On Thursday, a bombshell was dropped when it was confirmed that the Independent Doping Hearing Panel (IDHP) had handed down an 18-month ban to Asenathi Ntlabakanye after the Springbok prop was found guilty of a doping violation.
Following a hearing held over two days in March (with closing arguments concluded on 21 April 2026), the IDHP deliberated on whether the violations were intentional, the degree of fault, and the appropriate sanction.
Under the strict liability framework, the panel reduced the potential maximum four-year ban down to 18 months, acknowledging mitigating circumstances (medical prescription and transparent self-declaration).
“In an out-of-competition test on 22 May 2025, the player’s urine sample tested positive for the Hormone and Metabolic Modulator, Anastrozole,” the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) stated.
“In terms of the South African Anti-Doping Rules, this substance is classified as a ‘specified substance’ and does not warrant a mandatory suspension. The player also self-declared the use of a prohibited anabolic steroid, DHEA. On 9 September 2025, he was formally charged for the presence and use of Anastrozole and the use of DHEA.”
UK publication fires another shot at Springboks
In what was a distasteful follow up, leading UK publication The Telegraph reposted an old article that had alleged that South African rugby – and by association the Springboks – have the “highest number of convicted dopers in rugby, yet a sixfold decrease in testing coincided with the 2019 and 2023 (World Cup) triumphs”.
Referencing relatively recent ‘doping’ cases linked to Springboks such as Asenathi Ntlabakanye, Elton Jantjies, Sbu Nkosi and Aphiwe Dyantyi, the article suggests that this is just the tip of the iceberg, implying a major issue with both failed tests – and a lack of testing – for South African players.
The repost from The Telegraph was a clear tactic to fire shots at the Springboks on the back of Ntlabakanye’s ban, as it is extremely unusual to repost an old story on social media.
Complicated case
The latest case stems from medical treatment prescribed to Ntlabakanye early in 2025 by a specialist physician. According to SA Rugby’s initial filings, the medication was taken under the guidance and supervision of an appointed professional rugby medical doctor.
While Anastrozole appeared in the random test, the more severe non-specified substance (DHEA) did not show up in the blood/urine analysis—likely because it had cleared his system. However, because Ntlabakanye honestly declared its use on his doping control form, it fell under the “strict liability” rule, triggering the charge.
The 18-month duration reflects the panel’s acknowledgment that he acted in good faith on professional medical advice, avoiding the maximum four-year ban, though still holding him accountable under global anti-doping regulations.
