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

Respondent admitted the violation at the hearing, stated he had made a mistake and expressed remorse. He, and a witness, gave evidence that after playing the last game of the season for his club, several players went to a house warming party where there were also players from other clubs and at the party he shared a Cannabis joint with a group of older players. There was some evidence suggesting he may have taken the Cannabis due to peer pressure. His evidence was that this use of Cannabis was the source of the positive test at the later representative match. The Tribunal accepted that the Cannabis was not used for performance enhancing purposes.

The Tribunal notes he was an 18 year old athlete who has made a mistake and there were some mitigating factors. However, there is the aggravating factor that the week before the party Respondent had attended a training camp during which he received formal anti-doping education, including information about Cannabis being a prohibited substance. At the date of the party, when he smoked Cannabis, he knew that Cannabis was a prohibited substance.
The Tribunal considers the mitigating factors equated with the aggravating factors.
Therefore the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 4 month period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 18 November 2010 until 21 March 2011.

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 D-methamphetamine and D-Amphetamine. After the notification a provisional suspension was ordered. Respondent filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Tribunal.

Respondent admitted the violation and he stated that it was the result of recreational drug use. He made submissions, through his representative, seeking a modification of the normal penalty in of his personal circumstances to that he could continue to actively participate in sport.

The Tribunal finds it has no discretion in a case such as this, where prohibited substances are involved and no defence available under the Rules had been established, other than to impose the mandatory penalty of two years.
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, i.e. on 18 November 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 1-3 dimethylpentylamine (Methylhexaneamine). After the notification a provisional suspension was ordered. Respondent filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Tribunal.

Respondent admitted the violation and gave evidence that the violation was due to him taking two supplements which he bought online. He did not investigate the ingredients of the products other than referring to their labels. He believed they were energy drinks, containing Caffeine and Creatine, that would help him get over being tired from his job and give him energy to train. He was aware of athletes in other sports who took one of the products and assumed both products were safe to take. At the hearing, he gave evidence and acknowledged that the ingredient lists for both products listed Methylhexaneamine but stated he had not been aware Methylhexaneamine was prohibited.

The Tribunal accepts, by a narrow margin, that he had established he had not intended to enhance sports performance but was focused on overcoming work tiredness. The Tribunal takes into account in mitigation that: he was upfront in his declaration at the time of testing that he had been taking one of the products; that the work factor which motivated him into taking the supplements was extraneous to his swimming activities; and that he admitted the violation and accepted he was wrong to rely on informal assurances rather than making a proper enquiry.

Therefore the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 14 December 2011.

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 Morphine. After the notification a provisional suspension was ordered. Respondent filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Tribunal.

Respondent did not challenge the positive test result which had been confirmed by A and B sample tests. However, he claimed he was not at fault in testing positive to morphine as the morphine found in his system was due to poppy seeds contained in loaves of gluten free poppy seed bread he had been eating before, and on the day of, the competition.
The Tribunal heard and accepted expert scientific evidence that morphine may be produced from consumption of poppy seeds (which are not prohibited substances). Poppy seeds are a potential, if not certain, source of morphine. The concentration of morphine that may result from consumption of poppy seeds is subject to many variables. There was some evidence that the variables involved in the present case, including the source of poppy seeds and the bread production process, may in combination have inflated the morphine concentration.
Having heard and seen Respondent and the other witnesses, the Tribunal was satisfied that the source of his positive test was the consumption of the poppy seed bread. On the evidence there was no other credible explanation.

As the Tribunal concludes that there was no fault on the part of Respondent for the anti-doping violation, no penalty of suspension was imposed and the provisional suspension order lapsed.
However, as an anti-doping violation had been established, Respondent’s competition result on 8 January has to be disqualified. The Tribunal emphasised that, in its experience, this was a very unusual case.

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 Canrenone (metabolite of Spironolactone). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and Respondent was heard for the Tribunal.

Respondent admitted the violation and gave evidence that it was due to her use of Sprionolactone that she had been prescribed for a medical condition. She was first prescribed Spironolactone in 2005 and this prescription was repeated when she later became a patient of a different GP, who is also a sports doctor, in 2008. Respondent is a former New Zealand equestrian representative but had not competed in that sport for some time. She took up running in 2008 and in 2010 won, or achieved places, in regional and national competitions.
On the evidence, Respondent did not advise her current doctor at any stage that she was now running at a national level nor did she check with the doctor whether her prescribed medication may possibly be banned in sport. Her doctor was not aware she was competing at a national level, otherwise her doctor would have advised Respondent to apply for a therapeutic use exemption.
A Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) was granted to Respondent following an application made after the drug test, for six month effective from 28 April 2011.

