The shocking outcome of the Ntlabakanye case

NEWS: The outcome of the doping case of Springbok prop Asenathi Ntlabakanye has rocked the world.

The Independent Doping Tribunal Panel handed down its decision 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, effective from May.

The Player, SAIDS, World Rugby and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) have 21 days within which to file an appeal against the sanction to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

The ban will expire on 13 November 2027.

In a statement on Thursday, SAIDS said the player’s urine sample tested positive for the Hormone and Metabolic Modulator, Anastrozole, during an out-of-competition test on 22 May 2025.

“In terms of the South African Anti-Doping Rules, this substance is classified as a ‘specified substance’ and does not warrant a mandatory suspension,” the statement said.

“The player also self-declared the use of a prohibited anabolic steroid, DHEA.”

“On 9 September 2025, he was formally charged for the presence and use of Anastrozole and the use of DHEA.”

The Lions, Ntlabakanye’s team, responded swiftly with a statement of their own in the wake of the 18-month ban.

“The Lions Rugby Company confirms that it has received communication from the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport, regarding the decision to sanction Lions prop Asenathi Ntlabakanye for a period of 18 months following an anti-doping rule violation,” the Lions’ statement said.

“The Lions Rugby Company, together with MyPlayers, the Rugby Players’ Organisation, will deliberate on the appropriate next steps.

“During this time, the Lions Rugby Company will continue to support Ntlabakanye as he navigates the process ahead.”

As a result of SAIDS’ decision, Ntlabakanye’s period of ineligibility commenced on May 13, which rules him out of this weekend’s Round 18 United Rugby Championship fixture against Munster.

“No further comment will be made by the Lions Rugby Company or the player until the process regarding the way forward has been concluded.”

(Continue below …..)

Ntlabakanye challenged the doping charge at the hearing earlier this year and was allowed to present his case and version of events to the Doping Tribunal.

The hearing was held over two days in March and concluded with the player and SAIDS providing closing arguments on April 21.

Within the framework of the SA Anti-Doping Rules, the Doping Tribunal ruled that Ntlabakanye must serve an 18-month ban for doping.

“Furthermore, the Doping Tribunal ruled that all the player’s individual competitive results and benefits such as player-of-the-match awards, personal accolades, match fees and bonuses are disqualified with effect from the date of sample collection,” a SAIDS statement said.

“The disqualification of results is limited to the player’s own individual competitive results and benefits and does not extend to a team result.

“SAIDS is reviewing the merits of the decision within the framework of the Anti-Doping Rules to decide whether it will appeal the decision,” it added.

Since the South African Rugby Union, on August 24 last year, announced that Ntlabakanye provided an ‘adverse analytical finding’ during random testing by SAIDS, there has been much bruiting about the doping case.

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.

Ntlabakanye has remained an integral member of the Lions’ campaigns in Europe, the URC and Challenge Cup.

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.”

DHEA [Dehydroepiandrosterone) falls under ‘non-specified’ substances and falls into the category of being ‘performance-enhancing’.

The United States Anti-Doping Agency, on their website, states that DHEA can lead to an increase in the body’s levels of androgens, such as testosterone.

“Although DHEA is included in some dietary supplements, the efficacy and safety of those products have not been established for diagnosing, curing, mitigating, treating or preventing any disease,” the USADA website declares.

“Despite this, DHEA is advertised for the treatment of all kinds of conditions, including anorexia, ‘diminished ovarian reserve’, adrenal fatigue, exercise-induced muscle damage, major depressive disorder, metabolic syndrome, hormone replacement therapies, fatigue, weight loss and many other conditions.

“There is insufficient evidence that DHEA is a safe or effective treatment for any of these conditions.

“Athletes should not use DHEA supplements because DHEA is prohibited at all times, even if it is consumed through a dietary supplement.

“There are more than 150 supplements on the Supplement Connect High Risk List that contain, or claim to contain, one or more forms of DHEA.”

Based on this, it is not clear why a drug containing this substance was prescribed by a medical professional.

SAIDS is clear on the player’s responsibilities.

Under 20 of SAIDS’ Anti-Doping Rules players ‘take responsibility, in the context of anti-doping, for what they ingest and use’, while they must also ‘inform medical personnel of their obligation not to use prohibited substances and prohibited methods and to take responsibility to make sure that any medical treatment received does not violate these Anti-Doping Rules’.

@JanDKrugby
@rugby365com