The New Zealand Sports Drug Agency (NZSD) and Touch New Zealand (Touch NZ) have reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis.
Touch NZ notified the Respondent and ordered a provisional suspension. Respondent filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Tribunal.
The Respondent admitted his doping infraction and stated his use was unrelated to his sport activity. He told the Tribunal that he smoked Cannabis on one occasion before the competition in order to alleviate significant and continuous stresses in his life, the full details of which he provided in written form to the Tribunal and confirmed orally during the hearing. Respondent’s statements were endorsed in submissions made on Respondent’s behalf by his uncle.

The Tribunal notes that there were strong mitigating factors in Respondent’s case, but an aggravating factor in the case was the fact the Respondent had only very recently signed Player Participation Agreements with Touch NZ. In these agreements the athletes undertook to abide by all drug/doping rules and regulations, including those provided by the International Federation, WADA, the International Olympic Committee and the New Zealand Sports Drug Agency.
The Tribunal notes that although it was fashionable in some circles to debate whether cannabis should be a prohibited substance, this did not form part of the Tribunal’s decision making.

The Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 1 month period of ineligibility, a severe warning and a strong reprimand on the Respondent.

Related cases:

• SDT 2006_13 Touch New Zealand vs William Morunga
  July 4, 2006
• ST 2023_04 DFSNZ vs William Morunga
  June 1, 2023
  
  

In April 2005 the New Zealand Sports Drug Agency (NZSD) and Touch New Zealand (Touch NZ) have reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis.

After notification Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Tribunal. He admitted he had smoked Cannabis and denied the intentional use of the substance.

The Tribunal deems that an aggravating factor is the fact the Athlete had only very recently signed Player Participation Agreements with Touch NZ. In these agreements the athletes undertook to abide by all drug/doping rules and regulations, including those provided by the International Federation, WADA, the International Olympic Committee and the New Zealand Sports Drug Agency.

Further the Tribunal deems that an additional aggravating factor is the past history of his Athlete’s Counties-Manukau team with drugs. The Athlete was a member of the side when its members twice transgressed seriously on drug offences in 2004.

The Tribunal considers that the Athlete clearly understood the protocols and rules but simply elected to ignore them.
The Tribunal notes that although it was fashionable in some circles to debate whether Cannabis should be a prohibited substance, this did not form part of the Tribunal’s decision making.

The Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand decides on 2 August 2005 to impose a 2 month period of ineligibility, including a severe warning and a strong reprimand on the Athlete.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sports charges Caroline Pyzik (the athlete) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On January 30, 2011, Caroline Pyzik was subject to an anti‐doping control as part of the Canadian Taekwondo Championships. Analysis of the collected sample revealed the presence of prohibited diuretics (triamterene and hydrochlorothiazide) under the World Anti‐Doping Code.

History
The athlete, a taekwondo athlete aged 16 at the time, met with Gariépy, in his role as trainer, from September 2010 to prepare for the Canadian Championships to be held in January 2011. Pyzik and Gariépy established a relationship of trust. Championships, Pyzik enquired with Gariépy about over the counter products that could help her safely manage her weight within her target category, while specifying she did not want a doping product. Gariépy was an athlete support personnel and had, as a trainer, the benefit of additional credibility with the athlete. Gariépy demonstrated strong disregard in caring for the 16-year old athlete. He suggested a product that contained the prohibited substances.

Decision
1. The Tribunal does not consider that circumstances justify the application of Rules 7.44 and 7.45.
2. Regarding Rule 7.60, the Tribunal considers it does not have sufficient jurisdiction to intervene in the relationship between the CCES and Taekwondo Canada in this arbitration procedure.
3. Considering the documentary evidence and testimony, I conclude that Caroline Pyzik has committed an anti‐doping rule violation under Rule 7.23 of the Canadian Doping Program (CADP). Because this is a first violation, the period of ineligibility is of two (2) years.
4. Considering that Caroline Pyzik complied with a provisional suspension from her sport effective March 30, 2011, in compliance with Rule 7.15, her period of ineligibility will end on March 30, 2013.
I retain jurisdiction with respect to any issue which may arise concerning the interpretation or implementation of this decision.

Costs
The whole without costs.

The New Zealand Sports Drug Agency (NZSD) and the New Zealand Federation of Bodybuilders (NZFBB) have reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after his sample tested positive for the substance Cannabis.

The Respondent used the cannabis at a party two weeks before the tournament and was unrelated to the competition. The Tribunal accepted Respondent's evidence that he does not take performance enhancing drugs and that he was unaware cannabis was a banned substance. Respondent apologised and expressed concern at the damage he may have caused Boxing NZ and his sport.
The Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a reprimand and a warning on the Respondent. Each party will bear their own costs.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Yak Al-Rekabi (the athlete) for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (CADP). On March 23rd, 2013, the Athlete won the bronze medal in the senior category of the 120kg division at the Junior / Senior National Wrestling Championships in Fredericton, New Brunswick. He was subject to an in-competition doping test, and refused to provide a sample, as required under the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (CADP). He signed the Athlete Refusal Form, acknowledging that he was violating the rules of the CADP.

