Mr. John Campbell and his legal team are very disappointed with the ruling of the Independent Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel.
Mr. Campbell has been a clean athlete throughout his outstanding career as a batsman and he remains committed to clean sport. It is important to emphasise that the allegation against him was not one relating to an adverse analytical finding for banned substances. The allegation concerned refusing or failing to submit to sample collection after proper notification pursuant to Article 2.3 of the JADCO Anti-Doping Rules. Our client has, to date, never returned an adverse analytical finding for banned substances.
We have read the written decision of the Disciplinary Panel and believe that there are legitimate grounds for an appeal concerning whether the necessary ingredients to sustain the alleged anti-doping rule violation were proved before the Panel particularly as it relates to the notification requirements. Mr. Campbell’s position was that he was not properly notified by JADCO. There were several breaches by JADCO of the mandatory International Standards for Testing and Investigations in respect of the notification of the athlete which, in our view, were not adequately addressed by the Panel.
Additionally, there were several mitigatory factors supported by evidence which were not challenged by JADCO and which ought to have militated against the imposition of the maximum penalty, even if the Panel found that the athlete committed a violation. It does not appear from the written decision that these factors in mitigation were adequately considered by the Panel.
Our client will therefore at this time consider exercising his right of appeal after further consultation with his legal team and will make a decision shortly.
– NUNES SCHOLEFIELD DELEON & CO [Ayana L. Thomas, Mark-Paul Cowan]