Decisions

Appeal against decision of NSO - urgent appeal against a decision of New Zealand Rugby League Appeals Committee (NZRLAC) not to deduct competition points from CM who fielded an ineligible player contrary to the relevant rules in a match - NZRLAC overturned decision of the NZRL Football Committee (NZRLFC)... deducting two competition points and fining CM - outcome of the appeal potentially affected which teams qualify for national final - NZRLAC decided breach of the rules by CM fielding unregistered and ineligible player V and the rules set out a penalty of points deduction but that CM took all reasonable steps to satisfy themselves of V’s eligibility and others should have warned CM of a problem - it quashed NZRLFC decision - Tribunal disagreed - CM had responsibility to ensure didn’t field unregistered and ineligible players and hadn’t done enough to ensure this - V (registered with NZ Warriors) told CM that also registered with Auckland club (which was an eligibility requirement) but that was incorrect - however, no evidence that CM directly enquired of V or otherwise as to whether he fulfilled the other required eligibility criteria - CM made an enquiry to NZRL about player registrations but didn’t get a reply - nevertheless CM included V in their team which was taking a risk - not reasonable to assume that because there was no response there was no problem - CM didn’t follow up their enquiry with sufficient effort in the circumstances - other avenues CM could have followed - NZRLAC considered the substantial fault was the failure of NZRL or ARL to warn CM of a potential problem and effectively took the onus away from CM and placed it on others - however, clear obligation was on CM to field a team of eligible players and significant had fault in not following up on enquiry they initiated - rules put CM on notice and responsibility was theirs from beginning - no evidential basis for the NZRLAC’s conclusion - must have been apparent to all involved that V had been playing semi-professional sport and was a need to be careful and cautious as to eligibility - Appeal allowed and decision of NZRLFC reinstated.

Non anti-doping case · Rugby League · 17 October 2014

Anti-doping - cannabis - principles set out in Karaitiana decision (SDT 12/06) applied - admitted recreational cannabis use at stag party - elite athletes - level of knowledge and experience - Tribunal found with some reservations that no aggravating circumstances - defendant was former NZ softball representative... - last represented NZ in 2001 and was then well informed by Softball NZ of its anti-doping policy - however cannabis only added to list in 2004 - Tribunal accepted with some reservations that defendant was not fully informed in 2005 when used cannabis that was at risk of breaching anti-doping policy - Tribunal warned defendant of his duty to adhere to WADA code and strict liability nature of offences - observations about defendant initially not participating in process and potential adverse consequences if he had not - warning and reprimand imposed.

Anti-doping case · Softball · 8 May 2006

Anti-doping - cannabis - Tribunal reviewed its earlier decisions and set out approach it will take in future cannabis cases - if athlete satisfies Tribunal that no intention to enhance sports performance, the likely penalty will be a reprimand and warning provided Tribunal also satisfied the cannabis... use was unrelated to the sport, represented no danger to others and there were no other aggravating circumstances - Tribunal likely to suspend where aggravating circumstances exist - aggravating circumstances include when athlete’s attention has been drawn to need to adhere to WADA Code but despite this warning offends anyway - such warning may appear in participation agreements or may have been specifically drawn to the athlete's attention by his or her sport by other means - Tribunal will take interim and self imposed suspensions into account in determining appropriate period of ineligibility - in this case defendant admitted using cannabis recreationally at New Year’s Eve party the week before tournament where drug tested - aggravating circumstances not found to exist - warning and reprimand imposed.

Anti-doping case · Softball · 28 April 2006

Anti-doping - cannabis - principles set out in Karaitiana decision (SDT 12/06) applied - Canadian player in NZ for softball season - defendant admitted violation and provided letter stating cannabis use was recreational at Christmas celebration and not to enhance performance - moved back to Canada before... hearing - player failed to participate in teleconference hearing - Tribunal ruled it could proceed to decide case - onus - standard of proof - if athlete can establish cannabis use not intended to enhance sports performance then eligible to receive a lesser penalty than otherwise mandatory two years' ineligibility - an athlete's failure to participate in hearing and absence of evidence under oath will make it difficult for athlete to satisfy their onus of establishing cannabis use not intended to enhance performance - however Tribunal here granted indulgence to defendant only by reason of concessions from Softball NZ that defendant did not intend to enhance performance and that there were no aggravating factors - warning and reprimand imposed.

Anti-doping case · Softball · 8 May 2006