SAIDS 2012_21 SAIDS vs Ntobeko Patrick Duma

10 Jul 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 cannabis. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete admitted the violation and stated he had used a dry mixture from a traditional healer to drink and wash himself in order to protect himself as a cultural belief.

The SAIDS Disciplinary Committee accepts Athlete’s statement and decides to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting from the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 18 May 2012, to 18 July 2012.

SAIDS 2012_13 SAIDS vs Dante Muller

1 Sep 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 pleaded guilty and her father explained that she had ingested a supplement which she obtained from a friend of her father.
The Committee is comfortably satisfied that there was no intention to enhance performance which was corroborated by her father’s evidence that she was sick from the flu and sought merely an immune booster.

The SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension and ending on 21 August 2012 the date of the decision.

CNCDD 2012 FIRS vs Adel Saber Bachiller

7 Jul 2012

Facts
The International Roller Sports Federation (FIRS) alleges Adel Saber Bachiller (the player) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. A sample was collected during an in competition doping test in Valladolid, at the Liga Elite Masculina de Hockey sobre Patines en Linea at Valladolid, Spain on 24 March 2012. The sample tested positve for the presence and use of metabolites of THC (cannabis) above the permitted limit. THC is classed as a specified substance on the World Anti-doping Agency’s Prohibited List and is prohibited in competition.

Decision
The player receives a three months sports ban he is ineligible to participate, as an athlete or support person, in any sport that has adopted the World Anti-doping Code until 5 January 2013.
The results obtained by Sn Adel Saber Bachiller at the Liga Elite Masculina de Hockey sober Patines en Linea also disqualified and any medals, points and prizes awarded to him are forfeited.

SAIDS 2012_28 SAIDS vs Ruan Michael Claasen

6 Sep 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 cannabis.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Disciplinary Committee Tribunal.

The Tribunal, after deliberation, accepts the evidence and submissions of SAIDS, as well the evidence of the Athlete.
The SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 13 June 2012.

SDRCC 2013 CCES vs Jack Burke

2 Oct 2013

Related case:
CAS 2013_A_3370 UCI vs Jack Burke & Canadian Cycling Association
July 17, 2014

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Jack Burke for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program. The Athlete provided a urine sample during a stage of the competition held in Malartic, Quebec on 18 July 2013. The analysis of the sample revealed the presence of the prohibited substance hydrochlorothiazide.

History
It is submitted that the trace amount of HCTZ detected in the Athlete's samples entered his body through contaminated water obtained from a tap sourced by a well in Malartic, Quebec. The Athlete relies on expert testimony from Dr. Robert that HCTZ can be present in raw water, surface water, sludge, and treated drinking water to argue that on a balance of probabilities, contaminated water is the probable cause of the Athlete's adverse analytical finding. the concentration of HCTZ was not consistent with an effort to dilute the urine and was insufficient to have any masking effect.

Decision
I conclude that the Athlete's degree of fault falls at the lowest end of the spectrum. This case represents only a technical violation of the ADR. A two-year period of Ineligibility would be vastly disproportionate to the Athlete's degree of culpability. I therefore exercise my discretion in favour of the Athlete when his sport has done absolutely nothing to educate him about any aspect of anti-doping and no degree of utmost care other than not using tap water from a well would have prevented the circumstances. Therefore, I find there is no fault and that the appropriate sanction is a reprimand, which will still represent a first doping infraction. I do not impose any period
of Ineligibility.

SAIDS 2011_20 SAIDS vs Carol Joyce

31 Oct 2011

The South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after she refused to provide a sample for drug testing on 5 August 2011.
The Athlete and the Doping Control Officer (DCO) were heard for the Disciplinary Committee.

The DCO testified that she was unable to conduct the required out-of-competition testing on the Athlete.
The Athlete pleaded not guilty to the charge and stated she was never notified to submit to a doping test; no request was made to her; she was never requested to submit any sample; she never refused to give a sample; and no warning was given to her.

