Tweet
Published: Friday | February 28, 2014 1 Comment
By Orville Higgins
The biggest talking point in sports among Jamaicans over the last few days has been the decision made by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to reverse the two-year ban imposed by the IAAF against Veronica Campbell-Brown after testing positive for hydrochlorthiazide (HTCZ).
The decision was unexpected for several reasons, not least being the fact that not too many athletes get their verdicts overturned by CAS. The reason, we are told, was, essentially, a procedural flaw. Neither CAS nor the IAAF, or indeed the athlete or her management team, has up to this point stated what breaches occurred during the collecting of her sample in May last year.
People close to the process have spoken publicly that the breach COULD simply be a case of the urine sample not being collected in two different containers. According to the IAAF rules, if an athlete doesn't pass the required amount of urine on the first attempt, this partial sample must be collected, sealed, and then another container (or containers) given to the athlete for additional urine to be collected until the desired amount is available.
Though that is the letter of the law, it isn't unusual that when athletes don't pass the amount they should, they are given back the sample until they are in a position to pass the extra amount in the same container. (One former athlete told me that this practice was indeed standard when she was competing.) This, of course, rules out the possibility of the sample being tampered with, since the container would be with the athlete until he or she can pass the extra amount of urine that is necessary. Was this the reason why CAS basically threw out the case?
What breach?
That theory as to what the procedural breach COULD be is making the rounds (as I said before, it has been said publicly on more than one occasions) and up to this point nobody close to the process has denied it. What are we to infer from all that? If that was indeed the case, why would the local panel not throw out the thing from day one? Why was there the need for a public warning, if the procedure did not follow proper protocol?
Second, and more mysteriously, why would the IAAF, given the same evidence that the local panel had, not only not throw out the public warning "punishment", but be prepared to extend it to a two-year ban?
Amid all this, VCB has maintained her innocence. Both she and her manager have spoken on KLAS ESPN radio since the CAS verdict, and both have steadfastly maintained that she has never taken HTCZ in her life. In other words, though most of the world now feels that VCB was reprieved on a mere technicality, she herself insists that she never took the drug. So procedural breach or not, the athlete feels that there was no real case against her. That now makes it more interesting.
Let us side with VCB for now. Let us completely accept her story that she did not take the drug. The mystery then of how it got into her sample (notice I didn't say her system) cannot disappear with a mere ruling. If VCB did not take the drug, then somebody must have put it in her sample. Right? That is the only rational conclusion. The question then would be who, and, indeed, why?
Was sample contaminated?
If we accept VCB's story that she never took HTCZ, we have now got to believe that there are some corrupt people working as sample collectors in Jamaica, or people of some dubious mentality working at the lab in Montreal to which the sample was sent.
So if I were VCB, I would not only be relieved at the CAS ruling, but I would be livid that somebody was trying to frame me. Her reputation has suffered and, despite the CAS ruling, may never be completely restored. She has been out of track for the better part of a year and the subsequent loss of income must have been substantial. Will she and her team sue? Or will they be so happy that they will just make everything rest?
The CAS ruling may have restarted a career, but it hasn't ended the speculation.
Orville Higgins is a sportscaster with KLAS ESPN Sports Radio. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.
By Orville Higgins
The biggest talking point in sports among Jamaicans over the last few days has been the decision made by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to reverse the two-year ban imposed by the IAAF against Veronica Campbell-Brown after testing positive for hydrochlorthiazide (HTCZ).
The decision was unexpected for several reasons, not least being the fact that not too many athletes get their verdicts overturned by CAS. The reason, we are told, was, essentially, a procedural flaw. Neither CAS nor the IAAF, or indeed the athlete or her management team, has up to this point stated what breaches occurred during the collecting of her sample in May last year.
People close to the process have spoken publicly that the breach COULD simply be a case of the urine sample not being collected in two different containers. According to the IAAF rules, if an athlete doesn't pass the required amount of urine on the first attempt, this partial sample must be collected, sealed, and then another container (or containers) given to the athlete for additional urine to be collected until the desired amount is available.
Though that is the letter of the law, it isn't unusual that when athletes don't pass the amount they should, they are given back the sample until they are in a position to pass the extra amount in the same container. (One former athlete told me that this practice was indeed standard when she was competing.) This, of course, rules out the possibility of the sample being tampered with, since the container would be with the athlete until he or she can pass the extra amount of urine that is necessary. Was this the reason why CAS basically threw out the case?
What breach?
That theory as to what the procedural breach COULD be is making the rounds (as I said before, it has been said publicly on more than one occasions) and up to this point nobody close to the process has denied it. What are we to infer from all that? If that was indeed the case, why would the local panel not throw out the thing from day one? Why was there the need for a public warning, if the procedure did not follow proper protocol?
Second, and more mysteriously, why would the IAAF, given the same evidence that the local panel had, not only not throw out the public warning "punishment", but be prepared to extend it to a two-year ban?
Amid all this, VCB has maintained her innocence. Both she and her manager have spoken on KLAS ESPN radio since the CAS verdict, and both have steadfastly maintained that she has never taken HTCZ in her life. In other words, though most of the world now feels that VCB was reprieved on a mere technicality, she herself insists that she never took the drug. So procedural breach or not, the athlete feels that there was no real case against her. That now makes it more interesting.
Let us side with VCB for now. Let us completely accept her story that she did not take the drug. The mystery then of how it got into her sample (notice I didn't say her system) cannot disappear with a mere ruling. If VCB did not take the drug, then somebody must have put it in her sample. Right? That is the only rational conclusion. The question then would be who, and, indeed, why?
Was sample contaminated?
If we accept VCB's story that she never took HTCZ, we have now got to believe that there are some corrupt people working as sample collectors in Jamaica, or people of some dubious mentality working at the lab in Montreal to which the sample was sent.
So if I were VCB, I would not only be relieved at the CAS ruling, but I would be livid that somebody was trying to frame me. Her reputation has suffered and, despite the CAS ruling, may never be completely restored. She has been out of track for the better part of a year and the subsequent loss of income must have been substantial. Will she and her team sue? Or will they be so happy that they will just make everything rest?
The CAS ruling may have restarted a career, but it hasn't ended the speculation.
Orville Higgins is a sportscaster with KLAS ESPN Sports Radio. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.
Paul Marin -19 is one thing, 20 is a whole other matter. It gets even worse if they win the UCL. *groan*. 
05/18/2011.MU fans naah cough, but all a unuh a vomit?-Lazie 1/11/2015
Leighton Levy, Star Writer 
Comment