Lawyer slams judo association over silence

ATTORNEY-AT-LAW SAYEED Bernard, one of four lawyers along with Emir Crowne, Jason Jones, and Matthew Gayle, representing judo athlete Ebony Drysdale-Daley, is disappointed with the way the Jamaica Judo Association (JJA) is treating his client.

“We have written to the Jamaica Judo Association asking for their policies, framework for disciplinary actions, and for us to quickly have a hearing. It’s been two weeks and we’ve not gotten any word from JJA as it relates to any documents that we’ve requested and to have a disciplinary hearing, which is within Ebony’s right,” said Bernard.

The JJA suspended the 29-year-old in June, alleging Drysdale-Daley violated Article 17 of its rule book, which mandates that members must adhere to the code of ethics and prohibits actions that bring disrepute to the association.

In a lengthy video, Drysdale-Daley accused the federation of ‘favouritism’ and that they ‘blocked’ her from competing at the Lima Pan American Open in Peru, which was the final competition before the Paris Olympics qualification deadline.

“I feel there are clear and present inconsistencies and I have evidence and emails to support this. I feel the Jamaican Judo Association has favoured the other athlete (Ashley McKenzie) in contention over me. They have effectively secured and ensured the other athlete’s qualification ahead of mine, blocking me from this final tournament for which I have paid flights for,” she had explained.

Bernard believes the move by the JJA was calculated to end Drysdale-Daley’s hopes of making it the upcoming Paris Olympics.

“The event that they withdrew her from only had two persons in her category. By virtue of only two persons being in her category, she would effectively had made it directly to the final, because she was in the number one spot in her category. Even if Ebony had lost the final, she would have gotten 70 points and those points would have carried her over the line to qualify for the Olympic team. By the looks of it, it seems like spite,” he explained.

Bernard argues that, based on his experience, he believes that not being able to have a disciplinary hearing by now suggests his client has been indefinitely banned.

“This cannot be the way that athletes are treated, and what is happening now is that the defence is locked out. We’re still not able to do anything and this is now amounting to an indefinite ban. This is an injustice and, the longer this goes, the more obscure any opportunity for the athlete to get any justice.”

All attempts to contact the JJA have proven unsuccessful.

orane.buchanan@gleanerjm.com