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

The Respondent gave a prompt admission and stated that on 10 September 2015 she attended an Urgent Doctor’s clinic and was diagnosed with a bad case of cellulitis. She was administered the protocol treatment for cellulitis, being antibiotics together with probenecid to boost the effectiveness of the antibiotics. At the time of treatment, the Respondent was not intending to play football for the next few months and therefore did not tell the doctors treating her that she was subject to the anti-doping testing regime, nor did she make inquiries about what medication she was being given.
Shortly after, she was persuaded to play football and commenced training for the 2015 National Women's League (NWL) competition. She did not make any inquiries about the medication she had taken to treat her cellulitis at, or following, this seminar. The Respondent was tested at her last NWL game for the season. She failed to disclose probenecid on the doping control form as over two months had elapsed since her treatment, although she did disclose the iron medication that she had taken in the past week.

The Tribunal finds that the Respondent could establish no significant fault given the exceptional circumstances of the case including:
- the emergency nature of the treatment and the clear therapeutic reason for taking the substance;
- the fact that she was not intending to play in the NWL at the time she took the substance;
- the length of time the substance remained in her system from the time it was taken to the time of testing; and
- the change in status from a non-national level athlete to a national level athlete between the time of taking the substance and the time of testing.

Therefore the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides on 1 March 2016 to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 22 November 2015.

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

The Respondent gave a prompt admission of the violation and stated that he had used the substances as medication, obtained from an earlier prescription, as treatment for his asthma two days before the competition without intention to enhance his performance.
After the notification of the violation the Respondent’s application for a retroactive TUE was declined due to insufficient medical evidence had been provided to meet the TUE International Standard requirements. To meet the standard in this case, the Respondent would have been required to produce medical evidence that the taking of the prohibited substances was necessary at the time. This would have required a doctor’s visit in relation to the specific period, despite it being a recurrent condition.

The Tribunal finds it difficult to accept that the Respondent’s decision to enter the competition with his degree of experience, and general awareness of the testing regime and prohibited status of prednisone does not amount to significant fault or negligence given the strict obligations on athletes under the Rules.
The Tribunal finds that the Respondent failed to establish that there was no significant fault or negligence on his part in committing the violation. His actions were casual and unthinking and that is not consistent with the clear obligations on every athlete.

Considering the circumstances the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides on 23 March 2016 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 19 September 2015.

Related case:

• ST 2017_02 DFSNZ vs Karl Murray
  October 13, 2017
• CAS 2017_A_4937 DFSNZ vs Karl Murray
  December 15, 2017
• ST 2017_02 DFSNZ vs Karl Murray - Decision on Jurisdiction
  March 14, 2018
• ST 2017_02 DFSNZ vs Karl Murray - Decision on Sanction
  May 8, 2018
  
  

On 8 April 2014 the Commission for the Fight against Doping of New Caledonia decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Respondent Karl Murray after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-noretiocholanolone (Nandrolone) and Testosterone.

Previously the imposed sanction was restricted to New Caledonia only but afterwards adopted by the UCI in March 2015 and automatically extended to New Zealand. The Athlete's ban would end on 7 April 2016.

In April 2016 Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported two anti-doping rule violations against the Respondent for violating the imposed period of ineligibility and for tampering.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Respondent was heard for the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand.

DFSNZ asserted that the Respondent in the period of ineligibility had written, provided and discussed training plans with two competitive cyclists on several occasions. When interviewed in March 2016 he provided false, misleading and incorrect (and hence) fraudulent information to DFSNZ.

Considering the evidence in this case the Tribunal is not comfortably satisfied that DFSNZ has proven that the Respondent coached the cyclists while banned. While there is certainly evidence to this effect and having heard and seen all the witnesses the Tribunal does not find that the evidence is of the requisite “strong” quality to establish proof of what are serious allegations. Much of it is of the nature of suspicion, hearsay or supposition.

Therefore the Tribunal decides on 20 December 2016 to dismiss the allegations against the Respondent.

In June 2016 Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported and anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent Graig Wallace after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance salbutamol in a concentration above the WADA threshold.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Respondent filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand.

The Respondent admitted the violation and stated that he had used prescribed Ventolin (salbutamol) as treatment for his asthma. He asserted, sustained by his nurse, that the elevated level of salbutamol was due to his incorrect technique in using his inhaler and consequently taking more puffs.

The Tribunal accepts the Respondent’s explanation and that the anti-doping violation was non intentional.
With no significant fault or negligence the Tribunal decides on 27 July 2016 to impose a 1 month period of ineligibility on the Respondent for the time already serviced, i.e. from the date of the provisional suspension until the date of the decision.

In July 2016 Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported and anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent Clayton Lewis after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance salbutamol in a concentration above the WADA threshold.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Respondent filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand.

The Respondent admitted the violation and stated that he had used prescribed Ventolin (salbutamol) as treatment for his asthma. He asserted that prior to the competition he took more puffs of his medication due to elevated asthmatic symptoms he suffered. The Respondent argued that he attended three anti-doping seminars but he was never told that he could take too much medication or that there was a limit.

The Tribunal accepts the Respondent’s explanation and that the anti-doping violation was non intentional.
With no significant fault or negligence the Tribunal decides on 27 July 2016 to impose a 1 month period of ineligibility on the Respondent for the time already serviced, i.e. from the date of the provisional suspension until the date of the decision.

in August 2016 Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent Mendrado Catoto after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand.

