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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.