2010 |2009 | 2008 | 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 Duane Wineti
(ST 14/08) Decision 19 December 2008
Overview:
Anti-doping - rugby league player tested positive for D-methamphetamine, D-amphetamine and cannabis after playing in premiership final - admitted using cannabis in social situation but unable to explain how methamphetamine and amphetamine came to be in his system and denied knowing use - athlete speculated positive test may have resulted from passive inhalation but gave no further evidence - 2 years' suspension mandatory for methamphetamine and amphetamine violations unless athlete can establish no fault or negligence or no significant fault or negligence - to do this, athlete first must establish how prohibited substances entered their system and athlete's speculation here not sufficient - comments on Tribunal's approach to sanctions for cannabis violations - 2 years' ineligibility imposed for methamphetamine and amphetamine violations- concurrent 2 months' ineligibility imposed for cannabis violation.
Download associated documents:
Noel Curr v Motorcycling New Zealand Inc
(ST 19/07)
The Tribunal has now released two further decisions in relation to this matter:
- Further decision and observations regarding stewardship and relationship with membership 26 November 2008
- Decision regarding stewardship 28 July 2008
On 11 April 2008, the Tribunal issued its first decision in this matter (final decision except as to stewardship) - view information about 11 April decision and to download it.
Overview:
Appeal against decision of national sporting organisation - stewardship and relationship with membership - Motorcycling New Zealand (MNZ) suspended appellant's membership and also terminated his status as a steward as the result of disciplinary proceedings - in 11 April 2008 decision, Sports Tribunal upheld findings against appellant but reduced suspension imposed and expressly reserved jurisdiction to review matter of stewardship if required by either party.
Whether appellant automatically resumed status as steward at conclusion of suspension of membership (he had been a steward member) or whether separate approval of suitability as steward by MNZ was also required - MNZ refused to approve appellant as steward for race meeting after his suspension had concluded - on basis of arguments presented to it, Tribunal ruled on 28 July 2008 that appellant not automatically reinstated as steward but entitled to apply for membership in whatever category appropriate - however, it subsequently arose that was relevant rule not brought to Tribunal's attention or argued before it - in interests of natural justice, Tribunal considered whether new grounds including this rule should cause Tribunal to reach different conclusion - After hearing new arguments, the Tribunal decided on 26 November 2008 that appellant resumed membership status as steward by virtue of MNZ rule 7-3-6(b) which states that upon expiry of suspension the member will be entitled to exercise the rights and privileges of membership of that class in which he or she was entered prior to the suspension - On analysis of rules and constitution, Tribunal rejected that rule 7-3-6(b) does not apply to situations out of competition (original breach was for conduct out of competition) - under rules applicable at the time, MNZ Board had right to review status as a steward but not as an element of sanction under a disciplinary decision but by a separate decision - appellant's stewardship terminated without separate reasons for that - therefore appellant had been technically reinstated as steward member at the conclusion of his suspension, although only for a brief period as he lost that status on 16 May when MNZ Board further suspended his membership in disciplinary proceedings (relating to a separate incident not before the Tribunal and unable to be considered by the Tribunal) - observations that under the new constitution of MNZ it appeared the power to terminate stewardship was now available as part of a disciplinary process.
Download associated documents:
Tim Curr v Motorcycling New Zealand Inc
(ST 01/08) Decision 21 November 2008
Overview:
Appeal against decision of national sporting organisation - after incident on racing track, steward purported to disqualify appellant motorcyclist who kept racing - MNZ Board found appellant rode dangerously close to steward, ignored his directions and rode dangerously in pits - MNZ Board imposed 2 years' full suspension and further one year’s partial suspension of his competition licence on appellant for riding dangerously close to the steward - also suspended him for one year (concurrent with the other suspension) for disobeying steward and fined him for riding dangerously in pits - appealed on number of grounds including breach of natural justice, bias, predetermination and conflict of interest - while Tribunal had some concerns in relation to some of grounds, none made out sufficiently to warrant quashing decisions or remitting matter back - Tribunal upheld findings but allowed appeal against penalties - comment on whether probationary period imposed under partial suspension available under constitution in force at time - In considering penalty, Tribunal took into account appellant's acknowledgments and recognition of conduct at hearing, youth, good record, and severe impact of sanction on him, as well as other MNZ decisions - Tribunal quashed the 2 years’ suspension and one year partial suspension for riding dangerously close to the steward and instead substituted a period of 15 months’ suspension - the other penalties remained the same.
