In the Netherlands, the disciplinary proceedings relating to possible doping violations are the responsibility of the sports associations. A number of sports associations have their ‘own’ disciplinary and appeals committees but a large, and increasing, number of associations call in the Institute for Sports Law (ISR), which makes decisions on behalf of the associations.
The position of the Doping Authority in disciplinary procedures
The disciplinary and appeals committees arrive at their decisions independently of the Doping Authority. This does not mean that the Doping Authority is not closely involved in disciplinary proceedings relating to possible doping violations. Clearly, the Doping Authority's task is to ensure that disciplinary proceedings for doping cases in the Netherlands are conducted correctly in accordance with the World Anti-Doping Code and Dutch doping regulations based on that code. The Doping Regulations of the sports associations and the ISR describe and determine the various tasks incumbent upon the Doping Authority in disciplinary procedures. Those tasks involve, on the one hand, supporting and advising the disciplinary bodies in the interpretation and application of the doping regulations and, on the other, correcting decisions that do not comply with those regulations.
The auxiliary role is seen primarily in the contributions made by the Doping Authority during the disciplinary procedures: the Doping Authority is cognisant of the case, states written arguments in which all the relevant regulatory factors are discussed and explained, and also speaks at hearings it attends. The corrective role is seen primarily in the right to appeal that the Doping Authority has in all doping cases, both with national appeals committees and with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne. Furthermore, the Doping Authority is competent to initiate proceedings with the disciplinary committee of an association independently without calling in the board of the association.
The Doping Authority submitted written arguments in the initial proceedings in all disciplinary procedures in the Netherlands during the year under review and attended all the hearings organised as part of these proceedings. When athletes and/or associations appealed against decisions, supplementary statements of arguments were written in all cases.
Decisions were given in two cases in 2013 in appeal proceedings initiated by the Doping Authority against decisions made by disciplinary committees. In some cases, the Doping Authority did not appeal against decisions, but we did issue written comments about decisions; this was primarily the case when decisions were correct in terms of the regulations but incomplete or contradictory in particular areas.
Reporting to WADA and International Sports Federations
The Doping Authority reports on the disciplinary proceedings in doping cases to WADA, which is also entitled to appeal against decisions in those cases. The reports take the form of sending the written decision to WADA, answering supplementary questions upon request and producing supplementary documents and translations of relevant parts of a file. In 2013, a decision was made by the CAS in one case involving an appeal by WADA against a decision made by a Dutch disciplinary body.
The Doping Authority also reports upon request to international sports federations but only if the Dutch sports Association in question does not do so or fails to do so in full. In 2013, there were intensive contacts in some cases with the relevant international federation. International federations are also entitled to make appeals in Dutch doping procedures but no decisions were taken at all in 2013 in any case in which an international federation appealed against a decision made by a Dutch disciplinary body.
Reporting on disciplinary decisions
With effect from 2013, the Doping Authority will be reporting on disciplinary proceedings in doping cases in its own annual report. In that way, the Doping Authority will be reporting - as described above - on procedures in which the Doping Authority is indeed very closely involved but for which the primary responsibility resides elsewhere (in other words, with the sports associations). The decision to proceed in this way was motivated in the first place by the proposed dissolution of the Doping Cases Audit Committee, a board committee of the NOC*NSF. Since 2000, this committee has reported regularly on disciplinary proceedings in all Dutch doping cases, making an assessment of both the promptness and quality of the procedures followed and the substantive correctness of the decision. The Doping Authority has taken over this task with effect from the 2013 annual report, without adopting the reporting procedures (involving the substantive evaluations and recommendations) of the Audit Committee.
The table below lists all 21 decisions taken by Dutch disciplinary and appeals committees in doping cases in 2013 (inclusion depends upon the date of the decision), as well as a decision taken by the CAS in 2013 relating to a Dutch case.
In two cases, the TUE Committee granted a therapeutic use exemption for the use of the substance found after proceedings had been initiated with the association. The relevant sports associations were informed that, from the point of view of the Doping Authority, there were no longer any grounds for proceeding with these cases. In both cases, the associations in question did indeed terminate the proceedings.
In one case, the athlete submitted an appeal against the decision on the basis of a change in the regulations that benefited the athlete.
The reports include only definitive decisions that are no longer open to appeal. If the decision has been made pursuant to an appeal, this is stated in the final column together with an indication of which party or parties submitted the appeal. If the doping violation has been transferred to the Netherlands for disciplinary proceedings by an organisation from another country, this is also stated.
|Sport||finding/substance||decision||year of violation||Details|
|Billiard sports (pool)||cannabis||warning/reprimand||2012|
|Archery||hydrochlorothiazide||file closed||2013||Therapeutic use exemption was granted after all after proceedings had been initiated.|
|Ice hockey||cocaine / amphetamine||1 year suspension||2013||Decision in appeal instigated by athlete|
|Ice hockey||methylhexanamine||4 month suspension||2012||Decision in appeal instigated by Doping Authority|
|Judo||cocaine||guilty, no punishment imposed||2012||Case handed over by Flemish NADO|
|Judo||methylhexanamine||18 month suspension||2011||Decision by CAS (Lausanne) after appeal by WADA|
|Canoeing||cannabis||warning/reprimand||2011||Decision in appeal instigated by Doping Authority|
|Strength sports (bench presses)||stanozolol / cannabis||2 year suspension||2013|
|Strength sports (bench presses)||nandrolone / drostanolone||2 year suspension||2013|
|Strength sports (weightlifting)||cannabis||punishment suspended||2012||Review at request of athlete|
|Strength sports (weightlifting)||cannabis||warning/reprimand||2012|
|Strength sports (powerlifting)||methandienone / oxilofrine||2 year suspension||2013|
|Strength sports (powerlifting)||methylhexanamine||1 year suspension||2012|
|Strength sports (wrestling)||attempted evasion||acquittal||2012||Decision in appeal instigated by athlete ; case handed over by Surinam NADO|
|Rugby||methyldioximethamphetamine||2 year suspension||2013|
|Rugby||methandienone||2 year suspension||2012|
|Shooting||oxycodone||file closed||2013||Therapeutic use exemption was granted after all after proceedings had been initiated.|
|Wakeboarding||cannabis||warning/reprimand||2012||Decision in appeal instigated by federation and, incidentally, by athlete|
|Wakeboarding||cannabis||warning/reprimand||2012||Decision in appeal instigated by federation|
|Cycling||methylhexanamine||warning/reprimand||2013||Case handed over by UCI|
|Cycling||tamoxifen||2 year suspension||2012|