| |
2007 | 2006 |2005 | 2004 | 2003 | Results in anti-doping cases
2008
Download written decisions and media releases for cases decided by the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand in 2008.
- Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Stacey Lambert (ST 10/08) Decision 16 July 2008
Overview: Anti-doping - cannabis - recreational use - NBL basketball player tests positive to cannabis after match - player agrees to stand down for last match of season and provisional suspension not imposed - violation admitted at hearing - NBL basketball season over until next year - retirement - player stated not intending to play in NBL season next year - however participating in basketball in other ways such as coaching - Tribunal decided 2 months' suspension starting from date of decision will be effective sanction as prevents him participating in sport in any capacity over that time (playing, refereeing, coaching or administrating) - 2 month's ineligibility imposed.
view decision
view media release
- Liza Hunter-Galvan v Athletics New Zealand (ST 07/08) Decision 20 June 2008
Overview: Appeal against non-nomination for Olympics - marathon runner Liza Hunter-Galvan appealed her non nomination for the Olympics in the marathon event - in 2007 she ran in the Amsterdam marathon in a time more than two minutes faster than the New Zealand performance standard to qualify for Olympics which was a pointer to nomination - communications to athlete by Athletics NZ may have led her to expect she would be nominated - however selectors considered her past performances not sufficient to indicate she was at required standard to be nominated for Olympics - discussion of whether unfairness to athlete in that if she needed to do more to be nominated she did not know what that was - allegations of bias against selectors rejected - Tribunal concluded relevant nomination criteria had not been properly followed or implemented by selectors - selectors should have made further exploration into circumstances of races where she was said not to have performed well and further examination into her performance in hot conditions - relevance of serious motor accident suffered by athlete and family - Tribunal referred matter of nomination back to selectors for reconsideration
view decision
view media release
- Richard Hearn v New Zealand Shooting Federation (ST 08/08) Decision 12 June 2008
Overview: Appeal against non-nomination for Olympics - shooter appealed his non-nomination for Olympics in men's prone event - another shooter nominated ahead of him in this event and he did not appeal this - NSO had one unused transfer quota available and nominated competitor (W) in another event (air pistol) - both appellant and W had met qualifying standards for Olympic nomination but only one spot available - appellant argued he should have been nominated instead in the prone event - interpretation of NSO's quota reallocation criteria - meaning of "designated matches" and determining which shooting matches to be taken into account in working out which shooter had better performance and should have been nominated - appellant argued relevant matches to be considered were entire series of qualifying matches held over more than a year and if so he had better high score results than W and should have been nominated - NSO argued relevant events were 3 ranking matches held over 2 months in which W had performed better - Tribunal held on objective interpretation of criteria it was the 3 ranking matches that had to be considered not the entire series of events - W had performed better on results of the 3 matches - appeal dismissed.
view decision
view media release
- Te Rina Taite v Swimming New Zealand Inc (ST 06/08) Decision 30 May 2008, Reasons for Decision 18 August 2008.
Overview: Appeal against non-nomination for Olympics - relay swimmer's team was not nominated - she appealed her non-nomination - appeal heard under urgency - jurisdiction - which rules or agreements applied as to when appeal against non-nomination needed to be filed - SNZ's constitution did not set out time frame for filing non-nomination appeal and so appellant argued 28 days (time period specified in Tribunal rules for appeals to Tribunal when NSO's rules don't set out time period) was relevant time - however, the athlete application form for nomination/selection for Olympic Games (which appellant filled out and bound by) expressly states appeals must be exercised in accordance with Application Nomination and Selection Process agreement between NZOC and NSO - NZOC/NSO agreement states athletes wishing to appeal non-nomination by NSO must give written notice of appeal to CEO of NSO within 2 days of nomination date - Tribunal therefore held appellant had to appeal non-nomination to NSO within 2 days - Tribunal held while appellant had initial correspondence with NSO, she did not file a letter constituting her appeal with SNZ until after 2 day period expired and her appeal was time barred - appeal therefore dismissed - for benefit of parties, Tribunal also set out its views on substantive appeal arguments involving selection criteria and opportunity to meet selection criteria - while expressing some reservations, the Tribunal accepted selection criteria were followed and implemented - however, the Tribunal considered there were aspects of the process that SNZ could improve upon, including ensuring athletes understood well in advance requirements to qualify and better coordination as to best prospects of athletes achieving that.
view advice of decision
view media release advising of decision
view reasons for decision
- Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Ted Hunia (ST 03/08) - Decision 21 May 2008
Overview: Anti-doping - cannabis - Touch player tests positive to cannabis at national tournament - violation admitted at hearing - player stating that cannabis used to relieve back pain - Tribunal accepts use not for performance enhancing reasons - aggravating factors include: experience of player; knew cannabis was banned (players warned by coach and manager); signed participation agreement pledging drug free participation; and used cannabis night before tournament - mitigating factors include frankness with Tribunal and significant contribution to the sport - suspension of 6 weeks imposed.
view decision
view media release
- Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Steven Robinson (ST 05/08) - Provisional Suspension Decision 24 April 2008, Decision 20 May 2008, Reasons for Decision 11 June 2008
Overview: Anti-doping - cannabis - recreational use - basketball player tests positive to cannabis after match - Tribunal provisionally suspends player on application of NSO - violation admitted at hearing -aggravating factors include experience of player and used cannabis few days before match - remorse and impact of provisional suspension taken into account including adverse publicity- comments on relevance of being professional athlete - comments on high levels of prohibited substance in samples - levels not specifically taken into account here but Tribunal may require evidence in future cases re relevance of high levels - Tribunal applying principles from previous cases - 6 weeks' suspension effectively imposed (taking into account time athlete provisionally suspended).
