Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against Respondent after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and Respondent was heard for the Tribunal. Respondent admitted the violation and gave corroborated evidence that the cannabis was used at a party to celebrate his club team winning its competition.

The Tribunal considers that Respondent was aware that Cannabis was prohibited in sport. His statement that, at the time of his cannabis use, he did not think he would be chosen to represent his provincial team was no excuse.
The Tribunal considers that there were no mitigating circumstances.
Therefore the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a period of ineligibility on Respondent preventing him from participation in the rugby league and other sports up to and including 29 January 2010.

Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and Respondent was heard for the Tribunal.

Respondent admitted the violation and gave evidence, accepted by the Tribunal, that she had consulted her doctor about a medical condition and he prescribed furosemide to treat this. The doctor misstated the status of Furosemide when he advised her not to take it “close to” or “around competition” when in fact Furosemide is a prohibited substance in sports not to be taken in or out of competition. Respondent accepted this advice and confirmed it with a pharmacist but took no further steps to check this advice with Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFS) or clarify what were the parameters of “close to” or “around competition”.
Furosemide reduces fluid retention and can reduce weight and potentially have performance enhancing consequences for a boxer trying to fit in a certain weight division. However, the Tribunal accepted Respondent’s evidence that this was not the case and the Furosemide was taken to treat her medical condition and was not intended to enhance her sports performance.

The Tribunal regarded this case as more serious than other cases it had dealt with concerning prohibited substances being mistakenly prescribed because of Respondent’s explicit knowledge that there was an issue about Furosemide and her failure to clarify the position. Therefore the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on Respondent, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 17 February 2010.

Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. Respondent filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Tribunal.

Respondent admitted the violation. He gave evidence that he left the championships the day before the match to be with family upon learning his grandmother had passed away and that he smoked Cannabis that night for comfort purposes. The Tribunal accepted he did not use the Cannabis for sports performance enhancing purposes.
The Tribunal took into account the bereavement and that when he smoked the Cannabis he had intended to go to his grandmother’s tangi and did not intend to return to the tournament.
However, there were aggravating circumstances including that he was a very experienced international player who admitted he was well aware of the anti-doping rules, including those concerning Cannabis, and who made a deliberate decision to return to participate fully in the competition knowing the night before he had smoked Cannabis and hoped he would not get caught. His team didn’t win but would have been disqualified if it had as a result of his violation.

Because the Touch season had finished the Tribunal considers it must have the power to impose a meaningful and effective sanction. Therefore the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a period of ineligibility starting from the date of the hearing on 29 June 2010 until 16 March 2011, when the next touch season is due to finish.

Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after he refused to provide a sample for drug testing. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered.

Respondent admitted the violation. He stated that he only participated in the competition for fun and did not intend to participate in future powerlifting competitions. He also stated he intended to compete in bodybuilding and believed that any period of suspension imposed by the Tribunal would not prevent him from doing so. The Tribunal warned him that any period of suspension it imposed here would also apply to any sporting body that is a signatory to the World Anti-Doping Code.

Because of a period of delay the Tribunal finds this the consequence of consideration of some other issues that could not be attributed to Respondent. Therefore the Tribunal considered that the sanction should be reduced by 3 months to take into account the period of delay. The Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 21 month period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 22 June 2010 until 22 March 2012.

Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and Respondent was heard for the Tribunal.

Respondent admitted the violation. The Tribunal accepted evidence that the Cannabis was not taken for sports performance enhancing purposes but used with a friend in a time of personal stress for Respondent. The Tribunal took into account that Respondent was under stress during the time of use as this was relevant to fault but the Tribunal took the view that this is not a major consideration. That Respondent knowingly used cannabis two days before an important match while having been educated in, and being well aware, of the anti-doping rules and Basketball New Zealand’s commitment to them, means he must accept a reasonable degree of fault.
Therefore the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 2 month period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 23 June 2010.

Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered.

Respondent filed a statement in his defence admitting the violation but hereafter failed to participate in the hearing for the Tribunal and to provide corroborating evidence.
Therefore the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on Respondent, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 23 June 2010.

Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and Respondent was heard for the Tribunal.

