REPORT INTO THE SOUTH AFRICAN SPORTS CONFEDERATION AND 
OLYMPIC COMMITTEE’S INVESTIGATION INTO CERTAIN COMPLAINTS 
CONCERNING: 


THE SOUTH AFRICAN SPORTS AND FITNESS FEDERATION AND THE 
WESTERN PROVINCE SPORTS AND FITNESS FEDERATION 


Prepared on instruction of Rapeport Inc 
7 July 2015 


Page 2 

INDEX 
Introduction 

p.3 
The complaints: 
1. Misrepresentation p.13 
2. Intimidation p.23 
3. Exclusion and inequality p.38 
4. Maladministration of funds p.42 
5. Maladministration in the award of Protea Colours p.53 
6. Maladministration in the award of Western Province Colours p.57 
7. Conflicts of interest and unprofessional conduct p.59 
8. Failure to implement SASCOC directives p.62 
Recommendations p.64 
Conclusion p.71 


Page 3 

INTRODUCTION 

1. 
This report concerns an investigation conducted by me at the behest of the 
South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee (“SASCOC”) on 
instruction, first of Siven Samuel Attorneys and thereafter Rapeport Inc. into 8 
complaints made by Dr George van Rensburg (“Dr van Rensburg”) and Mrs 
Lynette Earley (“Mrs Earley”) of and concerning the South African Sports and 
Fitness Federation (“SASAFF”) and the Western Province Sports and Fitness 
Federation (“WPSAFF”). 
2. 
I refer to the SASAFF and WPSAFF collectively herein as “the Federations”. 
3. 
Dr van Rensburg makes the complaints in his capacity as parent and legal 
guardian of a minor child, Ms Emma van Rensburg, who was a member of 
the SASAFF and WPSAFF at the relevant times. 
4. 
Dr van Rensburg’s complaint has, as its origin, the treatment of his daughter 
by officials of the Federations. 
5. 
Mrs Earley is a former office bearer of the SASAFF. She resigned in protest 
some years ago over the manner in which the SASAFF broke their promises 
and reneged on agreements pursuant to an attempt at unifying the sport. 

Page 4 

6. 
SASAFF is a member of SASCOC and a national sports federation, as 
contemplated in clause 6.1 of SASCOC’s Articles of Association. 
7. 
The WPSAFF is a provincial sports council as contemplated in clause 6.6 of 
SASCOC’s Articles of Association and a regional member of SASAFF. 
8. 
On 9 October 2012, I was appointed to investigate the 8 complaints made 
against SASAFF and to report back to SASCOC with regard to the findings 
made pursuant to the investigation, and to make recommendations in respect 
thereof to SASCOC. 
9. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:15:26 AM
blank)
In the course of my investigation, the ambit of which is set out below, it has 
emerged very clearly that SASAFF’s executive considers the Federations a 
fiefdom and the athletes and coaches their subjects. The SASAFF 
executive’s rule is dictatorial and autocratic. 
10. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:15:41 AM
blank)
There are two central protagonists, Mr Keith Barends (“Mr Barends”), the 
President of SASAFF, and Mrs Lynette le Roux (“Mrs le Roux”), the general 
secretary. Both Mr Barends and Mrs Le Roux sit, or sat on the executive of 
the WPSAFF at the relevant time, are part of the National Executive 
Committee of the SASAFF and the committee that decides upon provincial 
and national colours at both the SASAFF and the WPSAFF. 
11. 
Mr David Oppel (“Mr Oppel”) is or was at the relevant time the chairman of 
the WPSAFF. He features significantly in two of the complaints. 

Page 5 

12. 
Mrs le Roux’s husband, Mr Alan le Roux, owns and manages the most 
prominent and prolific studio in the country, Club Splice. Its star athlete and 
coach is their daughter, Ms Marizanne le Roux. She is the national coach 
and an athlete on that team. Club Splice and the WPSAFF conduct business 
out of the same premises. 
13. 
Mr Barends and Mrs le Roux consider the SASAFF to be under threat from an 
organisation they term a “rebel organisation”, the IIFT. The IIFT is an 
organisation run by one Dr Nel. His name features prominently in this matter 
but he himself does not play any direct role in the complaints. Dr Nel was 
apparently the president of SASAFF until 16 September 2010 citing 
dissatisfaction over the direction that fitness sport was taking in South Africa. 
14. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:15:05 AM
blank)
At no point has a rational reason, or any reason for that matter, been 
articulated as to why the SASAFF executive harbours the belief that SASAFF 
is under attack from the IIFT. 
15. 
There are 8 heads of complaint that are discreetly stated but overlap on 
account of substantially facts. The complaints were stated as follows: 
“… 
SASAFF has (a) not acted in accordance with its own regulations 
(its Constitution) and the laws of the land; (b) not acted in accordance 
with the rules of “natural justice”; (c) acted in a biased fashion; and 


Page 6 

(d) acted unreasonably, irrationally, arbitrarily and capriciously in that 
it has: 
2.4.1 
misrepresented material facts to both its members and 
members of the public, thereby acting unreasonably, 
irrationally and capriciously and contrary to the best 
interests of this board; 
2.4.2 
it has physically and emotionally intimidated at least 4 
athletes and 1 coach competing in the Sport Fitness 
Aerobics, one of them being the complainant, Miss Emma 
Jansen van Rensburg, and another being her sister, Lisa 
Jansen van Rensburg; 
2.4.3 
it has acted in a discriminatory and biased fashion towards 
certain athletes competing in the sport of Fitness Aerobics 
in South Africa, in particular those athletes who have 
competed in the IIFT / SAFSA events, notwithstanding that 
IIFT / SAFSA is a national organisation recognised (sic) 
and sanctioned by the international federation of the sport, 
namely FISAF; 
2.4.4 
it has misappropriated, alternatively, mismanaged funds 
received by the Department of Sports and Recreation for 

Page 7 

the benefit of certain athletes for whose benefit such funds 
were intended; 

2.4.5 
it awarded Protea colours in an arbitrary manner and in a 
manner inconsistent with its own laws; 
2.4.6 
it failed to implement a SASCOC directive that Mrs Lynette 
le Roux be relieved of her duties as an executive of 
SASAFF; 
2.4.7 
it has conducted itself in an unprofessional and 
inappropriate manner as a result of entrenched and 
ongoing conflicts of interest within the administration of the 
sport; and 
2.4.8 
it inappropriately issued (or endorsed the issuing of) WP 
colours whilst it was under suspension by SASCOC in 
2011.” 
16. 
These complaints fall within the ambit of Section 13(4) of the National Sports 
and Recreation Act, 110 of 1998 (“the Act”). Under these circumstances, 
SASCOC “… 
may at any time, of its own accord, cause an investigation to be 
undertaken to ascertain the truth within a sport or recreation body …”. 

Page 8 

17. 
Hearings were held on 8 June 2013 and continued on 26 and 27 July 2013. 
SASAFF and (later) WPSAFF initially participated in the hearings without 
protest. Various officials of the Federations gave evidence and submitted to 
cross-examination. 
18. 
On the first day of the hearing, it was established that certain of the 
complaints were not merely directed at the SASAFF but also at the WPSAFF. 
19. 
Pursuant thereto, and with the agreement of the SASAFF, the WPSAFF was 
joined in the investigation so that it could have proper opportunity to present 
an answer to the complaints and to be properly represented at the enquiry. 
20. 
It also emerged on the first day of the hearings that neither Mr Barends nor 
Mrs le Roux had any appreciation of the nature and gravity of the complaints 
that were being made against the Federations. They had, in addition, only 
made themselves available for two hours that morning to attend at the 
hearing. 
21. 
I advised Mr Barends and Mrs le Roux that it would be in the interests of the 
Federations that they be properly represented at future hearings. 
22. 
Thereafter, and at the hearing conducted on 26 and 27 July 2013, the 
Federations were ably represented by Mr Rayaam Allom (“Mr Allom”), a Cape 
Town-based attorney. 

Page 9 

23. 
On the afternoon of 26 July 2013, the third day of the hearing into the 
complaints, Mr Allom, on the Federations’ instruction, raised an objection to 
the complainants’ standing in these proceedings. The point was argued on 
the morning of 27 July 2013 whereafter the hearing was adjourned for 
consideration of the Federation’s attack on the constitution of this 
investigation. 
24. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:14:40 AM
blank)
In or during September 2013, SASCOC resolved to terminate this enquiry. It 
was suggested on behalf of the complainants that this resolution followed 
upon representations made by the Federations to SASCOC. I have not found 
any evidence to support such a suggestion however. It would be scandalous 
if that were in fact the case. 
25. 
The enquiry was, however, reinstated in or during October 2014, and a ruling 
as regards the complainants’ standing handed down by me on 11 December 
2014. 
26. 
The essence of the findings made in the ruling of 11 December 2014 was that 
it was SASCOC carrying out a statutory obligation to investigate the 
complaints in convening this enquiry and not an attempt on the part of the 
complainants to vindicate personal rights as against the Federations. The 
point raised (belatedly) on behalf of the Federations was thus dismissed. My 
full reasons in this regard have already been published. 

