VCB ‘VINDICATED’ BUT SERIOUS QUESTIONS LINGER

The Statement from the Jamaica Athletic Administrative Association was terse:

“The disciplinary committee has issued a ruling that Veronica Campbell Brown has committed an anti doping violation, contrary to IAAF Rule 32.2a. They have recommended that a reprimand without any period of ineligibility would be appropriate. All relevant parties involved have been duly informed.”

Good news for the athlete and great news for Jamaicans who support Jamaica’s superstar sprinter, who has represented this country so well ever since she was a teenager. Veronica Campbell Brown is a two-time Olympic 200-metre champion, and an Olympic sprint relay gold medalist. She has also won two Olympic silver medals and two bronze medals.

The conservative and very private young woman from Clarke’s Town in Trelawny, has also distinguished herself at the IAAF World Athletics Champions where she won gold in the 100 metres in 2007 and gold in the 200 metres in 2011. She also has seven silver medals from these championships.

In addition to that medal haul VCB, as she is affectionately known by her hoard of devoted fans, has won two gold medals at 60m at the World Indoor Championships, three gold and a silver medal at the World Athletics finals, two gold and a silver at the World Junior Championships, two gold at the CAC Junior Championships, six gold, a silver and bronze at the CARIFTA Games, two gold at the World Youth Championships, add to that three more gold at the Youth Level at the CAC’s and three silver medals at the Commonwealth Games. Overall, that’s 19 gold medals, 16 silver and three bronze medals at major championships from the youth to senior level making her one of Jamaica’s most celebrated athletes.

She apparently has come out a winner again but there are still questions to be answered.

On June 14, news emerged that VCB had failed a drug test after competing at the Jamaica International Invitational on May 4, right here in Jamaica. The news was met with disbelief as Jamaicans were shocked. “How could this happen?” many asked. Others took the more ‘traditional’ view that she was being set up. Before long the IAAF’s Communications Man Nick Davies did the unprecedented, releasing a statement which pretty much declared that on the face of it, Mrs. Campbell Brown seemed to have committed a minor infraction. The IAAF doesn’t usually comment on ongoing cases, but this time they saw it fit to do so.

But before we continue here is what IAAF Rule 32.2a says.

(a) Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s Sample. (i) it is each Athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his body. Athletes are responsible for any Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found to be present in their Samples. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation under Rule 32.2 (a).(ii) sufficient proof of an anti-doping rule violation under Rule32.2 (a) is established by either of the following: presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in the Athlete’s A Sample where the Athlete waives analysis of the B Sample and the B Sample is not analysed; or, where the Athlete’s B Sample is analysed and the analysis of the Athlete’s B Sample confirms the presence of the Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found in the Athlete’s A Sample.(iii) except those Prohibited Substances for which a quantitative threshold is specifically identified in the Prohibited List,the presence of any quantity of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s Sample shall constitute an anti-doping rule violation.(iv) as an exception to the general application of Rule 32.2(a),the Prohibited List or International Standards may establish special criteria for the evaluation of Prohibited Substances that can also be produced endogenously.

As I mentioned earlier, the news of the AAF emerged on June 14, but other than statements from Campbell-Brown’s manager Claude Bryan and Davies, that were released shortly afterwards, there was silence from all parties concerned until in late August when we were told that the hearing into VCB’s case would be held within the first week of September. Let me add here that it is the athlete’s right to request an in-camera hearing.

However, it still came as a surprise that the hearing was convened at a ‘secret’ location and the media was being barred. The site of the hearing was moved when on the first day, the media got wind of where the hearing was being held and descended on the location. What was discovered then was that VCB had lured former Prime Minister Percival Patterson out of retirement to defend her. He and noted attorney Howard Jacobs, who has represented more than 75 athletes in doping cases mostly about performance enhancing drugs. Those athletes include Marion Jones, Tim Montgomery, and Floyd Landis. Together, Jacobs and Patterson formed a formidable team that presented VCB’s case before retired Chief Justice Lensley Wolfe, Dr. Aggrey Irons and Lincoln Eatmon.

Almost a month passed before the JAAA released the statement on October 2, 2014.

The questions that still linger are significant given the nature of the allegations, the IAAF rule and past precedent.

What is the diuretic that was found in Mrs Campbell Brown’s system that she is ultimately responsible for? My sources tell me that it was not Forusemide as was reported in the media but hydrochlorothiazide, a diuretic water pill used to treat fluid retention in people with congestive heart failure, cirrhosis of the liver, kidney disorders or edema caused by taking steroids or estrogen. It is also used to treat high blood pressure.

We are also told that the substance was not among several prescriptions submitted by the athlete when she was being tested.

There are good reasons why these questions are relevant.

