EDITORIAL - Help to understand the process

Given the involvement of P.J. Patterson and Lensley Wolfe - the one as defence counsel, the other as chairman of the tribunal - there is hardly cause, we expect, for doubt about the legality of the process by which Veronica Campbell-Brown's athletics doping case is being litigated.

Mr Patterson is a former long-serving prime minister and distinguished lawyer and Mr Wolfe a retired chief justice. They, and others, must have fully ventilated and settled such procedural issues in pretrial discussions, as well as reiterated the outcomes at Monday's start of the hearings.

The fact, though, is that these proceedings are in camera. So, this newspaper feels that it would be useful if the public were offered an explanation of the legal basis for the procedure being followed, with the Jamaica Athletics Administrative Association (JAAA) having responsibility for the proceedings, rather than the Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO).

We raise this matter only for the fact that the Jamaican public, as emotionally invested stakeholders in Jamaica's athletics and its athletes, wants to understand the process and to be absolute that any vindication of Mrs Campbell-Brown is beyond reproach - legally and morally.

Indeed, we are all too aware of the many in the international athletics area who would have great pleasure in being able to accuse Jamaica of bending the rules in favour of one of its own.

In so far as we understand the issue, Mrs Campbell-Brown tested positive for a banned substance in May at an international meet in Kingston that was under the jurisdiction of the IAAF. The collection of the samples was done by JADCO on behalf of the IAAF, to whose drug-testing protocols the local athletics association subjects itself.

However, because the meet at which Mrs Campbell-Brown tested positive was under the IAAF's jurisdiction, it apparently has responsibility for the case. The IAAF derogated that authority to the JAAA. That, apparently, is the logic.

But there is also the issue of the role of the domestic anti-doping agency.

JADCO is established by an act of Parliament. Section 4 of the law extends its application to, among others, athletes selected to represent Jamaica or capable of representing Jamaica in international competition, or those whose names their associations place in JADCO's "registered pool of international level and national level athletes".

No room for derogation

Further, Section 19 of the act provides for the establishment of a JADCO disciplinary panel and the following section says: "Where it appears that there has been an anti-doping rules violation, the commission shall refer the matter to the disciplinary panel".

The panel conducts disciplinary hearings and imposes sanctions.

There appears to be no room for derogation from this arrangement, which brings us back to Mrs Campbell-Brown's case and the relationship, in the specific context, between the IAAF/JAAA and JADCO.

Does the IAAF/JAAA jurisdiction, in this instance, supersede JADCO's?

This newspaper does not question that Mrs Campbell-Brown will get a fair hearing or the competence of the tribunal to deliver a credible verdict.

But whatever the findings, we, and other Jamaican athletics stakeholders, want to be in command of the argument with which to defend the process and its determinations.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.