A national golf champion has had her title disqualified after returning a positive test for a prohibited substance.

The golfer, an amateur and recreational athlete who has not been named by the Sports Tribunal, was suspended from all sport for six months after testing positive for ostarine - a selective androgen receptor modulator (SARM) that acts similarly to testosterone in building muscle mass and strength.

The athlete, who was 20 at the time, was tested in-competition in November 2022. The test returned a positive result, which was confirmed by B-sample analysis in March 2023.

In their decision, the Sports Tribunal accepted the athlete’s denial that she intentionally took the substance and reduced her sanction to six months. The suspension was backdated to January 31 this year, so the athlete is free to play again.

Drug Free Sport NZ chief executive Nick Paterson said that the case was a reminder that athletes are bound by the principle of strict liability

“Despite the athlete’s high level of competition, she is technically a recreational athlete and does not need to prove specifically where the substance came from.

“The most important thing for athletes to remember here is that whether they took a substance intentionally or not, they are always responsible for its presence. Every athlete has the right to competition that’s free from the influence of doping.

“Furthermore, as well as being prohibited SARMs can be dangerous, and athletes should always avoid them.”

In the report of their decision, the Sports Tribunal explained there were several reasons behind their choice to not name the athlete, including her not being at fault, her age and other punishments being sufficient.

“We assume that she has not previously tested positive for a prohibited substance and it would seem to us most unlikely that she would in the future,” the decision read.

“We also bear in mind that she has already suffered the very significant consequence of being stripped of [redacted]. We are satisfied too, having seen and heard her give evidence, that this whole process, culminating in her appearance before the Tribunal, has been a very salutary and stressful experience for her.

“Finally, we are conscious that the period of provisional suspension that she has already served exceeds the period of ineligibility that we have ultimately found to be appropriate. Against that background, the Tribunal considers that to publish her name, with all the consequences that might well follow, would not only amount to a further burden for her but is one which we deem is not justified in all the circumstances of the case.”