Decision of the Royal Dutch Soccer Association (KNVB). Due to a violation of the Anti-Doping Code the period of ineligibility will be from December 1, 2006, till March 1, 2007.
An appeal can be made within 14 days.

Related cases:
- KNVB 2007 KNVB Decision Disciplinary Committee 2007082 T
August 15, 2007
- Dutch District Court 2008 Athlete 2007082 vs KNVB
June 18, 2008

On 15 August 2007 KNVB Disciplinary Committee decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Belgian Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance amphetamine.

In the previous disciplinary proceedings the Athlete denied the use of doping and he produced the results of a hair test as evidence that he didn’t use doping. In addition he reffered to jurisprudence about a KNVB case which resulted in the acquittal of the Athlete after sloppy disciplinary proceedings.

The KNVB Disciplinary Committee concluded that the Athlete’s hairtest wasn't performed in an accredited laboratorium and under the WADA Rules such a test is not allowed as evidence. Therefore the statements of expert witnesses about the hair test were not relevant to consider in this case. The filed jurisprudence about another KNVB case was not similar with the circumstances in this case.

In review of the case the KNVB Appeal Committee decides on 14 November to uphold the decision of 15 August 2007 of the KNVB Disciplinary Committee and to dismiss the Athlete’s appeal.

Related cases:
- KNVB 2007 KNVB Decision Appeal Committee 2007082 B
November 14, 2007
- Dutch District Court 2008 Athlete 2007082 vs KNVB
June 18, 2008

In May 2007 the Royal Dutch Football Association (Koninklijke Nederlandse Voetbalbond, KNVB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Belgian Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance amphetamine.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete file a statement with evidence in his defence and he was heard for the KNVB Disciplinary Committee.
The Athlete denied the use of doping and he produced the results of a hair test as evidence that he didn’t use doping. In addition he reffered to jurisprudence about a KNVB case which resulted in the acquittal of the Athlete after sloppy disciplinary proceedings.

The Committee concludes that the Athlete’s hairtest wasn't performed in an accredited laboratorium and under the WADA Rules such a test is not allowed as evidence. Therefore the statements of expert witnesses about the hair test are not relevant to consider in this case. The filed jurisprudence about another KNVB case is not similar with the circumstances in this case.

Considering the positive test results the KNVB Disciplinary Committee decides on 15 August 2015 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Belgian Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension.

Facts
The Royal Dutch Soccer Association (Koninklijke Nederlandse Voetbalbond, KNVB) has reported the soccer player for his misconduct during a doping control.

History
The soccer player was impatient to await the necessary administrative procedure at the Doping Control Station. Instead the player grabbed the collection vessel without permission and broke the sealing. He threw bottles on the floor because the Doping Control Officer in his view didn't settle the proceedings immediately.
However the Disciplinary Committee deems on 26 September 2014 that there was not a violation of the Doping Regulations.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility for two competitions.
2. The € 300,- fine is conditionally imposed.

Related case:
KNVB 2015 KNVB Decision Disciplinary Committee 2015026 T
November 25, 2015

25 November 2015 the Disciplinary Committee of the Royal Dutch Soccer Association (Koninklijke Nederlandse Voetbalbond, KNVB) decided to impose a two year period of ineligibility on the Person after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis with a high concentration (573 ng/ml) above the WADA threshold. After notification of the violation the Person failed to attend the hearing of the KNVB Disciplinary Committee, nor did he file a statement in his defence.

Hereafter in December 2015 the Person appealed the decision of 25 November 2015 with the KNVB Appeal Committee.
The Person requested for a reduced sanction and he was heard for the Appeal Committee.
The Person argued that he didn’t know that cannabis is a prohibited substance; his use of cannabis was out of competition; and without intention to enhance his performance. He stated that he smoked cannabis at least for one year during the weekends and frequently also on a weekdays. He said that he used out of competition 5 joints with friends in the weekend, 6 days before he provided a sample for drug testing.

The Appeal Committee accepts the Persons explanation and concludes that he is a chronic cannabis user acting with negligence in his responsibility that no prohibited substance enters his body.
Considering the circumstances the KNVB Appeal Committee decides on 26 February 2016 under the Rules to partially accept the Person’s appeal; to reduce the previous imposed sanction; and instead to impose a 9 month period of ineligibility on the Person starting on 25 November 2015.

In July 2015 the Royal Dutch Soccer Association (Koninklijke Nederlandse Voetbalbond, KNVB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Person after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance furosemide.

After notification the Person filed a statement in his defence and waived his right to be heard for the KNVB Disciplinary Committee.
The Person submitted that in the summer he managed to reduce his weight in order to receive a new contract from his club. To keep his weight he used over the counter supplements and thinks that one of these supplement is contaminated with the prohibited substance. The Person stated that he had no intention to enhance his performance and he initiated analysis of the supplements he used. However afterwards the Person reported that he cancelled the analysis of his supplements by a WADA certified laboratorium for financial reasons.

Considering the evidence the Committee concludes that the Person failed to proof how the prohibited substance entered his body and without grounds to reduce the sanction.
Therefore the Disciplinary Committee decides on 28 December 2015 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Person starting on the date of the decision.