Page 10 

27. 
Pursuant thereto, Mr Allom’s mandate was terminated by the Federations and 
the Federations refused to play any further part in the proceedings. 
28. 
After due notice to the Federations, the hearing continued on 20 February 
2015 in the Federations’ absence. The complainant’s attorney, Mr David 
Becker, tendered further additional documents into evidence and these were 
later provided to the Federations for comment. The Federations declined to 
do so. 
29. 
In the process of the preparation of this report, I addressed correspondence 
to the Federations requesting that they provide me with certain documents 
referred to in the affidavit deposed to by Mr Barends or emerging from the 
evidence. The Federations declined to deal with requests made to them in 
the correspondence. 
30. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:14:25 AM
blank)
The Federations’ attitude towards this investigation has, throughout, been that 
it is a nuisance, first to be tolerated and thereafter ignored. This is most 
clearly seen in the Federations’ response to the request that I made to it for 
further documents given under the hand of Mr Barends. In a letter addressed 
to Mr Sam of SASCOC, dated 12 June 2015, it is recorded: 
“In the latest letter Advocate Pullinger restates his position to solicit 
our participation at another meeting between ourselves and WPSAFF 
to provide documentation to his forum. 


Page 11 

I reiterate SASAFF’s position on this matter (as stated in my letter of 
24 March 2015), i.e. : “The Federation is satisfied that all information to 
the questions in the Submission of the Complainants has been fully 
addressed in our answering affidavit. Therefore we can see no reason why 
we should attend this resumed hearing that will result in more time of 
volunteers and more expenditure by the Federation”. 

This Federation rests its position on the matter. I trust that this 
response is in accordance with SASCOC’s directions.” 

31. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:16:02 AM
blank)
The Federation’s self righteousness is inappropriate. It was not up to them to 
be satisfied with the answers given by them, especially where those answers 
are terse, dogmatic and generally evasive. 
32. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:16:12 AM
blank)
Given the serious nature of the complaints, one would have thought that 
bodies such as the Federations, with nothing to hide, would openly and 
honestly participate and provide all such information and assistance as was 
requested. 
33. 
What is more, given the serious consequences to the Federations and their 
office bearers of the proposed recommendations that the complainants 
submit should be made to SASCOC, one would have expected comment and 
input from the Federations. 

Page 12 

34. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:16:19 AM
blank)
It is most regrettable that the federations have, throughout this process, been 
obstructive and hindered the fact-finding process. 
35. 
Be that as it may, the facts giving rise to the bulk of the complaints are 
common cause. It is the consequences of those facts and the context in 
which those facts arose that are significant in this matter and, as are alluded 
to above, generally relate to the Federations’ executives’ heavy-handed and 
inappropriate conduct. 
36. 
In the end, this investigation answers the question whether or not the 
SASAFF executive is fit and proper to hold office, and whether SASAFF has 
any role to play in the future of the two sporting codes over which it enjoys 
stewardship. 
37. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:14:02 AM
blank)
For the reasons that follow, I am constrained to find that the SASAFF 
executives are not fit and proper to hold office, and I recommend that the 
sporting codes administered by SASAFF are absorbed into other Federations 
and SASAFF disbanded as the damage to its integrity is irreparable. 

Page 13 

MISREPRESENTATION 

38. 
The international governing body of sport aerobics and fitness is FISAF 
International. It states that it is an international non-governmental 
organisation, international, independent, democratic and non-profit dedicated 
to sports aerobics, fitness and hip-hop and to the development thereof on an 
international level. It conducts three events internationally, being the FISAF 
International European Championships, FISAF International World 
Championships and FISAF International Open events. 
39. 
South Africa is a member of FISAF through SASAFF. SASAFF is a voluntary 
association created in terms of a constitution that requires it to be affiliated to 
SASCOC and FISAF. 
40. 
SASAFF’s constitution records that its main objectives and powers are: 
“5.1 
To pursue policies and programmes aimed at redressing imbalances 
and creating a genuine non-racial, non-political and demographic 
Federation, such policies and programmes to be aimed at achieving, 
expeditiously, the non-racial, non-political and demographic 
structuring of the Federation and its constituent elements. 

5.2 To adopt and enact such measures which, in the opinion of the 
Federation and/or SASCOC and/or FISAF, will foster, promote, 

Page 14 

regulate, encourage and provide facilities for Sport Aerobics and 
Fitness Level, in South Africa, and in any other territory as the 
Federation and/or SASCOC and/or FISAF may decide, amongst 
competing athletes irrespective of race, colour, creed or gender, and 
to eliminate any discrimination and inequality. 

5.3 
To commit its members to a programme of development and 
upliftment of the Aerobics and Fitness at Region level. 
5.4 
To act as controlling and coordinating body for Sport and Aerobics 
and Fitness clubs affiliated to the Federation. 
5.5 
To be affiliated to SASCOC and to FISAF and to appoint 
representatives to serve on SASCOC and FISAF bodies. 
5.6 
To be affiliated to any organisation whose aims and objects are 
compatible to those of the Federation, and to appoint representatives 
thereto. 
5.7 
To obtain such funds, to accrue such assets and to undertake such 
liabilities as may be deemed expedient by the Federation, pursuant to 
this Constitution and for these purposes to enter into any such 
contracts, deeds and agreements as may be deemed necessary. 

Page 15 

5.8 
To bind its members to all contracts, deeds and agreements entered 
into by the national management committee of the Federation on 
behalf of the Federation. 
5.9 
To adopt regulations in relation to the Federation and the game of 
Sport Aerobics and Fitness, to annul or vary regulations so adopted, 
and to bind its members to all regulations so made and for the time 
being in force, subject to the constitutions of and regulations 
promulgated by SASCOC and FISAF. 
The aforegoing is subject to the express stipulations that 

(a) 
No profit or gains will be distributed to any individual, and the funds of 
the Federation shall be utilised solely for attaining the objectives for 
which the Federation was established or for investment. 
(b) 
The Federation shall not have the power to carry on any business 
including, inter alia, ordinary trading operations in the commercial 
sense and speculative transactions.” 
41. 
Operating in the Republic is a second organisation, the IIFT. The IIFT is 
considered by SASAFF to be a rival federation and is repeatedly described by 
Mr Barends as a “rebel organisation”. 

Page 16 

42. 
The IIFT is also a full member of FISAF. It appears that there is a long-
running spat between SASAFF and IIFT. This spat culminated in a dispute 
resolution meeting chaired by Mr M Mohammed of SASCOC on 
18 September 2011. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:17:01 AM
blank)
Regrettably, and notwithstanding my request to the 
Federations for the minutes of this meeting, they have not been forthcoming. 
43. 
I infer that this dispute resolution meeting was aimed at achieving unity 
between the two organisations, and that as part of these endeavours certain 
agreements were reached and SASCOC directives issued. I am not privy to 
these. Nonetheless, the outcome of this meeting has led to one of the 
complaints discussed below. 
44. 
What is apparent, however, is that SASCOC recognition was given to 
SASAFF. The effect of this recognition is that SASAFF became entitled to 
recommend athletes for the award of Protea colours to the National Colours 
Board.1 This board acts as an advisory and supervisory body of SASCOC 
with regard to all matters affecting national colours and the control and use 
thereof.2 
45. 
On 30 June 2012, SASAFF issued a bulletin under the hand of Mr Barends. 
The bulletin states, in part: 
1 
Clause 13(4) of the National Sports Colours Regulation established in terms of Section 11 of 
Act 110 of 1998 

2 
Clause 4(1) of the National Sports Colours Regulation 


Page 17 

“The Championships hosted by SASAFF (the only Fitness Federation 
recognised by SASCOC and therefore the only Fitness Sport Aerobic 
Federation accredited to award National – and Provincial Colours in 
conjunction with the Provincial Sport Confederations) is the ONLY 
official South African National Championships ... 

SASAFF has been granted Full Membership of FISAF International. 
The existing member (IIFT), was allowed to continue its membership. 
This will have the effect that the number of entries from South Africa 
will have to be shared ... 

Athletes and coaches that participate in IIFT championships in 
August 2012 will: 

-Not be recognised by SASAFF and SASCOC 

-Not obtain Protea Colours 

-Not be able to use the words South Africa and/or any symbols 
with reference to South Africa 

-Not be able to obtain any funding from any government institution 
or the Lottery 


Page 18 

-Membership with SASAFF and SASCOC will be terminated 
automatically”. 

46. 
It is stated by the complainants that this bulletin deliberately and materially 
distorted the true facts. The true facts, it is stated, appear from the FISAF 
memorandum of 12 June 2012. This memorandum records in part as follows: 
“FISAF International EC recommends and IIFT representative agrees 
to cooperate with SASAFF and contact representatives of SASAFF to 
find a common way to send competitors to international competitions. 
Delegation for the FISAF International World Championship will be 
done together and it is recommended to fulfil all categories 2/3-1/3 in 
benefit to full member + in all categories. In the SA case this means 
that for all categories 2 participants from IIFT and 1 from SASAFF. 
For the hip hop categories respectively 3 from IIFT and 2 from 
SASAFF. If not all the IIFT places are taken by IIFT participants, 
more SASAFF athletes can participate as part of the delegation.” 

47. 
It is apparent from the FISAF memorandum aforesaid that IIFT was the 
original FISAF member in the Republic, and that SASAFF only acquired 
membership on the IIFT’s agreement in June of 2012. 

Page 19 

48. 
The position is anomalous. Whereas SASAFF is the SASCOC accredited 
federation and the “national controlling body”3, SASAFF agreed to split the 
delegation to attend the FISAF World Championship with the IIFT in the 
agreed ratio and the IIFT athletes would attend the world championships as 
“Proteas”, i.e. members of the SASCOC approved national team. 
49. 
In his affidavit, Mr Barends does not disavow the conclusion of an agreement 
with the IIFT that brought about SASAFF becoming a member of FISAF. 
50. 
Mr Barends’ affidavit, regrettably, does set out any terms of the agreement or 
how the agreement was to be implemented. The complainants do not either 
but this is plainly not within their knowledge. 
51. 
I am thus left to infer that the agreement either expressly or impliedly requires 
SASAFF to recommend both its members and the IIFT members that satisfy 
the qualifying criteria to the National Colours Board for the award of Protea 
colours. This inference is supported by an e-mail dated 10 July 2012 from 
Mr Eric Vandenabeele, the FISAF International President to Mr Barends 
which records, in part: 
“I received SASAFF’s last bulletin about the qualifying athletes for 
Dordrecht. 

