-
Sport Integrity Commission v Tukaha Cooper (ST09/25)
Anti-doping case decisions, Cannabis, Presence of prohibited substance in sample, Prohibited substances, Substances of abuse, Use / attempted use of prohibited substances/methodsAnti-doping – basketball – alleged presence of and use of prohibited substance – cannabis – substance of abuse – admitted rule violation of presence – denied rule violation of use in-competition – unrelated to sports performance – joint memorandum of counsel on sanction – rule violation of use withdrawn by Commission – decision made on
-
Basketball player suspended for anti-doping rule violation
A basketballer, Tukaha Cooper, has been suspended by the Sports Tribunal for one month for the presence of cannabis, being a prohibited substance. The period of ineligibility represents a reduced sanction due to cannabis being a substance of abuse and it being taken out of competition and unrelated to sports performance. Mr Cooper completed a
-
Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Taane Samuel
Anti-doping case decisions, Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), Prohibited substances, Substances of abuse, Use / attempted use of prohibited substances/methodsAnti-doping – basketball – recreational use in private social setting of Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) – substance of abuse – used two days before professional game – admitted violations and accepted immediate provisional suspension – parties agreed use not made in a sporting setting and not to enhance performance – prompt referral after notification of adverse analytical
-
Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Gareth Dawson
Overview: Anti-doping – basketball player (D) tested positive for prohibited substance higenamine in sample taken from him after NBL game on 27 May 2017 – provisionally suspended – admitted violation of Sports Anti-Doping Rules 2017 (SADR) Rule 2.1 and asked to be heard as to sanction – positive test due to use of supplement Oxyshred –
-
Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Jordan Mills
Overview: Anti-doping – basketball player (M) tested positive for prohibited substance terbutaline in sample taken from him after NBL game – provisionally suspended without opposition – admitted violation of Sports Anti-Doping Rules 2017 (SADR) Rule 2.1 and asked to be heard as to sanction – positive test due to use of inhaler for therapeutic purpose –
-
Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Gareth Dawson
Overview: Anti-doping – NBL basketball player (D) tested positive for prohibited substance tamoxifen – admitted violation – developed medical condition in 2011, which was sore and annoying when competing – went to a doctor in Timaru who diagnosed condition but didn’t prescribe treatment – condition went away for 18 months then returned – in 2013 D
-
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 Sylvester Seay
Overview: Anti-doping – cannabis – no fault – ate sweet did not know contained medical marijuana – athlete (S) is USA based professional basketballer who came to NZ to play for a national league team – S visited a friend (L) in California the night before left for NZ and ate a cellophane wrapped sweet
-
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
-
Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Kavossy Franklin
Overview: Anti-doping – cannabis – basketball player testing positive at NBL game – athlete admitted violation but failed to participate in hearing – as cannabis is a specified substance an athlete can qualify or lesser penalty than 2 years’ suspension but has to: establish how the cannabis got in their system; establish that it was not
