Wed | Mar 25, 2026

John Campbell disappointed with panel decision

Published:Sunday | October 9, 2022 | 12:13 AM

WEST INDIES and Jamaica opening batsman, John Campbell, is disappointed with the ruling of an Independent Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel, which saw him banned for four years for “refusing or failing to submit to sample collection after proper notification”.

Campbell, through a release from his lawyers, did not deny the possibility he had breached Article 2.3 of the Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO) rules but said there were “mitigatory factors supported by evidence which were not challenged by JADCO and which ought to have militated against the imposition of the maximum penalty”.

Campbell’s lawyers, Ayana L. Thomas and Mark-Paul Cowan from the firm Nunes Scholefield Deleon and Company, also went on to say that the written decision from the panel did not seem to take into consideration the “factors in mitigation”.

With those factors in mind, Campbell, the release said, would be considering whether or not to exercise his right of appeal after further consultation with his legal team.

Campbell also made sure to point out that he believes in the principles of a clean sport saying: he has “never returned an adverse analytical finding for banned substances”.

And that the success of an appeal would be hinged on the fact that JADCO does not have the necessary ingredients to sustain Article 2.3, especially the argument of providing proper notification.

“We have read the written decision of the Disciplinary Panel and believe that there are legitimate grounds for an appeal concerning whether the necessary ingredients to sustain the alleged anti-doping rule violation were proved before the Panel, particularly as it relates to the notification requirements. Mr Campbell’s position was that he was not properly notified by JADCO. There were several breaches by JADCO of the mandatory International Standards for Testing and Investigations in respect of the notification of the athlete which, in our view, were not adequately addressed by the Panel,” read the release from the lawyers.