-
Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Anna Bramley
Overview: Anti-doping – runner tested positive to canrenone (metabolite of spironolactone) – admitted violation – violation due to taking spironolactone that she had been prescribed for medical condition – had been taking for years – took up running in 2008 – she told her current GP (who is also a sports doctor) that she was competing…
-
Drug Free Sport New Zealand v XYZ
Overview: Anti-doping – cannabis – admitted violation – athlete is USA based professional basketballer who had not secured a contract for any team in 2010/11 season and did not expect would do so – athlete gave evidence used cannabis with friends at end of March when thought no prospect of competing – then unexpectedly got contract…
-
Announcement of Anti-Doping Decision (all details relating to case are confidential)
Overview: The Sports Tribunal has heard and decided an anti-doping application and found that there was no violation. All details relating to this case are strictly confidential, pursuant to the Sports Anti-Doping Rules.
-
Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Graham O’Grady
Overview: Anti-doping – triathlete tested positive to morphine – “no fault” defence under Rule 14.5.1 of Sports Anti Doping Rules – athlete did not challenge positive test but claimed he was not at fault as the morphine found in his system was due to poppy seeds contained in loaves of gluten free poppy seed bread he…
-
Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Para Murray
Amphetamine (d-amphetamine), Methamphetamine (d-methamphetamine), Presence of prohibited substance in sampleOverview: Anti-doping – rugby league player tested positive to D-Methamphetamine and D-Amphetamine – admitted violation which he stated was result of recreational drug use – athlete made submissions seeking modification of normal sanction in light of his personal circumstances and submissions concerning perceived need for more drug education in his area – while the Tribunal was…
-
Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Adam Stewart
Overview: Anti-doping – 2 years’ ineligibility imposed on athlete for attempted use, and possession, of prohibited substances (see earlier decision of 8 September 2010) – issue arose whether Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider application to disqualify athlete’s competition results under rule 14.8 of Sports Anti-Doping Rules – Tribunal held it had jurisdiction to consider application (see…
-
Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Joshua Poasa
Overview: Anti-doping – cannabis – 18 year old rugby league player smoked cannabis at party with older players after last club game of year – subsequently tested positive for cannabis at representative match – some mitigating factors – evidence suggested may be a culture of cannabis smoking in rugby league in Northland and may have been…
-
Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Kyle Reuben
Overview: Anti-doping – rugby league player refusing or failing to provide a sample – initially provided an insufficient sample – asked chaperone about possible repercussions for cannabis use – subsequently told chaperone that not prepared to wait to pass a further sample and would accept the consequences – chaperone reported he advised consequences of leaving but…
-
Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Rangimaria Brightwater-Wharf
Overview: Anti-doping – powerlifter tested positive to dimethylpentylamine – admitted violation but gave evidence violation accidental – on morning of competition took capsule of supplement “Ripped Freak” unknown to her containing dimethylpentylamine – not listed as ingredient (although geranium seed extract was) – athlete made inquiries to distributor in 2009 and was advised didn’t contain prohibited…
-
Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Woodes Rogers
Methandienone, Methyltestosterone, Oxymesterone, Presence of prohibited substance in sample, T/E ratio > 4:1Overview: Anti-doping – powerlifter tested positive to numerous prohibited substances: T/E ratio > 4:1; Oxymesterone; Metabolites of Methandienone; Metabolites of Methyltestosterone; Metabolites of Oxymetholone; 19-norandrosterone – failed to participate in proceedings – extent of offending amounted to aggravating circumstances under Anti-Doping rules – question whether aggressive and insulting language/attitude in correspondence could be ”aggravating circumstances” left…