The Respondent gave a prompt admission and argued that it was the result of the unintentional ingestion of a contaminated supplement. He stated that he had used a pre-workout supplement Dust v2 purchased from a supplements retailer near a gym he attended. The Respondent assumed that this supplement is the source of the prohibited substance and he asserted that he researched the ingredients of the supplement before using.

With the parties’ co-operation, a tub of Dust v2 was purchased from the same retailer and sent to the accredited laboratory for testing. The result confirmed that the supplement contained methylhexaneamine. Following this analysis, DFSNZ accepted that the contaminated supplement Dust v2 was the source for the prohibited substance being in the Respondent’s system at the time of the positive test.

Considering the evidence the Tribunal accepts that the Respondent has established how the prohibited substance entered his system and finds that he was not at significant fault in testing positive for methylhexaneamine.

Therefore the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides on 19 December 2016 to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 6 August 2016.

In November 2016 Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent Stacey Mikara after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis in a concentration above the WADA threshold.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand.

The Respondent admitted the violation and stated that he smoked cannabis during the 2016 season for recreational purposes in social settings as an alternative to drinking alcohol and without intention to enhance sport performance. He acknowledged that he was informed about the prohibited substances, including cannabis, but it had been difficult to stop his habitual cannabis use.

DFSNZ accepts the Respondent’s statement that the use of cannabis was recreational and without intention to enhance. Also the Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence and having regard to the similar position taken by both counsel on these issues, that the Respondent’s use of cannabis was not intended to enhance his sporting performance and, further, that there was no significant fault in his having infringed the WADA limits on the use of cannabis during a period of competition.

Considering the circumstances in this case the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides on 17 February 2017 to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. backdated on 18 January 2017.

In December 2016 Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance higenamine.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand.

The Athlete gave a prompt admission about the violation, stated that he had used out-of-competition the supplement ‘The One 2.0.' purchased in Australia and showed that the prohibited substance higenamine wasn’t mentioned on the label of the supplement.

DFSNZ accepted that the Athlete’s violation was non intentional and that the supplement was contaminated as definied under the Rules establishing that his fault was not significant. Considering the circumstances in this case DFSNZ proposed a 9 month period of ineligibility.

After an adjournment requested by the parties in April 2017 a joint memorandum was filed on behalf of DFSNZ and the Athlete.
The Sports Tribunal of New Zealand considers the joint memorandum to be fair and decides on 3 May 2017 to impose a 9 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 22 September 2016.

In 2015 the New Zealand Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Authority (Medsafe) informed DFSNZ about the results of Medsafe’s investigation into an internet drug supplier NZ Clenbuterol and provided DFSNZ details about the internet purchases of prohibited substances made by Adam King.

Hereafter in November 2016 Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported two anti-doping rule violations against the Respondent Adam King for the use, attempted use and possession of the prohibited substances nandrolone, testosterone, tamoxifen and anastrozole.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Respondent filed a statement and he was heard for the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand. The Respondent gave an early admission to DFSNZ, he denied he breached the anti-doping rules intentionally and he co-operated with the authorities.

The Respondent stated that he purchased the substances at the time that he was frustrated by the persistent injuries he suffered; he had issues with his employment, his father died; and he had a significant drop in weight following a burst appendix and surgery.

Considering the Respondent’s prompt admission and co-operation the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides on 3 April 2017 to impose 2 year period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting backdated on 1 May 2016.

Related cases:

• ST 2016_03 DFSNZ vs Karl Murray
  December 20, 2016
• CAS 2017_A_4937 DFSNZ vs Karl Murray
  December 15, 2017
• ST 2017_02 DFSNZ vs Karl Murray - Decision on Jurisdiction
  March 14, 2018
• ST 2017_02 DFSNZ vs Karl Murray - Decision on Sanction
  May 8, 2018

Previously the New Zealand cyclist Karl Murray was sanctioned on 8 April 2014 by the New Caledonian Anti-Doping Commission for 2 years after he tested positive for the prohibited substances Nandrolone and Testosterone. The UCI became aware of the sanction in early 2015, adopted this sanction with worldwide effect and it was recognised by Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ).

Before the Athlete's sanction ended on 7 April 2016 DFSNZ alleged the Athlete for breaching the ineligiblility. The violaton of sanction (case 2016_03) was initially rejected by the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand on 20 December 2016. However when appealed by DFSNZ in January 2017 the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ultimately decided on 15 December 2017 to re-impose the 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete restarted on 15 December 2017.

During the appeal proceedings with CAS in 2017 DFSNZ reported in May 2017 a new anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete (case 2017_02) after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Clenbuterol. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand.

The Athlete argued that during the Doping Control in March 2017 there were departures of the ISTI. He asserted that he was wrongly deprived of his right to have a representative present during the sample collection process. Also he was not given the opportunity to select a sample collection beaker and instead was provided with an unsealed collection beaker chosen by the Doping Control Officer (DCO).

The Tribunal observed that there was a direct conflict of evidence on several issues between the Athlete’s support person, and the DCO and the testing process chaperone.
The Tribunal considered objectively the evidence in this matter and concluded that it is comfortably satisfied that the appropriate process was followed during the sample collection process and that the Athlete committed the anti-doping rule violation.

In this case the pending CAS Award against the Athlete was not yet released (CAS 2017/A/4937, rendered 15 December 2017). Accordingly the Tribunal decided on 13 October 2017 to adjourn the proceedings in order to rule about a sanction after the release of the CAS Award.

The decision from the Sport Tribunal about the appropriate sanction for the Athlete’s second anti-doping violation is ultimately rendered on 8 May 2018.