-
Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Kurt Allan
Amphetamine (d-amphetamine), Methamphetamine (d-methamphetamine), Presence of prohibited substance in sampleOverview: Anti-doping – softball player tested positive to D-methamphetamine and D-amphetamine in competition – admitted violation – advised that he did not wish to present any further information about the violation and would abide by the decision of Tribunal – 2 years’ inelgibility imposed (commencing from date of provisional suspension)
-
Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Jared Neho
Overview: Anti-doping – rugby league player tested positive for cannabis – admitted violation – gave evidence that he knew his obligation and he gave up smoking prior to the rugby league competition commencing – withdrew from team for family and work commitments – after he withdrew from the team he occasionally smoked cannabis again – however,…
-
Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Scott Parsons
Overview: Anti-doping – powerlifter tested positive for cannabis – admitted violation – stated due to smoking a cigarette he was offered while celebrating at his birthday party – he was later informed by the person who gave it to him that it was laced with cannabis oil/hash – evidence was backed up by a witness –…
-
Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Nigel Cordes
Overview: Anti-doping – powerlifter tested positive for the prohibited substance 1, 3 dimethylpentylamine, also known as methylhexaneamine, after competing at North Island Championships – admitted violation – stated due to taking a caffeine based supplement he had purchased from his local sports nutrition store on their recommendation – gave evidence didn’t know that it contained methylhexaneamine…
-
Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Peter Martin
Overview: Anti-doping – athlete selected for Paralympic Games tested positive for probenecid – case heard and decided under urgency – athlete admitted violation but gave evidence violation was inadvertent – doctor at accident and emergency clinic prescribed and administered probenecid to athlete treat cellulitis due to infection – doctor gave evidence there was a serious medical…
-
Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Wiremu Takerei
Overview: Anti-doping – touch player tested positive for the prohibited substance 1, 3-dimethylpentylamine, also known as methylhexaneamine, after playing in final at national tournament – drank supplement offered to him by team-mate to help him keep awake several hours before final – unknown to him supplement contained methylhexaneamine – didn’t check ingredients and assumed it was…
-
Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Taani Prestney
Overview: Anti-doping – rugby league player, tested positive for prohibited substance 1, 3 – dimethylpentylamine, also known as methylhexaneamine, after playing a match – admitted violation and gave evidence he took a supplement before going to do weight lifting and that supplement was the cause of positive test – told rugby league team mates at training…
-
Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Ricky Welsford
Overview: Anti-doping – athlete tested positive for metabolites of JWH-018 [JWH-018 N-(5-Hydroxpentanyl) and JWH-018 N-Pentanoic Acid] – synthetic cannabis – Kronic – athlete admitted violation – he and a witness gave evidence they were celebrating a birthday with friends – one of group handed around “roll your own cigarettes” which had synthetic cannabis product Kronic in…
-
Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Daniel Ryan
Overview: Anti-doping – athlete tested positive to D-Methamphetamine and D-Amphetamine – athlete initially filed defences that substances taken “out of competition” as he believed his season was over when he took the substances (he was called in at the last minute to play by the team coach) and that the substances had not been taken for…
-
Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Nick Rhind
Overview: Anti-doping – cannabis – athlete filed notice admitting violation, advising he did not want to participate in the hearing and acknowledging Tribunal may impose a penalty without holding a hearing – penalty for violation is 2 years’ suspension but if athlete can establish requirements set out under “specified substances” provisions of Rules (concerning establishing did…
