EDITORIAL - JADCO after VCB

IF THE Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO) takes anything from the Veronica Campbell-Brown (VCB) case, it is that it must act to accelerate its recently started efforts to put its house in order and to rebuild its credibility as an effective anti-doping agency.

At the same time, JADCO should possibly be reviewing all recent cases under its jurisdiction, in which Jamaican athletes tested positive for banned substances and were sanctioned, to determine whether the World Anti-Doping Agency's regime for the testing of athletes was scrupulously adhered to. For some may now be scouring the rules to determine if they have bases for appeals.

On the first point, after months of battling a global perception that it facilitated cheating by Jamaican athletes by failing to appropriately test them for drugs, the Jamaican authorities and JADCO may be chagrined at being pilloried for supposedly using dodgy methods in an effort to catch alleged drug cheats. For in their ruling in the Campbell-Brown case, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), in a majority decision in favour of the Jamaica sprinter, held that JADCO had "engaged in a knowing systematic and persistent failure to comply with a mandatory IST (international standard of testing) that is directed at the integrity of the sample collection and testing process".

Mrs Campbell-Brown tested positive for the banned substance hydrochlorothiazide (HTC) after her victory in the 100 metres at the Jamaica Invitational meet last May. It turns out that JADCO, which collected samples at the meet on behalf of the IAAF, failed to follow procedures. When Mrs Campbell-Brown failed to produce enough urine at the first attempt, she was allowed to keep control of the sample while preparing for another go. A partial sample kit was not used.

Having insisted that she never knowingly ingested a banned substance and could not explain how HTC, a diuretic, got into her system, Mrs Campbell-Brown's lawyers argued that it could have resulted from contamination, given the conditions under which the initial partial sample was managed. In the event, her lawyers argued that the burden rested with the authorities to specifically prove a deliberate doping violation, rather than the athlete having to prove otherwise.

The judges at the CAS agreed, especially in a circumstance where a failure to follow the rules "creates a possibility of sample contamination and unreliable testing results".

Added the judges: "In this case, the evidence before the panel establishes that the JAAA has persistently failed to comply with the mandatory partial testing IST. That systematic and knowing failure, for which no reasonable explanation has been advanced, is deplorable and gives rise to the most serious concerns about the overall integrity of the JAAA's anti-doping processes, as exemplified in this case by the flaws in JADCO's sample collection and its documentation."

The case of Traves Smikle, the discus thrower, is one of those in which the procedures were not followed.

A large part of the problem was a culture of laxity that invaded the old regime at JADCO, whose leaders shunned transparency and sulked defensively when issues were raised about the operations of the agency, even by persons who were sympathetic to the problems faced by a fledgling institution.

R. Danny Williams, JADCO's new chairman, does not, we believe, bear those insecurities. Hopefully, he will quickly transform JADCO into an agency that aggressively goes after drug cheats, even as it follows the rules and protects the rights of athletes.

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.