NADO Followed Protocol in Cattouse’s Testing and Suspension
According to Attorney Darrell Bradley, an arbitrator from Spain has been selected by the Regional Anti-Doping Organization to oversee the proceedings; that person has since been in contact with the three parties involved. Now, this is not the first instance in which a Belizean athlete has tested positive for a banned substance and there are extensive regulations on how to deal with it. Bradley says that the Belize Cycling Federation and the National Anti-Coping Organization of Belize want Cattouse to follow the process. As to the argument by Cattouse that the testing and suspension were unfair, Bradley says that the protocol is clearly outlined in the World Anti-Doping Code.
Darrell Bradley, Attorney for National Anti-Doping Organization (Belize)
Darrell Bradley
“There is an extensive document about a hundred sixty-four pages that says exactly what is to happen. And whenever a rider or any athlete in Belize tests positive for a banned substance, the country is required by our treaty obligations to impose a mandatory provisional suspension. So it is not a situation where anybody decided to suspend him or anybody really wanted to suspend him; that is something that is in black and white. It is our treaty obligation and it was really a mandatory requirement of the National Anti-Doping Association. And the next step would be that that matter will be referred to the regional organization for a hearing before an arbitrator—that has been done—and we would hope that this matter could be resolved so that either the provisional suspension will be upheld or he would be exonerated. But he would make representations before the arbitrator and that process is transparent; it is independent. The arbitrator is an individual from Spain; he has a PhD in Sports Law, he has communicated with all the parties since this matter arose and I hope that this matter could be resolved in the quickest and shortest possible time. The reality is that the court today discharged the injunction because he wrongly applied for the injunction. The judge quite rightly had some very harsh words in relation to certain material nondisclosures that were made by himself. They did not properly aver to the court the extent to which the arbitration process was in fact ongoing. The fact that the arbitrator is in regular and active communication with the parties to submit documentations and so forth and the fact that he has a solid right to representation. He is making representation before an internationally appointed tribunal and that is his right. And it is all of our responsibility to ensure that that process is done in a very transparent way. I wanna emphasize that the testing procedures are very solid. I put forward in an affidavit the testing kit that is produced by a Swizz company and that thing is tamper-proof so that the allegations that are made really are unsubstantiated. How can one really tamper with something which has been specially designed to be tamper-proof? And the test was done by the UCLA’s Olympic Laboratory and that is a WADA-approved laboratory and so once the testing is done and confirms an adverse substance that has been banned by the WADA, then it is really for the rider to deal with that and to clear his name.”
The World Anti-Doping Code makes reference to a timeline for any international tribunal which would take about six months to reach resolution. The hearing usually takes place in three months after which a decision will be handed down.
