| |
2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 |2008 | 2007 | 2006 |2005 | 2004 | 2003 | Results in anti-doping cases
2011
Download written decisions and media releases for cases decided by the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand in 2011.
Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Tanni Prestney (ST 09/11)
Decision 15 December 2011; Provisional Suspension Decision 30 September 2011
Overview:
Anti-doping – rugby league player, tested positive for prohibited substance 1, 3 - dimethylpentylamine, also known as methylhexaneamine, after playing a match - admitted violation and gave evidence he took a supplement before going to do weight lifting and that supplement was the cause of positive test - told rugby league team mates at training that he had taken the supplement the day before and they told him it contained a banned substance - he played the match the next day - said he took the supplement to assist in his weight training - whether taking the supplement to assist in weight training was an intention to enhance sports performance under the rules - Tribunal decided “by a very fine margin” that athlete had not intended to enhance his sports performance - warning that athletes who take supplements for purposes relating to their physical wellbeing or improvement run a very high risk that they will be held to have taken them to enhance their sports performance - athlete had high degree of fault - total lack of enquiry about the supplement; knew before he took the field that the supplement contained a prohibited substance, yet he took the field; and, despite some conflict in evidence, it is apparent he was warned of the dangers of that particular supplement in an anti-doping presentation by the team manager - mitigating factors included youth and inexperience - not an elite athlete and would not have had the same exposure to drug education as they do - Tribunal took view that he was rather naïve in what he did but all athletes must be vigilant and where there is any doubt must remove themselves from participation - fact athlete not aware of consequences of taking drug will not usually be relevant to degree of fault – in many respects higher degree of fault than Jacobs case (where 12 months’ suspension imposed) but mitigating factors taken into account here and 12 months’ suspension was appropriate.
Download associated documents:
Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Ricky Welsford (ST 10/11)Decision 25 November 2011; Provisional Suspension Decision 11 October 2011
Overview:
Anti-doping – athlete tested positive for metabolites of JWH-018 [JWH-018 N-(5-Hydroxpentanyl) and JWH-018 N-Pentanoic Acid] – synthetic cannabis – Kronic - athlete admitted violation - he and a witness gave evidence they were celebrating a birthday with friends – one of group handed around “roll your own cigarettes” which had synthetic cannabis product Kronic in them - friend said he had bought from a dairy before the sale of Kronic was banned - everyone in group smoking the cigarettes and pressuring athlete to do so – athlete not keen but succumbed to peer pressure (“to shut us up so we could leave him alone” according to witness) and took some puffs from cigarette - did not realise that Kronic contained a product banned in sport - Tribunal had to assess the degree of fault in all the circumstances of the case including: athlete’s age (19 at the time of the test); peer group of friends pressuring him; possibly failure to immediately recognise that Kronic is likely to have the same consequence as cannabis; immediate acceptance of responsibility and his openness and honesty; the fact that this violation is out of character; his contribution to his club as coach; and loss of his Olympic qualifying chances (not nominated for Oceania Championships due to being provisionally suspended for the positive test) - these factors justified a reduction from the usual starting point of 4 months’ suspension for cannabis violation – 3 months' suspension appropriate in all circumstances.
