You are reading the eighth annual report from the Dutch Anti-Doping Authority. This is the third annual report to be published exclusively in digital form.

2013 was the year when, particularly as a reaction to the condemnation of the American cyclist Lance Armstrong, a change began to take shape in the attitudes of both press and public with respect to anti-doping policies. The Doping Authority launched a relatively wide-ranging investigation with the aim of, on the one hand, identifying doping violations and initiating disciplinary proceedings (by the Authority or by other parties) and, on the other, of ‘learning from the past to avoid repetition in the future’. As a result of the collaboration with our colleagues from, for example, USADA and Anti-Doping Danmark, the investigation soon acquired an international dimension. In a separate development, the Anti-Doping Approach Commission chaired by former Dutch Minister Winnie Sorgdrager, investigated the doping culture in Dutch cycling.

The number of contacts with the press throughout 2013 would seem to justify the conclusion that these developments will continue to affect the position and 'profile' of the Doping Authority. It is no longer possible to respond to all requests for information and comment. Nevertheless, the numerous contacts with the media did result in an extremely large number of publications and broadcasts that included the information and points of view communicated by the Doping Authority.

As a result of all these developments, more and more questions were asked about the limited resources and powers available to the Doping Authority for the fulfilment of its duties. In late 2012, a motion was adopted in the Lower House that was intended, among other things, to improve coordination between the various ministries relating to doping issues, and the same issues were raised in late 2013 in the Sport Legislation Consultation Platform. As a result, the one-off additional project subsidy of €200,000 that we received for 2013 became a structural component of our institutional subsidy from 2014 onwards. In part as a result of this additional financing, we expect to be in a better position to successfully conduct even very complex cases.

On the basis of agreements made in the distant past, the urine controls conducted by the Doping Authority are not financed using subsidies from the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport but from lottery funding. In 2013, a new four-year lottery spending plan came into effect that included an increase in the contribution for the Doping Authority. On the basis of the available financial resources, the target for 2013 was maintained at 1,800 doping controls. Ultimately, 1,910 doping controls took place under the auspices of the Dutch National Programme, including 61 blood controls financed with funding from the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports.

The Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports granted two multi-year project subsidies and so the Doping Authority was again able to make progress in 2013 on a doctorate study of the efficacy of global anti-doping policies, and on a knowledge management project that will make more and more doping-related information available to the public. Reports will be produced about both projects upon termination in 2014.

Despite the ongoing struggle to balance the responsibilities of the organisation and the available resources, we believe that, once again in 2013, we made an important contribution to the fight against doping in sport. We hope you will agree with us after reading this Annual Report.