International Court backs Drug Free Sport NZ’s actions

Drug Free Sport NZ is pleased the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has backed the steps it took in relation to an anti-doping rule violation by triathlete Kris Gemmell.

CAS has released a judgement in which it banned Mr Gemmell from participating in sport for 15 months for failing to comply with the athlete whereabouts programme.

The whereabouts programme is used by anti-doping organisations worldwide and requires athletes to regularly log details of their whereabouts so that they can be located at any time for “surprise” drug testing.

Drug Free Sport NZ took the case to CAS after it was dismissed by the New Zealand Sports Tribunal in February this year.

Drug Free Sport NZ chief executive Graeme Steel says the CAS decision is important because it clarifies the rules around the whereabouts programme.

“The Court notes that the whereabouts programme is a ‘powerful and effective means of deterring and detecting doping in sport’. The ruling confirms that the surprise nature of drug testing that the whereabouts programme allows is important and that Drug Free Sport NZ is
right not to give athletes advance notice of testing by telephoning them.”

Top level athletes involved in the whereabouts programme need to specify a one-hour timeslot each day in which they will be available for drug testing.

Under the current rules, if they fail to correctly record their whereabouts or miss a test three times in the space of 18-months, it is considered an anti-doping rule violation.

Drug Free Sport NZ argued that Mr Gemmell had missed two tests and filed incorrect information on another occasion within an 18-month period.

The New Zealand Sports Tribunal dismissed the case saying the first missed test should not be counted because “reasonable” steps were not taken to locate Mr Gemmell, namely telephoning him to let him know that an official was at his nominated location to test him.

Mr Steel says CAS did not agree with the Tribunal and he’s pleased to have the procedures outlined for both anti-doping organisations and athletes.

“A telephone call to notify an athlete that a doping control official is present gives those who dope the time and opportunity to alter the integrity of their sample if they so choose. This goes against the very purpose of surprise testing.”

CAS also noted that athletes have a “legal obligation” to be available and present at the time they’ve specified for testing.

Mr Steel says this is a timely reminder for New Zealand athletes who are involved in the whereabouts programme.

“Anti-doping organisations obviously have an obligation to follow the correct procedures and we’re pleased this ruling from CAS has clarified those, but it’s also highlighted the obligations of athletes to not only file correct whereabouts information, but to make sure they’re available for testing when they say they will be.”

CAS notes that this case is not one of “an athlete deliberately trying to avoid or circumvent the testing regime” and imposed a lesser ban than the maximum allowable of two years due to mitigating circumstances.

Mr Gemmell’s 15-month period of ineligibility is backdated from February 12, 2014.

Ends

© Scoop Media