Download associated documents:
Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Daniel Ryan (ST 07/11)
Decision 31 October 2011; Provisional Suspension Decision 18 August 2011
Overview:
Anti-doping – athlete tested positive to D-Methamphetamine and D-Amphetamine – athlete initially filed defences that substances taken “out of competition” as he believed his season was over when he took the substances (he was called in at the last minute to play by the team coach) and that the substances had not been taken for performance enhancing purposes - subsequently withdrew these defences and indicated did not require a formal hearing, would accept the violation infringement and would not challenge the mandatory penalty of two years - withdrawn defences could not have succeeded anyway under Sports Anti-Doping Rules - presence of prohibited substance in sample collected in competition is a violation regardless of when substance was taken by athlete - infringement is that competing with prohibited substances in body - whether a substance was taken for performance enhancing reasons or not is only relevant when the substance is a “specified substance” under the Rules which these were not – athlete asked Tribunal to note his position that, while out drinking, he was given a pill that he thought was a “legal party pill” which he took for relaxation and stress relief and that he would not have taken the pill if he knew what it really was – Tribunal further noted that circumstances, whatever they may be, were not relevant to the decision which it was required to give in this case under the Rules – mandatory penalty of 2 years’ ineligibility imposed (commencing from date of provisional suspension)
Download associated documents:
Scott Manson v KartSport New Zealand (ST 08/11)
Reasons for Decision 27 October 2011; Decision 13 October 2011
Overview:
Appeal against decision of NSO - Junior kart driver (S) finished first in final race at event but was disqualified for having an unmarked carburettor, contrary to the relevant rules, at inspection after final – event part of a series and winner of series represents New Zealand overseas – disqualification ultimately meant he was second overall on points but if his disqualification did not stand he would win series on points and represent New Zealand – S disqualified as result of stewards’ hearing – following this a technical inspection carried out and S’s engine found to be compliant - chief steward subsequently cancelled disqualification – KartSport Inquiry Board subsequently held stewards’ committee decision stood and confirmed disqualification - S appealed to KartSport Appeal Board who dismissed his appeal - natural justice complaints about stewards’ committee hearing such as hearing proceeded without S present and chief steward who filed complaint sat on panel – However, these complaints concerning the procedure of the stewards’ hearing could not succeed as KartSport Appeal Board heard S’s appeal “de novo” (i.e. heard the case anew as if it had not been heard before) and the appeal to the Sports Tribunal was from the KartSport Appeal Board decision and not from the Stewards’ decision – carburettors apparently marked with paint earlier in event by KartSport technical officer - whether driver has responsibility to ensure carburettor has been marked by official - Tribunal concluded that while it was for KartSport’s technical officer to mark the carburettor, it was also the driver’s responsibility to ensure that the markings were there (or in the case of a junior such as S, the parent or guardian) – drivers and parents had been told so at the mandatory drivers’ briefing (S and father signed registration form declaring they would abide by directions of chief steward on day and one of these directions, given at drivers’ briefing, was that competitors were to check markings on carburettor) – Tribunal acknowledged that in dismissing this appeal, S will be denied opportunity to represent NZ when his only omission may have been to check his carburettor was marked - however in unfortunate circumstances of this case, as the carburettor was not marked for whatever reason, the mandatory penalty of disqualification under KartSport’s rules must follow and the appeal was dismissed – Tribunal made observations about amending various rules and procedures that it hoped might assist KartSport.
Download associated documents:
Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Nick Rhind (ST 06/11)
Decision 26 September 2011; Provisional Suspension Decision 26 July 2011
Overview:
Anti-doping – cannabis – athlete filed notice admitting violation, advising he did not want to participate in the hearing and acknowledging Tribunal may impose a penalty without holding a hearing – penalty for violation is 2 years’ suspension but if athlete can establish requirements set out under “specified substances” provisions of Rules (concerning establishing did not intend to enhance sports performance, establishing how got in system and providing corroboration), athlete may be eligible for lesser penalty - because of potential consequences of not participating and not establishing these requirements under “specified substances” provisions of the Rules, Tribunal sent notice to athlete advising that if he took no action Tribunal was required to suspend him for two years – athlete given an opportunity to review his notice but never responded despite follow up notices, letters and e-mails reminding him of consequences of not participating and informing him of the details of hearing – athlete did not participate in hearing and made no further contact to explain why - Tribunal satisfied athlete had been made fully aware of requirements - as he had not sought to rely on the “specified substances” provisions he was not eligible for a reduced penalty and Tribunal had no option but to impose mandatory penalty of two years’ suspension.