view provisional suspension decision
view decision
view media release advising decision
view reasons for decision
- Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Nat Connell (ST 04/08) - Provisional Suspension Decision 24 April 2008, Decision 20 May 2008, Reasons for Decision 11 June 2008
Overview: Anti-doping - cannabis - recreational use - basketball player tests positive to cannabis after match - Tribunal provisionally suspends player on application of NSO - violation admitted at hearing -aggravating factors include experience of player and used cannabis few days before match - remorse and impact of provisional suspension taken into account including adverse publicity- comments on relevance of being professional athlete - player fully professional - Tribunal finds little favour in argument that sanction should be reduced due to financial penalty suffered by professional athlete due to suspension - comments on high levels of prohibited substance in samples - levels not specifically taken into account here but Tribunal may require evidence in future cases re relevance of high levels - Tribunal applying principles from previous cases - 6 weeks' suspension effectively imposed (taking into account time athlete provisionally suspended).
view provisional suspension decision
view decision
view media release advising decision
view reasons for decision
- Noel Curr v Motorcycling New Zealand Inc (ST 19/07) - Decision 11 April 2008
Overview: Appeal against decision of national sporting organisation - member of Motorcycling New Zealand (MNZ), who was the president of one of the affiliated clubs, was suspended by MNZ for 3 years and fined for a course of conduct bringing the sport into disrepute - included making allegedly defamatory comments about senior MNZ members in e-mails - Matter raised publicly at AGM with no prior notice to appellant - Board met during AGM and suspended appellant who was told to leave AGM - at subsequent disciplinary proceeding, appellant suspended for 3 years - breach of natural justice in manner treated at AGM - no notice of disciplinary process, no proper opportunity to be heard and inappropriate mixed AGM and Board process - effect of flawed disciplinary process on subsequent disciplinary process heard by same body - double jeopardy principles did not apply - breaches of natural justice cured by Tribunal rehearing matter - Tribunal found appellant at fault but disagreed with penalty - appellant had already been suspended for 9 months and Tribunal considered that was an appropriate penalty given seriousness of conduct and public manner in which allegations raised - in interim decision of 5 March 2008, Tribunal determined suspension would end on that date - fine overturned - costs - modest award of $750 to appellant appropriate to reflect that appellant had been partly successful in appeal.
view decision
view media release
- Kane Radford v Swimming New Zealand Inc (ST 02/08) - Decision 20 March 2008, Reasons for Decision 8 April 2008
The Tribunal heard this case under urgency, with the consent of the parties. The Tribunal issued its decision shortly after the hearing. Reasons for the decision were released on 8 April 2008.
Overview: Appeal against non-selection for world championships and non-nomination for Olympics - swimmer appealed not being selected for open water world championships event - needed to compete in that event in order to have a chance to qualify for Olympics - jurisdiction - interpretation - rule in Swimming NZ (SNZ) constitution only gave jurisdiction to Tribunal to hear an appeal against non-nomination to NZ Olympic Committee - Tribunal decided decision not to select for world champs was in circumstances of this case essentially a decision not to nominate for Olympics and therefore Tribunal had jurisdiction - SNZ changed selection criteria for world champs including which event would primarily be considered for deciding selection - whether selection criteria properly followed and implemented - whether breaches of natural justice and procedural fairness - whether material on which selection decision could reasonably be based - whether consultation required with swimmers when change selection criteria - whether "sole discretion of selectors" is valid selection criteria - while some matters may have been handled better, Tribunal found no breach of natural justice or procedural fairness and did not find that selection criteria not properly followed or implemented - selectors required to consider "potential world competitiveness" under criteria - objective and subjective factors in decision - while selectors thought swimmer had potential, they did not consider he was likely to be world competitive at this stage of his career - Tribunal accepted selectors acted with best intent and made decision they were entitled to make - no grounds established to set aside selectors' decision and appeal dismissed.
view decision
view reasons for decision
view media release
- Softball New Zealand Inc v Cindy Potae (ST 04/07) - Decision 27 February 2008
Overview: Anti-doping - morphine - whether fault or negligence - taking non-prohibited substance that can metabolise into prohibited substance - comments on potential consequences when delay in filing application and player competing at any level - Tribunal accepted evidence that athlete had taken two codeine based Nurofen Plus tablets (commonly used and widely available pain relief remedy) to alleviate toothache - Tribunal accepted expert scientific evidence that codeine metabolises into morphine in person's system (rates and levels differ depending on individual) - athlete's drug test returned reading for both codeine and morphine - expert scientific evidence accepted that morphine reading in drug test was consistent with her having taken the two codeine based tablets (based upon codeine/morphine ratios commonly accepted in the scientific literature) - tablets do not contain morphine or any other prohibited substance - tablets contain codeine which is not a prohibited substance - Tribunal satisfied on balance of probabilities that the tablets were the source of the morphine (as result of codeine metabolising into morphine) - Tribunal satisfied that athlete not at fault in taking tablets - athlete cannot be held at fault if they take a recognised remedy containing no prohibited substances and which they could not be expected to know may lead in the case of some athletes to prohibited substance morphine being in athlete's system - as Tribunal found athlete had no fault or negligence, no period of ineligibility was imposed.
view decision
view media release
|
|
