Related cases:
SAIDS 2011_22 WADA vs Lebogang Phalula & SAIDS - Appeal
January 10, 2012
SAIDS 2012_08 SAIDS vs Livingstone Jabanga (1)
July 11, 2012
SAIDS 2012_08 SAIDS vs Livingstone Jabanga (2)
November 20, 2012

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 methylhexaneamine. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete stated that on the day of the competition she did not feel well. Mr. Livingstone Jabanga, the chairman of the Gauteng Striders Athletics Club, gave the her tablets, described as “vitamins”, which would assist her to feel better. After the race she tested positive. The Athlete requested Mr. Jabanga to attend the hearing which he failed to do. The Athlete’s statement was supported and endorsed by her twin sister and test result of the remaining tablets confirmed the presence of the prohibited substance.

The Committee concludes that the Athlete had no intention to enhance her performance and she gave substantial assistance in taking disciplinary actions against Mr. Jabanga.
Therefore the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the notification, i.e. 29 September 2011 to 28 December.

Hereafter WADA appealed this decision.

Related cases:

• CAS 2008_A_1652 WADA & IRB vs Luke Troy & ARU - Preliminary Award
  March 18, 2009
• CAS 2008_A_1664 IRB vs Luke Troy & ARU - Final Award
  August 6, 2009

The dispute between the parties arises out of two seizures by the Australian Customs Service in February 2006 and in August 2006 respectively of packages which were sent by post addressed to the Athlete from the United Kingdom and the
United States respectively. Each package was sent by post to the Athlete as a result of orders he placed for certain products from an international website, bodybuilding.com.

Consequently in November 2008 ASADA reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for Possession and attempted use of the prohibited substances Testosterone in February 2006 and DHEA in August 2006.

However on 12 March 2008 the judicial committee of the Australian Rugby Union (ARU) dismissed the charges against the Athlete. Hereafter in March 2008 the International Rugby Union (IRU) appealed the ARU decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Panel establishes that the Athlete knowingly had ordered products which he believed contained Testosterone and DHEA, paying for those products, and arranging, or assisting the arrangement of, their importation into Australia and delivery to him.

Given the Panel's finding that the Athlete believed the products he ordered contained testosterone and DHEA and the Athlete's own evidence that he intended to use those products personally, the Panel is also satisfied that the course of conduct was “planned to culminate in the commission of an ADRV.”

By lts Award the Panel ruled that Mr Troy had committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to By-Law 5.2.2 of the ARU Anti-Doping By-Laws by engaging in conduct pursuant to which he sought to acquire "Prohibited Substances" over the internet.

Ultimately in its Final Award the Cour of Arbitration for Sport decides on 6 August 2009 that:

1.) The period of ineligibility of Mr Luke Troy will be two years from 2 June 2009.

2.) The period of ineligibility of Mr Luke Troy will be reduced by a period of 28 days and will terminate on 5 May 2011.

3.) As agreed between the parties, each party will pay its / his own costs of the appeal.

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 metandienone.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the Disciplinary Committee.
Hereafter the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 7 September 2010 until 7 September 2012.

The South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances clenbuterol and testosterone.
Therefore SAIDS recommends to the Disciplinary Committee to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the notification.

Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) alleges Irakli Chvihivivadze (the player) for a violaton of the Anti-Doping Rules. The player was selected for In-Competition Testing at the Georgia v Germany match played on 7 February 2009 in Germany. The presence of a metabolite of Cannabis (Carboxy-THC) was detected in his sample at a concentration of 38.3 ng/ml, which is greater than the permitted threshold level of 15 ng/ml. Carboxy-THC is listed under S8 Cannabinoids on the WADA List of Prohibited Substances 2009.

History
On the evening of 4 February, the Player had arranged to meet a friend from his hometown in Georgia who had moved to France. They went to a bar in Nancy where they had some drinks and watched sports on TV. At some point they were joined by two acquaintances of the Player’s friend. About half an hour after these individuals arrived, the Player decided to leave. Around that time, one of the individuals produced what appeared to be a cigarette. He offered it to the Player to smoke. The Player, initially thinking that the cigarette consisted of tobacco, took it, but then realised it might be something else. He declined to smoke it. The others initially laughed at him for being so cautious, but then became more unfriendly. When the Player got up to leave the two acquaintances of the Player’s friend followed the Player out to the street. They taunted him for not accepting their offer of a smoke. The Player felt that the situation was potentially explosive. He was worried about his friend and the possibility that a fight could ensue. Under pressure, he took three or four puffs to get rid of them. He tried not to inhale. He then left and returned to his hotel. His use of marijuana was not intended to enhance sports performance.

Decision
On 7 February 2009, the Player committed an anti-doping rule violation. The sanction imposed for this Anti-Doping Rule Violation is a period of ineligibility of four months.

Costs
Written submissions should be submitted on time.

Related case:
IRB 2011 IRB vs Andre De Klerk
April 4, 2012

Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) alleges Andre De Klerk (the player) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. He was requested to provide a sample in an Out-of-Competition test, On 27 October 2009, which was conducted by the South African Institute of Drug Free Sport as part of the IRB’s Out-of-Competition testing program.

