decision that the athlete was clearly uneducated in respect of anti-doping rules and implications and in respect of what was needed to obtain a proper TUE. It was also accepted by the panel that the she suffered from the chronic medical condition of fluid retention (oedema) for which she took the prescribed diuretic medication, and that she had no intention of enhancing her performance.

Hereafter a TUE application was submitted and re-submitted by the general practitioner but the application was refused twice. The athlete continued to take the same prescribed diuretic medication on medical advice in order to relieve her chronic symptoms during her period of ineligibility. She was again tested during the period of ineligibility on 11 July 2011, and was again found to have an adverse analytical finding for diuretics.

The athlete was charged with an anti-doping rule violation for the presence of prohibited diuretics in her sample.
At the hearing on 25 October 2011 the athlete was again unrepresented and her National Federation was also not present and offered no assistance. She pleaded guilty to the charge that she committed an anti-doping rule violation by continuing to take her prescribed diuretic medication.
After careful consideration of the history of this matter the panel concluded that there is a strong possibility that the medical profession has failed the athlete by not obtaining a TUE for her condition, and that it would be wrong and unfair, especially as she was unrepresented, not to assist her to file a proper application for a retroactive TUE.

The hearing on 25 October 2011 was postponed to enable the Athlete to submit an application for a TUE.
At the resumption of the hearing on 10 May 2012 the Committee was informed that an initial TUE application submitted had been refused (no reasons given), and that it took more than six months before the TUE Committee finally granted a TUE. A satisfactory explanation for this long delay has not been received.
Hereafter a TUE that was granted was not for the diuretics initially prescribed for the athlete and for which an adverse analytical finding was returned.

On the evidence the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee finds as follows:
1) the athlete suffers from a genuine illness that has now been diagnosed as idiopathic oedema;
2) she was uneducated in relation to the fact that the diuretics she was taking were banned;
3) there was no intention to enhance performance.
4) her medical condition was difficult to diagnose and to treat with correct medication.
5) She was not in the Registered Testing Pool or the National Testing Pool and therefore she could apply for a Retroactive TUE for the use of diuretics in terms of section 4.4.2.1 of SAIDS Anti-Doping Rules 2009.
6) The fact that the TUE was granted for different diuretics than she tested positive for does not automatically result in a finding that the athlete is guilty of an anti-doping rule violation. The Disciplinary Committee is unanimously of the view that on the facts in this matter the granting of the TUE allows the Committee to find that in this case there was no anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee concludes that as a result of the granting of a retroactive TUE no anti-doping rule violation occurred.
In addition the Committee strongly recommends that SAIDS should consider reviewing the first Anti-Doping Rule Violation and the resulting Sanction. The Committee consider it regrettable that the athlete was not given the opportunity in 2010 to submit a proper TUE application.

Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) alleges Azat Abishev (the player) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The Player was tested as part of the Rugby World Cup 2011, a urine sample was taken from him on 17 July 2010. His sample tested positive for stanozolol and trenbolone. Stanozolol and trenbolone are Prohibited Substances listed as Anabolic Androgenic Steroid S1 in the World Anti-Doping Agency 2010 List of Prohibited Substances and Methods and in Schedule 2 to the Program.

History
The player admits the anti-doping rule violation now and accepts the
prescribed sanction.

Decision
The sanction for the anti-doping rule violation committed by the Player on 22 May 2010 by reason of the presence in the Player’s sample of stanozolol and trenbolone is a period of ineligibility of two (2) years.

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 methamphetamine (d-).
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete stated that the source of the substance is a medication prescribed or given to him by a doctor in Brazil for his hayfever. The Athlete is not able to provide the name of the medication, described as “yellow pills”, and is not able to provide the name of the doctor.

The Committee finds that the Athlete has failed to fulfil the onus of proving the source of the prohibited substance.
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. 10 April 2012 to 9 April 2014.

Related case:
SAIDS 2012_05 SAIDS vs Johan Pieterse
March 6, 2012

On 6 March 2012 the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decided to impose a 4 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete for committing an anti-doping rule violation after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).

