Northern Edition
Select Edition
Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

Three upcoming South African players banned for doping

Rugby fans watching rugby during day 2 of the 2017 U/18 Coca-Cola Craven Week at St Stithians College on July 18, 2017 in Johannesburg, South Africa. (Photo by Sydney Seshibedi/Getty Images/Gallo Images)

The South African Institute for Drug-Free Sports has announced the bans of three young rugby players after they tested positive for banned substances during last year’s SA Schools Craven week rugby tournament.

ADVERTISEMENT

Two of the players have been named, a former Grey College student Khoitsimodimo ‘Kamo’ Mathibedi whilst the other was an SA Schools selection last year, Sifiso Magwaza out of Hoerskool Monument in Krugersdor.

The third player’s name has been redacted as they are a minor.

Magwaza is a prop who played for the Lions in addition to making SA Schools, although he did not feature in fixtures against England or France, while Mathibedi is a hooker for Free State.

Video Spacer

Video Spacer

Each of the players have been handed three-year bans with eligibility to begin playing rugby again starting in August 2025.

The Craven week tournament for under-18 representative provincial rep teams brings the best of South Africa’s talent together, although it has been dragged into controversy over doping scandals despite its popularity.

In 2018 six young players were caught using banned substances in anti-doping tests, which continued an alarming trend after three positive tests in 2014, five in 2015, four in 2016 and three in 2017.

At the time the chief executive of the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport, Khalid Galant, told The Times the ‘win at all costs’ attitude towards Craven week had turned ‘toxic’.

ADVERTISEMENT

The 2018 crop of positive tests had revealed a ‘cocktail of steroids’ according to Galant but they were ‘unsophisticated’ dopers without the means to evade detection.

In 2020 critics called into question a ‘steriod culture’ in South Africa which former Springboks lock Marco Wentzel sided with.

Wentzel, who played for South Africa in 2002, told Sport24 it was difficult to argue against the claims with the South African rugby schoolboy scene presenting an alarming doping problem.

“The unfortunate fact is that if we look at the last few years in terms of the amount of rugby players caught doping, critics have a point,” Wentzel told Sport24.

ADVERTISEMENT

“From what one hears the steroid use at schoolboy level is quite rife but is it because we are so competitive and there are so many players? It might spring from that because rugby is such a big cultural phenomenon.”

ADVERTISEMENT
LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

0 Comments
Be the first to comment...

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
JW 41 minutes ago
Three former All Blacks assess the playing style adopted against France

Yep Wilson at least does a lot of such research but I think it’s only when it revolves around the All Blacks etc, like he go and find out why Ireland whipped our butt etc, and come back with a view we need to imrpove and do x y z like such and such is.


But none of them are individuals that are a) any sort of quality coach/analyst of the game (NPC the highest), or b) seem to consume stupids amount of rugby for the love of it like people in a similar profession in other top leagues. Johnson is probably the only one I would say comes close to that but is a pure fan, I don’t think he has any pro knowledge.


To be fair to them, the best in say soccer or american football would get paid a hundred times what these guys do, but it’s so hard in those markets that all panelists have to be students of the game just to get a shot. And in the case of Beaver, he is like the Ian Smith of cricket, he’s a knowledgable gu, enough to lead people down the wrong track (they would believe him), but they’re both very obvious in their more parochial opinions that you know to take what Beavers saying with a grain of salt. Wilson, Marshall, and even Mils go off like they think theyre the bees knees,


Admittedly things are changing globably, i’ve glimpsed enough football shows to know the Britsih media are happy, and the fans too soaking it up, getting the most high profile ex players on a show as the best way to increase ratings.

13 Go to comments
J
JW 1 hour ago
Beauden Barrett weighs in on controversial yellow card

It’s an interesting question because a normal diberate knock on is just a penalty offense, an normal infringement like any other, so that’s deemed where the was not a reasonable chance to catch the ball.


But it’s a ruling that can also be upgraded to a foul, and by association, a yellow card, when it’s it was also deliberately trying to deny the ball to another player. For instance, that is why they are just given penalties up the field, because the player has just made a bad decision (one where he had no reasonable chance) and he doesn’t really care if the pass had gone to hand for his opponents or not (he was just thinking about being a hero etc).


So the way the refs have been asked to apply the law is to basically just determine whether there was an overlap (and not to try and guess what the player was actually thinking) or not, as to whether it’s a penalty or a YC.


This is the part Barrett doesn’t like, he’s essentially saying “but I had no idea whether they were likely to score or not (whether there was an unmarked man), so how can you tell me I was deliberately trying to prevent it going to someone, it could have been a blind pass to no one”.


It’s WR trying to make it clear cut for fans and refs, if at the players expense.

But yes, also you must think it entirely possible given both were foul plays that they could both go to the bench. Much the same as we see regularly when even though the play scores a try, they have started sending the player off still.


And while I agree Narawa didn’t knock it on, I think the ball did go forward, just off the shoulder. As his hands were up in the air, above the ball, basically like a basketball hope over his right shoulder, I guess you’re right in that if it did make contact with his hands it would have had to be deflected backwards onto his shoulder etc. Looking at the replay, Le Garrec clearly lost control of the ball forward too, but because Barrett was deemed to have committed a deliberate act, that overrides the knockon from 9.


I just don’t understand how they can consider it a deliberate attempt to block a pass when he actually lost the ball forward!

45 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ Kane James: 'I think it’s really important to not like losing' Kane James: 'I think it’s really important to not like losing'