ST 2011_06 DFSNZ vs Nick Rhind

26 Sep 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.

SDRCC 2006 CCES vs Kane Waselenchuk

23 Mar 2007

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Kane Waselenchuk for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (CADP). The CCES in-competition urine test was done here on May 27, 2006 the day Waselenchuk won his fourth Canadian title at the Mayfield Inn & Suites Athletic Club. Notified of the test findings by the CCES, the racquetball ace from suburban Devon waived his right to a hearing and acknowledged the anti-doping rule violation.

History
By letter the athlete expresses his astonishment at the positive test for cocaine. It also states, "As for the cannabis detected in the sample, that is correct. I realize that this is a prohibited substance, unfortunately for me, I made a mistake ... a bit of celebration prior to the commencement of the competition in which I did partake in this foolish act with cannabis only."

submissions
There was a problem with the signed waiver by the athlete his waiver was a true and valid one. Its effect is that there will be no further hearing of this matter before a Doping Tribunal.

Decision
The athlete has been banned from competition for two years after testing positive for cocaine and cannabis.

ST 2011_09 DFSNZ vs Taani Prestney

15 Dec 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.

SDRCC 2006 CCES vs Jarret Lukin

5 Feb 2007

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Jarret Lukin (the athlete) for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (CADP). On November 3, 2006, the Athlete competed in a hockey game in Calgary, Alberta, between the U of C and the University of Regina and was randomly selected for no advance notice in-competition doping control. He attended a doping control and provided an urine sample for testing as required. His sample showed the presence of a cocaine metabolite. Cocaine is a prohibited substance according to the 2006 WADA Prohibited List.

History
The Athlete provided a written confirmation of his use of cocaine. He also wrote that he had not used the prohibited substance to enhance his performance in sport. His use of the prohibited substance was in a social setting.

Decision
The period of ineligibility is two years commencing November 28,2006. The Athlete is permanently ineligible to receive any direct financial support provided by the Government of Canada.

Costs
Neither party made any submission regarding costs. Accordingly, each party shall bear its own costs of the hearing.

ST 2010_21 DFSNZ vs Joshua Poasa

4 Feb 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 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.

SDRCC 2007 CCES vs Jacques Bouchard

17 Oct 2007

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Jacques Bouchard (the athlete) for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program. On May 27, 2007, the CCES conducted an in-competition doping control at the Canadian Marathon Championships in Ottawa, Ontario. Mr. Bouchard underwent doping control on that date. His sample indicates an adverse analytical finding for the presence of ephedrine measured at 14ug/mL. The presence of ephedrine, classified as a stimulant, above the allowable threshold of 10ug/mL, is named as a prohibited substance in the 2007 WADA Prohibited List. Ephedrine is further classified as a “Specified Substance”.

History
By letter the athlete wants that the CCES revives the actual position and change for a warning only based on the facts that the athlete is not competing anymore, the test was not done on an official race and there was certainly no intention to take it in the idea to improve performances. He reviewed the labels of the products he had taken and that “one does show the name ephedra”, as an indication that the product contained ephedrine.

Decision
It is hereby ordered that the sanction of six months ineligibility proposed by the CCES be imposed upon Mr. Bouchard. Given that there was no provisional suspension imposed upon him, the sanction is hereby deemed to come into effect as of October 12, 2007, the date that this Tribunal communicated its decision without reasons to the SDRCC for distribution to the parties.

ST 2011_01 DFSNZ vs Graham O’Grady

21 Mar 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.

ST 2010_22 DFSNZ vs Para Murray

7 Mar 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.

SDRCC 2007 Christopher Jarvis vs CCES

19 Dec 2007

Facts
Christopher Jarvis (claiment) appeals against the decision of the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES). He was sentenced with a penalty of three months of ineligibility for not providing the information about his whereabouts.

History
His heavy travel agenda, coupled with his training schedule and travel to competitions, caused him to be distracted from paying close attention to his email communications, particularly as his email in-box became more heavily loaded with messages connected to his extensive community work. In the result, he was not focused on his obligations to report his whereabouts in a timely way, as required by the rules.

Decision
The claim must be dismissed. The Tribunal hereby finds and declares that the Claimant did commit an Anti-Doping Rule Violation by his failure to provide the requisite whereabouts information in three separate quarters within an 18 month period, contrary to article 10 of the Guidelines. The minimum sanction of three months’ ineligibility, as required under article 7.27 of the Doping Violations and Consequences Rules, is therefore justified. The Tribunal directs that the period of ineligibility of claiment be calculated to begin on November 20, 2007.

ST 2010_24 DFSNZ vs Blair Jacobs

22 Jun 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 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.

Category
  • Legal Source
  • Education
  • Science
  • Statistics
  • History
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Legal Terms
  • Sport/IFs
  • Other organisations
  • Laboratories
  • Analytical aspects
  • Doping classes
  • Substances
  • Medical terms
  • Various
  • Version
  • Document category
  • Document type
Publication period
Origin