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.

On 21 March 2014 the Spanish Agency for the Protection of Health in Sport (Agencia Española de Protección de la Salud en el Deporte, AEPSAD) decided to impose a 2 month period of ineligibility on the respondent after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances terbutaline.
In 2007 the International Swimming Federation (FINA) approved a TUE for 2 years for the responden's asthma medication and in 2009 the Real Federación Española de Natación (RFEN) applied with FINA for a new TUE for 2 years without indication of approval.

Hereafter in May 2014 the respondent appealed the AEPSAD decision with the Tribunal Administrativo del Deporte (TAD), the Spanish Disciplinary Committee for Sports.
The respondent argued that he had no prior infringments with doping; his asthma medication does not enhance sport performance or mask the use of other prohibited substances; FINA had a TUE application granted before; and he had declared his medication on the Doping Control Form.

The Tribunal concludes that the imposed 2 months sanction was proportional due to the respondent acted negligence when he failed to apply for a TUE. Because of his health problems and prior applications with FINA he could know that a valid TUE for his medication was necessary.
Therefore on 8 July 2014 the Tribunal decides to dismiss the respondent’s appeal and confirms the AEPSAD decision of 21 March 2014.

TAD 2014_148 Respondent vs AEPSAD

On 10 June 2014 the Spanish Agency for the Protection of Health in Sport (Agencia Española de Protección de la Salud en el Deporte, AEPSAD) decided to impose a 2 month period of ineligibility on the respondent after her sample tested positive for a prohibited substance.
Hereafter on 10 July 2014 the respondent appealed the AEPSAD decision with the Tribunal Administrativo del Deporte (TAD), the Spanish Disciplinary Committee for Sports.

The Tribunal concludes that the imposed sanction on the respondent was already reduced to a 2 months period of ineligibility without motivated reason.
Therefore the Tribunal decides to uphold the respondent’s appeal and to annul the AEPSAD decision of 10 June 2014 with reduction of the sanction to the time already served.

On 14 July 2014 the Spanish Agency for the Protection of Health in Sport (Agencia Española de Protección de la Salud en el Deporte, AEPSAD) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the respondent after his sample tested positive for a prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).

Hereafter in July 2014 the respondent appealed the AEPSAD decision with the Tribunal Administrativo del Deporte (TAD), the Spanish Disciplinary Committee for Sports.
The Tribunal concludes after review of the case that AEPSAD failed to consider the submitted arguments of the Respondent in their decision due to technical problems and also mentioned in their decision that the respondent had not submitted a written statement in his defence.
Therefore on 12 September 2014 the Tribunal decides to partially accept the respondent’s appeal and to refer back the decision to AEPSAD.

On 24 September 2014 the Spanish Agency for the Protection of Health in Sport (Agencia Española de Protección de la Salud en el Deporte, AEPSAD) decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the respondent after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance cannabis.

Hereafter in October 2014 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 warning and argued that he fully cooperated in this case as first violation and without intention to enhance sport performance.
The Tribunal rejects the respondents arguments and concludes that with no significant negligence the imposed sanction was proportional.
Therefore on 4 December 2014 the Tribunal decides to dismiss the respondent’s appeal and confirmes the AEPSAD decision of 24 September 2014.

On 22 September 2014 the Spanish Agency for the Protection of Health in Sport (Agencia Española de Protección de la Salud en el Deporte, AEPSAD) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the respondent after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).

Hereafter in October 2014 the respondent appealed the AEPSAD decision with the Tribunal Administrativo del Deporte (TAD), the Spanish Disciplinary Committee for Sports.
The respondent admitted he purchased and used the product Jack-3d without research of the ingredients and he didn’t know it contained a prohibited substance. The respondent argued that he used the product only during training without intention to enhance his performance and he referered to similar cases with athletes sanctioned only for a period between 6 and 12 months.

The Tribunal concludes that respondent failed to research the ingredients of the supplement before using it and failed to mention the supplement on the Doping Control Form.
Considering jurisprudence of similar cases the Tribunal decides to partially accept the respondent’s appeal and to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the respondent.

On 9 October 2014 the Spanish Agency for the Protection of Health in Sport (Agencia Española de Protección de la Salud en el Deporte, AEPSAD) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the respondent after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).

