Sport Integrity Commission v. Inoke Turagalailai

At a glance

Parties

Sport Integrity Commission (New Zealand's national anti-doping organisation, formerly Drug Free Sport New Zealand) v. Inoke Turagalailai (Fijian football player)

Case no.

CAS 2024/A/10766

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, Appeals Arbitration Division; Code of Sports-related Arbitration (2023 Edition); appeal under Rule 13.2.1 of the Sports Anti-Doping Rules 2023 (SADR)

Treaty

Sports Anti-Doping Rules 2023 (New Zealand), implementing the World Anti-Doping Code 2021

Tribunal

Elizabeth Brimer KC (Sole Arbitrator)

Sector

Football; anti-doping (cannabis)

Outcome

Appeal upheld (1 July 2025). The Sports Tribunal of New Zealand's eight-month sanction was set aside and replaced by two years of ineligibility, backdated to 14 December 2023.

Amount

No monetary award. Sanction: two years' ineligibility from 14 December 2023, in place of eight months. The costs orders are redacted in the published award.

The dispute

Inoke Turagalailai played for Fiji's Men's Under 23 football team at the Oceania Football Confederation Men's Olympic Qualifying Tournament in New Zealand. His in-competition sample of 9 September 2023 tested positive for Carboxy-THC (cannabis), a specified substance and a substance of abuse. He admitted breaching SADR Rules 2.1 and 2.2 and admitted smoking cannabis on the morning of the match. Drug Free Sport New Zealand accepted that the use was unrelated to sport performance, so the prescribed sanction was two years under Rule 10.2.2. On 3 July 2024 the majority of the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand held that it could depart from the rules on grounds of proportionality and imposed eight months, backdated to 14 December 2023. The Sport Integrity Commission appealed, arguing that there is no general discretion to adjust prescribed sanctions. The athlete argued that two years was grossly disproportionate and, in the alternative, that any longer sanction should start on 9 September 2023 because of delays in the doping control process.

Key holdings

1. Describing proportionality as a "general discretion" to adjust the sanctions prescribed by the WADC and SADR is inapposite. A decision-maker must impose a lower sanction only where the prescribed one is evidently and grossly disproportionate to the proved violation and violates fundamental justice and fairness. Such cases are very rare. ¶¶ 92–100
2. The stricter sanctions for in-competition use of substances of abuse, compared with out-of-competition use, rest on health and safety concerns for the athlete and other participants and on the spirit of sport. WADA's preparatory and expert materials support this difference, and it is proportionate to the aims of the WADC. ¶¶ 104–112
3. The "wrong side of midnight" argument did not arise on the facts. The athlete admitted use on the morning of the match, and his sample showed 444 ng/ml. Treating cannabis like cocaine reflects a value judgment that not all jurisdictions share. Pre-2021 New Zealand cannabis cases carry limited weight. ¶¶ 113–122
4. The 2021 changes followed an extensive review and were not an unintended error. Any change to the regime is for the WADC legislative process, not for an adjudicator. The athlete's hardship (loss of income, social isolation) creates an "uncomfortable feeling" but is not exceptional. The prescribed two-year sanction under Rule 10.2.2 therefore applies. ¶¶ 123–127
5. There was substantial delay not attributable to the athlete, mainly over the Christmas/New Year shutdown. Backdating to 14 December 2023, rather than to the sample date of 9 September 2023, strikes the right balance with the restraint CAS urges in backdating. The Commission had taken steps before 14 December 2023, and service was delayed by the athlete's invalid phone number and partial address. ¶¶ 135–139
6. The appeal is upheld and the first-instance decision is set aside. Mr Turagalailai is barred under Rule 10.14 of the SADR for two years from 14 December 2023, served without interruption because Fiji Football treated him as ineligible pending the appeal. Operative part

Procedural history

1. 9 September 2023In-competition sample collected; it tests positive for Carboxy-THC.
2. 1 March 2024The Sports Tribunal of New Zealand orders a provisional suspension, which the athlete accepts.
3. 15 March 2024Drug Free Sport New Zealand brings proceedings for violations of SADR Rules 2.1 and 2.2.
4. 3 July 2024Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decision: by majority, eight months' ineligibility; unanimously backdated to 14 December 2023.
5. 24 July 2024The Sport Integrity Commission files its Statement of Appeal with CAS.
6. 17 September 2024The Deputy Division President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division appoints Elizabeth Brimer KC as Sole Arbitrator.
7. 8 November 2024Hearing by video conference from the Registry's Melbourne office.
8. 1 July 2025Award: appeal upheld; two years' ineligibility from 14 December 2023.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Elizabeth Brimer Sole arbitrator, Court of Arbitration for Sport — appointed by the institution

For the claimant

Sport Integrity Commission · Adam McDonald · Kate Hursthouse

For the respondent

Sarah Wroe

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• doping
• cannabis
• THC
• substance of abuse
• in-competition use
• proportionality
• World Anti-Doping Code 2021
• Sports Anti-Doping Rules 2023
• no significant fault or negligence
• backdating
• substantial delay
• period of ineligibility
• Sports Tribunal of New Zealand
• Fiji
• football
• spirit of sport
• de novo appeal
• CAS 2006/A/1025

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.