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.

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 his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Ephedrine.
The NZRL notified the Respondent and ordered a provisional suspension. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Tribunal.
The Respondent did contest the positive test result, but denied any knowing use of a substance containing Ephedrine, and said he had no intention to enhance his sport performance. The Respondent used prescribed medications and supplements but was not able to point to the source of the Ephedrine. Therefore the Tribunal could not determine whether the use of Ephedrine was not intended to enhance sport performance.

The Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Respondent starting on de date of his provisional suspension.

Facts
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) alleges Vasillie Pavlopoulos (the athlete) of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (CADP). On January 9, 2012, CCES conducted out-of-competition doping control in Vancouver, British Columbia. A sample collection took place which included the athlete. His sample tested positive on Stanozolol which is a prohibited substance.

History
The athlete admits the doping violations but claims exceptional circumstances. The prohibited substance was found in one of the supplements he used named 1MR.

Decision
1. The evidence, together with the admissions and stated positions of the parties, establish that an anti-doping violation occurred involving the presence of stanozolol in the Athlete’s collected sample. Stanozolol is a prohibited substance according to the Prohibited List Rules of the CADP.
2. The evidence, together with the admissions and stated positions of the parties establish there was fault or negligence by the Athlete in ingesting this prohibited substance. I find on a balance of probabilities that the source of the prohibited substance was stanozolol and the way it entered the Athlete’s system was a 1MR (One More Rep) supplement product provided by the Athlete for testing by Maxxam Analytics in May 2012.
3. The issue before me is whether the two-year provisional suspension pursuant to Rule 7.38 should be reduced, having regard to the totality of the evidence and the conduct of the Athlete. More specifically, and in accordance with Rule 7.45, the question is whether the athlete bears “no significant fault or negligence” and if so, what is the appropriate reduction, if any, to the two-year period of ineligibility of the athlete from
competition.
4. In the particular circumstances of this case, after a careful review of the evidence, I have determined:
a. I am compelled to find that the evidence establish that the Athlete’s conduct cannot be characterized as insignificant fault or negligence.
b. Accordingly, I find there is no proper basis to reduce the mandated two-year period of ineligibility. I further find that the period of ineligibility shall commence as of January 9, 2012, in accordance with Rule 7.13 and the agreement of the parties concerning the prompt admission of the Athlete of the rule violation. In the result, for the reasons expressed above, I hereby confirm the above decision summary.

The New Zealand Olympic Wrestling Union (WNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Respondent after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis.
After notification by WNZ the Respondent filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Tribunal.
Respondent stated he had smoked cannabis in a period he had become depressed as a result of the break-up of his relationship. Hereafter he went back to work and to training for the upcoming competition. Respondent accepted the positive test result and expressed his regrets with the embarrassment he has caused to his sport.

Considering the Respondent had no intention to enhance sport performance the Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand decides to impose a reprimand on the Respondent and fines him 250 NZD. The Tribunal orders Respondent to pay costs of 250 NZD to Wrestling New Zealand.