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_077 Respondent E02 vs AEPSAD
June 26, 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 E03 for the possession and trafficking of S1 class (anabolic agents), S2 class (peptide hormones, growth factors and related substances) and M3 class prohibited substances (manipulation of blood and blood components).
With aggravating circumstances AEPSAD decided on 30 March 2015 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the respondent and a € 3.001,- fine.
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 to impose a less severe sanction and argued that with alleged aggravating circumstances AEPSAD imposed the maximum sanction without grounds.
Considering the evidence and circumstances the Tribunal concludes there are insufficient grounds for aggravating circumstances. Therefore the Tribunal decides on 13 July 2015 to partially accept the respondent’s appeal and to impose a less severe 3 year period of ineligibility on the respondent with a € 3.001,- fine..