Defined in clause 1 of the National Sports Colours Regulations as being “that body which 
administers or controls any sport at the national level and whose members are appointed by 
affiliated provincial or other constituent sporting association” 


Page 20 

We tried to act in favour of the athletes, keeping in mind our 
philosophy to include instead of exclude. Thanks to this and our 
positive efforts SASAFF could become a full member … 


I understand that the South African situation is special and 
sometimes past disagreements can provoke an offensive, direct or 
undiplomatic attitude. However, at a certain point decisions need to 
be accepted, focusing on the benefits and the interests of the 
athletes. 

I really regret that as a result of our open-minded and inclusive vision, 
SASAFF is doing the exact opposite and acts in conflict with our 
philosophy and efforts. 

I am really disappointed and feel misused ...”. 

52. 
The evidence points to an agreement between SASAFF and IIFT to 
cooperate in the composition of a delegation to the FISAF world 
championships. Such an agreement that necessarily results in inclusion as 
opposed to exclusion, co-operation rather than friction and the interests of the 
sport being placed ahead of egos and personalities is to be commended. 
53. 
It is regrettable that these ideals were never obtained. SASAFF’s position, as 
set out in Mr Barends’ affidavit, is dogmatic. He states: 

Page 21 

“SASAFF is the sole affiliate (sic) member of SASCOC for the sport in 
the Republic of South Africa and the only body accredited to issue 
Protea Colours. 

Its membership was re-established after SASAFF declared a dispute 
at SASCOC after a rebel organisation, SASAFF, under the auspices 
of IIFT, unsuccessfully lost their case to be recognised as the 
custodian of the sport in the Republic.” 

54. 
It bears mention that SASAFF does not issue Protea Colours. As stated 
above, this is in the sole jurisdiction of the National Colours Board which acts 
on the recommendation of the relevant national controlling bodies. 
55. 
SASAFF’s stance is supported by certain correspondence addressed to 
FISAF under the hand of Mr T Reddy, SASCOC’s Chief Executive Officer. 
56. 
The gravamen of this correspondence is that SASAFF is the SASCOC 
affiliated federation, and only SASAFF members will be permitted by 
SASCOC to send a delegation to participate in the FISAF International 
Championships and represent South Africa at any international 
championship. Further, SASAFF is the only entity sanctioned to organise 
national championships. 
57. 
I am constrained to find that the Bulletin, although a clear repudiation of the 
agreement that led to it becoming a member of FISAF and thus able to send 

Page 22 

athletes to the world championships, is not misleading. At the same time, I do 
point out, as conceded by Mr Barends, there is no prohibition on the IIFT 
being an affiliated member of SASAFF. If that were to have been allowed by 
SASAFF this complaint may not have arisen. 

58. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:20:38 AM
blank)
The Bulletin is, however, offensive for other reasons; it promotes division in 
the sport, threatens athletes and coaches with expulsion and prejudices those 
athletes who, in terms of the agreement with IIFT, would have been eligible to 
participate in the world championships. 
59. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:21:01 AM
blank)
I was unable to find any provision in SASAFF’s constitution that empowers its 
executive to summarily terminate a member’s membership. 
60. 
The threats made by Mr Barends in the Bulletin thus are a blatant example of 
intimidation. 
61. 
The Bulletin is but one example of shockingly inappropriate conduct on the 
part of the SASAFF executive. In the chapter that follows, I deal with further 
threats made to athletes, instances of outrageous intimidation, unprofessional 
conduct and plain bullying. 

Page 23 

INTIMIDATION 

62. 
The complainants contend that athletes who choose to compete in IIFT and 
SASAFF events (particularly in 2012) have been the subject of intimidation, 
exclusion and inequality by SASAFF. 
63. 
In addition to SASAFF's bulletin of 12 June 2012 numerous specific incidents 
of intimidation are cited. 
64. 
In August 2012, Mr Barends together with Mrs le Roux, in her capacity as the 
general secretary of SASAFF, met with the principal of the school attended by 
two minor athletes, Emma van Rensburg and Monique Koen (ostensibly in 
the belief that the agreement referred to above entitled them to do so). 
65. 
Both of these athletes had competed at the IIFT championship that year. 
66. 
Mr Barends and Mrs le Roux demanded that the school colours previously 
awarded to the two athletes be withdrawn on a public stage. 
67. 
In SASAFF’s affidavit, deposed to by Mr Barends, it is contended that 
SASAFF has a duty to act in the best interest of the sport. He argues that the 
demand concerning Ms van Rensburg and Ms Koen was in the best interest 
of the sport because SASAFF has the duty to ensure that only athletes 
participating in official provincial and national competitions are recognised 
and both these athletes participated in “unofficial championships”. 

Page 24 

68. 
SASAFF felt so strongly about its perceived duty that Mr Barends addressed 
a letter to the principal of the minors’ school on 30 August 2012. This letter 
records in part as follows: 
"SASAFF would like to request that as DF Malan gave recognition 
on a public platform to the legal qualification of Protea Colours for 
participation at the 2012 FISAF international championships of these 
two athletes, it should be withdrawn on a public platform as well." 
(emphasis added) 

69. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:25:03 AM
blank)
It is unquestionable that SASAFF and its officers, Mr Barends and Mrs le 
Roux, sought by their meeting with the school principal and through their 
letter aforesaid to publicly humiliate the minor children. 
70. 
This demand and a desire to see minor children publicly humiliated can never 
be rationally linked to conduct in the best interest of the sport. 
71. 
To compound matters SASAFF had its facts wrong. The school in question 
awarded school colours to the two athletes for obtaining Western Province 
and Protea Colours in 2011 under SASAFF. 
72. 
At the hearing before me, Mr Barends conceded that the conduct complained 
of was heavy-handed and overly zealous. Regrettably, however, this 

Page 25 

concession yielded no more sense of judgment on the part of SASAFF and its 
officials. 

73. 
On 16 October 2014, Mr Barends, on behalf of SASAFF and in his capacity 
as president of SASAFF, addressed a letter to the principal of Kimberly Girls 
High School which records as follows: 
"It has come to the attention of SASAFF that a learner from your school, 
Iman Holmes will be recognised by the school for achieving official 
sports colours. 

The only body in South Africa allowed to award official sports colours is 
SASCOC (South African Sport Confederation and Olympic Committee). 

SASAFF is the affiliated member of SASCOC in both fitness and in hip 
hop. Affiliated members of SASAFF will be awarded Protea Colours 
when representing their country at a World Championship. 

All members of SASCOC have to follow the correct protocol i.e. 
submission of prescribed application forms and approval letter to be 
received from SASCOC. 

Prior to the acknowledgement and recognition of official sport colours by 
your school, it is advised that the following official documents should be 
received by the school. 


Page 26 

-Letter of the National Federation confirming the affiliation and 
membership to SASCOC and confirming the membership of 
Iman Holmes to the Federation. 

-The letter received from SASCOC confirming that Iman Holmes 
has qualified for Protea Colours. 

Kindly supply SASAFF with the abovementioned documents. If 
these documents should not been (sic) received and the school 
should continue with the recognition and awarding of official sport 
colours to this learner, SASAFF will have no option as to report 
this incident to the Department of Education." (emphasis added) 

74. 
The complainant’s attorney, Mr Bekker, tended this letter into evidence on the 
final day of the hearing in this matter. As is set above, the Federation elected 
not to participate in that hearing. At my request this letter was forwarded to 
the Federation for their comment. SASAFF refused to do so. I accept that 
Mr Barends sent the letter to the school. 
75. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:26:24 AM
blank)
The basis upon which SASAFF can interfere with the running of a school 
defies logic. I accept that Kimberly Girls High School is a public school as 
defined in section 1 of the Schools Act, 1996. Public schools enjoy juristic 

Page 27 

personality4, are governed by their governing bodies who, together with the 
principal of the school, is entitled, as of right, to set the criteria upon which 
school colours will be granted. School colours are a recognition of excellence 
on the part of the learner enrolled therein. School colours are not necessarily 
linked to the award of any Provincial or National Colours, but are always 
linked to a qualifying criterion set by the school concerned. The nebulous 
statement that Ms Holmes "… 
will be recognised by the school for achieving 
official sports colours" does not warrant a threat of the nature expressed in 
the letter under discussion. 

76. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:27:01 AM
blank)
I find that SASAFF and Mr Barends intended to intimidate the principal of 
Kimberly Girls High School by writing the aforesaid letter. 
77. 
Tendered into evidence is an undated letter written by Mrs Marna Koen, 
Ms Koen's mother, relating to, inter alia, SASAFF's visit to her daughter's 
school. None of the factual statements made in Mrs Koen's letter are 
challenged in SASAFF's affidavit. This letter has apparently gone 
unanswered by any of the parties to whom it was addressed. If it was 
answered, I have not been favoured with a copy of such response. Whatever 
the position, portions of this letter bear recital: 
"Along with other very unhappy and aggrieved parents from the 
Western Cape, I write to you and urge SASCOC to urgently intervene 
in a very unfair and sad situation that is quickly spiralling out of 

Section 15 of the Schools Act, 1996 


Page 28 

complete control. It is very unfortunate that the SASAFF 
administrators, namely Mr Barends and Mrs le Roux are running the 
federation into the ground with manipulation and intimidation tactics! 
This has continued since the unsuccessful unification process that 
was agreed upon on 18 September 2011 but which was short lived 
due to SASAFF's unacceptable behaviour. 

