Related cases:
- SDT 2005_07 Touch New Zealand vs William Morunga
August 2, 2005 - SDT 2006_13 Touch New Zealand vs William Morunga
July 4, 2006
Mr. William Morunga is a Touch and Rugby player and prior santioned because of his use of the prohibited substance Cannabis:
- On 2 August 2005 the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decided to impose on the Athlete a 2 month period of ineligibility, including a severe warning and a strong reprimand.
- On 4 July 2006 the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for his second anti-doping rule violation.
- On 14 September 2010 the Queensland Rugby League Drug Judiciary Tribunal decided to impose a lifetime ban on the Athlete for his third anti-doping rule violation.
Hereafter the Athlete requested Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) for reconsideration of the period of ineligibility the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand had imposed on the Athlete in 2005 and 2006. In this matter the Athlete invoked the principle of Lex Mitior and retroactive application of the current Rule regarding Substances of Abuse.
DFSNZ agrees that the principle of Lex Mitior allows reconsideration of the Athlete's sanction and the retroactive application of the new Rule regarding Substances of Abuse, used out-of-competition and unrelated to sport performance.
Following assessment of the case and the Athlete's conduct the Tribunal determines that the new Rule regarding Substances of Abuse is applicable whereas that the period of ineligibility has not expired because of the imposed lifetime ban in September 2010.
in view of the principle of Lex Mitior the Tribunal considers that there are grounds to reduce the previous imposed sanctions into a 1 month sanction with the Athlete following a substances of abuse treatment programme approved by DFSNZ.
Therefore the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides on 1 June 2023 that:
1) The first ADRV is sanctioned under Rule 10.2.4.1 and the period of ineligibility is reduced to one month;
2) The second ADRV is sanctioned under Rule 10.2.4.1 and the period of ineligibility is reduced to one month;
3) Rule 10.9.2 applies and neither the first ADRV nor second ADRV are to be considered a violation, and provisions regarding multiple violations do not apply.
