Related cases:
- AEPSAD 2015 AEPSAD vs respondent E02
April 10, 2015 - AEPSAD 2015 AEPSAD vs respondent E03
March 30, 2015 - AEPSAD 2015 AEPSAD vs respondent E04
March 30, - AEPSAD 2015 AEPSAD vs respondent E05
March 30, 2015 - AEPSAD 2015 AEPSAD vs respondent E06
May 20, 2015 - TAD 2014_063 Respondent E08 vs AEPSAD
June 6, 2014 - TAD 2015_077 Respondent E02 vs AEPSAD
June 26, 2015 - TAD 2015_083 Respondent E03 vs AEPSAD
July 13, 2015 - TAD 2015_086 Respondent E06 vs AEPSAD
July 30, 2015 - AEPSAD 2015 AEPSAD vs respondent E41
January 21, 2016
In March 2014 the Spanish police arrested 13 people in the police action operation Jimbo. Several Athletes were arrested whom operated in Lucena, Cantabria, Silla (Valencia), Marbella (Malaga), Almonte (Huelva) and Sevilla. After house searches the police confiscated blood bags, syringes, growth hormone, EPO and other doping substances.
After news reports in the national media about operation Jimbo the Agencia Española de Protección de la Salud en el Deporte, AEPSAD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the respondent E11 for the possession and trafficking of S1 class (anabolic agents) and S2 class prohibited substances (peptide hormones, growth factors and related substances). Therefore a provisional suspension was ordered on 14 March 2014.
Hereafter in March 2014 the respondent appealed the AEPSAD decision with the Tribunal Administrativo del Deporte (TAD), the Spanish Disciplinary Committee for Sports.
The respondent requested to lift the provisional suspension and claimed that withholding evidence in this case violated his rights.
The Tribunal notes that AEPSAD suspended the proceedings against the respondent already in March 2014 pending information from the police and the provisional suspension was imposed to prevent the participation in any competition.
In April 2014 the respondent and AEPSAD received files from the national police which respondent and AEPSAD could use for the disciplinary proceedings.
Considering the serious allegations the Tribunal finds that ordering a provisional suspension was justified.
Therefore the Tribunal dismiss the respondent’s appeal and decides on 6 June 2014 to confirm the AEPSAD decision of 14 March 2014.