Monique, my daughter, was one of the unfortunate athlete's (sic) that 
was caught in the "crossfire" of the two federations along with another 
young aerobic athlete, whose parents withdrew her from the sport 
end of 2011 due to Mrs le Roux's behaviour towards our children. 

Monique entered IIFT competition in 2011 and believed in good faith, 
that the unification as agreed upon on 18 September, would ensure 
that all "qualifying athletes from their respective national 
championships", will receive Protea Colours for travel to Brisbane 
FISAF world champs. 

Unfortunately this was not so as SASAFF did an "about turn" a few 
days after the unification and insisted only those athletes that scored 
"their" SASAFF qualifying score (score of 8) would receive colours. 
Monique scored an average of 7.7 in the IIFT competition and their 
qualifying score for overseas participation was 7.5 … 



Page 29 

As you aware since SASAFF were reinstated (with the same 
executive structure and same crooked judges on their national 
committee) at an AGM held on 28 January 2012 at your offices, 
things have continued to spiral downwards at a very quick rate … 
come early 2012 SASAFF commenced affiliating members to their 
federation for entry into FISAF international – even without the 
necessary licence being awarded … 
they advertised at the gates of 
the regional national championships and issued a rule book to their 
members. On the other hand, IIFT did nothing of this kind and 
instead decided to wait until FISAF has officially issued licences … 
and did not advertise for any competitions early 2012. Monique's 
coach Mandy Swanson decided to add Monique to the list of affiliated 
athletes in her club and affiliate Monique to SASAFF for the 
upcoming competitions. SASAFF responded and sent an e-mail 
stating that they first had to "discuss her membership" at their 
National Management Committee Meeting … 
following on this e-mail, 
nothing further was ever received. Rumour's (sic) had already 
circulated around this time that SASAFF were going to deny 
Monique membership based on her insistence of entering IIFT's 
competition in 2011 and her rightful (but denied request for Protea 
Colours before travel to Brisbane)." 

78. 
The only portion of this letter that SASAFF elected to deal with in their 
affidavit was the contention on Mrs Koen's part that her daughter had 

Page 30 

qualified for Protea Colours. SASAFF's response is curt, its evidence as 
follows: 

"4.7.1 
It is emphatically stated that the said athlete did not qualify for 
National Colours at any of the Federation's competitions. 

4.7.2 
Application to SASCOC for approval of the delegation to Australia 
was provided on the prescribed form and submitted to SASCOC for 
ratification. Ms Koen's name was not the list as she had not qualified 
…" (emphasis added) 

79. 
SASAFF’s retort states no more than the obvious: having not participated in 
the SASAFF event but rather the IIFT event, Ms Koen could obviously not 
qualify in that manner and her name would thus not appear on SASAFF’s list 
submitted to SASCOC for ratification. 
80. 
En passant, it appears that the head of the IIFT, Dr Nel, had certified that the 
qualifying criterion had been met. Thus, on the basis of the agreement to 
which I referred above, SASAFF ought to have submitted Ms Koen's name to 
SASCOC for ratification. 
81. 
On 16 October 2012, one Matthew Krinsky (“Mr Krinsky”), the father of the 
minor Tamsin Krinsky, a SASAFF athlete attending at a FISAF tournament 
being held in The Netherlands at that time, was so upset by the treatment of 

Page 31 

his daughter that he felt it necessary to address the FISAF president directly 
in this regard. 

82. 
I must remark that such a step is extraordinary as ordinarily the president of 
SASAFF would have been approached first. Mr Krinsky records, inter alia, as 
follows: 
"It is with great trepidation and the feeling of angst my daughter 
Tamsin Krinsky, currently in The Netherlands at a tournament 
conferred to me in a state of severe emotional distress that she is the 
target of victimisation and verbal abuse by Lynette and Marizanne le 
Roux who expressed extreme upset that she had dared to enrol 
herself for a workshop that was being offered by your organisation to 
allow the athletes participating at random and by default. Tamsin 
was verbally abused by the point of view that she was shouted at and 
severely orally reprimanded by the abovementioned persons causing 
her to become hysterical …" 

83. 
Mr Krinsky concludes by recording that he is seeking legal opinion concerning 
the abuse to which his daughter was put and obtaining a restraining order 
against these individuals. 
84. 
The factual occurrence of the event whereat Tamsin Krinsky was shouted at 
and severely orally reprimanded is admitted by SASAFF. The cause of this 
conduct was, ostensibly, Mr Krinsky informing the general secretary, Mrs le 

Page 32 

Roux, on 15 October 2012 that his daughter would not be available for 
training the following day sans any permission having been sought from 
Mrs le Roux prior to the world championships. 

85. 
SASAFF's justification for the manner in which the minor child was treated 
was that incorrect procedures were followed. 
86. 
SASAFF make a point that the minor child apologised to Mrs le Roux at the 
end of the championships for "emotional outbursts". I am uncertain what this 
means but, whatever it means, it does not justify conduct of the nature 
described, especially at the hand of a senior official of SASAFF. The verbal 
abuse of an athlete, let alone a minor child, can never be rationalised or 
justified, let alone for not following some procedure, the details of which have 
been kept from me (and which I doubt to exist). 
87. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:28:51 AM
blank)
The acts of intimidation at the hand of senior SASAFF officials do not stop 
there. Threats of expulsion were made against particular coaches and 
generally to athletes and coaches who participate in IIFT competitions. There 
is substantial evidence that Mr Barends has publicly threatened and 
intimidated athletes and coaches that participate in IIFT events, that they will 
be stripped of their colours and be expelled from SASAFF. 
88. 
Again, I was unable to find any provision in SASAFF’s constitution that 
empowers it to strip an athlete of his/her colours. 

Page 33 

89. 
During the course of this matter, Dr van Rensburg's eldest daughter, Ms Lisa 
van Rensburg became a major and applied for affiliation and membership to 
WPSAFF and SASAFF. 
90. 
On 8 April 2013, the WPSAFF addressed a letter to Amanda Klotz of the 
studio "Gift of Dance" advising Ms Klotz that Lisa van Rensburg's application 
for membership had been denied, on account of the complaints that her father 
had made to SASCOC pertaining to her younger sister and regarding the 
WPSAFF and SASAFF. 
91. 
This notification prompted Mr David Bekker to address a letter to the 
WPSAFF reminding it that Ms Lisa van Rensburg has been affiliated to it for 
the past eight years, was awarded Protea Colours in 2009, 2011 and 2012, is 
not party to the pending dispute, and invited the WPSAFF to reconsider its 
position. 
92. 
The WPSAFF's refusal of Ms Lisa van Rensburg's application came to the 
attention of SASCOC's President, Mr Sam. It culminated in a telephone call 
between SASCOC's general manager Ms Patience Shikwambana 
(“Ms Shikwambana”) and Mr Barends on 18 April 2013. The outcome of that 
conversation was recorded in a letter addressed by Mr Barends to 
Ms Shikwambana later that day. This letter records: 
"With reference to our telephone conversation today, SASAFF will: 


Page 34 

1. 
Inform the WPSAFF Committee that communication was 
received from SASCOC; 
-About the lawyers (sic) received by SASCOC i.e. the 
refusal of the Provincial Federation to register an athlete 
due to a current dispute being addressed. 

-The request from SASCOC to urgently resolve the matter 
to avoid unnecessary court actions. 

- 
That internal processes must be exhausted first. 

- 
We have a duty to protect athletes. 

2. 
Recommend to WPSAFF that as Ms Lisa van Rensburg has 
turned 18 since the initial application, she again applied for 
membership according to the official procedures. It will be 
prerogative of the WPSAFF Committee to accept the 
affiliation according to their Constitution and the SASAFF 
Rules and Regulations." 
93. 
It was not the WPSAFF’s prerogative to accept the affiliation; Mr Barends had 
previously written to the WPSAFF stating on 20 March 2013 that: 

Page 35 

“SASAFF would like to inform the Western Province Committee that a 
Dispute has been lodged by the parent and guardian (George van 
Rensburg) of the abovementioned athletes against SASAFF. Both 
daughters of Mr van Rensburg (Emma and Lisa) were affiliated to 
and members of SASAFF and WPSAFF in 2012. 

SASAFF would like to inform WPSAFF that if the situation arises that 
official applications for affiliation and membership to SASAFF and 
WPSAFF be received from these athletes, the WPSAFF should refer 
the matter to the SASAFF.” 

94. 
Thereafter, Mr Barends wrote to the WPSAFF instructing it that Ms Lisa van 
Rensburg’s application could not be entertained because of this dispute. 
95. 
Pursuant to Mr Barends' letter of 18 April 2013 to SASCOC, Ms Lisa van 
Rensburg was summoned to appear before the WPSAFF Committee, 
ostensibly regarding her application. This prompted Ms Shikwambana to 
address a letter to Mr Barends on 24 April 2013. The letter is couched in very 
strong terms and records as follows: 
"Thank you for response in addressing Lisa's affiliation application as 
per your letter dated 18 April 2013. However it has come to our 
attention that Lisa has been asked to appear before the WPSAFF 
regarding the matter. In [no] uncertain terms as SASCOC, will we 


Page 36 

allow athletes to be forced to such a procedure and process just to 
become a member of a federation. 

