Paul Wright | In the interest of 'clean sport'

The use of drugs in sport, with the distinct and obvious intent of gaining an advantage regarding the result of competition, is rightly condemned by the majority of sports fans and administrators. Ever since the early days of the Olympics, drug use has been a present danger, not only to the health of the user, but it goes against the core principles of fair competition.

We are aware that the Olympics had been banned in the past when the pervasive use of drugs proved too much for the organisers to combat, and it wasn't until the death of athletes using drugs, which forced the organisers of International competitions to meet and form the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) with the specific aim of making sure that clean athletes can compete against athletes who are of similar ilk. "We don't need dope to cope." There is a list of substances that are not to be used in competition, as there is proof that it either enhances performance or has deleterious health consequences.

INCREASED SANCTIONS

As the fight against doping in sports developed, the athletes themselves have lobbied for increased sanctions for those PROVEN to be guilty of drug use, and they have sanctioned the retesting of stored samples as modern technology, one step behind the dopers, catch up with the drugs and methods used by cheaters to gain an unfair advantage.

There has been success, driven mainly by brave whistle-blowers, athletes and concerned administrators, and fans who have come forward with credible and proven information about the widespread use of drugs in sport. One such series of investigations has produced irrefutable evidence that some countries, sport federations and local anti-doping organisations have been actively either promoting cheating, or when it occurs, covering up the deeds and finding ways of exonerating the cheaters.

The banning of Russia for state-sponsored doping was welcomed by all the well-thinking sporting organisations and fans of clean sport. However, this well-intentioned sanction brought out howls of protest from those banned and from those who facilitated their malfeasance. This well-organised lobby soon used a financial carrot to incentivise WADA to consider and eventually overturn the ban, thus reinstating Russia to international competition, despite not honouring the requirements for reinstatement.

BAN REMOVAL REQUIREMENTS

The requirement for Russia to "acknowledge that they had a state-sponsored doping programme" was never met, yet WADA announced that the ban was lifted! WADA had gone from being an organisation that cared about clean athletes, to one that cares about international federations that have not been able to stage events in Russia. Money over principle. As a result, there is a growing movement for the president of WADA, Craig Reedie, to resign. He has refused, labelling his critics as being "uninformed". Thus, recently a Washington Anti-Doping Summit was held.

Thirty-seven anti-doping organisations and government officials from around the world declared that there has to be "widespread reform and a robust Independent Inquiry following allegations of bullying and acts of intimidation at WADA". Becky Scott, a former cross-country skiing champion, resigned as the chair of WADA's athletic committee over the decision to readmit Russia. She told anyone who would listen of the tactics and bullying that went on behind the scenes to reinstate Russia.

A movement for credible cycling, has called for the resignation of WADA President Craig Reedie and a reform of the agency, as a result of its handling of the Chris Froome's asthma drug case and the decision of WADA not to add the drug Tramadol to the list of banned substances. A further 17 anti-doping agencies, including Great Britain, arranged a meeting in Paris to strive to reform WADA so that the agency makes decisions in the interest of 'clean sport'. What a prekeh? The leading anti-doping agency is now under fire for not living up to the very reason for its existence. In this now worldwide insistence on reform at WADA, where does Jamaica stand?

The recent decision of the Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO) to carry out hearings regarding the adverse analytical findings of Jamaican athletes, behind closed doors, is a cause for concern. What is important is that we the people need to know where JADCO stands in the calls for the resignation of the WADA president and a reform of the organisation.

Further, is there any credence to the rumour that an Olympian has had an adverse analytical result after a retest of a urine sample taken years ago? In the case of Olympian Nesta Carter, his case went all the way to the Court of Arbitration for Sport and his appeal was dismissed. Many of us think that that decision was unfair, and we welcome Carter back to competition. But if there is another case, why the silence? We need to know exactly where our anti-doping agency stands. Is it on the side of reformers, or are they satisfied with the status quo? Will we get an answer?