The Tribunal considers that Respondent did not take Spironolactone to enhance her performance and that she was clearly not a “drugs cheat”. However, an athlete cannot avoid personal responsibility by “leaving it” to a doctor.
Therefore the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 5 May 2011.

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.

Evidence was given at the hearing that Respondent and his wife visited a friend (L) in California the night before they left for New Zealand and that while there he ate a cellophane wrapped sweet from a bowl of sweets that was offered to him by L. The sweets had been left behind at L’s place by a friend of L and Respondent and L assumed they were a common commercial candy. However, L subsequently discovered from the friend who left the sweets behind, when the friend came to retrieve them, that the sweets had been obtained from a medical marijuana store and were laced with cannabis. The consumption of the sweet was 12 days before the drug test. Respondent gave evidence, supported by his witnesses, that he does not use cannabis, that he has never failed a drug test before and that the source of the cannabis must have been from the laced sweet.

The Tribunal considers that on the evidence presented in this case, including scientific evidence and material, it was unable to rule out the sweet as a source of cannabis causing the positive test result. The Tribunal finds Respondent and his witnesses to be credible and accepts their evidence as truthful. The Tribunal was satisfied on the balance of probability that the cannabis, resulting in the positive test, entered Respondent’s system through his consumption of the sweet.

Therefore the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides that Respondent was not at fault for the anti-doping violation.
No penalty was imposed and the provisional suspension order lapsed.

Respondent is a professional basketballer based in the USA. He had not secured a contract for any team in the 2010/2011 season and had not expected he would be able to do so. His agent then secured him a contract with the Nelson Giants in New Zealand which Respondent accepted. Respondent played his first game on April 16 2011 and was drug tested after it.
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 and Respondent was heard for the Tribunal.

Respondent admitted the violation. He gave evidence that he used cannabis with friends at the end of March when he thought there was no prospect of him competing. After the test he immediately told his coach there was a possibility he would fail the test because of his prior cannabis use in the USA. As a result of this voluntary statement, the Nelson Giants terminated his contract and he returned to the USA. The Tribunal noted that if he had not have made this voluntary statement it was likely he would have played several more games, and earned income, before the positive test result was known.
The Tribunal considered the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case. An aggravating factor was that he took a risk in playing when he knew there could be problems due to his cannabis use a few weeks earlier. Mitigating factors included:
1.) That his cannabis use in March 2011 was not in breach of the WADA Code or the Sports Anti-Doping Rules as he was not contracted at that time (although he was in breach later when testing positive in competition).
2.) His honesty in voluntarily disclosing to the Nelson Giants’ coach that he might fail the drug test and his explanation of the reason why, and his subsequent openness and co-operation with Drug Free Sport New Zealand.
3.) The significant adverse impact on him of his voluntary disclosure which led to the immediate termination of his contract with the Nelson Giants.

Therefore the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 12 week period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 16 April 2011 until 11 July 2011.

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 notice in his defence admitting the violation, submitted that he will not attend the hearing and acknowledging that the Tribunal may impose a penalty without holding a hearing.
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, i.e. on 26 July 2011.

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 substances D-Amphetamine and D-Methamphetamine.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. Respondent filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Tribunal.

Respondent initially argued that the substances were taken “out of competition” as he believed his season was over when he took the substances (he was called in at the last minute to play by the team coach) and that the substances had not been taken for performance enhancing purposes.
However, he subsequently withdrew these defences and indicated that he did not require a formal hearing, he would accept the violation infringement and would not challenge the mandatory penalty of two years set out under the Sports Anti-Doping Rules for a violation with these substances.
Respondent asked the Tribunal to note in its decision the circumstances surrounding the offence. The Tribunal notes that Respondent’s circumstances, whatever they may be, were not relevant to the decision which it was required to give in this case under the Rules.

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, i.e. on 18 August 2011.

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 1-3 dimethylpentylamine (Methylhexaneamine). After the notification a provisional suspension was ordered. Respondent filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Tribunal.

Respondent admitted the violation and gave evidence he took a supplement before going to do weight lifting at a friend’s place and that the supplement was the cause of the positive test. Respondent said he took the supplement to assist in his weight training. He mentioned to some of his rugby league team mates at training that he had taken the supplement the day before and they told him it contained a banned substance, something he said he was unaware of at the time. He played the match the next day.

The Tribunal rules “by a very fine margin” that Respondent had not intended to enhance his sports performance. The Tribunal considers there was a high degree of fault in this case. There was a total lack of enquiry by Respondent about the supplement; he knew before he took the field that the supplement contained a prohibited substance, yet he took the field; and, despite some conflict in evidence, it is apparent he was warned of the dangers of that particular supplement in an anti-doping presentation by the team manager.
Considering the mitigating factors in Respondent’s case the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 30 September 2011.