We also note that it was per your correspondence to WPSAFF dated 
8 April 2013 where you instructed them not to accept the application. 
SASCOC reminds you of clause 4.6 of Memorandum of Association 
"to take action against any form of discrimination and violence 
in sport". We advise you that Lisa is no more a minor, she is able to 
deal with her affairs. In previous disputes which may have arisen 
being minor do not form part of this application to be a member. 

Please be advised that we have instructed Lisa not to attend the 
scheduled meeting today with your affiliate WPSAFF. We advise you 
to ensure that Lisa is accepted as member of WPSAFF 
unconditionally." 

96. 
Nonetheless, and on 2 May 2013, Ms Lisa van Rensburg was required to 
attend a meeting chaired by Mr Oppel in his capacity as WPSAFF chairman. 
Mr le Roux, a member of SASAFF’s National Executive Committee and 
Mrs le Roux’s husband, and a certain Mr Donovan Muller, a member of 
SASAFF's national management committee, a member of the WPSAFF and 
an SASAFF judge, were also present at this meeting. Ms Lisa van Rensburg 
was accompanied by Ms Klotz and her coach Mrs Gerber. 

Page 37 

97. 
The meeting served little or no purpose. Mr Oppel contended in his evidence 
that the meeting was not a “hearing” but “intended to let her [a reference to 
Ms Lisa van Rensburg] know what the path to her membership was”. This 
statement seems to be exactly what SASCOC forbade. 
98. 
Mr Oppel undertook to provide me with the minutes of this meeting on 27 July 
2013. Although the objection to the complainants’ standing overtook matters 
somewhat, I have still never been favoured with the minutes of this meeting. 
99. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:31:18 AM
blank)
The inference is irresistible, when looking at the facts of this matter in context, 
that this meeting was retaliatory for Dr van Rensburg’s complaints. I cannot 
find, as a result, that purpose was bona fide or rationally connected to any 
purpose aimed at advancing the relationship as between Ms Lisa van 
Rensburg and the WPSAFF. 
100. This meeting was, therefore, simply another act of intimidation intended to 
remind the athlete of her place. 
101. I 
consequently find SASAFF and the WPSAFF, in particular, its senior 
management, Mr Barends, Mrs le Roux and Mr Oppel to have engaged in 
various acts of intimidation. 

Page 38 

EXCLUSION AND INEQUALITY 

102. The complainants complain that SASAFF have acted contrary to clause 5.2 of 
its constitution, which provides that one of its main objectives and powers is 
“… 
to adopt and enact such measures which, in the opinion of the Federation 
and/or SASCOC and/or FISAF, will foster, promote, regulate and encourage 
and provide facilities for Sport Aerobics and Fitness level, in South Africa, and 
in any other territory as the Federation and/or SASCOC and/or FISAF may 
decide, amongst competing athletes irrespective of race, colour, creed or 
gender, and to eliminate any discrimination and equality.” 
103. The 
complaint is that athletes not belonging to SASAFF are being 
discriminated against and treated iniquitously. 
104. The alleged discrimination and iniquitous treatment arises from the barring of 
non-SASAFF athletes (i.e. IIFT athletes) from participating at national 
championships, being able to qualify for a FISAF international world 
championship and from Protea colours and Lottery supported funding. 
105. SASAFF openly admit to this policy. 
106. SASAFF justifies its policy on the basis that SASAFF has the right to protect 
its members from “a rebel organisation claiming to be the representative of 
the sport but failing dismally to provide international participation at FISAF 

Page 39 

international championships”. Simply put, SASAFF does not want to share 
the quota of athletes to the FISAF world championships with IIFT as 
contemplated in Mr Vandenabeele’s memorandum of 12 June 2012. For the 
reasons discussed in the chapter entitled “Conflicts of Interest and 
Unprofessional Conduct”, below, I have suspect that such a sharing would 
impact most significantly on Club Splice. 

107. According to Mr Barends, the IIFT is the direct opposition of SASAFF. 
108. SASAFF’s policy is clearly exclusionary; its intended purpose is to prevent 
athletes and coaches that associate themselves in any way with the IIFT to 
be barred from the privilege of, inter alia, representing their country. 
109. It appears that SASAFF justifies this policy on the basis of clause 13 of its 
constitution which provides that the National Council of SASAFF may declare 
another body or organisation “to be in direct opposition” to SASAFF. 
110. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:33:08 AM
blank)
Nowhere in its papers does SASAFF contend to have declared the IIFT to be 
“in direct opposition” to it (whatever that may mean). In the absence of a 
resolution to this effect, which even if passed is not in the evidence before 
me, the stance taken and policy adopted by SASAFF is manifestly ultra vires. 
It is questionable, nonetheless, whether such a clause in its constitution and 
any resolution passed thereunder is lawful and enforceable. 

Page 40 

111. Clause 13 of the SASAFF constitution gives the national executive council a 
nebulous power to simply declare any club, athlete or association persona 
non grata and thus close the door to, inter alia, national honours to it. It is not 
stated under what circumstances that power may be exercised and how it is 
to be exercised. 
112. It is equally manifest that this provision, which I must accept has not been 
invoked by SASAFF, lends itself to abuse. Its purpose is irrational because it 
aims to exclude and has been used to exclude athletes and coaches who are 
dissatisfied with the manner in which SASAFF is being run and the athletes’ 
treatment. 
113. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:33:34 AM
blank)
Conduct, 
as described above, under the circumstances is arbitrary and 
irrational. It is also contrary to SASAFF’s constitution and unlawful. 
114. The mere fact that SASAFF is the SASCOC affiliated federation does not 
entitle it to use its affiliation with SASCOC as a stick against those who would 
voice their disapproval. That this is the manner in which SASAFF is 
conducting itself appears from the factual findings that I made above. 
115. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:34:06 AM
blank)
Clause 5.1 of the SASAFF constitution states that one of the main objectives 
and powers of the Federation is the creation of a genuine non-racial, nonpolitical 
and democratic Federation. It has, notwithstanding this, gone about 
to achieve the contrary. 

Page 41 

116. In their submission of complaints, the complainants ask me to find that the 
IIFT should be afforded national federation status, together with SASAFF, by 
SASCOC. This I cannot do as it is beyond the scope of this investigation and 
the powers that I have in terms of this reference. 
117. The 
request does, however, raise a matter that is central to all of the 
complaints. It is this: is the executive of SASAFF and, to an extent, WPSAFF, 
fit and proper to hold the office that they do? I deal more fully with this below. 

Page 42 

MALADMINISTRATION OF FUNDS 

118. The 
factual allegations underlying this complaint are that WPSAFF were 
awarded a grant by the Western Cape Department of Cultural Affairs and 
Sport to assist identified qualifying athletes to cover their costs to attend the 
2010 FISAF World Championships. 
119. In order to qualify for the grant, the identified athletes were required to be 
from a previously disadvantaged background and be awarded Protea 
Colours. 
120. The application was made by Mr Oppel in his capacity as the chairman of the 
WPSAFF. Mr Oppel's letter provides in part: 
"70 athletes from Western Province have achieved the highest 
honours at the 2010 South African Fitness Sports Aerobics 
Championships that was held in Cape Town from 27 to 29 August 
and qualified to represent South Africa at the 2010 FISAF World 
Cadet, Junior World and Senior World Fitness Sport Aerobics 
Championships …" (emphasis added) 

121. Ostensibly enclosed in this letter was a letter of selection from SASAFF. 
This 
was not the case however. Attached was a document entitled "List of Names 
of PDI Athletes still needing Financial Assistance". Listed were the names of 

Page 43 

18 ostensibly previously disadvantaged individuals and one "needy" athlete. 
The total amount sought by the WPSAFF from the Western Cape 
Government was R69 900.00. 

122. Mrs le Roux submitted this application to the Western Cape Government in 
her capacity as a "Co-opted Member: WP Committee". Based on this 
application, a submission was made to the Head of Department: Western 
Cape Department of Cultural Affairs and Sport. In that submission approval 
was sought for ad hoc funding for the individuals aforesaid. 
123. The 
submission to the Head of Department records, under the heading 
"Background", that the assistance will be used to assist historically 
disadvantaged sectors of the Western Cape sporting community that would 
otherwise be precluded from pursuing international championship 
participation, and under the motivation that the recipients of the grant will 
receive Protea Colours. 
124. Under the heading 
"Recommendation", it is recommended to the Head of 
Department that funding be provided on the basis that the athletes will be 
awarded Protea Colours, and that the Federation complies with the provisions 
of section 38(1)(j) of the Public Finance Management Act, 1999. 
125. The same list of 19 athletes appears in the recommendation and the amount 
awarded to each athlete filled in in manuscript next to their names. The Head 
of Department approved the submission. 

Page 44 

126. The funding was only received after the tournament. 
127. It transpires that 6 of the 18 athletes on the WPSAFF's list did not qualify for 
Protea Colours. 
128. When 
Mrs le Roux submitted the application to the Western Province 
Department, she had already issued a SASAFF bulletin on 2 September 2010 
setting out which athletes would obtain Protea Colours and which would 
obtain SASAFF Federation Colours. 
129. In 
SASAFF's answering affidavit, it is contended that it provided to the 
Western Cape Department a list of athletes that would qualify for Protea 
Colours and those that would qualify for Federation Colours. It also states 
that the 2010 application for ad hoc funding did not state that obtaining of 
Protea Colours was a criterion for funding and it, consequently, denies a 
deliberate misrepresentation of the facts to the Western Province 
Department. 
130. The Federations have not provided the 2010 application for ad hoc funding to 
me. Having made the positive factual averment that in 2010 the application 
did not require the award of Protea Colours, one would have expected the 
document to be tendered because it would have been dispositive of the issue. 
The Federation’s failure to have done so leads to the inference that the 

Page 45 

document concerned does not in fact dispose of the issue in the Federation’s 
favour. 