Decision
The athlete has committed a doping infraction under Rule 7.31 of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program, by refusing to submit to an in-competition Sample collection. There is no reason to reduce the period of ineligibility that is envisioned in Rule 7.39, therefore the athlete is ineligible for a period of two (2) years, commencing on the date of this Award.

Costs
No submission was made on costs, and I make no order.

Appeal
I retain jurisdiction and reserve the right to hear any dispute relating to the interpretation or application of the present decision.

The New Zealand Sports Drug Agency (NZSD) and the New Zealand Federation of Bodybuilders (NZFBB) have reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after his sample tested positive for the party drug Benzylpiperazine (BZP). BZP is not specifically named as a prohibited substance under the World Anti-Doping Code 2005 Prohibited List. It is, however, a stimulant and is a prohibited substance because it is a substance “with a similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s)” to others named in S6 of the Prohibited List (stimulants).

The Respondent had not taken the drug for performance enhancing purposes and had actually entered the competition so he would obtain a clear drug free test. However, the Tribunal determined he had been careless in taking a prohibited substance and that there was significant fault in this case.

The Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on 16 July 2005. In addition Respondent’s awards, placements and records won at het competition are disqualified.

The New Zealand Sports Drug Agency (NZSD) and Touch New Zealand (Touch NZ) have reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis.
After notification by Touch NZ the Respondent filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Tribunal.
Respondent stated he had smoked cannabis at a party approximately two weeks before the tournament. The Tribunal accepted that the Respondent did not smoke the cannabis with the intention of enhancing his performance at the tournament and was unaware that cannabis was a banned substance.

The Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a reprimand and a warning on the Respondent.
Each party will bear their own costs.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Rachelle Fleurant (the athlete) for a has violation of the Cananian Anti-Doping Pgogram (CADP) an anti-doping rule violation. The urine sample of the athlete, collected during in-competition doping control on October 20, 2012, revealed the presence of Clenbuterol and Oxandrolone, both prohibited anabolic agents, as well as hydrochlorothiazide, a prohibited diuretic.

History
Fleurant, in response to the CCES’s notification of the adverse analytical finding, acknowledged the anti-doping rule violation and a hearing was held to determine the sanction length.

Decision
Arbitrator McLaren imposed a sanction of two years ineligibility from sport, terminating October 20, 2014. The athlete is ineligible to participate in any capacity with any sport signatory to the Canadian Anti-Doping Program, including training with teammates.

Related cases:
SDRCC 2018 Derek Plug vs CCES - Appeal
November 6, 2018
SDRCC 2018 CCES vs Derek Plug
August 2, 2019
SDRCC 2020 Derek Plug vs CCES - Appeal
March 31, 2020

Facts
Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Derek Plug (the athlete) for a violation of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (CADP). On 17 September 2012, in Calgary, the Athlete provided a Sample as part of out of competition testing. The Sample returned an Adverse Analytical Finding for SARM S-22 (ostarine), which is classified as a Prohibited Substance (S-1 Anabolic Agent) on the 2012 WADA Prohibited List.

History
The athlete used a large range of supplements. Without his knowing one of his supplements was contaminated by an old friend, who added osterine to his vitamin D3 drops. This was testified at the hearing.

Decision
1. The Athlete has voluntarily admitted to an anti-doping rule violation in connection with the presence in a bodily Sample provided by him of SARM-S22, an anabolic agent, which is a Prohibited Substance according to The 2012 Prohibited List forming part of the World Anti-Doping Code.
2. The presumptive sanction for a first anti-doping rule violation for the Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or markers in an Athlete’s bodily Sample is a period of Ineligibility of two (2) years.
3. The Athlete has not met the burden of establishing exceptional circumstances pursuant to Rule 7.44 or 7.45 of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (2009) (or otherwise) which could warrant elimination or reduction of the period of Ineligibility.
4. Accordingly, the Athlete shall be subject to a period of Ineligibility of two years commencing 11 October 2012 (the date upon which he accepted a provisional suspension).

The New Zealand Sports Drug Agency (NZSD) and the New Zealand Federation of Bodybuilders (NZFBB) have reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Clenbuterol.
After notification by the NZFBB the Respondent filed a statement in her defence and was heard for the Tribunal.

The Respondent was born and raised in the Czech Republic but has lived in New Zealand since 1999. At the end of 2004 she visited family in the Czech Republic and caught the flu. She used medicines belonging to her mother to treat this and one of these was Spiropent. Spiropent is a trade name for prohibited substance Clenbuterol. Respondent brought the Spiropent tablets back to New Zealand and used these again to treat flu like symptoms she developed three to four days before the competition.

Although she may not have received information about drugs before she competed in the Championships, she admitted she was aware of the need to avoid drugs and of the need for sport to be drug free. She took medication a few days before the Championship without checking what she was taking and the likely effect on her. The Respondent took no steps to ensure that the Spiropent was not a prohibited substance. Her inaction amounted to significant fault.

The Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on 22 May 2005. In addition her competition results are disqualified.