Randall to know fate soon

André Lowe, Senior Staff Reporter

Jamaican Olympic discus competitor Allison Randall is now facing a nervous wait as a three-member Jamaica Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel considers a verdict, after hearing final submissions at her doping violation hearing at the Jamaica Conference Centre yesterday.

Randall, 25, who represented Jamaica at the 2012 Olympic Games, tested positive for a banned diuretic at the National Championships last year.

Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO) attorney Lackston Robinson swung for the fence - noting World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Code article 10.2, which points to a two-year suspension for first-time doping violators.

In an earlier testimony, Randall, through a process of elimination and deduction had suggested the source of the substance to be the supplement 'Animal Pak', an approach that was squarely rejected by Robinson during his 90-minute final submission.

The JADCO attorney, who cited four cases for reference, argued that Randall, who noted that she was taking five supplements at the time of her adverse analytical finding, had not done enough to establish the source of the banned substance that was found in her system, underlining that the panel had no choice but to consider imposing the full two-year ban.

This was after the athlete failed to provide any scientific evidence to clearly show that the diuretic was, in fact, present in the supplement she had identified.

REDUCTION OR ELIMINATION

Earlier, Randall's lead attorney, Dr Lloyd Barnett, who himself pointed to a number of cases for reference, called for a reduction or elimination of the mandatory suspension period, while seeking to establish that by the process of elimination and deductive reasoning, the source of the infringement was established on a balance of probability.

This was his grounds for calling for a pardon on the basis of articles 10.4, 10.5.1 and 10.5.2, which speaks to an elimination or reduction of the period of ineligibility, where an athlete can specify how a substance entered their body; where there is no fault or negligence or where there is no significant fault or negligence, respectively.

UNREASONABLE

"I don't think it's reasonable for athletes to do chemical tests on the supplements they take," Barnett said.

Barnett also argued that it was established that there was no intention to enhance performance or mask the presence of a performance enhancer and that the athlete was reasonable to take care of what she ingested.

Barnett also asked the panel, which consisted of chairman and former director of public prosecutions, Kent Pantry, Olympian Juliet Cuthbert and Professor Archibald McDonald, to consider that the athlete has been suspended since July 12, when she received notification from JADCO that she had failed a drug test.

This was, however, challenged by Robinson, who stated that the athlete did not acknowledge the communique or provide the requested explanation, and the period served on the sideline should, as a result, not be considered in any ruling.

Pantry, brought the hearing to a close shortly after 4 p.m., stating that the parties would be advised of their decision after deliberation.

"There is a lot of material ... the panel will take time to consider. When we conclude, we will inform all parties," said Pantry.