Download associated documents:
Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Rodney Newman
(ST 13/08) Decision 5 November 2008
Overview:
Anti-doping - boldenone and testosterone - athlete admitted violation and accepted 2 year suspension was mandatory penalty but submitted suspension should start from earlier date of positive test notification and not date of Tribunal hearing - no formal provisional suspension had been sought by athlete's sport but athlete voluntarily not competed since notification of positive test - whether commencement of suspension can be backdated earlier than hearing date in absence of formal provisional suspension - Tribunal concluded (on its interpretation of rules and also following the approach of the Tribunal in previous cases) that suspensions can be backdated earlier than hearing date, despite athlete not being formally provisionally suspended - in certain situations voluntarily withdrawal from competition may be akin to voluntarily accepted provisional suspension and may justify starting the suspension earlier than the Tribunal hearing date - Tribunal decided that appropriate for 2 year suspension to start from the date of notification of positive test in the circumstances of this case - NSO President advised athlete not to compete after positive test notification and athlete explicitly accepted this advice - NSO considered it unnecessary to formally apply to have athlete provisionally suspended as explicitly accepted their advice - 2 years' ineligibility imposed commencing from 22 July 2008.
Download associated documents:
Noel Curr v Motorcycling New Zealand Inc
(ST 09/08) - Decision 30 October 2008
Overview:
Appeal against decision of national sporting organisation - jurisdiction - whether appeal filed in time and Tribunal could hear appeal - appeals to Tribunal against a decision of an NSO have to be filed within the time period set out in the NSO’s rules or if those rules don’t specify time period, then within the time periods set out in the Tribunal’s Rules - disagreement between parties which rules applied, when the time period started and whether appeal filed within time - appellant argued MNZ’s rules did not apply to him since he had been previously suspended by MNZ and was not a member of MNZ at the relevant time - however, if he was not a member of MNZ then the Tribunal wouldn't have been able to hear his appeal as the only right of appeal to the Tribunal he would have had would have been through MNZ’s rules - on the evidence, and its interpretation of the applicable rules (MNZ rules), the Tribunal ruled that appellant did not file his appeal within required 15 working days and was out of time - although Tribunal can extend certain time periods in its own Rules for filing certain documents, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to extend time periods for filing appeals when they are set out in the NSO’s rules - appeal struck out.
Download associated document:
Tony Heuvel v Speedway New Zealand
(ST 12/08) Decision 24 September 2008
Overview:
Appeal against decision of national sporting organisation - saloon car driver suspended for 12 months for competing with allegedly illegal carburettor on his car - some breaches of natural justice in way manner matter dealt with in Directors' meeting and Appeal Committee hearing including: determining engine illegal without hearing from appellant; lack of information provided to appellant; inadequate details of alleged infringement provided; some witnesses were spoken to by phone at hearing and appellant could not directly hear their testimony or question them and issues relating to identification of carburettor over phone - Tribunal reheard matter - conflicting evidence whether carburettor produced to Appeal Committee and Tribunal was same as one on car at time of alleged infringement (carburettor produced to Tribunal was accepted by parties as legal) - appellant gave credible evidence it was same carburettor - Tribunal held respondent's evidence fell short of required standard of countering that it was not the carburettor on appellant's car at time of championships - appeal allowed and suspension overturned - modest costs award.
Download associated documents:
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.
Download associated documents:
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
Download associated documents:
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.
Download associated documents:
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.
Download associated documents:
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.
Download associated documents:
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).
Download associated documents:
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).
Download associated documents:
Noel Curr v Motorcycling New Zealand Inc
(ST 19/07) - Decision 11 April 2008
NB: Further decisions have subsequently been issued in relation to this matter - view information about these decisions and to download
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.
Download associated documents:
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.
Download associated documents:
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.
Download associated documents:
|
