Facts
The Netherlands Judo Association (Judo Bond Nederland, JBN) had charged the respondent for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match in October 2012 a sample was taken for doping test purposes. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of cocaine. Cocaine is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
Respondent at first doubted the results from the laboratory but later he mentioned the use of tea from coca leaves as the cause for the positive test. He handed over the tea bags for analysis. The laboratory confirmed that the concentration in this tea could have caused the positive test.

The panel doesn't regard tea as a supplement, and the respondent could have been unaware that he was drinking coca tea. For which this case is regarded as "no fault or negligence".

Decision
1. The respondent is acquitted.
2. The administrative fee has to be paid by the JBN.

Related case:
NIJB 2012 NIJB Decision Disciplinary Committee 2012060 T
March 15, 2013

Facts
On 15 March 2013 the Disciplinary Committee of the Netherlands Ice Hockey Federation (Nederlandse IJshockey Bond, NIJB) imposed a conditional 1 year period of ineligibility with two years' probation on the Player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine)
Hereafter in March 2013 the Anti-doping Authority Netherlands (Dopingautoriteit) appealed the decision of 15 March 2013 with the NIJB Appeal Committee.

Submissions Anti-doping Authority Netherlands
The Rules have no possibility to impose suspended sanctions or non-playing sanctions although an exclusion to play is possible. Also the sanction wasn't made within the correct time limit.
There are grounds to reduce the sanction although the player acted negligence with the supplement.

Submissions player
Player argued that under the Rules the NIJB faild to open disciplinary proceedings withing the time limit. Also the Rules doesn't allow suspended sanctions. Due to the delays he couldn't play and because of the media publicity he was afraid to lose his new job.

Considerations panel
The panel notes that the player failed to research the ingredients of supplements before using. It agrees that the procedural delays are grounds for reducing the sanction. The broad publicity in the media and the fear of losing his job is not a consideration because this was the result of his negligence.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of four months.
2. The earlier sanction of the disciplinary committee is cancelled.
3. The decision start from May 1, 2013.

Related case:
ISR 2013 NWWB Decision Appeal Committee 2012051 B
April, 22 2013

Facts
In November 2011 the Netherlands Water Ski & Wakeboard Federation (NWWB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance JWH-018 (a synthetic cannabinoid).

History
The athlete failed to mention the use of a pharmaceutical product on the doping control form and it was used to treat her menstrual pain. Also the use of sleeping pills were mentioned. In the past the athlete was an user of cannabis because of personal circumstances and an physical injury which took her out of training for six months. She used cannabis to handle the depression she suffered from. Hereafter she stopped using. There was no intention to enhance sport performance.

The panel considers the use of cannabis as a fault but understands how the personal mischief had led to the use of it. The sanction will be reduced but if there is another doping violation she will be excluded of the sport.

Decision
1. The athlete is sanctioned with a reprimand.
2. The athlete has to pay the administrative costs of the case.

Facts
The appellant appeals against the decision, dated April 26, 2012, of the disciplinary committee of the Royal Dutch Cycling Federation (Koninklijke Nederlandsche Wielren Unie, KNWU) for which the sanction was a period of ineligibility of two years for the positive finding of a metabolite of the prohibited substance methyltestosterone.

History
The appellant claims irregularities which where not communicated and for that reason couldn't be used in the defence. The B-sample analysis was done without permission of the appellant. Also the appellant argues that the marker used for analysis could have caused the positive test.
However the panel considers the doping test as valid according to the international standards. Appellant had succeeded in proving that the positive test was caused by contaminated supplements, which allows a reduction of the sanction.

Decision
1. The sanction is reduced to a period of ineligibility of one year.

Facts
The French Golf Federation (Fédération Française de Golf, FFGOLF) charges respondent M45 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on November 28, 2004, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of cocaine. Cocaine is a prohibited substance according to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent was sanctioned by the disciplinary committee with a period of ineligibility of 18 months, from which six months conditionally. Respondent had appealed against this decision and was acquitted.
He claimed to have used the stimulant against fatigue because his wife was delivering their first child. Respondent claims that the doping control form was not handed out at him for his signature. Also he objected against the doping control facility and he had refused the control analyses.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of 18 months, for which 6 months conditionally, respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the disciplinary committee of the FFGolf.
2. The decision starts on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Related case:

SAIDS 2010 ASA vs Lindhikayaa Mthangayi
April 9, 2010

In September 2013 the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Lindhikaya Leeds Mthangayi after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance metandienone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete admitted the use of the prohibited substance. The Athlete argued that he used only the usual supplements and claimed that the substance entered his system after he shared a water bottle with fellow Athletes.

The Committee dismissed the Athlete’s statement due to the fact that he failed to show evidence and also failed to identify the Athlete who shared his water bottle with him.
Considering this is the Athlete’s second anti-doping rule violation, the SAIDS Disciplinary Committee decides on 8 May 2014 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 22 September 2013.

Facts
The French Federation for Savate, French Boxing and Associated Disciplines (Fédération Française de Savate Boxe Française et Disciplines Associées, FFSBFDA) charges respondent M44 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an event on March 13, 2005, respondent provided a sample for doping control. Analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of cannabis.

History
The respondent explained by letter that he had used cannabis only occasionally.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of three months, from which one month conditionally, in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized by the FFSBFDA.
2. The decision starts on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Pétanque Federation (Fédération Française de pétanque et jeu provençal, FFPJP) charges respondent M43 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on March 20, 2005, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of propranolol which is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.

History
The respondent had a prescription for the use of medication, he didn't knew that it contained a prohibited substance.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of 6 months, from which 3 months conditionally, in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by the FFPJP.
3. The sanction starts on the date of notifcation.
3. The decision will not be published.
4. The decision will be sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Athletics Federation (Fédération Française d'athlétisme, FFA) charges respondent M42 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an athletics event on August 15, 2005, respondent didn't attend the doping control.

History
Respondent didn't provide any information about the reason for the evasion of the doping control.

Decision
1. The sanction is a permanent ban for taking part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by approved sport federations.
2. The decision starts on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The French Federation for Public Physical Education (Union Française des Oeuvres Laïques d'Éducation Physique, UFOLEP) charges respondent M39 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an cycling event on May 7, 2005, respondent refused to attend a doping control.

History
The respondent claims not to have been briefed for needing to attend a doping control. Despite the effort of the organizers and delegates he doensn't comply.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of one year in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestations organized or authorized by sport federations.
2. The decision starts on October 10, 2005.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.