History
He obtained information concerning a possible source of steroids from another Namibian rugby player. The Player indicated that he did not wish to identify that player. He was then evidently put in touch with someone who sold him the Dianabol tablets.

Decision
The Player committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation. The sanction imposed for this Anti-Doping Rule Violation is a period of Ineligibility of two years. The Player was provisionally suspended on 27 November 2009. The period of Ineligibility will, accordingly, expire on 27 November 2011.

Related case:
SAIDS 2012_02 SAIDS vs Sloane Goosen
January 19, 2012

On 19 January 2012 the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for committing an anti-doping rule violation after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance furosemide.

WADA appealed against the SAIDS decision to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.
WADA argued that the Athlete took the water pill to enhance his performance and he acted very negligently by ingesting a medicine without taking reasonable precautions to ensure that it was safe to do so.

The Appeal Committee concludes that the Athlete had no intention to enhance his performance. However the Athlete should have done more to satisfy himself that it was safe to take the water pills.

The Anti-Doping Appeal Tribunal of South Africa decides as follows:
1) The Appeal of WADA is admissible.
2) The decision of the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee relating to the sanction is set aside.
3) The Athlete is sanctioned with an 18 month period of ineligibility as from 22 October 2011.
4) All competitive results obtained by the Athlete from 22 October 2011 through the commencement of the applicable period of ineligibility shall be disqualified with all of the resulting consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

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 the Athlete was heard for the Disciplinary Committee.
The Athlete stated he had only used the substances and supplements disclosed on the Doping Control form. According to laboratory tests none of the substances the Athlete had used contained the prohibited substance.

The Committee notes that it is reasonable to conclude the possibility that the supplement used by the Athlete was the probable source of methylhexaneamine due to the manufacturer also produces a supplement containing 1,3 dimethylhexanamine which is a stimulant very similar to methlyhexaneamine.

Without intention to enhance performance the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the hearing, i.e. on 8 November 2011 to 7 May 2012.

Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) alleges Vakhtang Mdzinarishvili (the player) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On 27 April, 2008, at the IRB Junior World Trophy Tournament held in Santiago, Chile, he was selected for an in-competition doping test for which he provided an urine sample. His sample tested positive on a very high level of metabolites of cannabis. Cannabis is a prohibited substance on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list 2008 and regarded as a specified substance.

History
The player was very upset because his team lost its match on 24 April 2008. He decided late in the evening to leave the team hotel on his own and make his way to a bar (unnamed) in Santiago where he accepted from an unidentified local person with whom he had become acquainted, a large cannabis cigarette which, without thinking of the consequences, he smoked in full. He stated he had not previously smoked cannabis. He stated that he also accepted the cigarette because he had sustained a painful injury during the match. Following his consumption of the cannabis, he felt sick. Because of the effects of the cannabis, on reflection, the player thought the cannabis must have been potent. He didn't use the cannabis to enhance his sport performances.

Decision
It is considered that a starting point of six months suspension reduced to four months would have been appropriate based, inter alia, on the basis of previous decisions involving cannabis use and the fact that the player's consumption irrespective of the level reported in his sample was not performance enhancing. Further the lack of supporting evidence confirming that the player had suffered a painful injury during the match was not a relevant consideration.
Accordingly, the period of suspension should commence from 27 May 2008 (being the date of the provisional suspension) until 31
December 2008. In broad terms, this period takes into account the break in the rugby season in Georgia during the period July to September.

Costs
Submissions should be provided in time.

Facts
The International Rugby Board (IRB) alleges Evile Telea (player) for violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. Following his evidence given in the previous cases of Salanoa and Moala the IRB alleges the Player has committed five anti-doping rule violations, namely:
1. Use of a Prohibited Substance (Salbutamol – administered by oral means) on or about May 2008 without a valid TUE as required by 2008 IRB Regulation 21.5, contrary to IRB Regulation 21.2.2;
2. Possession of a Prohibited Substance (oral Salbutamol) on or about 10 May 2008 in contravention of IRB 2008 Regulation 21.2.6(a);
3. Trafficking of a Prohibited Substance (oral Salbutamol) to a Player (Salanoa) on or about 10 May 2008 in contravention of IRB 2008 Regulation 21.2.7;
4. Possession of a Prohibited Substance (oral Salbutamol) on or about 22 May 2008 in contravention of IRB 2008 Regulation 21.2.6(a); and/or
5. Trafficking of a Prohibited Substance (oral Salbutamol) to a Player (Moala) on or about 22 May 2008 in contravention of IRB 2008 Regulation 21.2.7.

Decision
The sanction which is imposed for the Player’s anti-doping rule violations is a total period of four (4) years ineligibility commencing from 8th January 2009 (the date upon which the Player’s provisional suspension commenced) and concluding (but not inclusive of) 8th January 2013.

Costs
Written submissions should be submitted on time.