The Tribune

The Bahamas Anti-Doping Commission has made an official statement, clearing sprinter Trevorvano Mackey of a doping violation.

In the lead up to the Bahamas Association of Athletic Associations’ National Track and Field Championships in Grand Bahama on June 23, 2013, Mackey was one of a number of athletes who were selected for sample collection and random testing as a part of the BADC’s programme for testing of athletes at national and international events.

“We received notification of an ‘adverse analytical finding’ from our lab in Montreal, Canada, with regard to Mr Mackey’s ‘A’ sample on July 19, 2013,” the association said.

“Mr Mackey was notified of this finding and advised of his right to have his ‘B’ sample also analysed, in the event he felt that the results of the A sample analysis was incorrect. Mr Mackey requested the further analysis, which he was required to pay for and the “B” sample was subsequently analysed.

“On August 22, 2013, the BADC received a second adverse analytical finding following the analysis of the ‘B’ sample. This confirmed the results of the ‘A’ sample and the matter was then forwarded to the Bahamas Anti-Doping Commission’s Disciplinary Panel for a hearing. Mr Mackey was found to have tested positive for the substance ‘Nandrolone.’”

The association’s disciplinary committee met on October 21, 2013 and after hearing submissions from Mackey and his representatives concluded the following:

“It is our view that the applicant (Mr Mackey) has failed to establish that there was a departure from the international standard of the conduct of sample analysis which could have caused an adverse analytical finding to rebut the presumption of the accuracy of the relevant findings. That being so, we find that the applicant is in violation of an anti-doping rule under Article 2.1 of the Rules.

“With respect to sanctioning, the panel recommended that the applicant be reprimanded and that no further period of ineligibility from future events should be imposed.”

Once a copy of the report from the disciplinary panel was submitted to the Bahamas Anti-Doping Commission, questions were raised by BADC about the level of sanctioning, particularly since the rules contained provisions for a minimum suspension of two years in cases when athletes test positive for substances on the WADA banned list.

An appeal was, therefore, lodged by BADC with the Caribbean Regional Anti-Doping Organisation, since there was no local appeals tribunal in place at the time.

Upon review of the submission from BADC, the Caribbean RADO concluded that it had no jurisdiction to hear the matter, since the Bahamas Anti-Doping in Sports Act provides for such appeals to be heard by a Local Appeals Tribunal.

Subsequent to this, the BADC then appealed to WADA, which responded as follows:

“We have carefully reviewed the case of Mr Mackey in light of the decision rendered by the RADO Disciplinary Panel and it seems that there would not be any possible recourse for BADC against the decision rendered by its Disciplinary Panel or by the RADO. We would advise BADC to take note of the various comments made about the decision in the course of the review process and would further encourage BADC to work as quickly as possible on the creation of its National Appeals Tribunal. This would indeed prevent future potential appeals from having to go to CAS. Steps are being taken to have a local appeals tribunal ratified by the minister of sports. The previous appeals tribunal was disbanded with the resignation of certain key members at the end of its first year of existence. In view of the above, the BADC now considers this matter closed.”