Related case:
Dutch Distict Court 2015 Athlete 2014040 vs KNAU
July 21, 2015
Facts
The Royal Dutch Athletics Association (Koninklijke Nederlandse Atletiek Unie, KNAU) charged the athlete for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an in-competition doping test samples were taken for doping test purposes. Analysis of the samples showed a high ratio of testosterone on epitestosterone and an additional IRMS test showed the presence of exogenous testosterone. Exogenous testosterone is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and is regarded as a non-specified substance.
History
The counsel of the athlete doesn't uphold the initial argument that the positive test was caused by the use of medication and/or supplements. However he claims that the sample taking, transport and handling of the collection vessel violated the International Standards for Testing (IST) and the International Standard for Laboratories (ISL). Due to language problems the athlete wasn't informed correctly of his rights. The doping control area hadn't been closed when de DCO (Doping Control Officer) and the athlete had left the area. It took some time for the athlete to comply with the sufficient amount for testing, during this time period the collection vessel could have been contaminated in the locker room. The DCO forgot to mention that the collected sample wasn't sufficient. The sample wasn't kept cool during a period of 15 hours. The same annalist had analysed the A- and B-sample, it is in the regulations that nobody can check his own work. The analysis of the A- and B-sample have some inconsistencies: there was a deviation of the ISO-standards which are seen as fundamentals for the WADA-accreditation for laboratories, also the were inconsistencies in the calibration, digital marking, writing errors and the correction of the margins of the test results also the identity of the associate who took care of the ADAMS-administration is not clear.
The Doping Authority explains that the deviation varies because of the amount of metabolites, but the counsel hasn't made concrete that the deviations are the cause for the positive test.
The Disciplinary Committee agrees that even though deviations have occurred, the result of the test is positive.
The Counsel of the athlete refers to a verdict of the Courthouse of Amsterdam that even though there is no deviation of the international standards there are still consideration towards the strict liability in handling the way of sample collection. However the Disciplinary committee puts this argument aside.
The athlete didn't provide any explanation about how the prohibited substance had entered his body, the examined supplement didn't show traces of it.
The DA emphasis that because of the incorrect acquisitions towards the DCO a longer period of ineligibility should be considered, but the Disciplinary Committee doesn't go along with the idea that there was a planned deceptive or obstructing conduct to avoid a doping sentence. A four years ban is not considered by the panel.
Decision
The ISR KNAU Disciplinary Committee regards itself as competent for handling this case. The Disciplinary Committee is convinced that the athlete had committed the violation but the period of ineligibility of two years will be reduced by the time spent in voluntary suspension. The legal cost will be borne by the athlete.
