Dave Williams

The postponement of the Tokyo games until the Summer of 2021 means Ahye, who is appealing that ban to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), would have been too late even if successful, but that is now, no longer true.

In fact, even if her appeal is unsuccessful, Ahye may still suit up for T&T.  

Ahye has the support of the Trinidad and Tobago Olympic Committee (TTOC) throughout the appeals process and the sprinter will be going to CAS with the organisation’s lawyer, Dave Williams.

According to Williams, who spoke to Errol Baptiste on I95.5fm recently, Ahye’s ban began in April of 2019 and is scheduled to end in April of 2019, a full three months before the next Olympics.

Ahye had missed three drug tests on June 23, 2018, February 23, 2019 and April 19, 2019.

"Yes, on a technicality yes, she is available. There is no precedent in place that would prevent her from participating once she qualifies, in the July 2021 Olympics,” said Williams.

Despite the technicality, Williams and the TTOC are still going ahead with their appeal because there are other considerations for the athlete.

"Michelle would have, in fact, suffered as a result of the order issued by the Tribunal, the medals, the titles and awards that she would have received during the period (April to August, 2019), as a result of the Tribunal’s ruling, she would no longer be entitled to such, as a matter of fact, the order goes on to say that Michele’s result from April 2019 shall be disqualified with all resulting consequences including the forfeiture of any titles or awards, medals, points so we are appealing that as well. So, notwithstanding the fact that yes she has benefitted as a consequence of COVID-19, there are still issues that we would like to have reversed in Michelle’s favour,” said Williams.

Williams explained that the process with CAS has been completed and it was now just a wait and see situation.

“We have lodged our appeal, the respondent has since submitted their response to our appeal and it is up to CAS now, both parties have in fact made their relevant submissions to CAS, so the matter is now being deliberated on by CAS," said Williams.

How soon that judgement will be handed down has not been revealed by the CAS yet.

Williams also explained that the ban cannot be extended because the Olympics were moved and/or any extenuating circumstances surrounding the spread of COVID-19.

World Athletics banned Ahye, the 2018 Commonwealth Games 100m champion on January 25, 2020, after the athlete missed three doping tests between June 23, 2018, and April 19, 2019.

However, Williams feels that there are strong grounds to have the matter overturned and clear the way for Ahye to compete at the 2020 Olympic Games in Tokyo, Japan in July.

“Having reviewed the judgment, we felt that there were grounds worthy of appeal, without going into the specifics. Additionally, the Tribunal judgment seemed quite biased as well,” he said in response to questions from Sportsmax.TV.

TTOC received the decision on January 13, 2020, and based on IAAF Anti-Doping Rules Article 13.7.1, TTOC has 30 days from the date in which it was notified of the decision (Jan, 13th) to file its Statement of Appeal (SOA).

According to Williams, the TTOC has met that deadline, however, an Appeal Brief (a more comprehensive document where the grounds, arguments, case law etc. have to be submitted) must be submitted within 15 days of the filing of the SOA.

“We are hoping for an expedited hearing, since if successful, the Athlete may be able to represent her country in Japan,” he said.

Williams said there was no official consultation with the National Association of Athletic Associations (NAAA) but indicated that they are in support of the action being taken by TTOC.

“The TTOC always seeks the best interest of its athletes and where we believe there is a chance that Michelle can be exonerated, we are prepared to assist in that regard,” Williams said.

“It is not an easy one since those rules are interpreted strictly. But such interpretation must also be fair and in keeping with the principles of natural justice. I am prepared to give it my best shot. It is not a “shot in the dark” since if viewed objectively the penalty imposed was a bit harsh, as there were mitigating circumstances that ought to have been taken into consideration.”