RSS Feed
Follow us on Twitter
Star YouTube Channel
Mullings
Steve Mullings and his lawyers, Alando Terrelonge and Patrick Bailey could take their case to the international Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS) if the Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO) Disciplinary Panel does not rule in their favour during the on-going hearing regarding an adverse analytical finding at this year's National Senior Championships.
According to Terrelonge, they would take the case to CAS based on the argument of an unfair hearing following the panel's decision yesterday not to accept into evidence an affidavit by Mullings, who is unable to attend the hearing for "fear for his life", and a claim that he is being "set up".
"Based on what has happened thus far, if the ruling is not in Mr Mullings' favour, we will have to take the matter elsewhere ... to the Court of Arbitration for Sports," said Terrelonge.
"This would be primarily based on the fact that he did not get a fair hearing in Jamaica and there is a basis for appeal," he added.
Terrelonge made the statement following yesterday's second day of the hearing in which evidence was given by JADCO's third witness, JADCO official Cara Ann Bennett.
Day one saw JADCO calling on its doping control officer, Dr Paul Wright, and chaperone Dorel Savage, to give witness.
It is understood that JADCO's three-man Disciplinary Panel of Dr Jephthah Ford, Lennox Gayle and Peter Prendergast refused to accept the affidavit based on the fact that, among other things, it included damning statements that needed to be verified by Mullings.
The panel also said that it was unfair for the lawyer representing JADCO, Lackston Robinson, not to be given the opportunity to properly cross-examine Mullings.
However, according to Terrelonge, in refusing the affidavit, the panel did not carry out its function properly, as per JADCO rules.
"I pointed out to the panel that they had a wide discretion to allow the affidavit, which explained why Mr Mullings could not be here," said Terrelonge.
"In addition, I indicated that the principles of fairness and natural justice would dictate that they ought to allow the affidavit to be taken into evidence, as the only person who stands to be prejudiced is Mr Mullings.
"They then deliberated for a few minutes, and said no ... and essentially that Mr Mullings should have been here."
Terrelonge further explained that to show that Mullings was not trying to avoid the hearing, he made an application to the panel to have his client appear via a laptop computer video link.
"I protested the ruling and explained that I had taken my laptop to the hearing, and if needs be Mr Mullings is available via video link, whereby he could be cross-examined if necessary.
"The panel still maintained no ... that no application was made for that to be done. I then said to the panel that the application is being made now, and that there was no rule that stated a timeline to make applications. They, however, declined to entertain the idea," Terrelonge explained.
The hearing will resume next Wednesday.
