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 JWH-018 (Cannabimimetics). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and he was heard for the Tribunal.

Respondent admitted the violation. He and a witness gave evidence that they were celebrating a birthday with a group of friends. Everyone in the group was smoking cigarettes with the synthetic cannabis product Kronic and pressuring Respondent to do so too but he was not keen. However, he ultimately succumbed to peer pressure from the rest of the group (“to shut us up so we could leave him alone” according to his witness) and took some puffs from one of the cigarettes. He did not realise that Kronic contained a product banned in sport.

The Tribunal assesses Respondent’s degree of fault in all the circumstances of the case and concludes these circumstances justified a reduction from the usual starting point of four months’ suspension for a cannabis violation.
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 11 October 2012.

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. The Respondent filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Tribunal.

Respondent admitted the violation and gave evidence that due to using a supplement offered to him by a team-mate to help keep him awake on the final day of the three day tournament. He asked the team-mate what the drink was and was told the supplement name and that it had been bought in a health store over other supplements because it was on sale and cheaper. Respondent assumed it was an “energy drink” and safe to take and did not check the ingredients. However, unknown to him, the supplement contained the prohibited substance Methylhexaneamine. This particular supplement, and certain others containing Methylhexaneamine, are now banned from sale in New Zealand.
Respondent did shift work and usually slept at times some of the tournament matches were being played. He took the supplement several hours before the final and said he took it to counter the unusual sleep pattern caused by the shift work and took it solely for the purpose of “keeping his eyes open” and not to enhance his sports performance. However, during the hearing, he admitted he also took it to give him energy to play in the final.

The Tribunal ruled Respondent had not comfortably satisfied them that he did not take the supplement (containing the prohibited substance Methylhexaneamine) to enhance his sports performance. However, by a two to one majority, the Tribunal panel was comfortably satisfied he did not take Methylhexaneamine to enhance his sports performance and so was eligible for a lesser penalty than two years’ suspension.
There was a reasonable degree of fault. Respondent knew about the dangers of performance-enhancing drugs but made no enquiry when the supplement was given to him to drink. He took it immediately before an important match and this should have alerted him to check what he was taking. He has been drug tested previously and has had some drug education.

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 5 April 2012.

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

Respondent admitted the anti-doping violation but gave evidence it occurred inadvertently as a result of medical treatment. He developed a serious arm infection and attended a 24 hour accident and emergency clinic. A doctor at the clinic diagnosed him as having cellulitis requiring immediate treatment. The doctor prescribed and administered Probenecid as part of the treatment. The doctor gave evidence there was a serious medical emergency, with potentially life threatening consequences if untreated, and Probenecid was seen as an essential treatment option.
Respondent gave evidence that he advised the treating doctor, and subsequent medical personnel he saw on return visits for further treatment with Probenecid, that he had been selected for the Paralympic Games, was subject to drug testing and could not take anything that was a prohibited substance. However, Respondent and the doctors did not realise that Probenecid was prohibited in sport. A therapeutic use exemption (TUE) could have been applied for to allow Respondent to take the Probenecid but in the situation that developed this was overlooked.

The Tribunal is satisfied that Respondent was prescribed Probenecid for a clear therapeutic reason and that performance enhancement or masking was not in issue in any way. The breach in this case arose out of a critical medical emergency where insufficient attention was given to Respondent being subject to the Drug Free regime. The case is about inadvertence and oversight by a very sick man. The Tribunal is satisfied that in these circumstances issuing a reprimand (and no suspension) sufficiently reflected the actual culpability in the breach.

Related case:
ST 2013_03 DFSNZ vs Nigel Cordes
June 7, 2013

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 stated it was due to a caffeine based supplement he bought from his local sports nutrition store on their recommendation. He gave evidence that, at the time he bought it and later used it, he didn’t know that it contained Methylhexaneamine. He didn’t check or make inquiries whether the supplement contained any prohibited substance. He sipped on the supplement during the day of competition to help him stay focused through a long day. He listed on the drug testing form that he had been taking that particular supplement.

The Tribunal consideres Respondent did not exercise reasonable care and was more at fault than other athletes in recent Methylhexaneamine Tribunal cases who had received suspensions of 12 months. Respondent failed to take any effective steps to identify the ingredients of the product. Therefore the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 18 month period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 15 August 2012. In Addition the Tribunal disqualifies Respondent second placing in the championships.

Related case:
ST 2013_01 DFSNZ vs Jared Neho
April 16, 2013

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 smoking cannabis and that he knew it was a prohibited substance in competition. His gave evidence that he knew his obligations in relation to anti-doping and that he gave up smoking Cannabis prior to the rugby league competition commencing. He withdrew from the team for family and work commitments. After he withdrew from the team he occasionally smoked Cannabis again. However, due to injuries and unavailability of other players, he filled in. His position was that when he smoked the Cannabis he had no intention of enhancing his sports performance.