Download associated documents:
Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Sylvester Seay (ST 04/11)
Decision 28 July 2011; Provisional Suspension Decision 8 June 2011
Overview:
Anti-doping - cannabis - no fault - ate sweet did not know contained medical marijuana - athlete (S) is USA based professional basketballer who came to NZ to play for a national league team - S visited a friend (L) in California the night before left for NZ and ate a cellophane wrapped sweet from bowl of sweets offered to him by L - sweets had been left behind at L’s place by a friend of L - S and L assumed they were a common commercial candy - however, L subsequently discovered from the friend who left the sweets behind that the sweets had been obtained from a medical marijuana store and were laced with cannabis - S consumed sweet 12 days before drug test in NZ - S gave evidence, supported by his witnesses, that he does not use cannabis, had never failed a drug test before and that source of cannabis must have been from the laced sweet – whether consuming sweet could have resulted in the positive cannabis test - Tribunal considered that on the evidence presented in this case, including scientific evidence and material, it was unable to rule out the sweet as a source of cannabis causing the positive test result - Tribunal found S and his witnesses to be credible and accepted their evidence as truthful - Tribunal satisfied on the balance of probability that the cannabis, resulting in the positive test, entered S’s system through his consumption of the sweet – whether S at fault - Tribunal considered that consuming a sweet at a friend’s house will not constitute fault or negligence unless there is some objective basis for concern - nothing in this case could fairly be said to put S on notice regarding possible contamination of the sweet - Tribunal therefore concluded S not at fault for anti-doping violation - therefore no penalty imposed and provisional suspension order lapsed.
Download associated documents:
Rex Jenkins v Boxing New Zealand (ST 16/10)
Decision 28 July 2011
Overview:
Appeal against decision of NSO - Boxing NZ (BNZ) Executive nominated appellant (J) as coach for boxer at Youth Olympic Games - J attended NZOC workshop and thought he had been appointed by NZOC when had not - NZOC raised issue with BNZ of reconsidering their nomination as thought boxer’s personal coach may be more suitable at Games (J not personal coach) - BNZ reconsidered nomination and nominated personal coach (A) instead of J - J unsuccessfully appealed nomination reconsideration decision to the BNZ Appeals Committee - Tribunal did not accept that decisions of BNZ Executive were unreasonable - if NZOC, as appointer, raised relevant issues for consideration, no reason why BNZ not entitled to reconsider its nomination - while unfortunate request to reconsider was made after J led to believe that he had been appointed, Tribunal considered BNZ had right to, and was entitled to, change its nomination – Whether A’s level of coaching licence prevented him being nominated for Games - up to NZOC to determine qualifications for appointment and given that NZOC indicated it favoured A, then BNZ entitled to nominate A.
Whether J denied natural justice by BNZ Appeals Committee – under natural justice principles, necessary to give an appellant opportunity to be heard and appropriately present his or her case - J not notified when or where the appeal hearing to be heard, hearing in private, J not asked for submissions or supporting evidence, J did not know matters to be considered, some factual matters were clarified in the hearing that should have been referred to J first as he may have had submissions - Appeals Committee should have called for submissions from both parties, have given J right to appear in support of his case and clarified evidential matters with knowledge, and in presence, of both parties – if Appeals Committee elects to make a decision without a hearing, it must be particularly vigilant that parties are given adequate opportunity to make submissions, be appraised of the facts and to hear any comments adverse to their case - Tribunal made declaration that Appeals Committee denied J natural justice.
Download associated documents:
Samantha Michael v New Zealand Federation of Roller Sports (ST 02/11)
Decision 19 July 2011
Overview:
Appeal against non selection for NZ team by NSO – no skaters selected for junior women’s team to compete in world championships – NSO acknowledged appellant best junior female speed skater in NZ but didn’t consider she was internationally competitive – selectors considered she hadn’t reached potential and had fitness problems – achieved top 10 finish in 2007 world championships but injured in 2008 and not achieved top 10 finish in world championships since then – number of appeal grounds dismissed including grounds alleging failure to provide written report, criteria applied differently between men and women and no material on which selection could reasonably be based – appeal upheld on ground selection criteria not properly followed or implemented in relation to determining her prospects of a top 10 finish and that selectors had not properly brought to account her potential at international level and senior rank - too great a focus had been placed on the 2007 top 10 result, and it not being repeated, without making sufficient allowance for the effect of injury and the recovery process - too much emphasis may also have been placed on one race, where she finished second to the New Zealand woman’s champion, in selectors concluding a lack of aggression in her skating - Tribunal also considered selectors had not adequately assessed her fitness in relation to World Championship prospects, particularly in light of her recent training - matter referred back to NSO for reconsideration in accordance with the selection criteria.
