Decisions

Anti-doping - Touch player's second violation with cannabis - mandatory 2 years' ineligibility for second violation imposed - importance of athletes participating in proceedings - if defendant had not established substance not used for performance enhancing purposes he would have been banned for life... for second violation - cross code effect of suspension - any ban imposed as a result of a doping infraction applies to all sports coming under WADA Code and not just the sport athlete was competing in when returned positive drug test - defendant also a promising rugby league player but suspension prevents him participating in that sport also - not appropriate case to backdate suspension.

Anti-doping case · Touch · 4 July 2006

Anti-doping - cannabis - recreational use - intoxication - cross code effect of suspension - defendant was a NZ touch representative, NPC rugby player and potential NZ Sevens rugby player - tested positive for cannabis after playing in touch tournament - the night before tournament he was celebrating... being part of rugby team that won NPC second division - claimed so intoxicated that could not remember what happened but accepted he must have used cannabis - that cannabis use occurred while intoxicated not a mitigating factor - Tribunal found aggravating circumstances justifying suspension including defendant previously signed participation agreement not to use prohibited substances, cannabis use occurring night before touch tournament and defendant an experienced player aware of Touch NZ’s strong anti-doping stance - cross code effect of suspension harsh on defendant - after positive test defendant subjected to interim suspension by Touch NZ which also meant he could not play rugby during this time - missed several tournaments affecting chances for selection in NZ Rugby Sevens team, NZ Touch team and potentially impacting on future income from rugby - Tribunal took this into account in determining penalty - three weeks' ineligibility imposed.

Anti-doping case · Touch · 31 January 2006

Anti-doping – cannabis – recreational use – stated used cannabis on one occasion prior to the tournament to relieve stress caused by family circumstances and study - expressed remorse – Mene / Koro principles applied – aggravating circumstance justifying suspension in that defendant signed... participation agreement with Touch NZ essentially agreeing not to use banned substances – Tribunal considered 2 months’ ineligibility would have been appropriate but there were strong mitigating factors justifying lesser period of suspension including stressful family circumstances and defendant at relatively young age assuming leadership role in family, apology and promise before Tribunal and wider wh?nau that would not transgress again, and willingness to act as ambassador for Touch – one month’s ineligibility imposed.

Anti-doping case · Touch · 4 August 2005

Anti-doping – cannabis – recreational use – defendant smoked cannabis at party two weeks before tournament where drug tested – Tribunal referred to its earlier decision in Boxing NZ v Mene (SDT 13/04) where sanctions imposed in UK, Canada and Australia for cannabis violations were referred to... – Tribunal noted approach in USA (where warnings often imposed) – test in Mene adopted and applied - unless there are aggravating circumstances, a warning and reprimand is appropriate penalty for a first offender who prior to a tournament smoked cannabis "recreationally", rather than for performance enhancing purposes, where that cannabis use did not represent a danger to others – Tribunal emphasised that existence of aggravating circumstances may justify suspension – observations on situations which might amount to aggravating circumstances - Tribunal referred to Touch’s practice of getting players to sign player participation agreements, which essentially include agreement not to use banned substances – it may amount to aggravating circumstances if player signs such an agreement and then uses cannabis – however no such aggravating circumstances in present case as Touch could not produce any evidence that defendant had signed such an agreement – warning and reprimand imposed.

Anti-doping case · Touch · 26 May 2005