Hereafter in October 2014 the respondent appealed the AEPSAD decision with the Tribunal Administrativo del Deporte (TAD), the Spanish Disciplinary Committee for Sports.
The respondent argued that he had no intention to enhance and that the prohibited substance wasn’t mentioned on the label of the product he used.
Considering the statements and evidence the Tribunal concludes that the respondent failed to research the ingredients of the product before using it and failed to prove that he acted without intention to enhance his performance.
Therefore on 9 January 2015 the Tribunal decides to dismiss the respondent’s appeal and confirmes the AEPSAD decision of 9 October 2014.

On 10 January 2014 the Guardia Civil arrested the respondent after seizure of several substances in his motor home. Laboratory test identified the seized materials as the prohibited substances efedrine and desmopressin.
On 27 October as a result of the seizure and arrest by the Guardia Civil the Spanish Agency for the Protection of Health in Sport (Agencia Española de Protección de la Salud en el Deporte, AEPSAD) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the respondent.

Hereafter in December 2014 the respondent appealed the AEPSAD decision with the Tribunal Administrativo del Deporte (TAD), the Spanish Disciplinary Committee for Sports.
The Respondent filed several objections in his defence and disputed the admissibility of the evidence; the violation of his rights; the reliability of the laboratory and the test of the substances. In addition the respondent argued that the desmopressin found in his motor home was prescribed for his minor son as treatment.

The Tribunal rejects the arguments and finds that the test results were valid and performed in an accredited laboratory. Also the Tribunal notes that the respondent’s other younger son prior used prescribed desmospressin in October 2013. However different desmopressin was seized in respondent’s motor home without evidence of a prescribition.
Therefore on 17 April 2014 the Tribunal decides to dismiss the respondent’s appeal and confirms the AEPSAD decision of 9 October 2014.

In April 2014 the Spanish Agency for the Protection of Health in Sport (Agencia Española de Protección de la Salud en el Deporte, AEPSAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the junior respondent after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance terbutaline without a TUE.
On 7 November 2014 AEPSAD decided to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the respondent with forfeiture of points and starting on the date of the sample collection.
The respondent suffered from asthma and used prescription medication with the prohibited substance. A TUE application for the use of the medication was applied and granted on 30 June 2014

Hereafter in December 2014 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 impose only a warning. She admitted negligence without intention to enhance performance. Due to her asthma the use of the prescribed medication was necessary and she was unaware of the requirement to have a TUE nor was she informed by his sport federation or coach about the TUE.

Considering the circumstances the Tribunal concludes that the imposed sanction was appropriate.
Therefore on 6 February 2015 the Tribunal decides to dismiss the respondent’s appeal and confirms the AEPSAD decision of 7 November 2014.

On 5 December 2015 the Spanish Agency for the Protection of Health in Sport (Agencia Española de Protección de la Salud en el Deporte, AEPSAD) decided to impose a 6 year period of ineligibility on the respondent after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance furosemide as third anti-doping rule violation.

Hereafter in December 2014 the respondent appealed the AEPSAD decision with the Tribunal Administrativo del Deporte (TAD), the Spanish Disciplinary Committee for Sports.
The respondent requested for a less severe sanction, disputed the disciplinary proceedings and argued that mitigating evidence was ignored in this case.

AEPSAD submitted that the respondent had committed a third anti-doping rule violation with a pattern for using a prohibited substance, presumably for medical purposes (hypertension), prescribed by the same doctor; without a valid TUE and with the possibility to falsify relevant documents retrospectively. At first during the proceedings the respondent made an admission without evidence but later produced in his defence medical reports, prescription and the bills from the pharmacy.
AEPSAD considered this evidence insufficient for mitigation and therefore imposed a severe sanction.

The Tribunal concludes that the respondent committed an anti-doping violation without intention to enhance his performance or to mask the use of another prohibited substance.
Considering the circumstances the Tribunal rules that there are extenuating circumstances and not aggravating circumstances in this case to impose a less severe sanction.
Therefore on 9 April 2015 the Tribunal decides to partially accept the respondent’s appeal and to impose a 5 year period of ineligibility on the respondent.