In October 2012 the Koninklijke Nederlandse Hockey Bond (KNHB), the Royal Netherlands Hockey Federation, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) and cocaine.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the KNHB Disciplinary Committee.
The Athlete admitted he had used MDMA and cocaine at a party one week before the doping test. He expressed his regret for the violation and stated that he had no intention to enhance his sport performance.

Considering the circumstances and with no significant fault or negligence, the KNHB Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of provisional suspension, i.e. on 11 October 2012.

In May 2013 the Koninklijke Nederlandse Krachtsport en Fitnessfederatie (KNKF), the Royal Netherlands Power Sport and Fitness Federation, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 2α-methyl-5α-androstan-3α.-ol-17-one (metabolite of drostanolone) and 19-norandrosterone (metabolite of nandrolone).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered.
The Athlete failed to submit a statement in his defence nor did he attend the hearing of the KNKF Disciplinary Committee.
Without the Athlete’s statement the KNFF Disciplinary Committee decides on 18 July 2013 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 6 May 2013.
Fees and expenses for this committee shall be borne by the Athlete.

In August 2013 the Nederlandse Rugby Bond (NRB), the Dutch Rugby Union, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. De Athlete failed to submit a statement in his defence nor did he attend the hearing of the ISR-NRB Disciplinary Committee.
Without the Athlete’s statement the ISR-NRB Disciplinary Committee decides on 25 September 2013 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 31 July 2013.
Fees and expenses for this committee shall be borne by the Athlete.

In November 2012 the Koninklijke Nederlandsche Wielren Unie (KNWU), the Royal Dutch Cycling Federation, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance tamoxifen.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. De Athlete failed to submit a statement in his defence nor did he attend the hearing of the KNWU Disciplinary Committee.
Without the Athlete’s statement the KNWU Disciplinary Committee decides on 29 January 2013 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 1 November 2012.
Fees and expenses for this committee shall be borne by the Athlete.

Emile Vrijman’s paper published in the 2007 1-2 edition of the International Sports Law Journal.

WADA has read the above-mentioned article and is deeply troubled that a journal of the International Sports Law Journal’s standing could publish such an obviously self-serving document, in which the author of a supposedly independent report that was fatally flawed in all respects - methodological, legal and factual - makes an inherently biased attempt to justify and critique his own report.

WADA commented publicly on the so-called Vrijman Report one year ago, upon its release. That statement, which was published on WADA's website, is attached to this letter. Vrijman claims in his self-serving article that “WADA reserves no more than four pages for its criticism” of his investigation. To be accurate, WADA's official statement includes twelve pages of detailed criticism. Although Vrijman's completely unprofessional report arguably did not deserve such attention due to its lack of impartiality, independence, and total disrespect of proper legal process, WADA felt it was necessary to correct the record.
We are concerned that your journal has allowed itself to be manipulated by affording Vrijman an apparently credible platform to defend his exceptionally unprofessional work.
WADA respectfully requests that you publish this response.

The “Official Statement from WADA on the Vrijman Report”: Unintentional Proof to the Contrary / Emile Vrijman. – (International Sports Law Journal (2007) 1-2 (Apr-Jun) : p. 3-10)

Content:

1.) Introduction
1.2) Procedural aspects
1.3) WADA’s response
1.4) Purpose of this article
2.) The reason for an investigation
2.1) An Article in a newspaper
2.2) An investigation?
2.3) Letter of Authority
3.) Findings of the independent investigation
3.1) The investigators
3.2) Analyses LNDD of the urine sample from the 1999 Tour de France
3.3) The LNDD’s report
3.4) The UCI’s role
3.5) WADA’s role
3.6) Evaluation of the results of the investigation
4.) The “WADA Statement”
4.1) Structure of the WADA Statement
4.2) WADA’s criticism with regard to the findings of the investigation
4.3) Response to WADA’s criticisms
4.4) Conclusions with regard to the WADA Statement

Based on a general analysis of (the content of ) the WADA Statement itself, this article will examine in detail WADA’s criticism regrading (the conduct of ) the investigation in general and, more specifically, its results, in particular as far as the assessment of (the extent and nature of ) WADA’s involvement in this matter and the legitimacy of that involvement are concerned. Furthermore, this article will show why both the manner of WADA’s response, as well as the arguments it has put forward in the Statement, appear to confirm - it must be assumed unintentionally - rather then deny the investigation’s findings and assessment of WADA’s involvement in this matter.

Finally, this article will consider whether, and to what extent, the investigation’s findings regarding WADA might, at the same time, provide a possible explanation for the absence of any response or reaction, let alone action, by the “International Olympic Committee” (“IOC”), “International Sports Federations” (“IFs”) and national governments.
Given the fact, however, that almost one year has passed since the “Vrijman report” was first published, the article will begin by briefly summarising the principal facts and events which prompted the (“UCI”), the coordinating International Federation responsible for the sport of cycling, at the time to commission the independent investigation concerned, before proceeding to consider the main findings of the investigation in this matter as contained in the “Vrijman report”.