131. The inference aforesaid is supported by the statements in Mr Oppel's letter 
referring to "highest honours" and "qualified to represent South Africa". 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:36:10 AM
blank)
This 
is a clear representation that the athletes identified in the application had 
qualified for Protea Colours. 

132. The list of identified athletes included both Protea Colours and Federation 
Colours recipients without differentiation between the two catagories. 
133. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:36:20 AM
blank)
The letter is at very best misleading. At worst, it is fraudulent. 
134. The problem for the Federations is that the contention that Protea Colours 
was not a requirement in 2010 cannot be sustained. The submission to the 
Head of Department makes it clear that the Federation and, more particularly, 
the athletes for whom it sought funding had represented that the minimum 
requirement of qualifying for ad hoc funding had been satisfied. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:36:38 AM
blank)
This, very 
clearly, is Protea Colours and, moreover, the funding was recommended on 
the basis that the athletes were awarded Protea Colours by SASCOC. 
135. The submission was made by Mrs le Roux, the person who issued the bulletin 
some days earlier. Mrs le Roux did not distance herself from the application 
that was made and she very certainly knew that the representations made to 
the Provincial Department were, in material respects, false. 

Page 46 

136. The application was, nonetheless, made to the Provincial Department and 
funding obtained and used by the WPSAFF. 
137. Pursuant to the ad hoc grant, and in December or January of 2010 or 2011, 
the Department represented by the Head of Department and the WPSAFF 
represented by Mr Oppel entered into a written agreement. The written 
agreement provides in the preamble that: 
"AND WHEREAS the parties agree further that the funds may be 
utilised for the express purpose to assist WP Fitness Sports Aerobics 
Federation whose names are enlisted in the submission, in 
participating at the international sporting events in FISAF World 
Championships in Eindhoven, The Netherlands. 

NOW THEREFORE THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 

The department shall effect payment of the sum of sixty one 
thousand rand only in payment on the date of signature of this 
agreement by both parties subject to the following terms and 
conditions: 

1. 
The Beneficiary hereby confirms an effective, efficient and 
transparent financial management and internal control 
systems are in place. 

Page 47 

2. 
In support of clause 1 of this agreement, the Beneficiary will 
furnish the Province with its most recent financial statements 
as prepared by a registered accountant. 
3. 
The Beneficiary shall appoint a registered accountant to 
prepare the Beneficiary's statement in respect of the financial 
year during which this agreement is or remains in force. 
4. 
Funds may only be utilised for purpose for which they 
were approved. 
5. 
It is recorded that the Beneficiary has submitted a business 
plan to the department, which includes a budget, annexed 
hereto as "A", and incorporated herein. The funds will only 
be allocated in terms of the budget. 
6. 
The funds shall be deposited into a separate bank account 
opened in the name of the Beneficiary with any banking 
institution or building society in the Republic of South Africa 
and shall be invested at the most beneficial interest rate until 
the funds can be utilised for the purpose for which it has 
been approved. 

Page 48 

7. 
Interest earned may only be utilised for the benefits of the 
approved projects. 
8. 
… 
9. 
Surplus funds, including available interest thereon, must be 
paid back to the Province immediately on completion of the 
project, clearly indicating the project reference number. 
10. 
Expenditure vouchers, including cashed cheque, indicating 
the project number, must be retained for audit purposes. 
11. 
…". (emphasis added) 
138. As 
stated above, the funds were sought from the Western Province 
Department for a world championship to be held at the end of October 2010, 
and the funds only became available in January the following year. 
139. On the common cause facts, one of the complainants advanced monies to 
the families of the athletes to whom the monies in respect of the grant ought 
to have been paid. SASAFF contends that the funding received "… 
was paid 
to the applicant's (clubs), according to the applications received". This is not, 
however, the position. 

Page 49 

140. Having obtained the money from the Department in the circumstances set out 
above, it is less than clear what the WPSAFF did with it. 
141. In an affidavit deposed to by Mr le Roux, Mrs le Roux's husband, and the 
manager of the Splice Club, coached by his daughter Marizanne le Roux, 
some insight is gained as to what happened to the money. 
142. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:40:57 AM
blank)
Mr le Roux concedes that the two athletes did not receive the monies applied 
for on their behalf to the Department. 
143. Mr le Roux suggests that it was with the consent of Mrs van Rensburg who 
consented to the allocated amounts obtained for these athletes. 
144. The suggestion is extraordinary. 
144.1. 
First, Mrs van Rensburg is the mother of one of the athletes and the 
wife of one of the complainants herein. She is not in any way related 
to the Provincial Department from whom the funds were obtained, 
much less is she able to change the terms of the contract as between 
the WPSAFF and the Department. 
144.2. 
Second, on account of the somewhat belated application to the 
Province for funding and the delayed receipt of the funds, 
Mrs van Rensburg loaned some R33 000.00 to the WPSAFF which 

Page 50 

loan was repayable upon the WPSAFF's receipt of the money from 
the Province. In the end only R23 504.00 was repaid. 

145. Notably, all of these monies were in respect of team Lugeo, a team that was 
not awarded Protea Colours (incidentally a team in Club Splice). 
146. It appears that the Department was concerned about the manner in which the 
funds were used. A letter appears to have been written in this regard to the 
WPSAFF by the Department on 15 July 2011. Neither the WPSAFF nor the 
SASAFF disclosed the content of the letter addressed to them in this regard. 
147. The WPSAFF’s response thereto was part of the evidence, however. 
The 
letter signed off by the WPSAFF Committee evidences that Mr Barends and 
Mrs le Roux were, on that date, additional members of the WPSAFF 
committee. 
148. One 
must infer from the content of the letter under discussion that the 
Department believed there to be something untoward because the committee 
found it necessary to deliberate at length to find an amicable solution to 
provide the Department with the information requested. This letter makes it 
clear that the funds were not used as they ought to have been used. The 
committee's letter records in part as follows: 
"Submitting names and ID numbers are possible but adding the 
funded amounts with a signature will not be a reasonable request as 


Page 51 

we have in previous correspondence explained how funds are 
distributed although an amount are (sic) originally requested per 
athlete. These amounts are normally shortfalls indicated by 
club/studios as athletes and parents pledges to do fundraising or to 
contribute personally to the expenses. 

The shortfalls are almost never accurate due to either lack of 
commitment to fundraising or other financial difficulties experienced 
by parents … 


Funding application was made in this case for teams only and 
therefore distribution eventually must be made bearing in mind that 
the whole team has to be able to participate in the competition. 
WPSAFF can only foresee another problem by asking a parent to 
sign for money physically …". 

149. I am uncertain whether this explanation satisfied the Department but I suspect 
not. 
150. In his evidence Mr Barends made repeated reference to an 
“investigation” 
carried out by the Department. Mr Barends contended that the outcome of 
this investigation was to "exonerate" the WPSAFF and/or SASAFF. 
151. I invited SASAFF to provide me with a copy of this report. 
SASAFF, in a letter 
under the hand of Mr Barends, declined this request. The refusal is bizarre. 

Page 52 

If the report says what Mr Barends suggests it says, there should be 
absolutely no reason not to provide it to me – it would probably have been 
dispositive of the complaint. I am thus left to infer that either the investigation 
was not conducted into the manner in which the SASAFF and WPSAFF used 
funds received from the Department as Mr Barends stated, or the report does 
not "exonerate" the Federation. 

152. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:42:06 AM
blank)
Whatever the position, however, on anyone's version the money was applied 
for under false pretences, used for purposes for which it was not granted and 
none of the requirements of proper financial controls including record keeping 
and audited financial statements were in place. This is clearly in breach of 
the agreement with the Department. 
153. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:42:12 AM
blank)
In 
the circumstances, I find that there has been a misappropriation or 
maladministration of funds by the WPSAFF and senior officials on the 
SASAFF were aware thereof. 

Page 53 

MALADMINISTRATION IN THE AWARD OF PROTEA COLOURS 

154. Under the SASAFF rules: 
“A minimum score of 8 is required to qualify for Protea colours 
(recognition by SASCOC) and a SA tracksuit when representing 
South Africa at the international championships.”5 

155. The rule is cast in absolute terms. 
It confers no discretion to any party to 
permit a person scoring lower than 8 to be awarded Protea colours. 
156. The 
complainant’s complaint is this is precisely what happened; and the 
Federations do not dispute this. It is common cause that, at the national 
championships held in June 2012, 4 teams received scores of between 7.5 
and 7.9 but were nonetheless awarded Protea colours. 
157. This is how it happened: 
157.1. 
SASAFF contends that a process of moderation was employed by its 
technical committee to adjust the scores to the qualifying mark. 
157.2. 
SASAFF contends that a proper process was followed in that the 
national selection committee met after the national championships 
Rule IX.B (iii) 


Page 54 

and decided to moderate the scores, which moderation was ratified 
by the national management committee on 24 July 2012. The 
meeting was attended by Mr Barends, Mrs I Wepener, Mr D Muller, 
Mrs C le Roux, one Mr Elbahi, a FISAF international judge from 
Denmark, and Mrs le Roux. 

