Rechtbank Utrecht
Sector handels- en familierecht
June 18, 2008
248313 / KG ZA 08-450
ECLI:NL:RBUTR:2008:BD4381
Related cases:
- KNVB 2007 KNVB Decision Disciplinary Committee 2007082 T
August 15, 2007
- KNVB 2007 KNVB Decision Appeal Committee 2007082 B
November 14, 2007
In May 2007 the Royal Dutch Football Association (Koninklijke Nederlandse Voetbalbond, KNVB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited subsatance amphetamine. In his defence the athlete wanted to file the results of a hair test as evidence.
The hairtest wasn't performed in an accredited laboratorium and under the WADA Rules such a test is not approved as evidence.
- On 15 August 2007 the KNVB decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.
- On 14 November 2007 the KNVB Appeal Committee dismissed the Athlete's appeal against the decision of 15 August 2007.
Hereafter the Athlete opened proceedings with the Dutch Civil Court in Utrecht against the KNVB decision of 15 August 2007.
He requested the Court to allow the results of his hair test as evidence to prove he didn't use doping and to annul the imposed sanction.
Submissions Athlete:
- the KNVB disciplinary committee was not impartial;
- the expert is prejudiced in his comments and not independent, and the ame is true for as the disciplinary committee who based her decision on the expert;
- the process was sloppy regarding the paperwork;
- there were procedural errors in handling the sample;
- the imposed sanction could be reduced referring to jurisprudence about another player.
Submissions KNVB:
- the disciplinary committee is impartial;
- both samples A and B are sufficient prove of an anti-doping rule violation;
- Under the Rules the results of the urine test is valid evidence, a hair test is invalid;
- As member of the KNVB he accepted the rules and regulations;
- a hair test is inadequate to proof the presence of amphetamine;
- the expert had never given comments about the hair test;
- although parts of the paperwork were inadequate it doesn't change the result of the KNVB decision;
- The other cases mentioned as jurisprudence had different circumstances.
The judge ruled to dismiss this case.
Decision
- The Athlete's proceedings are rejected.
- The athlete shall bear the costs for the legal representation of the KNVB.
