Publications
Partners
If what his agent says is anything to go by, Springbok wing Aphiwe Dyantyi’s defence against his positive drugs test charge will hinge on his not knowingly taking the prohibited substances that were recently found in his system.
Since his B sample confirmed the positive findings of traces of metandienone, methyltestosterone and LGD-4033 in his A sample about two weeks ago, Dyantyi and his team have been hard at work to prove his innocence.
Classified as exogenous anabolic androgenic steroids, the three substances are said to enhance physique and performance, help treat low testosterone and help patients with muscle weakness and wastage, respectively.
They also carry a four-year ban, which would all but end the 25-year-old World Rugby breakthrough player of the year’s career and make a lie of one of the more inspirational Springbok player stories to emerge in years.
This week, Dyantyi’s team informed the SA Institute for Drug-Free Sport (Saids) of their intention to contest the charge against their client. They have gathered evidence over the past fortnight that has convinced them they can clear his name.
Quite what that evidence is, Gert van der Merwe, Dyantyi’s agent, wouldn’t say before the hearing, but it sounded as though they were hoping to prove that their client did not knowingly take the banned substances.
Read: Dyantyi fights to clear his name
“I can’t really say anything with the hearing coming up,” he said. “But I can confirm that we are 100% behind Aphiwe and are doing everything to get to the bottom of everything to prove his innocence,” Van der Merwe said.
“It will be up to the committee to decide, but we’ll do everything in our power to show just cause that Aphiwe did not take anything illegal that he knew of.”
Van der Merwe said they were in the process of getting their case together for the hearing.
“We are waiting for a date to be set for the hearing because they have to put together a committee for it.
“It takes time, but we are busy working on our defence anyway, and while we work on it, they will try to find a date. Hopefully, it will be within the next month. Sometimes it takes a bit longer. So it will be a waiting game, but because some of our evidence just came in over the past week or two, we are also not in that much of a hurry because we want to get our ducks in a row.”
At the time of Dyantyi’s positive B sample test result, Saids had outlined his options as follows: admitting to the charge and accepting the appropriate sanction; providing mitigating circumstances for a reduced sentence; or contesting the charge before an independent tribunal. By choosing the third option, Dyantyi has taken the hardest path back to redemption.
Top sport scientist Ross Tucker made that point on his Twitter account at the time. He said that, while the most popular defence to an adverse drugs test finding for athletes is supplements contaminated by banned substances, the onus is on the athlete to prove they had taken reasonable precautions to avoid it.
“[Saying] I took something a company gave me as a sponsorship is not valid because the athlete is ultimately liable for what is in their body,” Tucker tweeted.