Download associated documents:
Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Blair Jacobs (ST 24/10)
Decision 22 June 2011; Provisional Suspension Decision 14 December 2010
Overview:
Anti-doping – swimmer tested positive for 1-3 dimethylpentylamine - also known as methylhexaneamine - admitted violation and gave evidence due to taking two supplements which he bought online - he did not investigate ingredients of products other than referring to their labels - believed were energy drinks that would help him get over being tired from his job and give him energy to train - was aware of athletes in other sports who took one of the products and assumed both products were safe to take - gave evidence and acknowledged ingredient lists for both products listed methlyhexaneamine but stated had not been aware it was prohibited - Tribunal accepted, by a narrow margin, had established not intended to enhance sports performance but focused on overcoming work tiredness – athlete not part of swimming high performance programme and not participated in any formal drug free education – however, he acknowledged was generally aware of anti-doping requirements – a competitor for a number of years at a national level, even if not in high performance squad, cannot avoid fundamental obligation to avoid taking prohibited substances – Tribunal took into account mitigating aspects that: he was upfront in his declaration at the time of testing that he had been taking one of the supplements; that work factor which motivated him into taking the supplements was extraneous to his swimming activities; and that admitted the violation and accepted wrong to rely on informal assurances rather than making proper enquiry - case more serious than BrightWater-Wharf (ST 14/10) Decision 29 November 2010) where 6 months’ suspension imposed - in that case, athlete made conscious attempts to identify product ingredients and had sought assurance from the supplier - here athlete took no meaningful steps to obtain assurance products did not contain banned substances, other than his interpretation of the product label – 12 month’s ineligibility imposed (from date of provisional suspension).
Download associated documents:
Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Anna Bramley (ST 03/11)
Decision 20 June 2011; Provisional Suspension Decision 6 May 2011
Overview:
Anti-doping - runner tested positive to canrenone (metabolite of spironolactone) - admitted violation - violation due to taking spironolactone that she had been prescribed for medical condition - had been taking for years - took up running in 2008 - she told her current GP (who is also a sports doctor) that she was competing in running but never thought to specify at what level - doctor unaware she competing at national level - athlete submitted she had not turned her mind to whether her prescribed medication may possibly be banned and did not check this with doctor or otherwise check - Tribunal reviewed its decisions and those of overseas tribunals - “duty of utmost caution” on athletes to avoid taking prohibited substances, including prescribed medications, and to check substances they take - athletes cannot avoid personal responsibility by “leaving it” to a doctor - fact a substance is prescribed does not diminish athlete’s strict personal responsibility - fact sports doctor consulted may be relevant if discussion about legitimate use takes place but for athlete to initiate that - simply going to a sports doctor is not enough - athlete not a “drugs cheat” but fell short of addressing her responsibilities - whether Tribunal has any discretion not to publish name of athlete who commits an anti-doping violation - Tribunal required to publish name - 3 months’ ineligibility imposed (from date of provisional suspension).
