Martin Gillingham Disgraced Springbok prop Cobus Visagie has apologised to the distributors of a controversial food supplement for blaming it for the positive drugs test that led to his banning from the sport. Soon after the story of Visagie’s drugs failure broke in October last year he blamed the food supplement ZMA and the South African Rugby Football Union (Sarfu), which endorsed it. He confirmed the allegations as recently as last month when he told Carte Blanche: “There are so many circumstances that could cause me to test positive, but the easiest one to prove, and for which there is scientific evidence, would be ZMA.” But within 48 hours of the programme’s screening Visagie called ZMA’s local dealership to apologise. “Cobus told us that he was concerned because he did not want us to feel that he had blamed the product,” says Gareth Webster of EAS South Africa, the sole distributor of the product in this country. Visagie was among a group of top rugby players who were supplied with ZMA as part of a sponsorship deal. Webster claims the product is clean. “A huge amount of tests have been carried out and they prove that it is impossible for the product to produce nandrolone”, an anabolic steroid. Earlier this week Visagie confirmed that his claims of contamination of ZMA would no longer feature prominently in his quest for innocence. “There are numerous grounds … on which we shall be fighting. I wouldn’t say the case rests with ZMA. I do not blame Sarfu or ZMA, I blame the test.” Visagie arrives at his last chance saloon on April 19 when he takes his fight for reinstatement to a Sarfu appeals panel. His two-year suspension followed analysis of a urine sample given after the Currie Cup game between Western Province and Boland in September last year. It revealed traces of nandrolone.
Visagie appears to have unearthed no new evidence that could lead to the lifting of his suspension. In fact, the apparent withdrawal of his accusations about ZMA seem likely to weaken his case further. But he still continues to protest his innocence and has even made a plea for the hearing to be open to the media a request that is unlikely to be granted. It seems Visagie’s lawyers, Brian Biebuyck and Hermann Wessels, will now attempt to challenge the validity of the testing procedure and exploit genuine concerns held by experts about the reliability of the test. But these are avenues that were pursued without success at the first hearing. And Visagie’s volte face over ZMA is bound to raise eyebrows. Quite what was left on the cutting room floor in the Carte Blanche studio will probably never be known, but Visagie’s initial condemnation and subsequent denial smacks of a change of tactics. “I had a five-hour interview and they only showed five minutes of it,” he says. “I’m not saying they misrepresented me, I just think they misunderstood it. The ZMA thing was the angle they took.” Remarkably, Webster says since Visagie’s rash claims were broadcast on television, the increase in demand for ZMA has prompted him to double his monthly order from the American-based supplier.