Rechtbank Utrecht
Sector handels- en familierecht
March 10, 2010
281737 / KG ZA 10-92
Related cases:
NBB 2008 NBBDecision Disciplinary Committee 2008063 T
April 7, 2009
NBB 2008 NBB Decision Appeal Committee 2008063 B
Juni 30, 2009
Defendant takes legal action in a application for a temporary injunction against the Netherlands Badminton Association (Nederlandse Badminton Bond, NBB). He faced a one year period of ineligibility because he was reported for a violation of the Anti-Doping code (ADC), during a in-competition doping test the prohibited substances MDMA, MDA and 11-nor-∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol-9-carboxylic acid was revealed. Also the B-sample tested positive for this substance.
Defendant used an ecstacy pill which caused the positive test, he claimed that he wasn't aware of the consequences of taking the prohibited substance. Also he claims that the NBB failed to give sufficient information about the ADC.
Defendant appealed against the decision of the disciplinary committee but also appeal commission sentenced the defendant with a period of ineligibility of two years.
Defendant claims the Anti-Doping Authority Netherlands had not allowed him to be present at the B-sample testing. Also the ADC is not meant for non-professional athletes, the ADC invades his private life which is protected by section 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The NBB suspension started on a wrong date. The information about doping controls was not sufficient. There are rules about reduction of the suspension which the NBB didn't use.
The NBB argues that if the claim of the defendant is granted it would substantially change the decision of the disciplinary committee and the appeal committee.
The court can only judge briefly the decisions of the committees. The judge has no qualification to change these decisions, however this was the request of the defendant and his claim will be denied.
The defendants claim that his privacy is invaded is incorrect because he acknowledge the doping tests for being a member of the NBB.
The defendant didn't make clear the information supply of the NBB was insufficient.
The defendant borne the fee of the lawsuit.
