On 6 July 2011 the Koninklijke Nederlandse Baseball en Softball Bond (KNBSB), the Royal Dutch Baseball and Softball Federation, decided to impose a 9 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the KNBSB decision of 6 July 2011.
The Athlete did not dispute the positive test or the anti-doping rule violation. The Athlete invoked the principle of proportionality due to the imposed sanction is too severe. In Addition the Dopingautoriteit, Anti-Doping Authority the Netherlands, provided information to the KNBSB to determine the sanction related to cannabis anti-doping rule violations in the Netherlands.

The Appeal Committee concludes that the imposed sanction was disproportional. Therefore the KNBSB Appeal Commission decides to set aside the decision of the KNBSB Disciplinary Committee of 6 July 2011 and to impose a reprimand on the Athlete.

The Koninklijke Nederlandse Baseball en Softball Bond (KNBSB), the Royal Dutch Baseball and Softball Federation, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis.

At the hearing the Athlete admitted the use of cannabis. Without intention to enhance sport performance the KNBSB Disciplinary Committee decides to impose a 9 month period of ineligibility, starting on 1 July 2011.

In June 2012 the Nederlandse Volleyball Bond (Nevobo), the Netherlands Volleyball Association, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis. After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and waived his right to be heard for the Nevobo Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete admitted the use of the substance and stated he wasn’t aware of the consequences of smoking cannabis.
Considering the circumstances the NeVoBo Disciplinary Committee decides only to reprimand the Athlete on 14 July 2012.

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