Related cases:
- ST 2016_03 DFSNZ vs Karl Murray
December 20, 2016 - ST 2017_02 DFSNZ vs Karl Murray
October 13, 2017 - CAS 2017_A_4937 DFSNZ vs Karl Murray
December 15, 2017 - ST 2017_02 DFSNZ vs Karl Murray - Decision on Jurisdiction
March 14, 2018
Previously the New Zealand cyclist Karl Murray was sanctioned on 8 April 2014 by the New Caledonian Anti-Doping Commission for 2 years after he tested positive for the prohibited substances Nandrolone and Testosterone.
The UCI became aware of the sanction in early 2015, adopted this sanction with worldwide effect and it was recognised by Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ).
Before the Athlete's sanction ended on 7 April 2016 DFSNZ alleged the Athlete for breaching the ineligiblility. The violaton of sanction (case 2016_03) was initially rejected by the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand on 20 December 2016.
However when appealed by DFSNZ in January 2017 the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decided on 15 December 2017 to re-impose the 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete restarted on 15 December 2017.
In May 2017 - during the appeal proceedings with CAS - DFSNZ reported a new anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Clenbuterol. On 13 October 2017 the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand concluded that the Athlete committed the anti-doping rule violation. A decision about the sanction was adjourned and scheduled for 2018 after the release on 15 December 2017 of the CAS Award (CAS 2017/A/4937) regarding his previous committed violation.
Before the sanction hearing was scheduled the Athlete raised an issue about the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. However on 14 March 2018 the Tribunal concluded that it has jurisdiction and that the sanction hearing can be scheduled.
DFSNZ accepted the CAS finding that the Athlete had breached SADR 10.12.1 by coaching during the period of the New Caledonian ban did not itself count as a second or third violation for the purpose of SADR 10.7 but submitted that the New Caledonian violation was a first violation and the Tour of Northland March 2017 event was a second violation for that purpose.
The Athlete objected that the New Caledonian violation and determination could not be treated as a first anti-doping rule violotion due to the New Caledonian authorities were not Signatories to the WADA Anti-Doping Code.
Considering the arguments in this case the Tribunal finds that clearly the decision of the New Caledonian Tribunal is a measure taken by a body which has not accepted the Code. However, there is nothing before the Tribunal to suggest that the rules of the New Caledonian authority were not consistent with the Code. To the contrary, the New Caledonian decision was recognised by the UCI, and indeed also by the French authority and subsequently DFSNZ.
The Tribunal concludes that the New Caledonian violation does constitute a first violation for the purposes of Rule 10.7. The New Zealand March 2017 violation is therefore a second anti-doping rule violation. Accordingly the Tribunal decides on 8 May 2018 that the sanction to be imposed on the Athlete is a 8 year period of ineligibility starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 11 May 2017
