skip to Main Content

Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Rangimaria Brightwater-Wharf


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 substances – dimethylpentylamine added to Prohibited List in 2010 after athletes found guilty of violations in 2009 (although not specifically listed in 2009, dimethylpentylamine held to be sufficiently close to other prohibited substances) – after Tribunal hearing but before Tribunal had made its, WADA advised it would be reclassifying dimethylpentylamine as a “specified substance” in the 2011 Prohibited List meaning lesser penalties available – WADA advised it considered substance could be treated as specified substance now in existing cases even though reclassification didn’t come into effect until 2011 (for practical rather than strictly legal reasons) – potential application of lex mitior principle considered which didn’t strictly apply as law change not in force at time of hearing– whether Tribunal should now treat as specified substance – recent overseas cases treated as specified substance – due to exceptional circumstances of WADA position and approach of tribunals overseas, fairness to NZ athletes justified Tribunal treating as specified substance – Tribunal satisfied not taken for performance enhancing reasons – athlete honest and had high values but responsibility lies with athlete not to take prohibited substances – athlete had received anti-doping education but failed to check with Drug Free Sport (DFS) the status of substance although aware of DFS help line – failure to check with DFS meant she had a degree of fault – while made inquiry to distributor in 2009, no further inquiries to DFS or medical practitioners etc before tested positive in 2010 – Tribunal considered comparable anti-doping decisions of its own and overseas bodies concerning athletes inadvertently taking prohibited specified substances including cases where doctors had mistakenly prescribed athletes prohibited substances (such as DFS v Chalmers ST 13/09, 11 March 2010) which the present case was seen as more serious than – 6 months ineligibility was appropriate here, commencing from date of provisional suspension.

Back To Top