Related Cases:
- NBB 2008 NBB Decision Disciplinary Committee 2008063 T
April 7, 2009
- Dutch District Court 2008 Athlete 2008063 vs NBB
March 10, 2010

Defendant appeals against the decision of the disciplinary committee of the Netherlands Badminton Association (Nederlandse Badminton Bond, NBB). Also the Board of the NBB appeals against the decision of the disciplinary committee.

Defendant was unaware, nor had any suspicion, that the ecstasy pills contained the prohibited substances. Also defendant claims that the NBB failed to give sufficient information about the Anti-Doping Code (ADC) rules.

The board of the NBB in her view thinks that period of ineligibility should be 2 years, there are no conditions to reduce the period.

The appeal commission findings are that the defendant has violated the Anti-Doping code rules for testing positive on the prohibited substances MDMA, MDA and 11-nor-∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol-9-carboxylic acid. These substances belong to the non-specific substances for which a reduction can be applicable.
The is no lack of information that the NBB gave toward the ABC rules.
Reduction of the period of ineligibility should be given with great consideration. The lapsed time, usage or intention for taken ecstasy is not important. The appeal committee doesn't agree with the disciplinary committee to reduce the period of ineligibility because this was the first case in badminton.

The appeal committee declines the appeal of the defendant and grants the appeal of the board of the NBB, the decision is a period of ineligibility of two years.

Mr. Kisialiou is an athlete from Belarus in the sport op IPC Wheelchair Dance Sport, participating in the 2010 IPC Wheelchair Dance Sport World Championships.

The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) has reported an anti doping rule violation against Mr. Ihar Kisialiou (the Respondent) after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 11-nor-9-carboxy-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (a metabolite of cannabis).
The IPC notified Respondent of the doping violation and ordered a provisional suspension.
The notification letter enclosed a letter “Letter of Decision” for the Respondent to complete and return to IPC no later than 28 December 2010.

On 27 December 2010, the Respondent returned the Letter of Decision to the IPC. In the letter, The Respondent signed that he accepted that he did not have a TUE granted for the prohibited substance; that he accepted a provisional suspension starting on the date of the notification of an adverse analytical finding (18 December 2010); that he accepted the results of the A sample analysis; that he expressly waived the right of B sample analysis; that he accepted to have committed an anti-doping rule violation in accordance with Article 2.1 of the Code; and that he accepted the consequences of the anti-doping rule violation as proposed.

By returning the “Letter of Decision”, duly completed and signed, the Respondent accepts an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 of the Code, and accepts the proposed sanction.

The IPC Anti-Doping Committee recommends as follows:
(a) The Respondent is automatically disqualified of his individual results obtained in the 2010 IPC Wheelchair Dance Sport World Championships from the date of 6 November 2010 onward, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes won;
(b) A two year period of ineligibility, commencing as from the date of the provisional suspension, is imposed on the Respondent. As such, the Respondent is declared ineligible from 18 December 2010 until 17 December 2012;
(c) The disqualification of all competition results including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes obtained subsequent to the sample collection on 6 November 2010, if any exist.

On 11 January 2011 the IPC Governing Board accepted the recommendation of the IPC Anti-Doping Committee.

Related cases:
- NBB 2008 NBB Decision Appeal Committee 2008063 B
Juni 30, 2009
- Dutch District Court 2008 Athlete 2008063 vs NBB
March 10, 2010

The Netherlands Badminton Association (Nederlandse Badminton Bond, NBB) reports a violation of the Anti-Doping Code, during a in-competition doping test the prohibited substances MDMA, MDA and 11-nor-∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol-9-carboxylic acid was revealed. Defendant used an ecstasy pill which caused the positive result. The mentioned prohibited substance is on the list of non-specific substances, and the committee agrees that the substance wasn't used for enhancing sport performance.
The defendant, as a member of the NBB, should have known the negative effect of taken an ecstasy pill.
Therefore the decision of the disciplinary committee reduces the period of ineligibility to one year, commencing one day after sending the decision.
An appeal con be made within 10 days.

