Skip to content

Kris Gemmell v Drug Free Sport New Zealand


Anti-doping –whereabouts violation – application to have suspension period reduced in light of Rule changes – on 1 December 2014 CAS suspended G for 15 months for whereabouts violation (allowing appeal against Tribunal decision G hadn’t committed violation) – suspension commenced from date of Tribunal decision of 12 February 2014 – G applied for reduction in suspension in light of new 2015 Rules – on 1 January 2015, new Sports Anti-Doping Rules came into force changing the rules concerning when a whereabouts violation is committed – before this, for an athlete to commit a whereabouts anti-doping violation, there had to be a combination of three missed tests and/or filing failures all occurring within an 18 month period – 2015 Rules reduced the 18 month period to 12 months – to breach 2015 Rules and commit a whereabouts anti-doping violation, an athlete’s three missed tests and/or filing failures had to all occur within 12 months – while G’s three failures for which he had been sanctioned all occurred within an 18 month period, they fell outside a 12 month period – if his failures had occurred within the same relative time frame but after 1 January 2015, he would not have committed a whereabouts anti-doping violation – (1) whether Tribunal jurisdiction to decide the application and; (2) if so, whether any reduction should be granted in light of 2015 rules changes. (1) Tribunal held it had jurisdiction under the relevant rule to decide the application – (2) Tribunal decided that reduction in the suspension period was appropriate. Tribunal noted that while today G’s conduct would not result in a whereabouts violation, he had been found to have committed an anti-doping violation of the whereabouts rule as it existed at the time and any reduction in his suspension does not change that fact -Tribunal has to decide whether appropriate to modify the sanction which CAS saw fit to impose for that violation on the basis that the WADA sporting community has decided that the earlier rule was too onerous – athlete today who replicated G’s circumstances would commit no violation and face no sanction – fact that the WADA sporting community has decided that the Rule under G which is presently suspended was too onerous does justify some reduction in suspension – G’s suspension commenced on 12 February 2014 – with the overlay of the DFSNZ appeal to CAS G has suffered detriment in pursuing career opportunities since the date the violation charges were laid – also suffered the stress, publicity and cost consequences of three hearings – fact of a violation remains – under previous Rules, minimum period of suspension that could have been imposed was 12 months – CAS imposed 15 months but was unable to take into account the 2015 Rule change – CAS did, however, note the possibility of G making this application – weighing all the factors, Tribunal decided it was appropriate to reduce the suspension to a 12 month period equivalent to the minimum period that could have been imposed under the old Rules – ordered G’s suspension to expire at midnight on 12 February 2015.

Back To Top