157.3. The minute records, in part, as follows: 
“A concern was the very low ranking of the invited hip hop 
judge. Although his ranking is on par (he is a recognised hip 
hop international judge), the low scores used by him in his 
ranking, would have a detrimental effect on the average 
score of a team which on its turn will have the effect that 
teams will not qualify for Protea – and SASAFF Federation 
Colours. 

After consideration the decision was taken unanimously that 
the only way to ensure that no athlete / team be discriminated 
against was to omit the scores of this judge.” (emphasis 
added) 

158. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:43:21 AM
blank)
The complainants contend that SASAFF has no power to alter or moderate 
scores. The Federations do not contend, in fact, to have such a power but in 
Mr Barends’ affidavit state that the decision was taken in the best interests of 
the athletes of the Federation. 

Page 55 

159. On their own version, the Federation acted outside of its powers in excluding 
the scores. 
160. It appears to me 
that the purpose of inviting an international judge to a 
national championship, particularly in a sport such as fitness aerobics, is to 
ensure that the scoring is on a par with what can be expected at the world 
championships. It is then particularly disturbing that the invited judge, 
recognised to be an experienced international judge, should have his scores 
excluded because they are very low. The precise reason that they are very 
low is because the athletes whom he scored are not athletes capable of 
scoring an 8 on an international stage. 
161. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:43:53 AM
blank)
I 
find the Federation’s rationalisation for its ultra vires conduct to be 
disingenuous. The rationalisation that a score that properly reflects the score 
that the athlete can expect to attain at an international event is detrimental to 
it and obtain Protea colours is correct. However, it is disingenuous to, under 
those circumstances, adjust the scores to assist the athletes in obtaining the 
qualifying threshold. 
162. This sort of conduct cheapens the Protea colours that SASAFF purports to 
defend so vigorously and indelibly impacts on the integrity of SASAFF to 
administer the sport. 

Page 56 

163. In 
the process of preparing this report, I called upon the Federations to 
provide me with the FISAF judging rules and regulations so that I could 
ascertain whether FISAF employs and permits the moderation of scores. My 
request was refused. I am left, again, to infer that the FISAF rules do not 
permit moderation of scores. 
164. I am led to understand that this was the first and only time in SASAFF’s 
history that scores have been moderated. 
165. On the last of the hearing into the complaints in this matter, I was provided 
with a printout of the scores from the 2013 championships. The scores make 
for interesting reading. In all the categories, except the over 18 category, the 
scores were inconsistent and changed each round. As the rounds 
progressed, some teams would improve and move up in the rankings. 
166. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:44:26 AM
blank)
In 2013, the over 18 teams scored exactly the same in both the semi-final and 
the final. Seeing as how these scores were released some 2 weeks after the 
competition, I find the scores inherently incredible. To my mind, the scores 
are manipulated. Given the conduct aforesaid, the manipulation of the scores 
is self-serving and directed at securing a greater participation for SASAFF at 
world championship level. 
167. I consequently find that there has been and continues to be maladministration 
in the award of Protea Colours. 

Page 57 

MALADMINISTRATION IN THE AWARD OF WESTERN PROVINCE COLOURS 

168. It is the complainants’ complaint that in 2011, while SASAFF and its affiliates 
were under suspension by SASCOC, they purported to award Western 
Province colours to athletes. This is admitted by SASAFF. 
169. SASAFF seeks to justify its conduct on account of a letter addressed to 
SASCOC on 6 May 2012, recording that the Federations will continue with 
their day-to-day activities pending the outcome of a dispute lodged by 
SASCOC concerning SASAFF’s suspension. 
170. SASAFF contends that at no point did SASCOC bar it from doing so. 
171. I do not understand SASAFF to contend that the declaration of a dispute has 
the same effect in law as an appeal against the suspension. I also do not 
understand SASAFF to contend that SASCOC’s constitution or any other 
rules suspends the efficacy of the suspension pending the determination of 
the dispute. 
172. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:45:58 AM
blank)
At common law, only an appeal suspends the efficacy of a decision. 
173. I am uncertain whether, in the circumstances, it was necessary for SASCOC 
to respond to SASAFF’s letter of 6 May 2012. It probably should have done 
so to make sure that there were no misunderstandings. 

Page 58 

174. The Federations’ conduct under the circumstances was opportunistic. 
175. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:46:06 AM
blank)
Nonetheless, WPSAFF awarded provincial colours while under suspension. 
176. Notionally, the award of these colours while under suspension could have 
been ratified. The absence of any suggestion to this effect leads me to 
conclude that there was no ratification. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:46:14 AM
blank)
Thus the award of colours at the time 
of suspension was irregular and is void. 
177. I find, consequently, that there was maladministration in the award of Western 
Province Colours in 2011. 

Page 59 

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT 

178. Of all the nine provinces in the Republic, the Western Cape is the biggest 
contributor to SASAFF. In terms of number of clubs and athletes, one could 
say that SASAFF’s activities are substantially confined to the Western Cape. 
179. It is overwhelmingly apparent that the sporting code of which the SASAFF is 
the steward comprises a small community. It would, therefore, be 
unsurprising to see that the officials wear a number of hats. In the case of 
SASAFF and WPSAFF, the notion of role-players wearing multiple hats just 
goes too far. 
180. The complainants paint a picture of an incestuous organisation. 
Take, for 
example, Club Splice, say the complainants; it shares its place of business 
with SASAFF and WPSAFF. Mr le Roux runs his businesses from the same 
premises, one of which is the management of Club Splice. Mr and Mrs le 
Roux’s daughter, Marizanne le Roux, is stated by SASAFF to be the only 
coach in the country that specialises in both of the disciplines over which 
SASAFF has stewardship. She is, for all intents and purposes, the national 
team coach and receives funding in this regard. Marizanne le Roux is also a 
member of one of the teams that participates in SASAFF national 
championships and seems to win, without fail, each year, thus assuring Club 
Splice of numerous Protea caps each year. 

(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:47:33 AM
blank)
Page 60 

181. As alluded to above, Mr le Roux and Mrs le Roux are on the WPSAFF. 
They 
are also on the national executive committee of SASAFF. 
182. Between them, they appear to exert an undue influence over the rest of the 
community. Mr Muller attends at auditions and practices conducted at the 
Club Splice studio. His attendance must obviously be for purposes of 
advising the coach and athletes, Ms Marizanne le Roux, in the routines. 
183. Having done so, Mr Muller continues to act as the lead judge at SASAFF 
sanctioned events and, in particular, the national championships whereat 
athletes endeavour to qualify for Protea colours by scoring that critical 8.0 
mark. 
184. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:47:11 AM
blank)
It would have been fascinating to see how the aforementioned individuals 
answer questions put to them about this seemingly unholy relationship. 
Regrettably they, through SASAFF and Mr Barends, declined to further 
participate in these proceedings. 
185. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:47:23 AM
blank)
I find that the relationship between the national and provincial Federations 
and the overlap between the office bearers, when considered in the context of 
what I have found above, is prima facie corrupt. 
186. It is unthinkable in a sport where an athlete’s failure or success is dependent, 
substantially, upon the subjective view of a judge regarding the manner in 
which a routine is executed that there should be any degree of involvement 

Page 61 


(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:47:33 AM
blank)
between the judges, coaches and executives of the sport. Judges must be 
seen to be neutral, impartial and without an agenda. The facts in this case 
simply do not sustain such a finding. Mr Muller’s attendance at the meeting 
convened by WPSAFF into Miss Lisa Jansen van Rensburg’s application for 
membership is inexplicable and inexcusable. So too is his attendance at and 
advice to Club Splice where he knew that he would sit as a judge at the 
national championships and be required to score their routine, having advised 
them thereon. 


Page 62 

FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT SASCOC DIRECTIVES 

187. It is apparent from the context of this report that an attempt was made to unify 
the sport, culminating in a meeting that took place on Sunday, 18 September 
2013 at SASCOC House and chaired by Mr M Mubarak of SASCOC. At that 
meeting, Mrs Earley represented an entity known as SAFSA (the South 
African Fitness Sports Association) as interim chairperson. Attendant at the 
meeting was SASAFF. 
188. It is apparent that this meeting was an attempt brokered by Mr Mohamed to 
achieve unity in the sport. It is the complainants’ case that one of the 
outcomes of this meeting was that Mrs le Roux was to be relieved of her 
duties as executive director of SASAFF, and that Mrs Ivy Wepener 
(“Mrs Wepener”), the Vice President of SASAFF, was put to the election as to 
whether to remain as a judge or as Vice President of SASAFF. Such election 
was also put to Mr Muller to remain as a judge or to sit on SASAFF’s national 
executive committee. 
189. None of these facts are meaningfully disputed by SASAFF. 
In SASAFF’s 
answering affidavit no attempt is made to meaningfully engage with the 
issues raised by the complainant. 

Page 63 

190. Regrettably, the minutes of the meeting with Mr Mubarak have not been 
provided to me. The apparent purpose of the meeting was to remove the 
potential of abuses of power and seek unity in the sporting code. 
191. Whatever the position, however, Mrs le Roux remains the general secretary 
of SASAFF, Mrs Wepener remains the Vice President, a judge and a member 
of SASAFF’s national executive committee. Mr Muller is also a member of 
the national executive committee and a judge. 
192. It is inappropriate for persons to act as judges and have another interest, be it 
personal or commercial. It is even more inappropriate when there is an 
established relationship between those judges and the country’s most prolific 
club and, arguably, athletes and coach. Such a conflict ought to have been 
obvious to the individuals concerned. 
193. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:48:31 AM
blank)
Accordingly, and while I am unable to ascertain the full extent of what the 
SASCOC directives were and precisely that which SASAFF failed to 
implement, SASCOC should never have been in a position that it was 
required to issue those directives. I am able to find that the purpose behind 
the meeting and the directives issued pursuant thereto was not achieved. 

