Steve Mullings' last straw

By Orville Higgins

Sprinter Steve Mullings has been banned for life. It was widely expected, especially after having been given a two-year ban seven years ago for having elevated levels of testosterone in his body.

When it was found that furosemide was in his system, there was very little chance that he would escape a life ban for a second drug offence. All that is standard.

What is different here is that Mullings has decided to take his case to the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS). Very few athletes who have been punished for drugs have ever gone that route. It could be the meaningless mutterings of a desperate man who feels he has to say something, anything, to try to hold on to the sliver of credibility he thinks he has left. Or it could be the pronouncements of a man convinced of his innocence and willing to fight.

If the case does go to the CAS, it would be interesting to see how the court would rule. If Steve does decide to pursue this matter at that level, it could mark a paradigm shift in the way accused athletes go about protesting their innocence.

The major sticking point, as Mullings' lawyer Alando Terrelonge has repeatedly said, is that the disgraced sprinter didn't feel he got a fair trial.

Lame excuse for absence

Mullings' reason for his absence from the trial was that he feared for his life in Jamaica. That he didn't go into any other details was itself exceedingly strange, and hardly the most credible excuse I've ever heard. His lawyer is upset that his affidavit wasn't allowed at the trial in his absence. Terrelonge is also unhappy that Steve's request for a DNA test to be done on the tainted urine, to determine whether it was his, was turned down.

On the surface, it does appear that the three-member panel of Chairman Lennox Gayle, Peter Prendegrast and Japheth Ford could have included the affidavit in the hearing. And as a layman, I believe the panel should have agreed to his request for the DNA test. My initial reaction was that the panel had absolutely nothing to lose by allowing the accused man every opportunity to defend himself, providing it wouldn't cost too much time, and would be done at the accused's expense.

I was convinced the panel that convicted Steve Mullings had already formed their opinion, and that the trial was mere formality.

And then I started asking some questions of some people who were crucial in all this. Now my views have changed. Steve's B sample came back on August 18. The panel was operating on the premise that they had a 90-day window to make a decision, after the opening of the B sample, failing which the accused could claim that his case was stretched beyond the JADCO deadline. Then he could have pressed for the case to be thrown out altogether.

What is not readily known to the public is that long before before the trial, indeed a few days after the return of the B sample, there was a case-management session, where the panel met with the accused's lawyer. They decided on how the trial would proceed, including the list of witnesses to be present.

At that stage, it was agreed that Steve would be here to defend himself. The parties met again, and after the usual legal wrangling, the case was scheduled to start on November 9. It could have started earlier, but many feel that JADCO and Terrelonge dragged their feet.

Guarded affidavit

My sources tell me that it was on November 9, the day of the trial, that the panel first knew that Mullings wouldn't make it. They weren't convinced that his excuse was credible, and were prepared to wait a few more days for him to show. He didn't, and the panel wouldn't accept his affidavit. What is in that affidavit is being guarded like a state secret, but highly placed sources tell me that Steve was basically hinting that he was set up by persons who wanted others to run in the 200m at the World Championships, although he had won the event at the national trials.

Late in the day, sometime between November 9 and 16, the request came for the DNA. The panel was of the view that the case had to be decided by November, three months after the B sample. One could be forgiven for believing that this was a delay tactic to breach the 90-day window.

Whether Steve has a chance if the case goes to the CAS, only time will tell. But I think he would have had a hard time convincing a higher court he didn't get what he deserved.

Orville Higgins is sportscaster. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.