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

Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after his A and B sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis.

After notification Respondent filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Tribunal. Respondent admitted the violation. The Tribunal accepted evidence he took cannabis in a social setting at a birthday party and that the cannabis was not used for sports performance enhancing purposes.

The Tribunal consideres that, unlike some recent cases, there were some mitigating factors. Therefore he Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 6 week period of ineligibility on the Respondent, starting on the date of the decision.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Christopher Sheppard for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (CADP). The athlete was selected for a no advance notice, out-of-competition doping control in Kamloops, British Columbia.
Pursuant to the rules of CADP the Athlete provided a urine sample for testing on 29 May 2005. His sample tested positive on the prohibited substance recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO). Also the B-sample tested positive on this substance.

History
This is the first Canadian doping case to deal with the Prohibited Substance rhEPO.

Decision
It has been established that a Prohibited Substance was present in Mr. Sheppard's urine sample. Therefore, an anti-doping rule violation has occurred under the CADP Rule 7.16. The Athlete raised no issue of no fault or negligence, or, any significant fault or negligence. Therefore, it is no required to examine the elimination or reduction of the sanction. In the circumstances, the imposed sanction for a first anti-doping rule violation of a two year period of ineligibility as provided for by Rule 7.20. CADP Rule 7.37 applies. Mr. Sheppard is from the date of this award permanently ineligible for direct financial support provided by the Government of Canada.
The foregoing period of ineligibility in respect of the sanction and the financial support starts on the date of this decision in accordance with the CADP.

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

Related case:
SDT 2006_08 Softball New Zealand vs Aaron Neemia
April 7, 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.
This was Respondent’s second anti-doping violation. On the first occasion, on 7 April 2006, he was reprimanded and warned that if he were to offend again he would face an automatic suspension of 2 years. Because the WADA Code has changed the Tribunal has a discretion in this case to impose a period of suspension between one and four years.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and Respondent was heard for the Tribunal. Respondent admitted the violation. The Tribunal accepted evidence that the Cannabis was taken at the suggestion of a friend to help him sleep and help with pain relief for a knee injury and was not used with the intention of enhancing his sports performance.

The Tribunal did not consider that there were any mitigating factors. Taking Cannabis for pain relief or to help sleep is not a mitigating factor. There were aggravating factors in that Respondent is an international player who is expected to set an example to other players, particularly younger players. Despite a strong warning from the Tribunal less than three years ago, he was prepared to smoke Cannabis again just two or three days before a national final.

Therefore he Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 18 month period of ineligibility on the Respondent, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 30 March 2009.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Ainsly Robinson (the athlete) for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (CADP). On the weekend of May 14 and 15, 2005, Mr. Robinson competed at the National Senior Wrestling Championships, which took place in Renfrew, Ontario. On Sunday, May 15th, he was notified that he had been selected for doping control. His sample was positive for the presence of cocaine and metabolites. Cocaine is a prohibited substance on the 2005 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The athlete has a job as security. He confiscated a brown bag with a powdery substance and put it in the bag of his pants. Probably this bag contained cocaine and was absorbed by his skin. He was unaware that this substance could be absorbed by his skin.

Decision
In view of the presence of cocaine and metabolites in his sample, it was acknowledged that an anti-doping rule violation occurred.It cannot be concluded that there are exceptional circumstances which would justify the elimination or reduction of the penalty for such a violation. In accordance with the CADP, the penalty required to impose for a first anti-doping rule violation is a two year period of ineligibility from sport and permanent ineligibility for direct financial support from the Government of Canada. The period of ineligibility shall run from the date of the decision, provided that the period of provisional suspension shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility.

Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against 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. The Tribunal accepted evidence that the Cannabis was taken in a social setting at a party and was not used for sports performance enhancing purposes. The Tribunal did not consider that there were any mitigating factors. There were aggravating factors in that Respondent is an experienced athlete who knew he was taking a prohibited substance which he took the night before the tournament.

The Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 2 month period of ineligibility on the Respondent, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 30 March 2009.

Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against Respondent after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. Respondent filed a statement in her defence admitting the violation and waived her right to be heard before the Tribunal.
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 29 May 2009.

Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against 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 and gave corroborated evidence that the cannabis was used at a party to celebrate his club team winning its competition.

The Tribunal considers that Respondent was aware that Cannabis was prohibited in sport. His statement that, at the time of his cannabis use, he did not think he would be chosen to represent his provincial team was no excuse.
The Tribunal considers that there were no mitigating circumstances.
Therefore the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a period of ineligibility on Respondent preventing him from participation in the rugby league and other sports up to and including 29 January 2010.