The case revolves around a doping violation by a Dutch billiard player, referred to as N, who tested positive for benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of cocaine, during an in-competition anti-doping control in April 2009. The substance was listed as prohibited under the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) and the regulations of the Royal Dutch Billiards Federation (KNBB). The athlete admitted to the violation but argued that his cocaine use was recreational and unrelated to sports performance. Initially, the Dutch Appeals Committee (DAC) reduced the standard two-year ban to one year, citing mitigating factors such as the lack of performance-enhancing effects of cocaine in billiards, the athlete's admission of use, and his public expressions of regret. The DAC also noted that cocaine use outside competition would not have constituted a violation, suggesting its limited relevance to athletic performance.
However, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) emphasized the WADC's strict harmonization principles, which limit the applicability of proportionality in sanctions. The CAS panel ruled that factors like the athlete’s age, lack of intent to enhance performance, and the nature of the sport should not influence the standard two-year ban. The panel found that the DAC had overstepped by considering these mitigating factors, as the WADC does not differentiate between substances based on their performance-enhancing effects or the context of use. The decision reinforced the principle that uniform sanctions are necessary to maintain consistency in anti-doping efforts across all sports and levels of competition. The CAS upheld the original two-year ban, stressing that the WADC’s framework leaves little room for discretionary reductions based on subjective assessments of fault or sport-specific considerations.
The athlete’s arguments for a reduced sanction, including his lack of intent to enhance performance and the non-performance-enhancing nature of cocaine in billiards, were deemed insufficient. The CAS highlighted that cocaine is not classified as a specified substance under the WADC, meaning intent is irrelevant. The athlete’s late admission during proceedings also disqualified him from receiving a reduced sanction, as the rules require voluntary admission before notification of a suspected violation. The CAS referenced prior rulings and legal opinions supporting the WADC’s rigid framework, noting that fixed sanctions are compatible with human rights principles as they aim to standardize penalties and deter doping.
The Doping Authority of the Netherlands (DAC) had initially argued for a reduced sanction based on proportionality, citing the athlete’s lack of prior violations, unintentional use, and inadequate information from the sports association about cocaine’s traceability. However, the CAS concluded that the DAC’s decision was unjustified under the WADC, as the fixed two-year sanction must be applied unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated, which were not present in this case. The ruling underscored the importance of strict adherence to anti-doping rules, regardless of personal circumstances or the substance’s performance-enhancing effects.
The CAS also addressed the starting date of the suspension, confirming it would begin on 25 August 2009, in compliance with the ISR Doping Regulations. The decision balanced the need for strict anti-doping measures with the protection of athletes’ rights, aligning with international and national legal standards. Ultimately, the CAS upheld the appeal of the Doping Authority Netherlands, imposing the standard two-year suspension and rejecting all other relief requests. The case highlights the tension between strict anti-doping regulations and fairness, particularly for substances that do not directly impact athletic performance, while reaffirming the zero-tolerance approach to doping violations.