Respondent admitted the violation and gave evidence that the violation was accidental and due to her, on the morning of the competition, taking a capsule of a supplement called “Ripped Freak” which unknown to her contained dimethylpentylamine. The supplement’s package did not list dimethylpentylamine as an ingredient. It listed geranium seed extract as an ingredient but she did not know that dimethylpentylamine could be a product of geranium seed. She made inquiries to the distributor whether it contained any prohibited substances. The distributor told her that the manufacturer had advised that it did not contain prohibited substances.

The Tribunal accepted that Respondent did not know the supplement contained a prohibited substance and did not take it for performance enhancing reasons, but rather to “lift her mental state”, and noted she was the only competitor in her class.
After the Tribunal hearing, but before the Tribunal made its decision, the Tribunal was advised that the World Anti-Doping Authority (WADA) was reclassifying dimethylpentylamine as a “specified substance” in the 2011 Prohibited List.
The Tribunal considers comparable anti-doping decisions of its own and overseas bodies concerning athletes inadvertently taking prohibited specified substances (including cases where doctors had mistakenly prescribed athletes prohibited substances, which the present case was seen as more serious than).

Therefore he Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on Respondent, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 27 July 2010.

Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Testosterone, Oxymesterone, Methandienone, Methyltestosterone, Oxymetholone, 19-norandrosterone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered.

Respondent admitted the violation, did not submit a statement in his defence and waived his right to be heard before the Tribunal.
Therefore the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on the date of the provisional suspension.

Related case:

ST 2008_13 DFSNZ Rodney Newman
November 5, 2008

On 5 November 2008 the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for the use of the prohibited substances Boldenone and Testosterone.

On 6 December 2011, the New Zealand District Court gave its decision finding that Respondent had imported prescription medicines and had in his possession prescription medicines, contrary to the Medicines Act.

The drugs that the District Court found Respondent imported and possessed included prohibited substances banned in sport under the World Anti-Doping (WADA) Code and formed the basis for some allegations against him that the Sports Tribunal was to hear.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and Respondent was heard for the Sports Tribunal.

Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) alleged that Respondent had committed five anti-doping violations. While Respondent admitted or accepted that most of the anti-doping allegations against him were established, he denied allegations of use or attempted use of prohibited substances.

However, the Tribunal found that the alleged anti-doping violations against Respondent had been proven to the required standard. These five violations were:

1.) Participating in sporting activity (by coaching at the Auckland Powerlifting Championships on 8 May 2010) in breach of the two year suspension imposed by the Tribunal in November 2008.

2.) Failing to submit to sample collection without compelling justification on 18 May 2010.

3.) On 1 October 2009, being in possession of various prohibited substances including mesterolone, stanozolol, testosterone, oxymetholone, methandienone, oxandrolone, and prasterone.

4.) At various times between 27 October 2006 and 1 October 2009, being in possession of various prohibited substances.

5.) Using or attempting to use prohibited substances at various times between 27 October 2006 and 1 October 2009.

DFSNZ submitted that there were aggravating circumstances including possession and use of a large quantity of performance enhancing drugs, over a long period of time while competing at a national level in a sport, giving him a direct advantage which he deliberately sought.

DFSNZ further submitted that his conduct showed a flagrant disregard for the illegalities involved in what he did and was undertaken in a manner designed to deliberately conceal his conduct. The Sports Tribunal of New Zealand agrees that there were aggravating circumstances of this nature.

The Tribunal finds that the alleged anti-doping violations against Respondent had been proven to the required standard. Therefore the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a lifetime ban on Respondent.

Related cases:
ST 2010_19 DFSNZ vs Adam Stewart - Decision on Jurisdiction
December 6, 2010
ST 2010_19 DFSNZ vs Adam Stewart – Decision on Application
February 16, 2011

Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported anti-doping rule violations against the Respondent for attempted use and possession of prohibited substances when he imported prohibited substances by post.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and Respondent was heard for the Tribunal.

Respondent admitted the violation of attempting to use prohibited substances between 31 March 2009 and 19 May 2010 by ordering, purchasing and arranging for the delivery of the EPO, hCG and Pregnyl Solvent to a PO Box number. Respondent also admitted the possession of the prohibited substance hCG on or about 24 June 2009.
Under the Sports Anti-Doping Rules, the two incidents were to be treated as one violation with a prescribed penalty of two years’ suspension.
The Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on 7 September 2010.