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 - AEPSAD 2015 AEPSAD vs respondent E41
January 21, 2016 - 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_083 Respondent E03 vs AEPSAD
July 13, 2015
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 E06 for the possession of S1 class (anabolic agents), S2 class (peptide hormones, growth factors and related substances) and S4 class prohibited substances (Hormone And Metabolic Modulators).
With aggravating circumstances AEPSAD decided on 20 May 2015 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the respondent.
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 objected to the use of the evidence by AEPSAD for disciplinary proceedings which was seized by the police for the criminal presecution against the respondent. He disputed the validity of the evidence and the fact that criminal proceedings (trafficking) and disciplinary proceedings (possession) against the respondent took place at the same time.
The Tribunal concludes that the seized evidence, used in the criminal proceedings, is allowed to be used in the disciplinary proceedings by AEPSAD against the respondent. Use of the evidence is valid in both proceedings and after his arrest the respondent didn’t deny the possession of the prohibited substances to the police. Also the Tribunal rejects the allegation about the criminal prosecution for trafficking and the disciplinary proceedings for possession against the respondent at the same time.
Therefore the on 30 July 2015 the Tribunal dismiss the Respondent’s appeal and decides to confirm the AEPSAD decision of 20 April 2015.