Following analysis of the so-called "Vrijman report" submitted to the International Cycling Union (UCI) in relation to the August 2005 L’Équipe article that concluded Lance Armstrong had used EPO during the 1999 Tour de France, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) issues its official statement highlighting a number of the unprofessional, inaccurate, unfair and misleading elements of the report.

Content:

- Background
- Process
- Substance of report

Independent Investigation Analysis Samples from the 1999 Tour de France / E.N. Vrijman, Adriaan van der Veen, J.P.R. Scholten. – The Hague : Scholten c.s. Advocaten, 2006-05-01.- 370 p., fig., lit. – Report of the team of the independent investigator

Content:

1.) Executive Summary
2.) General Introduction
3.) The start of the investigation
4.) Addressing the issues concerned
4a.) Findings
4b.) Discussion of Findings
5.) Unanswered Questions, Conclusions and Recommendation

The independent investigation of all facts and circumstances regarding the analyses of the urine samples of the 1998 and 1999 Tours de France conducted by the French WADA-accredited Laboratory, the laboratoire Nationate De Depistage Du Dopage' ('LNDD') in Chatenay-Malabry, France, was the result of allegations made in the newspaper article 'Armstrong's lie', published in the French newspaper L'Equipe on August 23, 2005, that the American cyclist and seven-time winner of the Tour de France, Lance Armstrong, had used the prohibited substance 'recombinant EPO' (hereinafter: 'r-EPO') during the 1999 Tour de France.

According to the article, six urine samples of Armstrong from the 1999 Tour de France allegedly tested positive for r-EPO when analysed by the LNDD as part of ongoing research to further improve the existing detection method for r-EPO. In addition, it was alleged that six other urine samples, from six other riders, had also tested positive for r-EPO.

Conclusions:

Although no documentation has been made available, it is the opinion of the independent investigator that it may be accepted that the samples from the 1998 and 1999 Tours de France have been analysed by the LNDD for research purposes. WADA however, while claiming initially that the samples had been analysed for research purposes only, asked the LNDD to provide additional information, in particular the original codes of the samples that were analysed.

It is the conclusion of the investigator that WADA had also the intention that the research results, in combination with the additional information requested by WADA, be used for disciplinary purposes against individual athletes, directly contrary to its representation that the results would not be used "for any sanction purpose". In this sense one can speak of targeting by WADA of the participants of the 1998 and 1999 Tours de France.

The conclusion of the investigator is that the results reported by the LNDD in its research reports on the 1998 and 1999 Tours de France cannot be qualified as constituting Presumptive Analytical Findings, much less Adverse Analytical Findings and consequently do not provide proof of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation. The investigator has had no indication whether the "appropriate exchange of correspondence" or oral contacts between WADA and LNDD might have led to preventing that proper information on the "accelerated measurement procedure" and its limitations was inserted in the reports.

In addition the investigator concludes:
The LNDD violated applicable rules on athlete confidentiality by accepting to provide additional information, in particular the sample codes, to WADA. This applies notwithstanding the condition of strict confidentiality stipulated by the LNDD.
The LNDD violated applicable rules on athlete confidentiality by commenting publicly on the alleged positive findings, especially in relation with a particular rider, Lance Armstrong.
WADA violated applicable rules on athlete confidentiality by commenting publicly on the alleged positive findings, especially in relation with a particular rider, Lance Armstrong.
There is no factual basis to find that there has been an Adverse Analytical Finding, let alone that an Anti-Doping Rule Violation could be asserted. There is no way to conduct valid additional analysis of any remaining urine. Consequently, there is no basis for disciplinary action against any rider.

Recommendation:
Taking into account the conclusions drawn in this report as at this stage of the investigation, the UCI is recommended to refrain from initiating any disciplinary action whatsoever regarding those riders alleged to have been responsible for causing one or more alleged "Adverse Analytical Findings", on the basis of the confidential reports of the LNDD "Recherche EPO Tour de France 1998" and "Recherche EPO Tour de France 1999", and should inform allot the riders involved that no action will be taken based on the research testing by the LNDD.

Facts
The French Handball Federation (Fédération Française de Handball, FFHB) charges respondent M93 or a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on December 11, 2010, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of a metabolite of cannabis above the threshold value. Cannabis is a prohibited substance according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. Cannabis is regarded as a specified substance.

History
The respondent didn't provide any explanation about how the prohibited substance had entered his body.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of six months in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestation organized or authorized by the FFHB.
2. The decision starts on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
The Fédération Française Handisport (FFH) charges respondent M91 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a wheelchair football match, on November 27, 2010, the respondent provided a sample for doping tests. His sample tested positive on a prednisolone and prednisone. Prednisolone and prednisones are prohibited substances on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list and regarded as specified substances.

History
The respondent has indicated that medication for a treatment is the cause of the positive test. There is proof of an subscription.

Decision
1. The sanction is a period of ineligibility of three months in which respondent can't take part in competition or manifestions organized or organized by the FFH.
2. The decision of March 19, 2011, by the disciplinary committee of the FFH should be modified.
3. The decision will take effect on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved