JADCO Press Release
August 18, 2009The Jamaica Anti-Doping Disciplinary panel, which is appointed by the minister responsible for sport under the anti-doping act and operates separately and independently of the Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO), has decided in the matter of JADCO v Marvin Anderson, Allodin Fothergill, Lanceford Spence and Yohan Blake that “no anti-doping rule violation occurred with respect to the adverse analytical findings”.
JADCO is satisfied that 1. Jamaica is a signatory to the WADA code which demands strict adherence to the rules which are mandatory and binding; 2. All signatories to the code must adhere to the list of prohibited substances and methods issued by WADA each year and in this instance the list which came into effect on 1 January 2009; 3. This list contains a number of categories of substances and methods which are prohibited in and out of competition; 4. Each category names a number of specific substances and clearly specifies that the list also includes other substances which may not be named but have a similar chemical structure or biologial effect(s) to those named; 5. All four athletes were found with 4-mehtly-2 hexanamine in their urine samples which was reported as an adverse analytical finding by the wada accredited laboratory in montreal. 6. This substance is considered by WADA as being of similar chemical structure to Tuaminoheptane which is listed as an example of a stimulant in the WADA 2009 prohibited List International Standard. 7. In light of the decision of the disciplinary panel JADCO will enforce its rights by virtue of section 21 of the anti-doping in sport act, 2008 and appeal the decision.