In 2010, another of Jamaica’s star athletes Shelly Ann Frazer Pryce tested positive for a pain killer Oxycodone. It was a situation where the athlete had undergone a procedure on her mouth and had traveled to Shanghai to compete at a meet. On arrival she was treated by IAAF doctors, treatment that turned out to be insufficient. In desperation she turned to her coach who administered the narcotic allowing the athlete to compete. She did and performed poorly, most likely a combination of the narcotic, jet lag and the energy expended in trying to tolerate the pain she was experiencing prior to the competition. For her failure to declare, Frazer-Pryce was banned for six months because ultimately, according to rule 32.2a, she was responsible for what was in her system.

How then is VCB’s case different that would allow her to escape sanction? This is especially relevant when one considers that in the past athletes have been banned from periods ranging from three months to two years for HCTZ.

If the IAAF ratifies the recommendation it could suggest some form of collusion, especially when we consider Davies’ comments and the case of Trinidadian sprinter Semoy Hackett, who was withdrawn from the World Championships in Moscow because the IAAF questioned the recommendation of Trinidad’s athletic federation to clear her.

Hackett had failed a drug test at the NCAA Championships and forced her school Louisiana State to forfeit the championship.

The eyes of the world have been firmly fixed on Jamaica since 2008 when our athletes exploded at the Beijing Olympics. Our drug testing administration and testing have been under scrutiny and in many instances have been found wanting. An estimated 18 Jamaicans have returned adverse findings in that time and just recently, a month after news about VCB surfaced, big names like Asafa Powell and Sherone Simpson, also returned adverse findings. That means that since 2008, Steve Mullings, Yohan Blake, Shelly Ann Frazer, VCB, Powell and Simpson, some of the island’s biggest names have failed drug tests. The recent Ann Shirley scandal that dropped right after the World Championships in Moscow, would have only served to worsen our plight.

So while we celebrate with Mrs Campbell Brown, many of those critics will be looking on and wondering how the disciplinary panel arrived at this recommendation of a public warning for Mrs Campbell Brown.

“What a farce. I guess strict liability doesn’t matter. 18 months should have been the minimum ban for what she was taking if she had some mitigating factor. See Merritt, LaShawn. If she was taking a banned substance without a TUE (therapeutic use exemption), that is a problem she should have to deal with. I would expect CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport) to alter the punishment, but this is part of the reason that anti-doping enforcement sucks: some countries simply don’t give a s…what their athletes are doing.”

Comments like this that appeared on a Track and Field news forum are already starting to pop up in sporting websites across the globe, bringing into question the validity of the recommendation of the panel.

If people are to take us seriously we have to be transparent. We have to stand up to scrutiny and the secrecy surrounding this case has not helped. In fact, this will further fuel arguments put forward by people like Victor Conte that the Jamaican anti-doping authorities are not operating above board.

The JAAA I am told has said that they are seeking permission to release the transcript of the hearing. That I feel would be a good first step into helping clear the air and could go some way into answering the questions that still linger because for justice to be done it must also appear to have been done.

Older Entries

Newer Entries

The opinions on this page do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner.
The Gleaner reserves the right not to publish comments that may be deemed libelous, derogatory or indecent.
To respond to The Gleaner please use the feedback form.

16 Responses to “VCB ‘VINDICATED’ BUT SERIOUS QUESTIONS LINGER”

Dee says:

October 3, 2013 at 9:57 pm

Why yuh pushing it? Why not let it rest? The young lady has been vindicated, leave it at that for Christ’s sake!
Bobby Sharpe says:

October 4, 2013 at 12:43 am

What vindication? On what basis was she vindicated?
Professor Trevor Hall says:

October 4, 2013 at 1:58 am

A look at the times Mrs. Campbell-Brown was running when she failed the drug test should tell you that she was not taking a performance-enhancing drug. She was not running faster than 11-flat for the 100-meters, at the time. When the IAAF said it was a “minor infraction,” why do you not believe them–and move on? There are over 3,000 different substances that will cause an athlete to fail a drug test–many normal people in the world would fail the test, even if they just take medication for a cold!
Leopold McPherson says:

October 4, 2013 at 6:48 am

WTF is your impression of justice. Base on your argument there is no point in having a hearing, once the athletes are found with prohibited substance in their system then they should be found guilty irrespective of any circumstance and that would be justice for you. Have you ever heard of due process, even the scumbag with a gun that takes a life has his day in court and yet this fundamental right of the athletes should be denied based on your argument. Who gives a rats ass about what people in the international community are saying. You seem more willing to ponder to these haters than for VCB to be treated fairly. By the way who the hell are you?
Niecey says:

October 4, 2013 at 10:58 am

Let it go already.
starapple says:

October 4, 2013 at 7:56 pm

Why don’t we all wait until the transcripts have been released before we jump to conclusions? The main problem with this and other articles that have been published about the case is that much of the information has not been corroborated. We have yet to hear the athlete’s team or the JAAA or the IAAF confirm what exactly she has tested positive for. This article claims that she did not declare the substance for which she tested positive. Yet others claim that she has. Who are we to believe? Before we conclude that the panel breached protocol, why don’t we wait to find out how they arrived at their decision? Why don’t we wait to hear what the athlete’s defense was? What evidence did they provide? I just wish our media would be a bit more patient and measured in what they report.
Jakan says:

October 5, 2013 at 6:37 am

Answers:
First of all a public reprimand is a sanction so she did not escape sanction. Also she got the provisional ban

VCB put up a helluva fight to clear her name and started by hiring the best legal guns available. I don’t think Shelly did that. Also a 6 moth ban and a 3 month ban are not so different. Also, VCB quite wisely accepted the provisional ban fro the get go. That saved time. Be reasonable!

