Decisions

Anti-doping – Benzylpiperazine (BZP) – recreational use – body builder took a “party pill” containing BZP when on a night out socialising – BZP not specifically named as a prohibited substance under WADA Prohibited List – however it qualifies as a prohibited substance because it falls into... the category of a substance “with a similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s)” to other stimulants named in S6 of the Prohibited List (stimulants) – judicial review - whether determination of NZ Sports Drug Agency that a doping violation had been committed can be challenged before Tribunal - unless a determination of the Agency is challenged in the District Court, the Tribunal is bound to accept it as valid – whether no significant fault or negligence – athletes will only be able to establish no significant fault in truly exceptional circumstances - party pill not taken for performance enhancing purposes and athlete prominent advocate of drug free body building – while Tribunal sympathetic to athlete’s position he had been careless in taking a prohibited substance and had been at significant fault – strict liability nature of WADA Code - no truly exceptional circumstances to establish no significant fault defence - 2 years’ ineligibility imposed.

Anti-doping case · Body Building · 16 December 2005

Anti-doping – clenbuterol – when visiting family overseas defendant took medicines belonging to mother, including spiropent, to relieve flu symptoms – did not know spiropent was trade name for clenbuterol – brought spiropent tablets back to NZ and continued to use them which she claimed caused... her positive test - whether no significant fault or negligence – athlete argued as a novice she had not received same anti-doping instruction as an elite body builder – Tribunal held no difference in “no significant fault” test between novice and experienced athletes although the circumstances of a novice may at times allow an athlete to establish exceptional circumstances – Tribunal expressed sympathy for athlete – however she aware of need to avoid prohibited drugs but took medication without checking whether it was prohibited substance – her inaction amounted to significant fault – 2 years’ ineligibility imposed – suspension backdated.

Anti-doping case · Body Building · 20 December 2005

Appeal against decision of national sports organisation (NSO) – appellant appealed against being relegated (by race steward) and subsequently disqualified (by protest committee) for passing another rider under a yellow flag during motorcycle race - disqualification upheld by appeal committee of NSO... - decision affected who would be NZ champion - Tribunal found evidence fell short of showing race marshall made a mistake in determining appellant passed under yellow flag - Tribunal also noted that in law it was only in limited circumstances that "field of play" decisions by officials such as referees or marshals can be overturned - procedural unfairness - Tribunal determined that despite best intentions, the processes of protest and appeal committees were procedurally defective and their decisions had to be quashed - appropriate penalty that steward should have imposed - interpretation of rules - Tribunal found that under Motorcycling's Rules, the only applicable penalty that the steward could impose for a yellow flag infringement was exclusion (disqualification) - appeal against disqualification dismissed.

Non anti-doping case · Motorcycling · 22 December 2005

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