New Zealand long distance runner Zane Robertson has been suspended by the Sports Tribunal for eight years for the presence and use or attempted use of the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO)

He was also tampering, or attempted tampering, with part of the doping control process, the Sports Tribunal has announced.

Robertson won bronze for New Zealand at the Glasgow Commonwealth Games in 2014 and competing at the last two Olympics.

Robertson claimed that he had attended a Kenyan medical facility seeking a Covid 19 vaccination but was instead treated for Covid 19, which included the administration of EPO. He also claimed that he had told the attending doctor that he was an athlete and could not be treated with a substance that was on the prohibited list.

Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) provided a statement about investigations it had made following Robertson’s assertions. which led to the allegation of tampering.

DFSNZ alleged that Robertson was not administered EPO at the facility, that he had not attended the facility on the alleged date, that of the two doctors he claimed had treated him, one was a laboratory technician and the other was not employed at the facility, that the medical notes were not generated at the facility and the patient number on the notes was not Robertson’s.

DFSNZ alleged that Robertson’s statements and supporting documents included falsified documents and false testimony which if proven or not contested, amounts to a breach of Rule 2.5 (tampering).

The 33-year-old was provisionally suspended without opposition for the first two anti-doping rule violations (ADRVs) on September 20 last year.

This followed an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) from an In-Competition doping control test at the Manchester Great Race in May 2022. Robertson elected to have his ‘B’ sample tested and this confirmed the original result.

He subsequently accepted the presence of the prohibited substance but asked to be heard in relation to sanction.

The parties subsequently filed a joint memorandum stating Robertson did not contest the tampering breach and was no longer seeking a reduced sanction for the original ADVRs.

The memorandum proposed a period of ineligibility of eight years, with credit for the period of provisional suspension he has already served.

The Tribunal agreed with the joint proposal given that Robertson was not contesting the breaches nor offering evidence to support a reduced sanction.

The eight-year period of ineligibility was the only sanction available to the Tribunal as the first two ADRVs attracted a sanction of four years, and the tampering violation attracted a four-year period which must be served in addition to the four years for the original ADVRs

More to come...