Download associated documents:
Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Jermaine Green (ST 05/11)
Decision 14 June 2011; Provisional Suspension Decision 8 June 2011
Overview:
Anti-doping - cannabis – admitted violation – athlete is USA based professional basketballer who had not secured a contract for any team in 2010/11 season and did not expect would do so – athlete gave evidence used cannabis with friends at end of March when thought no prospect of competing - then unexpectedly got contract with team (NG) in NZ – tested positive for cannabis after first game with NG on April 16 - after test he immediately told NG coach possibility would fail test due to prior cannabis use in USA - as result of his voluntary statement NG terminated his contract and he returned to USA - if had not made voluntary statement likely would have played several more games beforepositive test result known – 4 months’ suspension starting point for cannabis violation - aggravating factor that took risk in playing when he knew there could be problems due to his cannabis use a few weeks earlier - mitigating factors included: cannabis use in March was not in breach of the WADA Code or the Sports Anti-Doping Rules as he was not contracted at that time (although later was in breach when tested positive in competition); honesty in voluntarily disclosing to coach that might fail drug test and explanation of why, and his subsequent openness and co-operation with Drug Free Sport New Zealand; and significant adverse impact on him of his voluntary disclosure which led to immediate termination of his contract - other factors noted by Tribunal were that long suspension could result in loss of opportunity of international contract for upcoming season, and his honesty and openness - given mitigating factors (particularly voluntary admission made immediately after test and consequences that followed), Tribunal prepared to take into account the effect of his voluntary admission and effective suspension from 17 April after his contract terminated - Tribunal imposed a further four week period of suspension from date of hearing until 11 July 2011, resulting effectively in total suspension of 12 weeks.
Download associated documents:
Jack Halka v Bowls New Zealand (ST 12/10)
Decision 21 April 2011
Overview:
Appeal against decision of NSO - appeal rights – whether finding by wrong appeal body that it had no jurisdiction was final disposition of the one available appeal right - appellant (H) competed in championship bowls match at Club and protested about appointment of “junior bowler” as a marker and sought re-match – committee of club (BT) rejected protest – H incorrectly advised by NSO (BNZ) to appeal to regional body (BHB) instead of Judicial Committee of BT – Judicial Committee of BHB decided after hearing it didn’t have jurisdiction and that H’s only redress was with BT and that now exhausted – H appealed to Judicial Committee of BNZ who declined jurisdiction to hear appeal as considered only one appeal right and the BHB Judicial Committee decision was the final disposition of that one appeal right available – Tribunal agreed relevant rules only allow one right of appeal and that under the rules, a decision on appeal is final whether that decision is made by the “Judicial Committee” of a Club or of a Centre or of BNZ or by the Sports Tribunal – whether had been appeal - Tribunal considered that appeal had not actually been heard – would be curious if appellant led to the wrong appeal body and a finding of no jurisdiction is the disposition of the one appeal right - Tribunal considered that the BNZ Judicial Committee should have sent the matter back to the BT Judicial Committee where it properly lay - Tribunal ordered that appeal be sent back to the BT Judicial Committee to be heard - this was not to hear a second appeal as H's appeal has not been heard at all - guidance given on the matters that should be considered.
Download associated documents:
Announcement of Anti-Doping Decision (all details relating to case are confidential) Announcement 15 April 2011.
The Sports Tribunal has heard and decided an anti-doping application and found that there was no violation.
All details relating to this case are strictly confidential, pursuant to the Sports Anti-Doping Rules.
Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Graham O’Grady (ST 01/11) Decision 21 March 2011; Provisional Suspension Decision 18 February 2010.
Overview:
Anti-doping – triathlete tested positive to morphine – “no fault” defence under Rule 14.5.1 of Sports Anti Doping Rules - athlete did not challenge positive test but claimed he was not at fault as the morphine found in his system was due to poppy seeds contained in loaves of gluten free poppy seed bread he had been eating before, and on the day, of the competition - Tribunal heard and accepted expert scientific evidence that morphine may be produced from consumption of poppy seeds (which are not prohibited substances) - some evidence that the variables involved in the present case (including the source of poppy seeds and the bread production process) may in combination have inflated the morphine concentration - Tribunal accepted that on the scientific evidence the morphine concentration in athlete’s test samples was a “possible” or “likely” consequence of the consumption of poppy seed bread - having heard and seen athlete and the other witnesses the Tribunal was satisfied that the source of Mr O’Grady’s positive test was the consumption of the poppy seed bread - no other credible explanation on the evidence - Tribunal had to decide whether athlete could reasonably have known or suspected that consuming commercial bread product might introduce morphine into his system and ultimately result in the positive test - Tribunal decided that this result could not reasonably have been anticipated by athlete - Tribunal concluded athlete had established he had “no fault” for anti-doping violation and therefore no penalty of suspension was imposed and provisional suspension order lapsed - however, as an anti-doping violation established, the Sports Anti-Doping Rules required that his competition result had to be disqualified - disqualification is an automatic consequence of an anti-doping violation under the Rules, even when an athlete is found to have no fault for the violation.
