CAS 2017/A/4937 Drug Free Sport New Zealand v. Karl Murray
Related cases:
- ST 2016_03 DFSNZ vs Karl Murray
December 20, 2016 - ST 2017_02 DFSNZ vs Karl Murray
October 13, 2017 - ST 2017_02 DFSNZ vs Karl Murray - Decision on Jurisdiction
March 14, 2018 - ST 2017_02 DFSNZ vs Karl Murray - Decision on Sanction
May 8, 2018
On 8 April 2014 the Commission for the Fight against Doping of New Caledonia decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Karl Murray after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances nandrolone, 19-noretiocholanolone and testosterone. The Decision was afterwards adopted by the UCI in March 2015 and automatically extended to New Zealand.
In April 2016 Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported two anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for violating the imposed period of ineligibility and for tampering.
DFSNZ asserted that the Athlete in the period of ineligibility had written, provided and discussed training plans with two competitive cyclists on several occasions. When interviewed in March 2016 the Athlete Karl Murray provided false, misleading and incorrect (and hence) fraudulent information to DFSNZ.
However the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand (STNZ) was not comfortably satisfied that DFSNZ had proven that the Athlete Karl Murray coached the cyclists while banned. While there was certainly evidence to this effect and having heard and seen all the witnesses the Tribunal did not find that the evidence is of the requisite “strong” quality to establish proof of what are serious allegations. Much of it is of the nature of suspicion, hearsay or supposition. Therefore the Tribunal decided on 20 December 2016 to dismiss allegations against the Athlete.
Hereafter in January 2017 DFSNZ - including Cycling New Zealand (CNZ) as affected party - appealed the STNZ decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
DFSNZ requested the Panel to sanction the Athlete in accordance with the SADR Rules and asserted that the Athlete Karl Murray violated his prohibition by coaching CNZ members and provided fraudulent information, including false and misleading information to DFSNZ.
The Athlete denied the allegations and argued that the Rules doesn’t prohibit the coaching of athletes. He contended that assisting an athlete in preparation for competition does not amount to participation in the competition.
The Panel is of the view that some of the witnesses in this case were not telling the truth and despite the Athlete’s statements to the contrary, the Panel does not accept that his evidence before the Appeal Tribunal was truthful. The credibility of the DFSNZ evidence tells against the Athlete Karl Murray and, despite his denials, it is accepted that he undertook the actions as mentioned.
The Panel, to its comfortable satisfaction, finds that during his period of ineligibility the Athlete Karl Murray:
a.) wrote training programmes for athletes;
b.) provided training advise to athletes;
c.) provided advice on racing tactis and strategy to athletes;
d.) carried out bike fits for an athlete; and
e.) provided an altitude tent for an athlete.
The Panel is therefore confortably satisfied the Athlete’s actions were a deliberate breach of SADR 10.12.1 and SADR 10.12.3. and involved a minor.
Regarding the allegation that the Athlete Karl Murray provided false information during the interview with DFSNZ the Panel, by majority, is not comfortably satisfied, given the seriousness of the breach, that the he offended the Rules at the interview conducted on 30 March 2016. The alleged violation by the Athlete under SADR 2.5 is therefore dismissed.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 15 December 2017 that:
1.) The appeal as to breach of SADR 10.12.1 and 10.12.3 filed by Drug Free Sport New Zealand on 9 January 2017 is upheld. The appeal as to breach of SADR 2.5 is dismissed.
2.) The Decision rendered by the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand of 20 December 2016 is set aside.
3.) Karl Murray is sanctioned for a period of two (2) years for a breach of Sports Anti-doping Rules New Zealand from the date of the Decision, with credit applied for the period of provisional period of ineligibility served.
4.) The Court Office fee of CHF 1000 (one thousand Swiss Francs), paid by the Appellant, is to be retained by the CAS.
5.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determinded and served on the parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be paid in equal shared (50/50) by Drug Free Sport New Zealand and Mr Karl Murray.
6.) Karl Murray is ordered to pay NZ$3,500.00 to Drug Free Sport New Zealand as his total amount of contribution towards the expenses incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings.
7.) All other motons or prayers for relief are dismissed.