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.

related cases:
CAS 2006_A_1025 Mariano Puerta vs ITF
July 12, 2006
ITF 2005 ITF vs Mariano Puerta
December 21, 2005

Player appealed against decision of the ATP Tour. During a doping test his A and B-sample revealed the prohibited substance clenbuterol. The ATP has adopted rules, the ATP Tour 2003 Official Rulebook, which is applicable to this case.
The lab reported the results of the doping test to the Anti-Doping program administrator(APA), he selects a review board (RB). The RB determines that the A-sample was positive and a medical Liaison (ML) contacts the player for further information. After consideration the B-sample was also tested. The B-sample was also positive on clenbuterol, the player is informed and advised to be in suspension till the hearing took place within the 60-day guideline. The hearing was held on December 1, 2003, the player provided written statements from himself, his brother, his fiancée, his attending physician, a friend and an expert report and a consultant in medical biochemistry. The player and his physician where cross-examined by the ATP-counsel.
Clenbuterol is considered as an anti-asthma medication that is also a powerful anabolic agent. Player has proof he suffered from an asthma attack and he will ask for a therapeutic use exemption. He didn't know the prohibited substance was in his medicine. The question remains if this can be regarded as special circumstances. The player had a moderate asthma attack and he didn't report this, his situation was solved with pills such treatment does not indicate an emergency situation. His physician can still apply for a exemption for the use of his medicine.
The tribunal also concludes that the RB did take appropriate steps to make a reasonable and well-documented decision on whether the A-sample should be disqualified.
The player submits that the APA did not administer the RB process with diligence when it permitted one member to miss the conference call.
The tribunal finds that the principle of proportionality ought to be applied to the forfeiture of prize money because the doping violation was had no performance enhancing effect.
The special circumstances the player claims for not knowing he used a prohibited substance is not valid. Elite Athletes are well aware of the problems for sport in the clandestine use of performance enhancing drugs. Especially with medicine he has to make inquiries as to what medicine had been prescribed. Also avoiding the substance was possible if he had told the physician that he was a professional tennis athlete.

Decision:
The sanction will be a suspension of 9 months, inclusive of the voluntary suspension and will end on July 1, 2004.
Ranking points and prize money earned at the tournament are to be forfeited. Only the prize money of the tournament in which the positive analytical result was found will apply to the principle of proportionality.

Appellant appealed against decision of the ATP Tour. During a doping control a violation of the Anti-Doping regulation (ADR) occurred, his A-sample contained the prohibited substances noranderosterone and noretiocholanolone. Also the B-sample was tested positive on these substances, therefore appellant stayed in voluntary suspension. The hearing of the tribunal was held in the appropriate time limit on April 22, 2003.
A written statement was delivered and an expert report was filed. Sworn affidavits of each witness intended to be called as a witness. There was a difference in the amount of nandrolone in the A and B sample mentioned in the lab reports but this was due to standards of limits for measuring.
The appellant has been found guilty for a doping offence. However he has no idea how the substance had entered his body also the minimal level of the test results would not have enhanced his sport performance.
The test result are regarded as valid although the variation in the A and B-sample. There are cases (Meca-Medina) which describe the result mentioned as a grey zone due to endogenous production of nandrolone, the tribunal rejects these submissions.
The ADR shows that an athlete is responsible for what is in his body. Endogenous production or consumption contaminated meat only conveal trace amounts of nandrolone metabolites, there is no basis for that in de appellant's sample.
For not knowing how the prohibited substance entered his body there are no grounds for exceptional circumstances.
The decision is a mandatory two year suspension, commencing on 26 October 2002 till 25 October 2004, collected prize money in the ATP 2002 has to be returned and points earned are struck out. Also prize money of other games in that period have to be returned and points gained are struck out.

CAS 2005/A/872 Union Cycliste Internationale v. Federico Muñoz Fernandez & Federación Colombiana de Ciclismo

On 27 October 2004 Mr. Muñoz participated in the Vuelta a Guatemala where he was selected to supply a urine sample.
On 20 December 2004 the Union Cycling Union (UCI) reported an anti doping rule violation against Mr. Muñoz after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO).

On 18 February 2005 The Federación Colombiana de Ciclismo (FCC) Disciplinary Committee concluded that Mr. Muñoz had violated the anti-doping rules and decided to impose a period of ineligibility of 18 months. The FCC did not disqualify Mr. Muñoz’s results from the Vuelta a Guatemala.

Mr. Muñoz appealed against this FCC Disciplinary Committee’s decision to the General Disciplinary Committee of the Colombian National Olympic Committee. On 21 April 2005 the Colombian National Olympic Committee declared the decision of the FCC Disciplinary Committee to by null and void, and remitted the matter to the FCC for re-hearing.

On 20 April 2005 the UCI appealed against the FCC Disciplinary Committee’s decision, dated 18 February 2005, to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Both parties were heard for the Panel and filed their statements and documents in their defence.

