Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Chris McKay (the athlete) for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program. On September 28, 2005, the Athlete was a member of the Okanagan Suns Junior Football Team. He was randomly selected for out-of-competition doping control at a team practice in Kelowna, British Columbia. The Athlete refused or failed to provide a urine sample for testing.

History
The athlete refused to give an urine sample, returned the sample container and left. He didn't participated in the hearing process; contested the anti-doping rule violation asserted by the CCES or the evidence put forward by the CCES; or offered any explanation for his prima facie refusal to submit to Sample collection.

Decision
The CCES has met the burden of proof that the Athlete refused or failed without compelling justification to submit to Sample collection after authorized notification.
The Athlete's refusal constitutes an anti-doping rule violation as provided in Rule 7.24 of the CADP. This is a first violation.
The sanctions to be imposed on the Athlete are two years' ineligibility and permanent ineligibility for direct financial support from the Government of Canada.

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 Testosterone, Oxymesterone, Methandienone, Methyltestosterone, Oxymetholone, 19-norandrosterone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered.

Respondent admitted the violation, did not submit a statement in his defence and waived his right to be heard before the 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.

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.

Respondent admitted the violation. He gave evidence that he left the championships the day before the match to be with family upon learning his grandmother had passed away and that he smoked Cannabis that night for comfort purposes. The Tribunal accepted he did not use the Cannabis for sports performance enhancing purposes.
The Tribunal took into account the bereavement and that when he smoked the Cannabis he had intended to go to his grandmother’s tangi and did not intend to return to the tournament.
However, there were aggravating circumstances including that he was a very experienced international player who admitted he was well aware of the anti-doping rules, including those concerning Cannabis, and who made a deliberate decision to return to participate fully in the competition knowing the night before he had smoked Cannabis and hoped he would not get caught. His team didn’t win but would have been disqualified if it had as a result of his violation.

Because the Touch season had finished the Tribunal considers it must have the power to impose a meaningful and effective sanction. Therefore the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a period of ineligibility starting from the date of the hearing on 29 June 2010 until 16 March 2011, when the next touch season is due to finish.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Roland Green (the athlete) for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program. The athlete provided a urine sample pursuant to the Anti-Doping Regulations following the UCI sanctioned "UCI MTB World Cup" in Houffalize Belgium on 30 May 2004. His sample indicated the presence of prednisolone a metabolite of Budesonide.

History
The athlete in his submission states that he finished 21st in the race in Belgium despite feeling unwell and was selected for random testing. He admitted that on the race morning he took 2 to 3 puffs of Symbicort-200. He made no declaration to that effect on his anti-doping control form provided at the time of giving the urine sample. He states that he knew he was not cleared to use the inhaler but did so anyway. He states that he did this because he hoped that the testing would miss these medications and I would avoid a huge problem.

Decision
1. The Definition of doping in Article 4(2) has been established. A First Doping Offence has occurred under Article 130(1). The Doping Offence involved the use of a Prohibited Substance.
2. The athlete is disqualified from the UCI MTB World Cup event held on 30 May 2004 for having committed a Doping Offence during competition.
3. Under Article 130 as modified by the principle of lex mitior and upon a finding of the application of the principles of Article 124 a period of suspension for six months is to be served.
4. Under Article 150 and 134 and having regard to the principles of Article 124 the suspension commenced on 5 July 2004 and will end on 4 April 2005 having taken account of the period of inactivity set out in Article 152(b).

Fine
Under Article 128(2) the athlete, being a licence-holder in the mountain bike trade team, must pay an obligatory fine. In accordance with Article 128(4) the fine is set at
CHF 2000.

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 statement in his defence admitting the violation but hereafter failed to participate in the hearing for the Tribunal and to provide corroborating evidence.
Therefore the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on Respondent, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 23 June 2010.

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

Respondent admitted the violation and gave evidence, accepted by the Tribunal, that she had consulted her doctor about a medical condition and he prescribed furosemide to treat this. The doctor misstated the status of Furosemide when he advised her not to take it “close to” or “around competition” when in fact Furosemide is a prohibited substance in sports not to be taken in or out of competition. Respondent accepted this advice and confirmed it with a pharmacist but took no further steps to check this advice with Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFS) or clarify what were the parameters of “close to” or “around competition”.
Furosemide reduces fluid retention and can reduce weight and potentially have performance enhancing consequences for a boxer trying to fit in a certain weight division. However, the Tribunal accepted Respondent’s evidence that this was not the case and the Furosemide was taken to treat her medical condition and was not intended to enhance her sports performance.

The Tribunal regarded this case as more serious than other cases it had dealt with concerning prohibited substances being mistakenly prescribed because of Respondent’s explicit knowledge that there was an issue about Furosemide and her failure to clarify the position. Therefore the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on Respondent, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 17 February 2010.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Joseph Frans (the athlete) for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program. Pursuant to the rules of CADP the Athlete provided a urine sample for testing on 8 March 2005. His sample tested positive for cocaine and its metabolites, these substances are on the Prohibited List of the
International Standard issued by World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).

History
The athlete has no idea how he got contaminated. He does visit parties where he smokes.