WADA appealed this SAIDS decision to impose a 4 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.
The Athlete stated regarding to the supplement he performed an internet search on the WADA and SAIDS website and the results did not cause any alarm as in fact the searches showed no results.
WADA argued that the WADA website contains a warning: “Extreme caution is recommended regarding supplement use”. In addition the WADA website warns that “the misuse of supplements and taking a poorly labelled dietary supplement is not an adequate defence in a doping hearing”.

The Appeal Tribunal concludes that the athlete voluntarily took a performance enhancing supplement with the precise aim of enhancing his performance. He was on guard as to the potential risks but still apparently satisfied himself with scant and inadequate internet checks. In addition the athlete failed to disclose his use of the supplement on the Doping Control Form.

The Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal of South Africa decides as follows:
1.) The Appeal of WADA is admissible.
2.) The decision rendered by the SAIDS Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee on 6 March 2012 is set aside.
3.) The Athlete is sanctioned with a 2 period of ineligibility starting on the 20th September 2012. Any period of ineligibility, whether imposed on, or voluntarily accepted by the Athlete before such date shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility to be served.
4.) No order is made as to costs

Related case:
SAIDS 2012_05 WADA vs Johan Pieterse & SAIDS – Appeal
September 20, 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 methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete pleaded guilty and stated he had used the supplement Jack 3D to enhance his energy levels. When he purchased the supplement he was told it is safe and contains no illegals substances. In addition the Athlete did research the ingredients of the supplement before using it. he performed an internet search on the WADA and SAIDS website and the results did not cause any alarm as in fact the searches showed no results.

The Committee concludes that the Athlete had no real intention to take a performance enhancing substance. The committee finds it also disturbing that the WADA and SAIDS websites do not feature prominent warnings about the very real risks of using supplements.
Considering the circumstances the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 4 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 21 February 2012 to 20 June 2012.

Hereafter the WADA appealed this decision.

Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) alleges Adam Van Staveren (the player) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. Adam Van Staveren was tested as part of the IRB’s Anti-Doping program for the Americas Rugby Championship Tournament. The sample was taken from him on the final day of the tournament, namely the 17 October 2009. His sample tested positive on a metabolite of Cannabis, which is a prohibited substance on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) list. Cannabinoids are classified as “Specified Substances”.

History
The player’s uses cannabis socially. After a game he met up with friends “a week or two” before 17 October 2009. he shared with a number of them “two or three” cigarettes which contained what he described as “marijuana”. He knew the cigarettes contained cannabis and knew also that it was a Prohibited Substance. He insisted that he was not taken it to enhance sport performance.

Decision
The sanction for the anti-doping rule violation committed by the Player is a period of ineligibility of six months.

Costs
Written submissions should be submitted on time.

Related cases:
SAIDS 2011_22 SAIDS vs Lebogang Phalula
December 13, 2011
SAIDS 2012_08 SAIDS vs Livingstone Jabanga (1)
July 11, 2012
SAIDS 2012_08 SAIDS vs Livingstone Jabanga (2)
November 20, 2012

On 13 December 2011 the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decided to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete for committing an anti-doping rule violation after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine.

WADA appealed against the SAIDS decision to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete. WADA requested the Appeal Tribunal to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility.

The Tribunal finds that the Athlete provided substantial assistance to an Anti-Doping Organisation. She was a witness at the hearing of Mr. Jabanga and her evidence was accepted by the Disciplinary Committee and Mr. Jabanga’s denial rejected. Considering these factors the Appeal Tribunal rules that a suspension of a portion of the imposed period of ineligibility is justified.

The Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal of South Africa decides as follows:
1.) The Appeal of WADA is admissible.
2.) The sanction imposed by the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee on 13th December 2011 is set aside.
3.) The Athlete is sanctioned with a two-year period of ineligibility starting on 28 September 2011.
4.) Because of Athlete’s substantial assistance a period of 1 year is suspended in accordance with art. 10.5.3 SAIDS ADR.
5.) No order is made as to costs.