REVEALED: How former Lions doctor threw Bok under the bus

UPDATE: Three-Test Springbok Asenathi Ntlabakanye was thrown under the bus by his team’s doctor in the now-infamous doping saga that resulted in his 18-month ban.

The Independent Doping Tribunal Panel handed down its decision in May on the hearing held earlier this year, in which the Bok and Lions player had been charged with a doping violation.

Ntlabakanye was banned for 18 months from sport for his doping offence. The ban will expire on 13 November 2027.

The hearing took a nasty turn against the burly Bok when former Lions team doctor Rob Collins – relying on legal advice – refused to testify or appear as a witness for Ntlabakanye’s defence.

In a 44-page written ruling, finally made public and obtained by @rugby365com, all the dreadful details of Collins’ involvement in the case were revealed.

Ntlabakanye, who played the last of his three Tests against Wales in November 2025, was not guilty of ‘significant fault or negligence’, but rather ‘reckless disregard’.

“The panel accordingly finds that the athlete [Ntlabakanye] has established no significant fault or negligence within the meaning of Article 10.6.2 of the SAIDS ADR,” the IDT said in the written explanation.

The panel noted that the team doctor, Collins, was “central to the medical process” and that his actions (or omissions) were critical in the chain of events leading to the anti-doping rule violation.

“Collins’ absence from the hearing limited direct evidence about what he did or did not check regarding the medication,” the panel said.

“The panel found that the athlete’s reliance on Collins and the Lions’ medical system was genuine, but ultimately insufficient to meet the standard of ‘utmost caution’ required under anti-doping rules.”

And this is where it becomes murky and very unpleasant.

The South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport said that the proceedings should not become an exercise in shifting legal responsibility from the player to Dr Bhana, Dr Collins, or the Lions’ medical team.

“Whatever failings may have existed within the Lions system, those failings could not displace the player’s personal anti-doping duty to ensure that no prohibited substance entered his body,” the written report stated.

“SAIDS also challenged the factual strength of the player’s reliance case. In particular, it submitted that Dr Collins was the one person who could directly confirm what occurred when the player allegedly returned to him with the script and medication, and whether Dr Collins in fact indicated that matters were ‘all good’.

“SAIDS therefore urged caution in accepting the player’s account in circumstances where Dr Collins did not testify and had distanced himself from a draft affidavit.”

Ntlabakanye claimed that the prohibited substances entered his system through a Lions-controlled medical pathway and not through self-directed, clandestine, or private conduct.

“The referral to Dr Bhana was arranged through the Lions medical structure. He returned to Collins with the script and medication, the Lions’ office thereafter controlled the script and medication, and he did not know the medication names himself without asking the office,” the report stated.

His primary case was that he bore no fault because the Lions doctors knew what Bhana had prescribed, accepted that treatment into the Lions system, and ensured that he took the medication exactly as dispensed and administered within that structure.

Ntlabakanye described in detail what happened.

Alicea van Niekerk, an administrative assistant in the Lions’ medical department, every week gave him his medication, and either Collins or Dr Genis injected him with the weekly dose of Mounjaro.

Ntlabakanye said he did not know the names of the pills and said this did not trouble him because he trusted that Van Niekerk was simply implementing the doctors’ instructions and that the Lions doctors had satisfied themselves that the medication was safe.

He also said he felt he had little practical choice but to follow the doctors’ treatment plan.

However, SAIDS maintained the player had a greater duty of care.

SAIDS’ Anti-Doping Rules make it clear players ‘take responsibility, in the context of anti-doping, for what they ingest and use’.

Article 2.1.1 the SAIDS ADR states: “It is the Athletes’ personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters their bodies.

“Athletes are responsible for any Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found to be present in their Samples. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, Fault, negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1.”

Barend Kellerman, the legal council that presented the player, explained that he had seen Collins’ email recollection provided to the Lions, but regarded it as insufficient because it raised further questions.

Kellerman then arranged a meeting with Collins, and another attorney.

After that consultation, Kellerman prepared a draft affidavit based on what Collins had said and sent it to Collins in editable form, inviting him to make corrections if necessary.

However, Collins declined to sign or deal with the affidavit because it was “full of untruths”.