The Committee concludes that the mere presence of the DCO at the Athletes home whilst engaging only the Athlete’s husband in discussion and failing to communicate with the Athlete, does not assist the SAIDS in discharging its onus of proving that notification of the requirement to submit to an out-of-competition test was given to the Athlete on 5 August 2011. The evidence before the Panel failed to establish that notification of the requirement that the Athlete submit to an out-of-competition test was given to the Athlete on 5 August 2011.
The failure on part of SAIDS and the DCO in this case means that the charge brought against the Athlete that she had committed an anti-doping rule violation is unsustainable.
Therefore The SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides to dismiss the charge brought against the Athlete.

SDRCC 2012 CCES vs Ashley Kraayeveld

29 Oct 2012

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Ashly Kraayeveld (the athlete) for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Drugs Program. On June 28, 2012 she competed in the Canadian Senior Taekwondo Championships in Toronto. She won her division and was sent to doping control shortly after the event. The urine sample that she provided resulted in an adverse analytical finding for Furosemide. Furosemide is a prohibited specified substance in the 2012 World Anti Doping Agency (“WADA”) Prohibited List.

History
The athlete admitted that she took Furosemide and in so doing
committed an anti-doping rule violation. She stated that she ingested Furosemide on June 27, 2012, the evening before competing in the Senior Nationals when she took a pill given to her by her mother to relieve the pain and discomfort that she was experiencing due to the onset of her menstrual cycle. She had no intention of enhancing her performance. She further submits that her adverse analytical finding resulted from her lack of sophistication as an athlete, her lack of doping control experience and education and an error in judgment.

Decision
Arbitrator Fraser imposed a sanction of four months ineligibility from sport, as a result of Ms. Kraayeveld’s prompt admission and early acceptance of a provisional suspension, the period of ineligibility began on June 28, 2012, the date of sample collection, and concluded on October 28, 2012.

SDRCC 2012 CCES vs Alexander Hupe

14 Feb 2013

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Alexander Hupe (the athlete) for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (CADP). After a football game held in Kelowna, British Columbia on October 13, 2012, an urine sample was collected from the athlete. The urine sample resulted in an adverse analytical finding which was received by the CCES from the World Anti-Doping Agency (“WADA”) accredited laboratory on October 31, 2012. The analysis indicated the presence of testosterone, mesterolone and nandrolone, all of which are classified as prohibited substances according to the 2012 WADA prohibited list.

History
The hearing take place in the absence of the athlete because communication with the athlete failed. The Tribunal ordered that the hearing be conducted by way of written submissions.

Decisions
No evidence of exceptional circumstances has been presented in this
case. I find therefore that the appropriate sanction is a period of two (2) years ineligibility from competition which commences on November 2, 2012, the date on which the athlete accepted a provisional suspension.

SAIDS 2012_29 SAIDS vs Makwane Bochedi

30 Aug 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 cannabis.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete failed to attend the hearing of the Disciplinary Committee. 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. 13 June 2012.

SDRCC 2011 CCES vs Jasdeep Toor

3 Feb 2012

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Jasdeep Toor (the athlete) for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program.
On October 10, 2011, the CCES conducted an after-competition doping control in Brossard, Quebec. A sample collection was provided by the athlete and showed the presence of methylhexaneamine.

History
The athlete has not challenged the finding nor has he required that the B sample to be tested. The cause for the contamination was a commercially sold supplement “Jack 3D”, which he purchased at a drug store over the counter. He was unaware the supplement product contained the prohibited substance and that he did not intend to enhance his performance by using it. The athlete is not a professional player and didn't receive proper doping education.

Decision
I have determined that a two month suspension from eligibility, commencing December 17, 2011 and ending at midnight, February 17, 2012 is an appropriate response to these circumstances. It is so ordered.

Category
  • Legal Source
  • Education
  • Science
  • Statistics
  • History
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Legal Terms
  • Sport/IFs
  • Other organisations
  • Laboratories
  • Analytical aspects
  • Doping classes
  • Substances
  • Medical terms
  • Various
  • Version
  • Document category
  • Document type
Publication period
Origin