Related case:
ST 2012_04 DFSNZ vs Nigel Cordes
October 12, 2012

On 12 October 2012 the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decided to impose a 18 month period of ineligibility on the Respondent for committing an anti-doping rule violation after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 1-3 dimethylpentylamine (Methylhexaneamine).

Hereafter an allegation was made that Respondent participated in 12 cricket games between 3 November 2012 and 9 March 2013 while suspended for a period of 18 months from 15 August 2012.

Respondent admitted the violation but gave evidence it was unintentional. He hadn’t realised his suspension applied to any sport apart from powerlifting and that it stopped him playing cricket. He’d checked the Tribunal’s decision and the Rules before playing cricket to see if there was anything that stopped him playing but hadn’t understood that the Rules prevented him playing cricket while suspended.
The Tribunal thought Respondent was at fault. If he’d checked with Drug Free Sport or taken advice on the Rules, he would have been aware that playing cricket while suspended was a violation. Although the Rules are in technical terms, they are clear that for a suspended athlete to participate in an activity authorised or organised by any signatory of the WADA Code, or a club which is a member of that signatory, is a further violation.

In the particular circumstances of this case, the Tribunal rules Respondent was entitled to a reduction of penalty under the “no significant fault” rule. Therefore the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 15 month period of ineligibility on the Respondent (instead of 18 months) starting on 9 March 2013.

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

Respondent admitted the violation. He stated that he could not urinate straight away to provide a sample. Therefore he drank enough water and waited in the testing room. While waiting in the testing room people were coming and going. He felt tired, cold and hungry and got anxious and frustrated because he wasn’t able to urinate. At that point he left the testing station despite the officials warning to him of the consequences of leaving the area before providing a sample.

Without mitigating circumstances the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 24 month period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 2 December 2013.

Related cases:

• CAS 2014_A_2 DFSNZ vs Kris Gemmell
  December 1, 2014
• ST 2015_01 Kris Gemmell vs DFSNZ
  January 26, 2015

Facts
Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) filed an application for an Anti-Doping Rule Violation against Kris Gemmell, the athlete, in respect of two missed tests and a filing failure and, as a result, DFSNZ alleged the athlete had committed a “whereabouts” anti-doping rule violation. A violation is established when there were three missed tests and/or filing failures within an 18 month period. The factual assertions made by DFSNZ are:
- a missed test on August 28, 2012
- a filing failure on July 16, 2013 and
- a missed test on September 13, 2013.

History
The athlete denied he committed a whereabouts breach on August 28, 2012, and said that he was at the address given for his whereabouts in his relevant quarterly filing, he did not hear the tester at the door. In respect of the breaches on July 16 and September 13, 2013, he asserts no negligence on his part.
The panel considered: the case depended on establishing the specific facts to establish such a breach. On the evidence we have decided that the facts do not sufficiently establish a breach in respect to the 28 August charge including that the doping control officer did not do all that was reasonable to make contact.

Decision
The charge filed by DFSNZ is dismissed on 12 February 2014 by the Tribunal.

Facts
Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) alleged Andrew Ciancio, the athlete, for failing in providing his whereabouts and evasion for not giving the correct address were he was staying, he tampered with the sample collection by giving false and misleading information as to his whereabouts.

History
The DFSNZ had put the athlete into provisional suspension after the athlete failed to attend the hearing about his case. Several times the athlete failed in responding, he claimed to be awaiting the decision before the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS) for an appeal of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA). It is unusual to have an athlete subjected to anti-doping proceedings simultaneously in two jurisdictions. However the decision of CAS did not come and ASADA did not want to share their findings. The decisions of the tribunal was based on the existing material. The athlete had failed to bring in any evidence. He had claimed to work as a handyman on several locations for that reason his locations were incorrect.
In the meantime the CAS decision was made known which was a period of ineligibility lasting 7 years. The New Zealand violations occurred after that date. By this it is a second violation but also multiple violations, the first violation in Australia was for trafficking. Although now the hearing could determine if this case was a "lex mitior". As DFSNZ properly notes the orthodox position would be that the new rules would normally be applied but submits that the delay in this matter was in part because the athlete wanted to have the CAS proceedings determined before he had to deal with the New Zealand violations. The substantial delays related to the time taken by CAS to issue a final award. The tribunal wil apply the ruling of 2015.

Decision
The period of ineligibility will last 8 years starting from June 4, 2014.

Facts
The Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) reported an anti-doping rule violation against Darren Reiri, the respondent, a member of the New Zealand Rugby League. DFSNZ alleged the respondent for the attempted use of the prohibited substance Anastrozole. Anastrozole is prohibited in-competition and out-of-competition according to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
In May 2013 the respondent had ordered the prohibited substance Anastrozole over the internet from a website in India. The packages were dispatched to him but intercepted by Customs, who referred the interception to Medsafe. The respondent had used protein supplements during training in order to get bigger and more muscular. On advice of a friend he ordered supplements in India. The package didn't arrive and he received a letter from New Zealand Customs telling him the package had been intercepted. After a few months he tried again ordering supplements from india, again the package with supplements was intercepted. He was then contacted on behalf of Drug Free Sport New Zealand for an interview. Although there were two Anti-Doping violations it was regarded as only one violation. The respondent claims he had wanted to use the supplements for cosmetic purposes, to get bigger and stronger. He had not given it a second thought to whether any improvements in the gym he would benefit also from his rugby league abilities.
The tribunal objectively viewed that the explanations are not persuasive especially when the respondent persisted with his attempted acquisition after his first try was foiled by Medsafe. His failure to seek advice or check his position is inexcusable. He appeared to be willing to rely on the say so of a friend who he did not want to identify. While because of his age and new priorities his degree of involvement in rugby league was lessening, the obligations remained even if it was for him more of a hobby than a sport.

