Decisions

Anti-doping – Rugby league player (B) tested positive for prohibited substance higenamine in sample taken from him after a rugby league training session – provisionally suspended without opposition - admitted violation of Sports Anti-Doping Rules 2016 (SADR) Rule 2.1 and asked to be heard as to sanction... – positive test due to contaminated pre-workout supplement “The One 2.0” – unintentional use of specified substance – standard period of ineligibility two years under SADR Rule 10.2.2 – accepted B could establish no significant fault or negligence in seeking a reduction of the two year period under SADR Rule 10.5.1.1 –Tribunal assessed appropriate sanction having regard to degree of fault – Tribunal decided appropriate period of ineligibility was nine months – medium level of fault – contaminated supplement, purchased from Melbourne retailer – prohibited substance not listed on product label – trust in supplements resulted from previous experience of having a nutritional and supplement regime in professional environment – B’s personal life at low ebb and may have contributed to failure to take proper precautions – suspension backdated to date of testing – timely admission

Anti-doping case · Rugby League · 3 May 2017

Anti-doping – cricket player (K) admitted violations of Sports Anti-Doping Rules (SADR) 2014 Rules 3.2 and 3.6 and SADR 2015 2.2 and 2.6 – Medsafe investigation into NZ Clenbuterol including purchase of prohibited products by K in 2014 and 2015 - possession and use of steroids nandrolone and testosterone... in 2014 and possession and use of hormones tamoxifen and anastrozole used to address effects of steroids in 2015 - provisionally suspended without opposition - asked to be heard as to sanction – sanction for multiple violations based on violation with most severe sanction – changes to 2015 WADA Code / SADR – 2015 violations most severe sanction if DFSNZ proved to comfortable satisfaction of Tribunal that intentional – assessment of specific facts and credibility of K totality of evidence – meaning of “intentional” under SADR 2015 10.2.3 – no evidential basis to conclude K knew or turned mind to breach of SADR – Tribunal imposed period of ineligibility of 2 years – commencement back dated given delays not attributable to K and K’s prompt admission and co-operation

Anti-doping case · Cricket · 4 April 2017

Alleged breaches of SADR 2.5 and 10.12.1 Prohibition Against Participation During Ineligibility - allegations not proven to comfortable satisfaction of the Tribunal

Anti-doping case · Cycling · 20 March 2017

Anti-doping – Southland rugby league player (M) tested positive for a metabolite of cannabis in a concentration higher than that permitted under the Prohibited List in sample taken from him in competition – provisionally suspended without opposition - admitted violation of Sports Anti-Doping Rules... 2016 (SADR) Rule 2.1 and asked to be heard as to sanction – recreational cannabis use and not for sports performance enhancing reasons – accepted M could establish no significant fault or negligence in seeking a reduction of the two year period under SADR Rule 10.5.1.1 –Tribunal assessed appropriate sanction having regard to degree of fault – Tribunal decided appropriate period of ineligibility was 6 months – fairness and consistency in line with recently decided Ngatoko case - backdated to date of provisional suspension.

Anti-doping case · Rugby League · 17 February 2017