(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:50:07 AM
blank)
Page 64 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

194. These recommendations are premised on the findings made in the preceding 
chapters. The findings fall into two categories, the first concerning the office 
bearers of SASAFF, and the second concerning the structure and integrity of 
the Federations themselves. 
195. In this chapter I deal with what I consider to be the proper manner to restore 
integrity to the sport of fitness aerobics in South Africa. I deal first with my 
recommendations concerning the Federations and thereafter my 
recommendations concerning the office bearers. 
196. In 
making the recommendations, I take into account the submissions on 
recommendations made by the complainants. Much like what went before, 
these submissions on proposed recommendations were provided to the 
Federations for comment but they declined to do so. 
The Federations 

197. The Federations are the stewards of two disciplines, fitness sport and hip-
hop. 
198. The current structure of the Federations is not conducive to transformation or 
growth in the sport. They are also, to my mind, so tainted that merely taking a 

Page 65 


(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:50:07 AM
blank)
broom to the executive and restructuring the Federations will not have the 
desired result. In particular, I do not see how a new executive and a 
restructure would give rise to the sport growing outside of the Western Cape. 

This is compounded by the fact that the Federations are the centre of gravity 
in the Republic. 

199. As alluded to, there are two disciplines currently under the stewardship of the 
Federations. 
200. Insofar 
as hip-hop is concerned, there are three established hip-hop 
federations in South Africa, each of which has international affiliation. 
201. In a country with as limited resources as South Africa, it seems preposterous 
to have such high levels of duplication and, no doubt therewith, redundancies. 
202. It is 
my recommendation to SASCOC that it set in process, with clearly 
defined time frames, a process to unite under a new banner the sport of hip 
hop. 
203. The proposed process should be led by a steering committee of stakeholders 
in the three bodies (subject to what follows), with representatives from each of 
the Provinces, with an instruction and mandate to form a new united 
federation that will have SASCOC's blessing, and that will achieve the aims of 
transformation and growth in the sport throughout the Republic, with the 

Page 66 

ultimate ideal of transformation, gender equality, increased international 
representation and success on an international stage. 

Fitness Aerobics 

204. The current position in the Republic is that there are two national federations 
awarding Protea Colours for one sporting discipline, that being SASAFF and 
the other being the South African Gymnastics Federation ("SAGF"). 
205. This is naturally undesirable. 
206. The SAGF appears to have better structures for the development of athletes 
and coaches nationally and internationally. When compared to the position of 
SASAFF where there is only one high performance aerobics coach in the 
country, Ms Marizaane le Roux from the Western Cape, the structure under 
SASAFF presents no opportunity for the growth and development of the sport 
in the current structure. There is no evidence that SASAFF is developing any 
other coaches in other regions, and all coaching is currently at a novice level. 
This is patently undesirable and does not advance the interests of the sport. 
207. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:50:50 AM
blank)
It is, therefore, my recommendation that fitness aerobics be incorporated into 
SAGF. 

Page 67 

208. The result of such incorporation is that more athletes through the country will 
have access to the sport and access to proper structures that will allow them 
to enjoy and advance in the sport. 
Concluding Remarks on the Federations 

209. It follows from what I have stated above that I do not see any utility in the 
continued existence in the Federations. 
210. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:51:01 AM
blank)
It is my recommendation that the Federations be disbanded. 
210.1. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:51:58 AM
blank)
As regards the sport of hip-hop, a SASCOC initiative is necessary to 
bring about the unification of the sport under a single banner with 
proper representation across the Republic. 
210.2. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:52:03 AM
blank)
As regards fitness aerobics, it ought to be absorbed into the SAGF. 
The SASAFF Executive 

211. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:52:16 AM
blank)
I found that the SASAFF executive have failed dismally in the stewardship of 
the sporting codes they administer. 
212. Mr Barends 
and Mrs le Roux are responsible for acts of intimidation that 
cannot simply be put down to a lapse in judgment but only the absence 
thereof. 

Page 68 

213. One of the critical characteristics of persons in leadership positions in sport is 
that a sense of judgment is brought to bear; a sense of judgment that places 
the interest of the sport and athletes above themselves. 
214. The SASAFF executive, and in particular Mr Barends and Mrs le Roux, did 
not bring the judgment expected of the senior leadership of the Federations to 
bare. 
215. People acting in the best interest of the sport ought to avoid conflicts of 
interests, and the situation that subsists in the Western Cape should never 
have been allowed to arise. 
216. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:52:32 AM
blank)
Similarly, the deliberate devaluation and arbitrary award of Protea Colours is 
injurious to the integrity of the administration of the sport. 
217. In my judgment, the damage to the integrity of the Federations and the sport 
as a whole by the incidents referred to in this report is irreparable. 
218. It is my recommendation that Mr Barends and Ms le Roux be barred from 
holding any leadership position in any SASCOC afflicted federation in the 
future. 
219. The SASAFF judges, and in particular Mrs Wepener and Mr Muller, have also 
demonstrated an absence of judgment. Any sensible person must see that 

Page 69 

the exercise of multiple roles that bring the proper exercise of these roles into 
conflict with each other is inappropriate. These two senior members of the 
SASAFF executive failed to do so. Nonetheless, Mrs Wepener and Mr Muller 

have a valuable and important contribution to make. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:52:51 AM
blank)
They must elect, 
however, whether they are going to be judges in which case they must be 
independent from the management structures, alternatively they must be 
judges. 

220. In this regard, it is my recommendation that SASCOC direct that in any sport 
where the outcome is determined by the subjective views of a judge/judging 
panel, that all such federations include in their constitutional provisions a 
provision that disqualifies the judges from participation in the management of 
the federation concerned. 
221. Finally, and regarding Mr Oppel. 
It appears that Mr Oppel simply did as he 
was told by the senior structures. The debacle surrounding Ms Lisa van 
Rensburg's membership, which although clearly intimidatory, was directed at 
trying to save face. As ill-considered as this approach was, I have no 
evidence to suggest that Mr Oppel's conduct is ongoing. In this regard, I did 
not and could not find that he was involved in the management of the funds 
obtained from the Department. This appears to have been under the control 
of Mrs le Roux. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:53:19 AM
blank)
In my view, Mr Oppel's conduct regarding Ms Lisa van 
Rensburg warrants a severe reprimand but suspension or a ban is not 
apposite. 

Page 70 

222. Insofar as the other members of the provincial and national executives are 
concerned, they have not covered themselves in glory but, I imagine that to a 
large extent, they go along with the powerful personalities of Mr Barends and 
Mrs le Roux that dominate the sport. Although this avoids conflict within the 
sporting code, it is something inherently undesirable and the integrity of the 
code is at issue. 

(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:54:09 AM
blank)
Page 71 

CONCLUSION 

223. My investigation in this matter presents a most concerning picture of fitness 
sport in South Africa. This sporting code is led by autocrats. Little more is 
needed to substantiate this conclusion than SASAFF’s interference in the 
WPSAFF’s handling of Miss Lisa van Rensburg’s application for membership. 
The leadership lacks in judgment as evidenced by the manner in which they 
seek the public humiliation of children and seek to bully its other members. 
224. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:53:51 AM
blank)
Arguably, the leadership of this sporting code could be said to just to be 
overzealous but I do not find this to be the case. SASAFF and WPSAFF 
have been anything but transparent in this process. They have not willingly 
participated in a process that is actually aimed at preventing further 
occurrences of complaints of this nature. 
225. I accept, as one must in the South African sporting context, that the executive 
and coaches are unremunerated volunteers. One does not expect them, 
consequently, to have the skills set that professional managers and 
administrators are ordinarily expected to have. As a result, a degree of 
latitude must be afforded to such individuals. 
226. In the circumstances of the complaints in this matter, the repeated regrettable 
and vulgar acts of intimidation and the self-righteousness with which the 

(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:55:00 AM
blank)
Page 72 


(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:54:09 AM
blank)
Federations have approached this matter, shows no degree of latitude 
renders the executive of SASAFF referred to above fit to hold office. 

227. At its lowest level, the conduct amounts to such an alarming absence of 
judgment that these officials should not be permitted to hold office. On the 
other spectrum of the scale, this conduct is corrupt and actionable. 
228. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:54:23 AM
blank)
SASAFF is run like a family business and any person who stands up against 
this is ostracised, and any person who dares seek to pursue his or her love 
for the sport with an entity not sanctioned by SASAFF is expelled. This 
defeats the ends of SASCOC’s constitution and is repugnant to the healthy 
administration of sport. 
229. 
(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:54:34 AM
blank)
This has been a long, arduous and expensive process for the complainants. 
They obtain no benefit from these findings. The complainants have gone to 
these great ends in the hope of a better future for the sport than its present 
state. It takes tremendous bravery to stand up to SASAFF. I commend the 
complainants for that bravery, courage and fortitude. 
230. I sincerely hope that the effort that the complainants have gone to brings 
about the change that is needed in the sport. 
231. This matter has fundamentally been occasioned by SASCOC allowing an 
untenable situation to ferment. I also hope that such a situation such as that 

Page 73 


(Highlight comment David Becker
7/13/2015 9:55:00 AM
blank)
seen in this matter and the circumstances that have surrounded this matter 
are prevented in the future by decisive action being taken much sooner. 

A W PULLINGER 

7 July 2015