The Tribunal accepted he did not intend to enhance his sports performance. There was an aggravating factor that he knew he should not be taking the substance and he played knowing the risk. There was a mitigating factor of his late call up into the team.

Considering all the circumstances into account the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 12 week period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on 25 January 2013, which will prevent him from taking part in pre-season matches and activity.

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 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 stated it was due to smoking a cigarette he was offered while celebrating at his birthday party. He was later informed by the person who gave it to him that it was laced with cannabis oil/hash. His evidence was backed up by a witness. A representative from New Zealand Powerlifting Federation also stated he had known Respondent for 15 years and that these actions were out of character. The Tribunal accepted there was no intent to enhance his sports performance.

The Tribunal notes that there were both aggravating and mitigating factors in this case and finds that these factors balanced themselves out and that in the circumstances four months suspension appropriate.
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 4 December 2012.

Facts
Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) alleged Damon Tafatu, the athlete, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on November 3, 2012, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of dimethylpentylamine which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) 2012 prohibited list. It is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The athlete requested a B sample analysis, this analysis confirmed the findings of the A sample. The athlete admitted the violation and elected to participate in the proceedings to make submissions on the appropriate penalty. He had declared on the DFS doping control form that he had taken two substances on that day: “Pre Workout Jacked 3D 1 scoop” and “Super Pump Max 1 scoop”. But it turned out that another product he had not mentioned (1MR) was the cause for the positive test, he had not regarded this product as a supplement. He claimed he had no intention to enhance his sport performance.
There were are too many inconsistencies in the athlete’s evidence, to enable the Tribunal to accept on the balance of probabilities that the 1 MR was the source, that he took Jack3d Micro and not Jack3d on the day of the competition, or even that the substance tested by DFS was the substance which he took. These ‘inconsistencies’ mean that his evidence cannot be relied upon to satisfy how the prohibited substance had entered the athlete’s body. Also the athlete had mentioned the taking of supplements to give him a lift because he was disappointed in his results. The athlete had claimed in his submissions that he had received poor education on doping issues, but this was not acknowledged by the tribunal.

Decision
- The sanction is a period of ineligibility of two years and commences from December 5, 2012.
- His results obtained on November 3, 2012, are disqualified as well as are his results in any other competition held between that date and the date of this decision.

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

Respondent admitted the violation. He later advised that he did not wish to present any further information about the violation and would abide by the decision of the Sports 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, i.e. on 10 January 2013.

Related case:
ST 2012_05 DFSNZ vs Jared Neho
January 25, 2013

On 25 January 2013 the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decided to impose a 12 week period of ineligibility on the Respondent for committing an anti-doping rule violation after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis.
Hereafter an allegation was made that Respondent participated in a pre-season trials match on 17 February 2013 while suspended for a period of 12 weeks from 25 January 2013.

Respondent admitted the violation. He mistakenly thought the suspension didn’t apply to this club match as it wasn’t sanctioned by his regional rugby league body. He also received informal advice from a club president who thought it was okay for him to play for the same reason.

The Tribunal accepted that Respondent genuinely made a mistake in believing he could participate in the game, reinforced by advice he received, and that he didn’t intend to breach the suspension.
As Respondent couldn’t establish “no significant fault” for his breach, there was no basis to reduce any further required suspension penalty. Therefore the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 12 week period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on date of the breach on 17 February 2013.

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 1-phenylbutan-2-amine (PBA., metabolite of DEBEA) and N,α-diethyl-benzeneethanamine (DEBEA). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and Respondent was heard fort the Tribunal.

Respondent admitted the violation and stated he had been using a dietary supplement in order to lose weight and had taken two capsules five days before being tested. The supplement didn’t list any prohibited substances on its label. After testing positive, Respondent engaged a forensic analyst to test the product. She gave evidence that her analysis confirmed the presence of prohibited substances in the product and the analytical findings were consistent with his evidence of when he took the capsules. The Tribunal was satisfied that the source of Respondent’s positive test was the supplement. The Tribunal accepted the evidence that Respondent took the supplement in order to lose weight. The Tribunal was satisfied that his taking of the two capsules five days before the cricket game was without any intent at all to enhance his sports performance in the game.

When he received the product he noticed it contained a warning on its label stating it may contain ingredients banned by certain organisations. He made internet searches on two of the ingredients but didn’t contact Drug Free Sport to check about the product even though the product contained a warning. The Tribunal concludes that the failure to contact Drug Free Sport, having seen the warning on the label, is the most substantial factor of fault on the part of Respondent.

Therefore the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 19 April 2013.