Download associated documents:
Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Para Murray
(ST 22/10) Decision 7 March 2011; Provisional Suspension Decision 18 November 2010.
Overview:
Anti-doping – rugby league player tested positive to D-Methamphetamine and D-Amphetamine – admitted violation which he stated was result of recreational drug use - athlete made submissions seeking modification of normal sanction in light of his personal circumstances and submissions concerning perceived need for more drug education in his area - while the Tribunal was sympathetic to these submissions, it had to decide the case on the basis of the anti-doping rules and had no discretion in this case to impose anything but a 2 year suspension - Tribunal suggested to athlete that there may be an opportunity for him to take an active role in anti-doping education programmes, spread the message to others and achieve a positive result out of an otherwise bad experience – 2 years’ ineligibility imposed from date of provisional suspension.
Download associated documents:
Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Adam Stewart
(ST 19/10) Decision on application of rule 14.8 16 February 2011; Decision on jurisdiction 6 December 2010
Overview:
Anti-doping - 2 years’ ineligibility imposed on athlete for attempted use, and possession, of prohibited substances (see earlier decision of 8 September 2010) – issue arose whether Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider application to disqualify athlete’s competition results under rule 14.8 of Sports Anti-Doping Rules – Tribunal held it had jurisdiction to consider application (see decision on jurisdiction 6 December 2010) - hearing subsequently held to consider application of rule 14.8 and whether results should be disqualified – rule 14.8 requires mandatory disqualification of certain results “unless fairness requires otherwise” – athlete submitted that fairness exception should apply for various reasons including athlete allegedly did not ingest substance and violation did not assist his performance – however no evidence whether took substance or not – in any event rule also applies in cases of anti-doping violations where athlete may not have taken substance and not just to those violations arising from a positive test – presumption that rule 14.8 is to apply and exceptional circumstances are required to rebut that presumption - exceptional circumstances not established in this case and consequences in rule 14.8 to apply – athlete’s results from 31 March 2009 to date of application of period of ineligibility are disqualified – it is for Bike NZ and UCI to determine application of this order to those results which may have a “team” element in them.
Download associated documents:
Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Joshua Poasa
(ST 21/10) Decision 4 February 2011; Provisional Suspension Decision 18 November 2010.
Overview:
Anti-doping - cannabis - 18 year old rugby league player smoked cannabis at party with older players after last club game of year - subsequently tested positive for cannabis at representative match – some mitigating factors - evidence suggested may be a culture of cannabis smoking in rugby league in Northland and may have been peer pressure brought to bear on this 18 year old athlete - also been provisionally suspended by Tribunal since 18 November 2010 and has not been able to play other sports that normally would during this time and this may also be a mitigating factor - aggravating factor was that week before the party he attended a training camp during which he received formal anti-doping education, including information about cannabis being prohibited – so when smoked cannabis at party he knew cannabis was prohibited substance – first cannabis case that Tribunal’s new starting point applied to - normal starting point for cannabis violation now four months’ suspension (provided athlete can demonstrate how cannabis got in their system and that it was not taken for performance enhancing reasons) - aggravating and mitigating factors are then considered in deciding the appropriate penalty - here Tribunal considered the mitigating factors equated with the aggravating factors - suspension from 18 November 2010 (date of provisional suspension) until 21 March 2011 considered appropriate – Tribunal required to publicly report decision under Anti-Doping Rules and request for name suppression not granted.
Download associated documents:
|
|
