The full details of how Asenathi Ntlabakanye's doping case unravelled have emerged following the public release of the Independent Doping Tribunal's 44-page written ruling, with former Lions team doctor Rob Collins' refusal to appear as a defence witness proving pivotal to the outcome.
Ntlabakanye, who earned his third and final Test cap against Wales in November 2025, was banned for 18 months after being found guilty of an anti-doping rule violation. The ban runs until 13 November 2027. The IDT panel handed down its decision in May following a hearing held earlier this year.
The tribunal found that Ntlabakanye acted with 'reckless disregard' rather than 'significant fault or negligence' — a distinction that ultimately offered him limited relief under Article 10.6.2 of the SAIDS Anti-Doping Rules, which the panel found he had failed to satisfy.
Central to the case was Collins, who — acting on legal advice — declined to testify or submit an affidavit on Ntlabakanye's behalf. The panel described Collins as "central to the medical process" and acknowledged that his absence "limited direct evidence about what he did or did not check regarding the medication."
Ntlabakanye's defence rested on his account that prohibited substances entered his system entirely through the Lions' internal medical pathway. He described a structure in which administrative assistant Alicea van Niekerk distributed his weekly medication and in which either Collins or a Dr Genis administered weekly injections of Mounjaro. He stated he did not know the names of the medications, trusted that the Lions medical staff had cleared them, and felt he had little practical choice but to follow the system as it operated.
His referral to a Dr Bhana had been arranged through the Lions medical structure, and he said he subsequently returned to Collins with the prescription and medication. He maintained that the Lions office thereafter controlled both, and that he only knew the medication names by asking that office.
SAIDS pushed back firmly on this narrative. It argued that no failings within the Lions system could displace Ntlabakanye's personal obligation under anti-doping rules to ensure no prohibited substance entered his body. It also challenged the factual foundation of his reliance argument directly, noting that Collins was the only person who could confirm whether he had in fact given the medication a clean bill of health — and that Collins had not only declined to testify but had distanced himself from a draft affidavit prepared for the case.
The panel accepted that Ntlabakanye's reliance on the Lions medical system was genuine, but ruled it insufficient to meet the standard of 'utmost caution' required under anti-doping regulations.