Springbok prop Asenathi Ntlabakanye has been formally charged with a doping offence that could carry a four-year suspension.

0 50 1 minute read

reports that on 9 September, the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (Saids) charged the 26-year-old with taking dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), a “non-specified” and performance-enhancing substance.

Crucially, Ntlabakanye had declared the drug on his medical forms, believing he was acting within the rules after clearing it with two doctors.

This charge is separate from an earlier case disclosed by SA Rugby on 24 August, when the union confirmed he had tested positive for a “specified” substance during a July routine test. That drug, prescribed to assist with medical issues, is not considered performance-enhancing but still carries the risk of a two-year ban.

According to Daily Maverick, the second offence complicates matters. While DHEA did not show up in his test results, Ntlabakanye incriminated himself by declaring it. Under the principle of strict liability, athletes are responsible for everything they ingest, regardless of medical advice. A first-time offence for a non-specified drug can result in a maximum four-year suspension.

Ntlabakanye’s case is unusual because both medications were prescribed and cleared by medical professionals. SA Rugby emphasised in its statement that he had been transparent, acted in good faith and “at no time did he seek to obtain an unfair advantage.” Still, no application for a Therapeutic Use Exemption was made, which might have protected him.

The situation also casts a shadow over his remarkable physical transformation. Earlier this year, Springbok coach Rassie Erasmus praised the prop for shedding nearly 20kg, crediting a strict training regime. It has since emerged that medical intervention also played a role.

Although technically eligible to play, Bok management withdrew him from the recent tour to New Zealand, anticipating the Saids charge. For now, he remains free to play and could be considered for the November tour while the case unfolds.

Ultimately, Ntlabakanye must convince tribunals that he followed expert medical advice in good faith. Even then, the best outcome may be a reduced two-year sanction. His career now hinges not on scrums or tackles, but on whether he can prove he was a victim of medical mismanagement rather than a deliberate doper