Touch New Zealand (Touch NZ) has 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, together with the New Zealand Rugby Union, ordered a provisional suspension. Respondent filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Tribunal.
Respondent admitted the violation. He stated that the night before the Touch tournament he was celebrating and became so intoxicated that he could not recollect what happened, but accepted that he must have used Cannabis.
He expressed remorse and apologised for his actions.

The Tribunal finds that an aggravating factor in the case is the fact the Respondent had previously 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. In addition the Cannabis taking occurred just before the Touch tournament; and that he was an experienced player aware of Touch NZ’s strong drug free stance. The Tribunal notes that Touch NZ has had several cases involving cannabis violations and has been making commendable efforts to combat use of drugs in its sport, of which Respondent would be aware. The fact that the Cannabis use occurred while Respondent was intoxicated during a night of celebration was not a mitigating factor.

The Tribunal considers that Respondent was already provisional suspended for eight weeks and had missed several tournaments. Therefore the Tribunal finds a one week reduction to the otherwise appropriate one month suspension is warranted.
The Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 3 week period of ineligibility, a warning and a reprimand on the Respondent. Each party will bear their own costs.

Facts
The Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI) charges Mark Armstrong (athlete) for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. On 18 November 2007, the Athlete was selected for in-competition testing. His sample tested positive on salbutamol at a concentration measured as 610 ng/ml. Salbutamol is listed as a prohibited substance on the WADA 2007 prohibited list.

History
The athlete doesn't request an B-sample analysis nor an oral hearing. In a written statement he explains that the source of the contamination is his use of Asthma medication. The Athlete acknowledges that it was his responsibility to obtain a Therapeutic Use Exemption ("TUE") and expresses his deep regret and apology for this omission. He, however, expresses his disappointment that his National Federation ("NF") "did not direct [him] proactively to obtain a TUE as, through [his] involvement in their elite squad, [he is] quite certain they knew [he's] asthmatic and required Ventolin". the Athlete applied for a national TUE with UK Sport and for an international TUE with the FEI. His International TUE was granted on 21 January 2008 by the FEI TUE Committee ("TUEC") with an approval expiry date of 31 December 2009. The Athlete assures that he had no intention to enhance his performance and that his omission to obtain a TUE and his rule violation were unintentional.

Submissions tribunal
The athlete was negligent to ask for a TUE.

Decision
The Tribunal decides to disqualify the Athlete from the Event and that all medals, points and prize money won at the Event must be forfeited, in accordance with ADRHA Article 9.
The Athlete shall be warned and reprimanded.

Costs
The Athlete shall contribute CHF l/OOO.- towards the legal
costs of the judicial procedure.

Softball New Zealand (SNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis.
After notification by SNZ the Respondent filed a statement in his defence and was not available to be heard for the Tribunal.
The Respondent admitted he had smoked Cannabis and provided an explanation to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal concludes that the Cannabis use was unrelated to the sport and the Respondent did not smoke cannabis for performance-enhancing purposes. Therefore the Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a reprimand and a warning on the Respondent.

The Tribunal directs Softball New Zealand to send a copy of this decision to the appropriate softball authorities in Canada, to ensure they are aware of it and can take such steps to notify the Respondent of it as may be appropriate.

Softball New Zealand (SNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis.
After notification by SNZ the Respondent filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Tribunal.
Respondent admitted the violation and stated he had smoked Cannabis prior the tournament. The Respondent had no intention to enhance performance and he apologized for committing the violation.

The Tribunal concludes that Respondent did not smoke Cannabis for performance-enhancing purposes and the use of cannabis was unrelated to the sport. Therefore the Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a reprimand and a warning on the Respondent.

Related cases:
SDT 2006_19 New Zealand Rugby League vs Vince Whare
November 28, 2006
ST 2009_11 DFSNZ vs Vince Whare
March 1, 2010

The New Zealand Sports Drug Agency (NZSD) and the New Zealand Rugby League (NZRL) have reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis.
The NZRL notified the Respondent and ordered a provisional suspension. The Respondent filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Tribunal.

The Tribunal notes that Respondent’s use of cannabis was not intended to enhance sport performance, and was prior to his selection for the New Zealand Maori team. Cannabis was used for recreational purposes, unrelated to competition and not used by him during the tournament at which he was tested, but his prior use accounted for it.

The Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a reprimand on the Respond. In addition he is directed to pay a fine of 250 NZD to the Tribunal and costs of 250 NZD to NZRL.

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 substances Stanozolol, Nandrolone and Furosemide.

The Respondent accepted that he committed an anti-doping violation. He admitted to the Tribunal that he had made a conscious decision to take the drugs and that the decision had now backfired on him. He had been advised that the drugs would assist his performance and he took them knowing of the consequences if he got caught.
The World Anti-Doping Code (WADA Code) provides for a mandatory two year suspension for a first violation involving these substances unless the athlete can show “no fault or negligence” or “no significant fault or negligence”. The Respondent accepted that these exceptions did not apply to him.

The Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on the date of this decision.
The Respondent is ineligible to participate in any capacity in a competition or activity (other than authorised anti-doping education rehabilitation programmes), authorised or organised by NZFBB or any other signatory to the WADA Code.

The New Zealand Sports Drug Agency (NZSD) and the New Zealand Rugby League (NZRL) have reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after he failed to provide a sample for testing by NZSD. After notification by the NZRL a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the Tribunal.

After initially failing to provide a sample (by discarding a sample down a toilet during the sampling process), the Athlete left the drug control room but returned a few minutes later. He provided a second sample which proved negative on analysis.

The Tribunal holds that a failure to provide a sample would be sanctioned severely when this sample returned with a positive result. The Tribunal finds that, although the initial refusal to provide a sample was a clear breach of the anti-doping code, there were truly exceptional circumstances which justifies the imposition of reduced sanction.

The Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand decides on 6 May 2005 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 18 November 2004.

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.