The curious case of Asenathi Ntlabakanye
UPDATE: He faces two doping charges, yet he is free to play.
This is the extraordinary situation Springbok and Lions prop Asenathi Ntlabakanye finds himself in.
Since the South African Rugby Union, on August 24 last year, announced that Ntlabakanye provided an ‘adverse analytical finding’ during random testing by the South African Institute for Drug Free Sport, 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.
Yes, that is how diverse the perceptions of a potential verdict are.
The only certainty, if there is such a thing, is that Ntlabakanye will face a hearing in the last week of March.
It will be held in front of an independent panel that will adjudicate the matter within the framework of the SA Anti-Doping Rules and the World Anti-Doping Code.
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.
Obfuscating the already perplexing case is the second charge, not detailed in the SARU release.
Khalid Galant, Chief Executive Officer of SAIDS, confirmed to @JanDKrugby back in September that they issued the 26-year-old with a ‘charge letter’.
“We charged the athlete with two anti-doping rule violations,” the SAIDS boss said at the time.
“One charge for specified substance [anastrozole] and the other charge for unspecified substance [DHEA].”
In the meantime, Ntlabakanye has remained an integral member of the Lions’ campaigns in Europe, the URC and Challenge Cup.
It can’t be easy to focus on the game with this inconvenient doping charge hanging over his head.
His legal team would have been working in the background, but the complexity of the scenario would likely be on the player’s mind.
The specified substance he tested positive for (anastrozole) is a ‘non-performance enhancing’ medicament.
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.
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.
Will Ntlabakanye’s defence team throw the medical practitioner(s) under the bus?
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‘.
It is indeed a curious case and will continue to hover over Ntlabakanye for the next few months.
@JanDKrugby
@rugby365com