However, Kellerman responded sharply, pointing out that Collins had been invited to correct any inaccuracies, but Collins did not reply to further correspondence.

Kellerman also invited Collins to attend the hearing, warning that adverse inferences might be drawn if he did not, but Collins again declined.

Collins’ involvement was first documented in a statement by the South African Rugby Union, on August 24 last year, when the national body announced that Ntlabakanye provided an ‘adverse analytical finding’ during random testing by SAIDS.

According to the SARU statement, Ntlabakanye, who played his third Test in the record 73-0 whitewash of Wales back in November, has steadfastly disputed the claim he committed an anti-doping violation.

To quote the SARU media release: “It was ‘prescribed by a specialist physician early in 2025 for medical reasons and taken with the approval and the supervision of a medical doctor specifically appointed to manage the medical affairs of professional rugby players.’

“Ntlabakanye was transparent in his declarations, acted in good faith and at all times followed the medical due process as prescribed by the industry.

“He relied on the relevant professional medical advice and at no time did he seek to obtain an unfair advantage, nor did he take any medical substance without prior medical authorisation.”

Collins’ decision not to testify at the hearing has raised many questions.

The panel noted that Collins was central to the medical process and that his actions (or omissions) were critical in the chain of events leading to the anti-doping rule violation.

The panel also highlighted that Collins’ absence from the hearing limited direct evidence about what he did or did not check regarding the medication.

“The panel found that the athlete’s reliance on Collins and the Lions’ medical system was genuine, but ultimately insufficient to meet the standard of ‘utmost caution’ required under anti-doping rules,” the written statement said.

With the specialist knowing Ntlabakanye was a professional Test-level rugby player, it was not unreasonable of Ntlabakanye to assume the medications did not fall foul of anti-doping’s strict and lengthy list of banned substances.

To his credit, Ntlabakanye did not leave it there.

He took the prescription back to the Lions medical staff, specifically team doctor Rob Collins, as per team protocols, for a second opinion.

According to Ntlabakanye’s defence at his doping tribunal, the Lions doctor greenlighted the use of the medications, and they were administered to the player weekly from the Lions medical centre.

Collins instructed Van Niekerk to arrange the specialist appointment and communicated with Dr Bhana about the player’s weight issues.

After the player consulted with Dr Bhana, he returned to Collins with the script and medication.

Collins told the player that everything was “all good” or “shap,” took the injectable medication (Mounjaro) to the office fridge, copied the script, and directed the rest of the medication to be managed by Van Niekerk.

Collins was expected, as per the Lions’ internal process, to check the medication prescribed by the specialist before the player began taking it.

However, evidence suggests that Collins did not discuss the details of the prescribed medication with Van Niekerk, nor did he conduct a thorough anti-doping check on all the medications.

“When the player was tested and needed to list his medications, he first tried to contact Collins for the information, but did not answer. The player then obtained the list from Van Niekerk.

Dr Genis, who succeeded Collins as CMO, described Collins as highly regarded in sports medicine and assumed that Collins had checked the prescription.

Genis only checked Mounjaro for anti-doping compliance, relying on Collins for the rest.

Van Niekerk confirmed that Collins was the point of contact for specialist referrals and that she assumed he had checked the medication for anti-doping compliance.

“Collins was a pivotal figure in the medical management of the player, responsible for both the referral and the oversight of prescribed medication,” the written statement said.

“The panel found that while the player genuinely relied on Collins and the Lions’ medical system, the lack of thorough anti-doping checks and Collins’ absence from the hearing were significant factors in the outcome of the case.”

In support of their case, SAIDS relied in substance on the following propositions:
* The player was an elite professional player who had anti-doping education and knew the general rule of personal responsibility;
* He took the medication over an extended period;
* He did not ask Bhana or Collins the direct anti-doping question;
* He undertook no independent check of the medication;
* And he simply accepted that matters were ‘all good’ without verifying what that meant.

SAIDS submitted that those cumulative omissions amounted to reckless disregard of a significant anti-doping risk.

The core of the player’s case was that the prohibited substances entered his system through a Lions-controlled medical pathway and not through self-directed, clandestine, or private conduct.

@JanDKrugby
@rugby365com