Secrecy when it comes to health issues is a right I think everyone must enjoy especially females. While I support media rights and the public’s right to know certain things I think it unfair that anyone or any sector should come and demand to know another persons health situation. Personal health is off limits as far as I am concerned and that goes too for public figures.
Quite frankly It is good when we can question ourselves and I believe your column has served Jamaican sports (and us) well but I do not believe VCB deserves your casting these aspersions on her. She has always been a very private individual and now is no different. Let us just wish her well
Cheryl Rigg says:

October 5, 2013 at 7:13 am

I believe with should have confidence in our system. Are we now questioning the integrity of the Committee that handled VCB’s case? I find it insulting to say the least and I have no doubt the correct conclusion was made. The main reason why we are in this position now is because Jamaica’s media loves sensationalism and caused this uproar in the first place. Give the lady her dignity back. We need to protect our own. If we have no confidence in our system we will never progress. We owe nothing to the world at large but we must ensure our systems are of the highest quality so that our conclusions may not be questioned.
DrMykii says:

October 5, 2013 at 7:32 am

One question: why is the author of the article nameless?
Don’t hide in the dumpster and cry out that the park is dirt.
Jakan says:

October 6, 2013 at 2:35 pm

@Cheryl Rigg, what is more that panel is comprised of our most illustrious persons who are known to respect integrity. Justice Wolf and Dr Aggrey Irons are men of honour and respect. This is indeed disrespectful
Kendall Jacobs says:

October 7, 2013 at 7:44 am

“How then is VCB’s case different that would allow her to escape sanction? This is especially relevant when one considers that in the past athletes have been banned from periods ranging from three months to two years for HCTZ.

If the IAAF ratifies the recommendation it could suggest some form of collusion”
***********************************************
What a bunch of filth from this journalist. He ask a question which tell me he is in the dark then jump and say collusion. How can you be ignorant to a fact but make a conclusion?
lorenzo bartlett says:

October 7, 2013 at 3:06 pm

VCB, got off base on the fact that she declared the diuretic on one of the three forms that she filled out. If she was hiding any form of doping she would not have declared it. However, I in my opinion she is guilty of negligence, does that requires a ban ‘hell no’! People get this right JAAA have no great influence over the IAAF. If they support a slap on the risk, and said it is a minor offence. It is only because there was proof that she declare it on one of the three forms.
wain says:

October 8, 2013 at 6:20 am

due process is about good lawyers winning, very little to do with facts and ultimately justice. Facts and justice are secondary by products of jurisprudence
Watch the light bulb case and you will see what I mean by good lawyer-ing. Nuthing naw cum out a it!
sgordon says:

October 9, 2013 at 6:07 am

This journalist is a coward,
Why not put his/her name to the article? Ann Shirley did. If the IAAF and WADA accepts the ruling then we all should shut up.Lets wait for the transcript to be published and what the international governing bodies Have to say.
I believe the guilty person talks the most because he or she has to try hard to fool you into believing them. VCB was able to keep quiet because she knows she is not guilty. She also knows that some of our own people would be more than ready to cast doubts on her.
Patrick says:

October 9, 2013 at 8:09 am

The author is correct, the truth hurts but must be told, She had her hand in the cookie jar and got caught, she’s not the first and wont be the last. Like most of her fans i was disappointed but got over it.She’s still love and adore with me. She is not GOD so she’s not perfect, however for the JAAA to earn credibility in the eyes of the world since they,re all watching, they have to stop acting wishy washy…
Samuel says:

October 15, 2013 at 11:04 am

I have always admired VCB and I particularly like the fact that she appears not as cocky and arrogant as some of her compatriots. Her achievements are stellar and I believe no one will doubt the consistent industry that went into her achieving as she has. I was very disappointed at the news of her positive testing. I began to take heart when the news surfaced that she might have ingested the substance in ignorance. Now that the trial has concluded in her favour I can breathe a sigh of relief for I could not live with the thought of her legacy being spoilt. Same thing happened with Ottey until they found that her body naturally produced the Nandrolone she was accused of using.
Jamaican athletes must learn from these cases and be more vigilant in their habits. VCB missed a sterner sanction because the judges felt her case merited the reprimand. Ignorance is not an excuse for doing the wrong thing and I really hope the athletes would preserve their careers and future viability by beefing up this area of their lives. Glad for you Veronica. Always proud of you.