Santiago Barragán, the defence lawyer representing Hull City’s Oscar Zambrano, has refused to put a timescale on a possible ban but insisted his case is being taken to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
Futbol Ecuador cover comments from Barragán today after CONMEBOL announced they had hit the player with an anti-doping charge.
They announced that he has been charged with breaches of articles six and seven of the CONMEBOL anti-doping regulations, which usually carrying a two-year sentence. The Hull midfielder is yet to be sentenced, however.
He had initially been placed on a suspended sentence earlier this year after he tested positive for a banned substance following the second leg of March’s Recopa Sudamericana final.
He was withdrawn for the subsequent league match but allowed to continue playing for LDU Quito while the matter was investigated. He’s since joined Hull City on loan until the end of the season.
Now he has been charged, with Hull City also confirming the news in their own statement released earlier today.
Barragán has also commented on the matter, detailing their side of the story and how they will now proceed with the matter.
“It seems delicate and even irresponsible to give a time of sanction for Oscar Zambrano, because we are in an appeal stage to the TAS,” he said.
“There are people who have spoken of three, four years of sanction, but they are wrong. The sanction could be months, and not years. We are already prepared and advanced to present the appeal.
“All the evidence has been provided to show that there was no intention to take sporting advantage. There are the blister packs, the batches of pills. We know that there will be a sanction, but it was a moment of emergency.
“It was never about recreational narcotics, nor anabolics, it is a diuretic medication to reduce swelling, due to an allergy that causes swelling and suffocation. That desperation leads to taking this medication.
“Diuretics are prohibited because they are taken to erase the remains of illegal substances in sports practice, but in this case that was not the intention, they were faced with an emergency situation and that was proven.”