Message Board Archives

Read and decide which one of these articles on Andre Russell's Ban makes sense.

In reply to Headley
A vicious attack on JADCO with not a shred of evidence

Ah felt from the beginning that JADCO was trying to get in the good books of WADA after the Powell, Simpson et all fiasco and the pressure dey got for not doing sufficient drug testing. Their appeal only serves to reinforce that opinion.

Manchester City were fined for not providing whereabouts info on their players on three separate occasions over a twelve month period. Up till March 2016, the BCCI had rejected attempts by WADA for Indian cricketers to sign whereabouts clauses and still may not have agreed.

Yet JADCO is appealing a one year ban in favour of the full two year ban?

In reply to Maispwi... the "overseer" trying to please massa?

Thanks for the responses. Getting responses which require reading 500 or more words is usually a hard sell.

I find the wide difference in views really interesting. I suspect we all come to this issue with views of JADCO, WADA, drugs in sport, athlete's welfare, rights etc and this case brings out the strong views we have already formed.

My view is not a moral one. It is a practical view. In the absence of whereabouts testing how does the testing agency ensure they can do "random sampling"? Russell agreed to be at an agreed location not once, not twice but three times and was absent on all three occasions.

If an athlete can make a wash of money in two years why not take the drugs, improve performance, make the money, avoid the tests and take the chance of a sympathetic one year ban?

In reply to Headley

Well you do want to be careful about convicting Mr. Russel of taking drugs. Certainly he left himself open to suspicion by missing three tests. If I was making his making 4 million a year, I would certainly ensure that I did not miss three tests.

In reply to Baje

What if the results of any of the three tests would prevent you from making the 4 millions a year?

In reply to Kay

No comment!

In reply to Maispwi

One of the things I considered when I read that JADCO had filed an appeal is this. Many Jamaican atheletes are are high profile on the world scence and therefore are always under scrutiny. Russel has appealed his penalty, as he has the right to do and JADCO has appealed the penalty, as they have the right to do. What makes Russel's right to appeal more justified than JADCO's right to appeal? Both sides believe they have good grounds for appeal.

JADCO should ensure that fair play is meted out at all times. That does not get translated to be vindictive. We should not use the shortcomings of other agencies to blame JADCO. They have gotten their share of blame for being considered tardy. Some of us still thinks the testing agencies should go look for the atheletes even though it is relatively easy for them to report their whereabouts and they agree to do so.