Decision
I am satisfied that the Athlete was given every opportunity to participate in a hearing before me. He failed to respond to the various attempts made to acquire his participation in a hearing or waiver of the same. The parties were advised that I was closing the hearing in this matter and that it would proceed merely upon the written record I had received.
The proper selection of the Athlete for testing, the integrity of the sample collection and the chain of custody of the urine sample are all established on the record. The Lab has reported an adverse analytical finding and there is no indication that the chemical analytical process used by the Lab was in any way flawed.
Rule 7.17 and 7.18 make an athlete responsible for any prohibited substance found in the urine sample analysis. As was held in the decision of Arbitrator it is not necessary that intent, fault or knowing 'use* by an athlete be demonstrated to establish this anti-doping rule violation. I am comfortably satisfied that, on a review of all of the evidence before me, an anti-doping rule violation has occulted.
Cocaine is not a "specified substance" identified in Rule 7.7. It is a prohibited substance when it is detected at any level; a point made in the recent cocaine case, supra, by Arbitrator Mew. The failure of the Athlete to participate in these proceedings means that there is no necessity for me to refer to the Exceptional Circumstances Rules 7.38 and 7.39. There must be evidence from the Athlete, or presented on his behalf, that there was either no fault or negligence or no significant fault or negligence. The only evidence before me from the Athlete is the 11 April 2005 explanation sent to the CCES. That statement is one of denial and an inability to explain what has occurred. I take notice of the fact that cocaine cannot enter the human body by the consumption of alcoholic drink or the smoking of tobacco as referred to in the Athlete's explanation. In short, the Athlete has provided no explanation of the adverse analytical finding. In the absence of any satisfactory evidence, by way of explanation from the Athlete, I need not address further the Exceptional circumstances provisions of the Rules. They have no application in this case.
I find that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred under the CADP and the Rules prohibiting the use of a prohibited substance. In the circumstances I have no other choice than to impose the sanction for a first anti-doping rule violation of a two-year period of ineligibility and permanent ineligibility for direct financial support from the Government of Canada. The foregoing period of ineligibility starts on the date of this decision in accordance with the Rules.

Costs
No submission was made on costs. Unless applied for, I make no order in respect of the same.

Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and Respondent was heard for the Tribunal.

Respondent admitted the violation and gave evidence that the violation was accidental and due to her, on the morning of the competition, taking a capsule of a supplement called “Ripped Freak” which unknown to her contained dimethylpentylamine. The supplement’s package did not list dimethylpentylamine as an ingredient. It listed geranium seed extract as an ingredient but she did not know that dimethylpentylamine could be a product of geranium seed. She made inquiries to the distributor whether it contained any prohibited substances. The distributor told her that the manufacturer had advised that it did not contain prohibited substances.

The Tribunal accepted that Respondent did not know the supplement contained a prohibited substance and did not take it for performance enhancing reasons, but rather to “lift her mental state”, and noted she was the only competitor in her class.
After the Tribunal hearing, but before the Tribunal made its decision, the Tribunal was advised that the World Anti-Doping Authority (WADA) was reclassifying dimethylpentylamine as a “specified substance” in the 2011 Prohibited List.
The Tribunal considers comparable anti-doping decisions of its own and overseas bodies concerning athletes inadvertently taking prohibited specified substances (including cases where doctors had mistakenly prescribed athletes prohibited substances, which the present case was seen as more serious than).

Therefore he Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on Respondent, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 27 July 2010.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) Alleges Giulio Zardo (the athlete) for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (CADP). On April 21 and 22, 2005, the CCES attempted to conduct no-notice, Out-of-Competition doping control on the Athlete but despite several attempts on these two days, the Doping Control Officer (DCO) was unable to locate the Athlete for the purpose of sample collection. On April 22, 2005, the CCES re-scheduled the Athlete’s no-notice test to an advance notice test. The CCES asserts that the Athlete refused to submit to sample collection on April 23, 2005 after being informed of his selection for doping control and that he has not demonstrated “compelling justification” for his refusal.

History
The athlete was retiring from his sport. In the past he had several Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUEs) he thinks if ask for he would have gotten a TUE again.

Desicion
The required sanction for a first anti-doping rule violation for refusal to submit to doping control, in the circumstances to impose, is a two year period of ineligibility from sport as well as permanent ineligibility from direct Government of Canada funding.
The CADP states that the period of ineligibility shall start on the date of the hearing decision providing for Ineligibility. Any period of Provisional Suspension shall, however, if any, be credited against the total period of Ineligibility to be served.
The period of Ineligibility should start on the date of the hearing decision, namely August 31, 2005.

Costs
Under Rule 7.69 of the CADP, the Doping Tribunal may award costs to any party payable as it directs.

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 notification Respondent accepted a provisional suspension and was heard for the Tribunal.

Respondent admitted the violation and gave evidence that it was inadvertent. A doctor, at an accident and emergency clinic, prescribed and administered him Probenecid tablets as part of treatment for cellulitis in his knee. Neither the doctor nor he realised Probenecid was a prohibited substance in sport. Respondent had the balance of the prescribed Probenecid administered when he later visited his own doctor. The Tribunal concluded the prescribed Probenecid caused the positive test.

The Tribunal accepted evidence from Respondent, and the emergency clinic doctor, that Respondent had informed the doctor that he was a competitive boxer subject to drug testing and had asked if the suggested treatment would cause any problems if he was later drug tested. He accepted the doctor’s assurance it would not. However, the doctor did not check whether Probenecid was a prohibited substance in sport but had wrongly assumed it would not be.
The Tribunal has considerable sympathy for Respondent and accepted there was no significant fault on his part but regrets it could not accept his defence that he had no fault at all.
Therefore he Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a reprimand on the Respondent