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.