Related cases:
NBB 2009 Decision Disciplinary Committee 2009021 T
October 10, 2009
NBB 2009 Decision Appeal Committee 2009021 B
December 13, 2009
The American Player underwent an in-competiton doping test on 26 March 2009 in Leiden (the Netherlands). The WADA-accredited laboratory in Cologne reported on 22 April 2009 that Player’s sample showed an elevated testosterone/epitestosterone ratio. However isotope ratio mass spectrometric (IRMS) analysis in the laboratory of Player’s sample did not indicate an application of testosterone or testosterone prohormones.
Therefore the Dopingautoriteit, Netherlands Anti-doping Authority (NADA), ordered follow-up testing. After notification the Player refused to produce an out of competition urine sample on 20 May 2009.
Hereafter the NADA reported an anti-doping rule violation to the Nederlandse Basketball Bond (NBB), Netherlands Basketball Federation, for Player’s refusal to provide an urine sample.
On 10 October 2009 the NBB Disciplinary Committee ruled that the Player had not committed an anti-doping rule violation.
The NADA appealed the NBB decision to the NBB Appeal Committee on 5 November 2009.
On 13 December 2009 the NBB Appeal Committee decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility to the Player, starting from 20 May 2009.
The Player appealed the NBB Appeal Committee’s sanction to the FIBA Disciplinary Panel. The Player filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Panel on 16 March 2010.
The American Player’s position as expressed by his representatives can be summarized as follows:
- the result of the test performed on 26 March 2009 was not contested;
- the NADA had no authority to test him because the Dutch championship was over and subsequently his employment contract had expired;
- the Player decided to stay in the Netherlands a few weeks after the end of the season as a tourist and was not playing professional basketball at the relevant point in time;
- the doping control officer did not identify himself nor explained why the Player should submit a urine sample;
- the Player is no longer playing basketball and could not attend the hearing because he was at his new employment, which is unrelated to basketball.
The Panel concludes that the American Player refused to submit to sample collection without compelling justification and that the procedure followed by the NADA was in compliance with the requirements of the FIBA ADR. Therefore the Player has committed an anti-doping rule violation. On 15 April 2009 the FIBA Disciplinary Panel decides a 2 year period of ineligibility, starting from 20 May 2009.
