Dr Emir Crowne, the legal representative for national squash player Julian Morrison, says the Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO) is “attempting to rewrite history” with how it has handled proceedings in its anti-doping case so far.

Morrison is answering to the Independent Anti-Doping Panel (IADP) after testing positive for trace amounts of Boldenone, a banned anabolic substance, on January 28.

JADCO’s legal representative, King’s Counsel Ian Wilkinson, said during Wednesday’s virtual session that he and his client took offence to being labelled “disrespectful” and “unruly”, as described by Crowne in a Jamaica Observer article on Friday, July 19.

Crowne was reacting to their absence, and late notification of their absence, from the previous meeting on July 18. Wilkinson had said in the email notifying of that absence that they would have been unable to attend because neither the date nor time was convenient to either because of court hearings and previously scheduled engagements.

Wilkinson said on Thursday afternoon that there was a communication issue with the setting of the hearing.

“We were not aware that a hearing was going to be heard,” he said. “We got only a link without any corresponding email to say, ‘Wilkinson, or Mrs (June) Spence Jarrett (JADCO’s Executive Director), this matter is being proposed for a hearing on such and such a day, are you available or anything?’

“Nothing! A link came. We have had links from JADCO, the secretariat before, which were sent to us erroneously. We have had links which are being recalled, email messages which were being recalled. We weren’t certain if this was an error. This came to my attention more than a day after it was sent.

“This link was sent – I think two or three days, no more than that – before the proposed hearing date.”

Wilkinson says the IADP’s secretariat could have handled the matter differently.

“We shouldn’t have to ask what the link was about,” he said. “If a hearing is proposed, it should be accompanying correspondence to say, ‘We’re sending you this link for a proposed

hearing on such and such a date, please indicate if you are available.’”

The IADP’s chairperson, Catherine Minto acknowledged this and apologised on the secretariat’s behalf.

Crowne again challenged JADCO’s behaviour, saying it differs based on the setting.

“I would indicate that JADCO is attempting to rewrite history, Madam Chair,” he said. “Part of the reason we ask for these hearings to be public is that JADCO acts one way in private and quite another in public and the way it handled the recusal application, in complete

defiance of the Panel’s orders, made us feel as though…”

Crowne was then interrupted by Wilkinson but continued after mentioning to Minto that he allowed Wilkinson to speak without interruption.

“For my friend to say that private things were revealed in the article, I’m aware of the article and it simply quotes what was said during these proceedings last week and I would say that JADCO now, is appearing before you with hat in hand as though it is shocked and aggrieved by what’s happening, but the correspondence that has happened since, betrays that reality.”

“It really is attempting to rewrite history, again, in a system where it is this Panel, and only this Panel, that protects the athlete from an immovable object like JADCO.”

The IADP, after conferring with both sides, set the hearing date for September 3 and September 4, with both day’s proceedings happening virtually between 10 am and 4 pm.

The complainant (JADCO) and the athlete must submit any statements or other evidence they will rely on at the hearing on or before August 8. The complainant must also submit any expert report, if necessary, pertaining to the matters raised by the athlete on or before August 19.

Wilkinson says JADCO is considering calling on four witnesses for testimony, with one being an expert, while Crowne says they will be calling on testimony from an expert based in France.

Wilkinson and Crown agreed that testimony related to the collection and testing of Morrison’s sample would unnecessarily extend the hearing as Morrison’s defence rests on the argument that the substance unintentionally entered his body through contamination.