UPDATE: It is a waiting game for Ntlabakanye
NEWS: Springbok prop Asenathi Ntlabakanye is facing a ‘long’ wait before he will know the outcome of his dope hearing.
The giant prop, Ntlabakanye, faced a disciplinary hearing last week to answer for the two doping charges.
Three days were set aside for the hearing, with the player having faced a charge for a specified substance (anastrozole) and another charge for an unspecified substance (DHEA).
However, Khalid Galant, Chief Executive Officer of the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport, confirmed to @JanDKrugby that the outcome won’t be known for at least another month.
“The closing arguments by the defence and prosecution are scheduled for the last week of April,” Galant said.
The parties first have to agree on a date.
“Thereafter, the tribunal panel will deliberate and render the decision,” the SAIDS boss added.
The outcome is expected within two weeks after the closing arguments.
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.
Depending on which media outlets or social soapboxes you follow, the 26-year-old could be cleared or banned for four years.
That is how diverse the perceptions of a potential verdict are.
Galant reiterated that the player is still not suspended.
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.’
The unspecified substance (DHEA) did not come up in the SAIDS test, but was revealed by the player.
I quote SARU again: ‘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.’
While the ‘prescription’ by a sports doctor could be treated as a mitigating factor, it still leaves the prospect of a ban hanging over his head.
SARU’s decision to point the finger at a ‘medical professional(s)’ from the outset suggests it is more complicated than the information of the case that is in the public domain.
TO RECAP
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
Related
Dope hearing rules out Lions’ giant Bok
Charges and products in Bok’s doping case
The curious case of Asenathi Ntlabakanye
