This newspaper joins in the metaphoric sigh of relief at the news that World and Olympic champion Miss Shelly Ann Fraser has come away with a relatively light six-month ban after testing positive last May for the prohibited substance Oxycodone.

The ban ends on January 7, long before the start of the 2011 track and field season, which means she will be eligible for all major meets next year, including the IAAF World Athletics Championships in South Korea in August. Miss Fraser has been provisionally suspended since June this year, which caused her to miss a sizeable chunk of the 2010 athletics season.

But while we are relieved on the one hand, we are disturbed — though not entirely surprised — to hear that the renowned athletics coach Mr Stephen Francis of the highly respected MVP Track and Field Club could face sanctions for his reported role in the circumstances surrounding Miss Fraser’s ingestion of the prohibited substance.

To refresh the memory: Miss Fraser tested positive at the May 23 Shanghai Diamond League meet. It subsequently turned out that the Oxycodone was part of the make-up of a painkiller taken by Miss Fraser to deal with a severe toothache.

The experts say Oxycodone is neither a performance-enhancing substance nor a masking agent. It is said to be “a narcotic in the same vein as morphine”. Had Miss Fraser declared her use of the drug to organisers as required, all would have been well, apparently. She got into trouble because she forgot to make the declaration.

Mr Francis is now in hot water because from all reports he was the one who gave the offending painkiller to Miss Fraser.

The Observer reported on Thursday that world track and field’s governing body, the IAAF, has written to its local affiliate, the Jamaica Amateur Athletic Association (JAAA), asking of the latter’s intention regarding a possible sanction against Mr Francis. We are told that the JAAA has in turn asked the IAAF for guidance on the matter.

The assertion in Thursday’s news story that under anti-doping rules punishment for the “administration” of a prohibited substance “shall carry a period of ineligibility of a minimum four years up to a lifetime…” is extremely disquieting, to put it mildly.

Such has been the impact of Mr Francis on Jamaican athletics over recent years that we do not think it would be overstating the case to say that he is now a national treasure. His loss for any significant period would be debilitating for Jamaican athletics. We trust that such will not come to pass.

But whatever happens, this entire episode must be made to serve as a lesson to all athletes and their handlers. As we have said before in this space, the circumstances as reported suggest slackness and the absence of a systematic approach. And all this within the context of Jamaica’s track programme being constantly under the microscope because of its extraordinary success over recent years.

All our sportsmen and women and crucially those responsible for their management need to take stock and tighten their modus operandi.