Have you read the Consultation discussion document?

In the following sections, you will respond to the questions posed to you in the Consultation discussion document. If you have not yet reviewed the Discussion document, please do so now.

Download the Consultation discussion document [Link TBC]

Under Article 7.4.1, the Commission will now have the ability to impose a Provisional Suspension in the event of an Adverse Analytical Finding or an Adverse Passport Finding. Previously it was only the Sports Tribunal who could impose a Provisional Suspension.

The reason for this proposed change is that it will mean a more efficient process which allows the Commission to take this step rather than needing to formally refer it to the Sports Tribunal. It also means that an appeal of this decision by the Commission can be made directly to the Sports Tribunal rather than the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which is expensive and time-consuming.

Beyond this issue, the Commission did not consider it appropriate for it to assume any of the other decision-making functions that are currently held by the Sports Tribunal given the need to preserve the Commission’s independence.

Under Article 4.4.6, it is now explicitly provided that if the Commission denies an application for a Therapeutic Use Exemption, the Athlete may appeal to the Sports Tribunal. This is intended to explicitly bring this appeal right into line with the provisional suspension process outlined above and make it less likely that the time and expense associated with a CAS appeal will be necessary.

Under Article 10.8, the 2027 Rules attempt to give effect to the Case Resolution Agreement process. This process is intended to allow WADA, the Commission and the Athlete to agree an outcome in circumstances where an ADRV has been admitted and, after taking into account various factors including, fault, seriousness and promptness of admission, it is considered that a reduction in sanction may be appropriate.

Previously this process could not be used in New Zealand because under our legal framework the Sports Tribunal is required to impose any sanction. This meant that you couldn’t have a resolution without its involvement. Following engagement with WADA, we have proposed an amendment to this article whereby the Commission and the Athlete can reach an in-principle case resolution agreement. This agreement would then be provided to the Sports Tribunal for ratification. Once the Sports Tribunal had reviewed and ratified the agreement, it would then go to WADA for final approval with the agreement only have effect if WADA approves it at this final stage.

The purpose behind his change is to allow parties in New Zealand to potentially access this case resolution option. It also attempts to balance the position of the Sports Tribunal as an independent decision maker and WADA’s role in ensuring consistent application of the Code.

Under Article 14.3.1, the Commission is able to publicly disclose any substantive decision of the Sports Tribunal. It further provides that publication shall be accomplished at a minimum by placing the information on the Commission’s website and leaving the information up for the longer of one month or the duration of any period of Ineligibility.

The Commission’s current publication practice is that (subject to any relevant exceptions in the Sports Anti-Doping Rules) it makes a media release regarding a Sports Tribunal decision, maintains a table of current sanctions on its website and removes them from that table when the sanction is complete.

At Article 8.11, the 2027 Rules also now contain specific reference to New Zealand’s Privacy Act and the relevant protections that exist in terms of an ability to withhold personal information under New Zealand law.