Related case:
KNVB 2015 KNVB Decision Appeal Committee 2015026 B
February 26, 2016

In July 2015 the Royal Dutch Soccer Association (Koninklijke Nederlandse Voetbalbond, KNVB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Person after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis with a high concentration (573 ng/ml) above the WADA threshold.

After notification the Person failed to attend the hearing of the KNVB Disciplinary Committee, nor did he file a statement in his defence.
Without the Person’s response the KNVB Disciplianry Committee decides on 2 November 2015 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Person starting on the date of the decision.

Related case:
KNWU 2005 KNWU Decision Disciplinary Committee 2005120 T
September 5, 2005

In April 2005 the Royal Dutch Cycling Union (KNWU) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Person after his A and B samples for the prohibited substance testosterone with a T/E ratio above the WADA threshold.
After notification the Athlete filed a statement with medical files in his defence and he was heard for the KNWU Disciplinary Committee.

The Person explained that his high T/E ratio is caused by his exceptional low testosterone level and that he underwent further medical examinations for his condition.
The Person assumed also that the food supplements he used could have contained contaminations.

The KNWU Disciplinary Committee accepted the Person’s explanation and decided on 1 July 2005 to acquit the Person with the recommendation to apply for a TUE because of his high T/E ratio.

Hereafter in August 2005 the UCI appealed this KNWU decision for acquittal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS Panel concluded that the testosterone in the samples were of exogenous origin and decided to annul the KNWU decision of 1 July 2005 and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Person.

In addition CAS decided in a new proceeding in 2006 to impose a lifetime period of ineligibility on the Person because the he had committed a second anti-doping violation in 2005 .

Related case:
KNWU 2005 KNWU Decision Disciplinary Committee 2005119 T
July 1, 2005

In July 2005 the Royal Dutch Cycling Federation (KNWU) has reported a second anti-doping rule violation against the Person after his A and B samples, provided in Canada in June 2005, tested positive for the prohibited substance recombinant human erythropoetin (rhEPO).
After notification the Person file a statement in his defence and he was heard for the KNWU Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete stated that his team doctor had adminstered him injections and he disputed the reliability of the EPO test. His team doctor denied the administration of EPO and stated that he only had administered supplements.
However evidence showed that the Person previously already had admitted the use of doping to the media and to a KNWU official.

The Committee dismissed the Persons's arguments and concluded that the Person had committed an anti-doping violation. Therefore on 5 September 2005 the KNWU Disciplinary Committee decided on 5 September 2005 to impose a CHF 2000,- fine and a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Person, starting on the date of the decision.

Previously in April 2005 the Person tested positive for testosterone with a T/E ration above the WADA threshold. On 1 July 2005 the KNWU Anti-Doping Committee issued a decision that acquitted the Athlete from any charges related to a doping offence.

However the UCI appealed this KWNU decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) which decided in 2006 to annul the KNWU decision for acquittal and to impose a 2 year period of ineligiblilty.

Hereafter - already involved in an CAS proceeding - the Person filed an appeal with CAS in October 2005 against the KNWU decision of 5 September 2005.
Considering the Person was already sanctioned in the previous CAS decision as a first anti-doping violation the CAS Panel decided in 2006 to dismiss the Person's appeal and to impose a lifetime period of ineligiblilty on the Person.

Related case:
NKB 2012 NKB Decision Disciplinary Committee 2012083 T
March 23, 2012

On 23 March 2012 the Disciplinary Committee of the Netherlands Canoe Union (Nederlandse Kano Bond, NKB) decided to lift the ordered provisional suspension and to acquit the Athlete for using cannabis in 2011. The Committee considered in their decision for acquital the procedural delays and the principle of in dubio pro reo due to conflicting anti-doping regulations about cannabis.

In 2012 the NKB merged with the Royal Netherlands Yachting Union (Koninklijk Nederlands Watersportverbond, KNWV) and was officially disbanded on 28 december 2012. Therefore in April 2012 the Dopingautoriteit appealed the decision of the NKB Disciplinary Committee with the Appeal Committee of the Royal Netherlands Yachting Union (Koninklijk Nederlands Watersportverbond, KNWV).
The Athlete and the KNWV - as legal successor of the NKB - attended the hearing of the Appeal Committee in May 2013 without filing a response in this case.

The KNWV Appeal Committee finds that after the merger and disbandment of the NKB in December 2012 it has jurisdiction and rules that the appeal of the Dopingautoriteit is admissable.
The Dopingautoriteit requested the Appeal Committee to annul the decision of 23 March 2012 and asserted that the NKB Disciplinary Committee failed to specify the conflicting anti-doping regulations in their decision and argued that the Rules have no conflicting anti-doping regulations about cannabis.

The Committee agrees that the NKB anti-doping Rules have no conflicting anti-doping regulations about cannabis and concludes that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation because his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis.
The Appeal Committee upholds the conclusion of the NKB Disciplinary Committee that the Athlete had used cannabis at a party out-of-competition, 2 weeks before the sample collection and without intention to enhance his performance.

Considering the circumstances and the procedural delays in this case the KNWV Appeal Committee decides on 11 June 2013 to annul the decision of 23 March 2012 of the NKB Disciplinary Committee and to impose a reprimand and a warning on the Athlete.