Related case:
KNCB 2005 Decision Appeal Committee 2005072 B
April 7, 2006
The board of the Royal Dutch Cricket Board (KNCB) has reported against the defendant because of the discovery of a prohibited substance (Article 3) and/or attempted use of prohibited substance and/or method (Article 4). His sample for doping test, taken on July 17, 2005 was tested positive.
The oral hearing took place November 9 2005. By e-mail the defendant confirms he will attend this oral hearing without representation unless it will be better for his case. He didn't use the forbidden substance to enhance his performance and is not addicted to it. He just used the substance during a concert without thinking about the consequences. He is deeply ashamed about what he did regarding to his teammates, friends and family. It also put him in problems regarding his work.
Also he is ashamed for putting the sport in a bad spot regarding to the youth and elderly who enjoy this sport. His only addiction is cricket. Hopefully all this will be taken into account at the hearing.
During the Oral hearing the defendant emphasizes that he didn't use the prohibited substance to enhance sport performance. All earlier tests were negative.
The Disciplinary Committee considers the following facts in her judgement:
Benzoylecgonine is a decomposition product of cocaine was found on during a doping test. Cocaine is on the prohibited list of the anti-dope code.
The defendant had informed the DCO that is was likely he had used a prohibited substance.
The committee believes the defendant it was used for recreational use not for enhancing his sport performance. It was thoughtless of the defendant to use the prohibited drug.
It is confirmed that the defendant used a prohibited substance. The substance was Benzoylecgonine is a decomposition product of cocaine. Cocaine is listed as a prohibited substance and method due to the prohibited list of January 1, 2004
In her verdict art. 3, 37 and 39 of the anti-doping code of the KNCB were regarded.
The substance is not specifically mention on the World Anti-Doping Code, for that reason art. 37 will be used. Related to art. 3 the suspension will be 2 years.
The Disciplinary Committee opinion about the prohibited substance is that the use of it is not related to the sport or enhance the sport performance. There are doubt that cocaine would have a positive effect on necessary skills concentration, quickness of response and control.
The purpose of Anti-Doping Code is not the goal of the substance but purely the presence of the substance.
There is no liberty of justice related to the intentions of the defendant. The presence of the prohibited substance justifies the punish ability, except the exception mentioned in art. 39.
The Disciplinary Committee has concluded that there is no connection to the use of the substance to enhance sport performance. Therefore she has great objections for the required penalty and the lack of room of judgement under individual circumstances. The use of the substance didn’t influence the sport or enhanced the performance. The Anti-Doping Code doesn’t leave any room for this.
Due to the standards involved by art. 37 and 39 no significant fault or negligence doesn’t comply.
The announcements in the media towards this case didn’t influence the judegment of the case.
Towards the privacy of the defendant, the Anti-Doping Code doesn’t have any regulations for privacy but some reserve is useful.
Decision:
The Disciplinary Committee award is a 2 years period of ineligibility commencing on the last match of the defendant.