Because it is an athlete’s responsibility to ensure that what enters into his body does not contain a prohibited substance, the Panel concluded Mr. Muñoz had to do more than simply rely on his doctor. He should attempt to obtain written confirmation from the doctor that the medicines he administered did not contain any prohibited substances.

It is essential that doctors who treat athlete play their full part in de waging of the fight against doping in sport. It can be no excuse for a doctor who is treating an athlete not to make himself familiar with the list of prohibited substances.

The Panel finds Mr. Muñoz took no precautions and must bear the responsibility for his failure. On the facts of this case the Panel cannot eliminate or reduce a 2 year sanction that must follow from Mr. Muñoz failure. That period will commence on 18 February 2005, the date of the FCC decision.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 30 January 2006 that:

1.) The appeal by the Union Cycliste Internationale against the decision issued on 18 February 2005 by the Disciplinary Commission of the Federación Colombiana de Ciclismo is allowed.

2.) Mr. Muñoz is disqualified from the Vuelta a Guatemala and all of his results since 27 October 2004 are cancelled.

3.) Mr Federico Muñoz Fernandez is ineligible to compete in cycling races for two years from 18 February 2005 until 17 February 2007.

4.) This award is pronounced without costs, except for the court office fee of CHF 500 paid by the Union Cycliste Internationale, which is retained by the CAS.

5.) The Federación Colombiana de Ciclismo shall pay the Union Cycliste Internationale a contribution of CHF 5,000 towards the latter's legal and other costs relating to this arbitration.

TAS 2005/A/965 UCI c/ AMA & Franck Bouyer

CAS 2005/A/965 UCI vs WADA & Franck Bouyer

Related case:

CAS 2004_A_769 Franck Bouyer vs WADA & UCI
March 18, 2005

The French cyclist Franck Bouyer was diagnosed with Narcolepsy and therefore the medication Modafinil was prescribed as treatment. Because Modafinil is a prohibited substance he needed a valid TUE.

In 2004 the UCI and WADA denied the Athlete's TUE applications for the use of Modafinil which was confirmed by CAS in March 2005. Thereupon in June 2005 again the UCI TUE Committee denied the Athlete's second TUE application.

The Athlete appealed with WADA and on 19 August 2005 the WADA TUE Committee approved the Athlete's TUE application. Hereafter the UCI Appealed the WADA Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

Following assessment of the case the Panel deems that not has been demonstrated that the use of the prescribed Modafinil would not improve the Athlete's sport performance. The Panel concludes that the WADA TUE Committee erroneously applied the criteria to grant the TUE application.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decisides on 13 March 2006:

1.) The decision is of the WADA TUE Committee is annuled.

2.) The WADA has to pay a fine of CHF 1000,-. to the UCI.

Submission of the Dutch Rugby Union (Nederlandse Rugby Bond, NRB) regarding the reported anti-doping rule violations against several rugby players for their failures to submit to sample collection. The proceeding against one player was ceased due to the NRB established that he had to be treated in a hospital due tu his injuries.

Claimant of the Dutch Rugby Union (Nederlandse Rugby Bond, NRB) reports an Anti-Doping Rule violation (ADRV); defendant was tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylenedioxyamphetamine during a doping test. This finding is a violation of section 3 of the ADRV as used by the NRB.
Defendant did send in writing his view about the positive test. During the visit of a fair he fell ill after drinking a few beers. Friends called in as witnesses affirmed that he suddenly fell ill, it is possible a third party administered a drug in his drinks. Also his mother witnessed he came home ill after visiting the fair.
After the positive result of his doping test he was put in voluntary suspension.
The penalty for this violation is a two-year period of ineligibility.
The defendant didn't send in a dispensation form.
In writing and at the oral hearing on April 12, 2007, the defendant asks to lift the period of ineligibility because of no fault or negligence.
The disciplinary committee concludes that the appeal of no fault or negligence will not be accepted. An Athlete stays responsible for the administering of prohibited substances to his body even if he was very careful. There are however no facts for no significant fault or negligence, which could lead to a reduction of the sanction. The athlete was unable to point out precisely how the prohibited substance was administered to his body; this also doesn't lift the sanction.
There are no regulations for discretionary powers to lift the penalty, the minimum is a two-year period of ineligibility. Regarding the career of the young athlete and the liable testimonies the decision is a six week reduction the two-year sentence.
An appeal can be made at the CAS within 21 days after delivery.