B sample negative...JADCO must GO!!!!!

[Yuttie]

UPDATED: Brooks freed of doping charges

KINGSTON – Commonwealth Games 100m champion, Sheri-Ann Brooks, has been freed of doping changes, according to Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO) disciplinary panel chairman Kent Gammon.

Brooks, one of five Jamaicans athletes who returned positive test from Jamaica’s National Championships in June, was the only one who met with JADCO disciplinary committee today.

Gammon, chairman of JADCO disciplinary panel, explained their findings. "We heard the matter in respect to Sheri-Ann Brooks and decided that based on an irregularity with the testing of the B sample, we could not conclusively beyond a comfortable doubt determine the positive finding of the A sample."

However, the story took a twist as when contacted, Executive Director of JADCO Dr. Patrece Charles-Freeman, said: "the hearings have not been not been concluded."

"As soon as the matter is been concluded, which will be very soon, we will give a detail press release," Dr. Charles-Freeman added.

The hearing for the other five athletes, Marvin Anderson, Yohan Blake, Allodin Fothergill and Lansford Spence will be heard on Friday.

[Islandman]

"....based on an irregularity with the testing of the B sample, we could not conclusively beyond a comfortable doubt determine the positive finding of the A sample."

Which means what? Was the test negative or was something about the test done improperly?

With these types of answers, these people are making sure that this controversy continues right up until Berlin.

[Mosiah]

Irregularity?! What the hell does that mean?!?!

[Sickko]

They did not say the B Sample was negative, they said irregularities with the testing.

This is nothing new by the way Merlene Ottey was freed by the IAAF after we heard her B Sample was 'mishandled in the lab' or some crap like that

[Mosiah]

Yeah, I remember that.

Where is the lab, Sickko? Jamaica or abroad?

[Sickko]

We use an IAAF approved lab in Montreal

[Yuttie]

brings into question, the handling of the A samples

[Sickko]

No it does not Yuttie...

[Yuttie]

a hear yo boss...hehehe...di way di case a hot up mi head it have mi a speculate all kinda tings..... don't lick nuh more Sickko...LOL

[Sir X]

Of course it does , if the A sample test positive and the B comes back negative it leads you to question all under the sun.

I am sure we can all agree these handlers are human .The simpe procedure of mislabeling a product can have a negative effect.

[Sickko]

... deep breath.... ok here we go again, the B Sample did not test negative..it was tested without the athlete or her agents there and that was the breach.

All the articles said there was no difference between the results of either sample

[Sir X]

Lawyer Talk to me, in other words we nuh know but it coulda guh anyway !

"We were unable to make a finding with respect to her positive 'A' findings and therefore we couldn't determine conclusively based of the testing that took place with the "B' sample, that the 'A' testing could be sustained in fact," added Gammon, who himself, is a lawyer.
"It wasn't a matter of the 'B' sample being at odds or not finding in accordance with the 'A' sample, but the procedure with respect to the 'B' sample was not complied with as it ought to under the rules, and therefore it could not determine with conclusivity the 'A' findings," the disciplinary chairman stated

[Exile]

IF there were irregularities with the testing procedure then the results are null and void -whether positive or negative!!!!!

[Exile]

Maybe it's the chain of custody...

[Gamma]

yeah but there is a REASON that this is a part of the protocol. he who alleges must prove, and prove beyond a reasonable doubt which goes back to the protocol.