- South Africa’s sporting federations – including the Springboks and Proteas – face the prospect of losing their national standing with the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).
- This is because of a failure, not on their part, to abide by updated WADA legislation.
- WADA is threatening that South African national teams might not be allowed to play under their country’s flags at major sporting events.
- For more sports news, visit News24 Sport’s home page.
South African sport is in hot water with the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and faces the prospect of losing the right to play under the national flag at global sporting events.
Unless South Africa, through government and the South African Institute for Drug Free Sports (Saids), complies with updated Wada legislation by 14 October, then Wada says the country will no longer be able to fly its flag at showpiece events.
This is particularly relevant to South Africa given the Springboks’ current participation at the Rugby World Cup in France and the Proteas’ efforts at the Cricket World Cup in India, which starts on Thursday.
The Proteas play their first match at the tournament against Sri Lanka in Delhi this Saturday, while the Boks are poised for a quarter-final against either France or New Zealand next weekend in Paris.
READ | Lukhanyo Am in selection contention for Springbok World Cup QF
Bermuda is the other nation facing the same threats from WADA.
In a statement released on the WADA website on 28 September, the organisation – the international gatekeepers of drug-free sport and tasked with testing at global events – referenced findings from an executive committee meeting held on 22 September that called out both South Africa and Bermuda and gave them a stern warning.
“During its meeting, the ExCo asserted non-compliance of three Anti-Doping Organizations (ADOs) with the World Anti-Doping Code. The two National Anti-Doping Organizations (NADOs) in question are Bermuda and South Africa,” the Wada statement read.
“In the cases of the Bermuda and South Africa NADOs, the non-compliance is a result of legislation not in line with the [updated] 2021 Code.
“For all Signatories above, it should be noted that the decision (including the consequences) will enter into force on 14 October 2023, unless the non-conformities are corrected by that date, or unless the decision is appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) by the same date.”
WADA then gave a breakdown of what those “consequences” might be.
“South Africa’s/Bermuda’s flag will not be flown at regional, continental and World Championships, and Events, organised by Major Event Organisations (other than the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games), until Saids/BSADA (Bermuda Sports Anti-Doping Authority) is reinstated.”
The legislation from WADA does state that if South Africa was to appeal the ruling before 13 October to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), the consequences would not take effect.
That places immediate pressure on South Africa’s Department of Sport, Arts and Recreation to act, in some way, to avoid what would be a calamitous and embarrassing situation for two of its flagship teams to endure on the biggest stage.
READ | Lukhanyo Am brings an ‘edge’ that can’t be quantified
Speaking to News24 on Wednesday, Saids CEO Khalid Galant acknowledged that the issue had not yet been resolved.
“WADA has been very rigid with this process and we’ve been negotiating over the past six months, but they’re very rigid with deadlines and accepting legislative processes,” Galant said.
“From WADA, there will be no extension, but there are other options available to South Africa where the consequences could be stayed or delayed.
“If we don’t pass the legislation by the 13th or don’t explore the rights to appeal and all the other options then the consequences do come into force.
“WADA won’t extend that deadline.”
Sports minister Zizi Kodwa said in a statement on 22 September that he had “noted” WADA’s stance of non-compliance and that the department had “worked tirelessly” to amend the legislation as recommended by Wada.
“There has also been input by WADA in working with us to draft the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (Saids) Amendment Bill, which will now be taken through the South African Constitutional process of finalising a bill,” he said.
“It is disappointing that South Africa has been found to be non-compliant despite this undertaking to pass legislation which meets the World Anti-Doping Code.
“I would like to reassure athletes, sports federations, and the sports public that the non-compliance finding will not affect drug testing in South African sport.
“Saids will continue to deliver services that protect clean sport in South Africa.
“The South African government process for promulgating legislation is thorough and comprehensive. Any legislation, including amendments, must meet the muster of the South African Constitution and cannot contradict or nullify any existing laws.
“I officially communicated with WADA president Witold Banka on South Africa’s position, and have requested to meet with him urgently. South Africa is committed to anti-doping in sport. Saids has done much work to meet the evolving dynamics of compliance in global sport on matters of anti-doping, anti-corruption, governance reforms, child safeguarding and data protection. The Department of Sport, Arts and Culture will continue to expend all efforts to get the amendment bill adopted expeditiously.”
A report published on Daily Maverick on Wednesday, meanwhile, claimed that Saids had warned government and national federations of the risks of non-compliance “a year ago”.
The report adds that Saids had then sent a draft bill to all South African federations in April that accommodated the new regulations.
“The overwhelming majority of the non-compliant findings by Wada of our current act are along the lines of ‘the definition must be updated to reflect the exact wording in the Wada Code’, or some definition or term in the Act is obsolete and no longer used,” Galant told Daily Maverick.
“So the non-compliance pertains to the text and has no bearing on the operational ability or jurisdictional mandate of Saids.”