Decisions

Anti-doping – ephedrine - specified substance - defendant unable to identify how ephedrine came to be in his system - defendant not able to discharge his onus to establish that he did not take the substance for performance enhancing reasons - defendant unable to establish no significant fault or negligence... - 2 years’ ineligibility imposed.

Anti-doping case · Rugby League · 4 April 2005

Anti-doping – failure to provide a urine sample - defendant initially discarded urine sample and briefly left testing area - subsequently returned and provided another sample which tested negative - refusal to provide initial sample was clear breach of anti-doping rules - however, Tribunal found truly... exceptional circumstances existed to justify a lesser penalty than the otherwise applicable two years' suspension - period of one year's ineligibility imposed.

Anti-doping case · Rugby League · 6 May 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

Anti-doping - Terbutaline - cyclist not aware needed to get Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) for asthma inhaler - While surprising defendant did not have a better knowledge of what was required, Tribunal accepted that in the circumstances she did not - defendant selected at short notice to represent NZ... for first time, not a carded athlete, had not been on any drug testing programme, and had never been drug tested before - observations about obligations on National Sports Organisations to inform athletes about TUEs and anti-doping matters - Tribunal accepted defendant did not use terbutaline with intention of enhancing sports performance and that her failure to obtain TUE was due to inadvertence - minimum penalty of a warning and reprimand was appropriate.

Anti-doping case · Cycling · 31 May 2005