Related case:
- 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 2014_074 Respondent E11 vs AEPSAD
June 6, 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 opertion Jimbo the Agencia Española de Protección de la Salud en el Deporte, AEPSAD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the respondent E02 for the possession and trafficking of S1 class (anabolic agents), S2 class (peptide hormones, growth factors and related substances) and S9 class prohibited substances (glucocorticosteroids).
With aggravating circumstances AEPSAD decided on 10 April 2015 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the respondent, starting on the date of the provisional suspension.
Hereafter in May 2015 the respondent appealed the AEPSAD decision with the Tribunal Administrativo del Deporte (TAD), the Spanish Disciplinary Committee for Sports.
The respondent requested the Tribunal to set aside the AEPSAD decision of 10 April 2015 and nullification of alle the evidence used in the AEPSAD case against the respondent. The respondent claimed violation of his rights due to he did not receive the necessary case information from AEPSAD.
After review of the case files the Tribunal concludes that AEPSAD made several failures and had refused to submit the requested information to the respondent. The Tribunal finds that the case file was incomplete and insufficient, based on news reports, without reference to the substances seized by the police and the related laboratory reports of these substances.
Therefore the Tribunal decides on 26 june to uphold the respondent’s appeal, to annul the decision of 10 april 2015 with referring back the case to EAPSAD.
