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.

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.

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.

Respondent is a professional basketballer based in the USA. He had not secured a contract for any team in the 2010/2011 season and had not expected he would be able to do so. His agent then secured him a contract with the Nelson Giants in New Zealand which Respondent accepted. Respondent played his first game on April 16 2011 and was drug tested after it.
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 and Respondent was heard for the Tribunal.

Respondent admitted the violation. He gave evidence that he used cannabis with friends at the end of March when he thought there was no prospect of him competing. After the test he immediately told his coach there was a possibility he would fail the test because of his prior cannabis use in the USA. As a result of this voluntary statement, the Nelson Giants terminated his contract and he returned to the USA. The Tribunal noted that if he had not have made this voluntary statement it was likely he would have played several more games, and earned income, before the positive test result was known.
The Tribunal considered the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case. An aggravating factor was that he took a risk in playing when he knew there could be problems due to his cannabis use a few weeks earlier. Mitigating factors included:
1.) That his cannabis use in March 2011 was not in breach of the WADA Code or the Sports Anti-Doping Rules as he was not contracted at that time (although he was in breach later when testing positive in competition).
2.) His honesty in voluntarily disclosing to the Nelson Giants’ coach that he might fail the drug test and his explanation of the reason why, and his subsequent openness and co-operation with Drug Free Sport New Zealand.
3.) The significant adverse impact on him of his voluntary disclosure which led to the immediate termination of his contract with the Nelson Giants.

Therefore the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 12 week period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 16 April 2011 until 11 July 2011.

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 Canrenone (metabolite of Spironolactone). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and Respondent was heard for the Tribunal.

Respondent admitted the violation and gave evidence that it was due to her use of Sprionolactone that she had been prescribed for a medical condition. She was first prescribed Spironolactone in 2005 and this prescription was repeated when she later became a patient of a different GP, who is also a sports doctor, in 2008. Respondent is a former New Zealand equestrian representative but had not competed in that sport for some time. She took up running in 2008 and in 2010 won, or achieved places, in regional and national competitions.
On the evidence, Respondent did not advise her current doctor at any stage that she was now running at a national level nor did she check with the doctor whether her prescribed medication may possibly be banned in sport. Her doctor was not aware she was competing at a national level, otherwise her doctor would have advised Respondent to apply for a therapeutic use exemption.
A Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) was granted to Respondent following an application made after the drug test, for six month effective from 28 April 2011.

The Tribunal considers that Respondent did not take Spironolactone to enhance her performance and that she was clearly not a “drugs cheat”. However, an athlete cannot avoid personal responsibility by “leaving it” to a doctor.
Therefore the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 5 May 2011.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges James Kelleher (the athlete) for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (CADP). On 4 September 2006 Mr Kelleher refused, without compelling justification, to submit to sample collection after having received due and proper notification that he had been selected for doping control. On 4 October 4 2006 the SDRCC convened an administrative conference call with all parties involved in this matter. Mr. Kelleher received notice of the call but chose not to participate. On 13 October 2006, the pre-hearing conference call took place. The CCES, Canadian Interuniversity Sport (CIS) and the Government of Canada were all represented on that call. Mr. Kelleher did not participate.

Decision
1. The athlete has committed the anti-doping rule violation set out in CADP Rule 7.24, namely, refusing to submit to sample collection;
(2) The period of ineligibility imposed for this violation, Mr. Kelleher's first anti-doping rule violation, shall be two years, as required by CADP Rule 7.25;
(3) Mr. Kelleher shall, in addition, be permanently ineligible to receive any direct financial support provided by the Government of Canada, in accordance with CADP Rule 7.37.

Related cases:
SDT 2004_14 New Zealand Rugby League vs Vince Whare
February 17, 2005
SDT 2006_19 New Zealand Rugby League vs Vince Whare
November 28, 2006

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.

In 2005, Respondent was warned and fined by the Tribunal for testing positive to Cannabis after a match. In 2006, Respondent appeared before the Tribunal on a similar violation involving Cannabis and the Tribunal suspended him from sport for two years. That suspension ended in 2008. On each occasion, the Tribunal warned him of the likely penalty if he offended again.

Respondent admitted the third violation. He and a witness provided evidence which satisfied the Tribunal that he smoked Cannabis socially, and not with the intention of enhancing his sports performance.
The Tribunal assessed Respondent’s degree of fault. The breach was inexcusable but the Tribunal took into account all the circumstances of the case (including his deliberate breaching of the rules despite previous warnings, his personal circumstances including the effect of suspension, and the nature of Cannabis and its social use). The Tribunal rules that a penalty greater than the minimum of 8 years’ suspension but less than the maximum lifetime
ban met the intent of the Rules.

Therefore the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 10 year period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 10 October 2010.

Facts
The Certificate attests to the presence of Stanozolol metabolites in the Athlete's sample. Stanozolol is a prohibited substance named in the 2006 WADA Prohibited List.

Decision
The Athlete's written explanation, dated and received August 17, 2006, acknowledges his use of the prohibited substance. This early admission by the Athlete is to his credit. In this circumstance, it is fair that the period of ineligibility should commence on August 17, 2006. The period of ineligibility is two years commencing August 17, 2006.

Costs:
No party made any submission regarding costs. Accordingly, each party shall bear its own costs of the hearing.