Decision
Tribunal concluded the respondent fell short of establishing he did not intend to enhance his sport performance - 2 years ineligibility imposed (commencing from February 1, 2014 to take account of substantial delay in referring matter to Tribunal).

Facts
Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) alleged Daniel Milne, the athlete, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. The athlete had offered prohibited substances at a pupil.

History
The athlete was working a a coach and invited athlete X whom he was training at a party at his house. There he showed prohibited substances and explained how to use them and to avoid detection. Athlete X said he wanted to think about and eventually he told another coach what had happened.
Attempted trafficking violations are viewed as particularly
serious offending and is emphasized by the existence of a mandatory minimum suspension of 4 years for a first offence.
Although the athlete X in question did not gave a testimony the athlete showed responsibility for his actions. There are several aggravating circumstances but the most important one is that the athlete in a coach relationship represented a fundamental departure from proper and essential standards.

Decision
- The sanction is a period of ineligibility of six years, commencing from January 1, 2014.
- During this period the athlete can not participate in any capacity in a competition or activity authorised or organised by Olympic Weightlifting New Zealand or a weightlifting club or other member organisation.
- Also the athlete can not participate in any capacity in competitions authorised or organised by any professional league or any international or national level event organisation. He also cannot participate in any similar activities in any other sport, which is a signatory to the WADA Code, while he is suspended.

Facts
Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) alleged Claudia Hanham, the athlete, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. Samples were
taken from her on 7 September 2014 and the A sample tested positive for prednisone which is a specified substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) 2015 Prohibited List.

History
The athlete admitted the use of prednisone, it had been prescribed to her for medical treatment. She was diagnosed with an extremely serious life threatening condition that could result in kidney failure and early mortality - prescribed a high dose of Prednisone (plus other medications) and remained on those drugs at a diminishing level since then. She had mentioned this on the doping control form. Her physician was unaware of any wrong doing because prednisone does not enhance sport performance. He “had no reason to believe that this medication might raise concerns with regard to drug testing agencies for sportspeople”. Although the athlete was advised to stop sporting, she continued and took up coaching as well as sport studies.
On 14 November 2014 an application was made on Claudia’s behalf to the Therapeutic Use Committee of DFS for a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE). It was granted on 19 November 2014. The TUE authorises her continuing use of the medication containing the Prednisone. Had this been applied for earlier in the year the violation would not have occurred.
The panel does add that the athlete could have done more research then one source to find out that prednisone is a prohibited substance.

Decision
- The sanction is a reprimand.

Related case:
ST 2017_05 DFSNZ vs Gareth Dawson
December 15, 2017

Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent Gareth Dawson after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance tamoxifen. 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 developed a medical condition in 2011, which was sore and annoying when competing, and went to a doctor in Timaru who diagnosed the condition but didn’t prescribe treatment. The condition went away for 18 months then returned. In 2013 Mr Dawson researched the condition online, saw references to tamoxifen as a treatment and ordered tamoxifen tablets from an online pharmacy but didn’t receive them as they were intercepted in the mail by NZ Customs. When the tablets didn’t arrive he consulted a doctor in Invercargill where he was now living. He requested a “repeat prescription” of tamoxifen and was prescribed tamoxifen, which he later took. He said this was the source of the positive test.

The Tribunal was satisfied how the prohibited substance entered the Athlete’s body, that he didn’t intend to enhance his sports performance or mask the use of a performance enhancing substance and that it was obtained by prescription and taken to deal with a medical condition.
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 15 May 2014.

Related cases:

• CAS 2014_A_2 DFSNZ vs Kris Gemmell
  December 1, 2014
• ST 2013_08 DFSNZ vs Kris Gemmell
  February 12, 2014

Facts
Kris Gemmell, the athlete, appealed against the decision of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), dated December 1, 2014.

History
At first the athlete had not received a sanction for the allegation of a whereabouts violation in a decision from the sport tribunal of New Zealand, dated February 12, 2014. The Drug Free Sport New Zealand appealed against this decision before the CAS. The athlete was sanctioned by the court for a period of ineligibility of 15 months.
In accordance with the new ruling of 2015 the athlete applied for a lower penalty because of a Lex Mitior case.
The panel agrees with the appeal, a violation has been committed and the lowest penalty will be settled.

Decision
- Weighing the factors referred to above, the Tribunal has decided that it would be appropriate to reduce the period of ineligibility to expire at midnight on February 12, 2015, being a 12 month period equivalent to the minimum period that could have been imposed.

Facts
Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) alleged Quentin Gardiner, the athlete, for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. A sample was taken from the athlete after the final of the Touch Nationals on March 8, 2015. The "A" sample tested positive for methylhexaneamine. Methylhexaneamine is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) 2015 Prohibited List, it is regarded as a specified substance. This case is unusual only in that counsel have filed a joint memorandum recording an agreed submission as to outcome.

History
The athlete had used supplements containing the prohibited substance. He had mentioned the products on the doping control form. Historically the supplements he used contained methylhexaneamine but they longer do so. Probably the contamination derived from an older batch. The athlete has established no significant fault or negligence.

Decision
The sanction is a period of ineligibility of 15 months starting from the date of the sample collection.