The legal battle surrounding Jamaican squash player Julian Morrison has taken a contentious turn as his attorneys, Matthew Gayle and Dr. Emir Crowne of New City Chambers, are at odds with the Independent Anti-Doping Panel (IADP) over its decision to hold the upcoming hearing virtually. The dispute arose after Morrison’s legal team, who had planned to attend the hearing in person, was informed at the last minute that the proceedings set for September 3 and 4, would be conducted via Zoom.

Morrison, who was provisionally suspended by the Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO) in April after testing positive for trace amounts of the banned anabolic agent Boldenone, has been eagerly awaiting the chance to clear his name. His legal team has argued that Morrison unknowingly ingested the substance and is determined to prove his innocence.

Matthew Gayle expressed his frustration with the IADP’s unilateral decision to conduct the hearing virtually, especially given the substantial expenses incurred by the athlete for his legal team to travel to Jamaica.

“My personal opinion is that the unilateral decision by the Independent Panel to hold this hearing, a substantive hearing by virtual means, made at the 11th hour, and without any consultation with the parties, offends every sense of justice of the matter," Gayle said. "In particular, Dr. Crowne and I indicated that we were in the midst of making travel arrangements some two weeks ago, and this was communicated to the panel."

He continued, “Since then, the athlete has expended significant funds for us to travel to Jamaica in order to represent him in person, only to find out less than a week before we travel that the hearing is to be held by Zoom. This is in the context of there has been very little, if any, movement in bringing this matter to a head since April. It reeks of bureaucratic inefficiency. I just hope that the athlete is able to get a fair hearing. At the end of the day, this athlete has been on provisional suspension for a significant period, and the case is yet to be heard, yet to be proven.”

The situation escalated further when Sportsmax.TV obtained copies of the correspondence between Morrison’s representatives and Christine Minto, chairperson of the IADP. In the emails, Morrison’s legal team expressed their surprise and disappointment at the decision to hold the hearing virtually, especially after making it clear on multiple occasions that they intended to be present in Jamaica for the hearing.

“We are very surprised to learn that the choice of online forum for the hearing is on account of the athlete's representatives living/working out of the country. The experts appearing virtually is also a surprising rationale, since by that account there would rarely be an in-person hearing," the correspondence read.

The attorneys emphasized that their plans to attend in person had been communicated clearly, both verbally and in writing, yet the decision to go virtual was made without their input.

 In response, Minto defended the Panel’s decision, stating that the hearing had been conducted virtually from the start and that it should not have been unexpected that it would continue in the same manner. She pointed out that the athlete’s representatives did not specifically request an in-person hearing early enough and suggested that their decision to book accommodations in Jamaica was based on their preference to be in the same room as their client during the virtual hearing.

“This matter has been conducted virtually since the commencement of the hearing process. We have had at least four hearing dates so far, virtually. Therefore, it ought not to have taken anyone by surprise that the hearing will be continuing and concluding virtually," Minto explained.

She added, "A specific application ought to have been made for an in-person hearing by the athlete. Perhaps at the same time, as the application for a public hearing. It was certainly neither clear to us nor unequivocal that the athlete desired an in-person hearing. Further, the importance of the athlete’s evidence is not diminished or undermined if it is taken virtually.”

As the dispute over the hearing format continues, the focus remains on ensuring that Julian Morrison receives a fair trial and that the case, which has been pending for several months, reaches a timely conclusion.

Attorneys representing Jamaica and West Indies opening batsman John Campbell have expressed disappointment at the decision of an independent anti-doping panel to ban the cricketer for four years effective May 2022.

Campbell was charged with evading, refusing or failing to submit to sample collection in April 2022. In their 18-page ruling, the panel said in part: "The panel is persuaded to a comfortable degree of satisfaction that the athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation, namely a breach of JADCO rule 2.3. The panel does not find, on the evidence presented, that the athlete's anti-doping violation was not intentional.

"In the circumstances of this case, the athlete is ineligible for a period of four years."

This means the 29-year-old batsman will not be able to play cricket until he is 33 years old, which could significantly impact his ability to represent the West Indies beyond 2026.

Campbell has scored 888 runs in 20 Tests for the West Indies.

In response to the ruling, attorneys Ayana L. Thomas and Mark-Paul Cowan of the noted legal firm Nunes Scholefield Deleon and Co. made clear their disappointment and did not rule out appealing the judgement.

“Mr Campbell has been a clean athlete throughout his outstanding career as a batsman and he remains committed to a clean sport,” the statement read.

“It is important to emphasize that the allegations against him was not relating to an adverse analytical finding or banned substances. The allegation concerned refusing or failing to submit a sample collection after proper notification pursuant to Article 2.3 of the JADCo Anti-Doping rules.

“Our client has to date, never returned an adverse analytical finding for banned substances.”

According to the attorneys, JADCO committed several breaches of the International Test Standards (IST).

“We have read the written decision of the disciplinary panel and believe there are legitimate grounds for an appeal concerning whether the necessary ingredients to sustain the alleged anti-doping rule violation were proved before the panel particularly as it relates to the notification requirements,” the lawyers said.

“Mr Campbell’s position was that he was not properly notified by JADCO. There were several breaches by JADCO of the mandatory International Testing Standards and Investigations in respect of the notification of the athlete of which, in our view, were not adequately addressed by the panel.”

That matter was not the only issue concern for Campbell’s attorneys.

“Additionally, there were several mitigatory factors supported by evidence which were not challenged by JADCO and which ought to have been mitigated against the imposition of the maximum penalty,” they said, “even if the panel found that the athlete committed a violation.

“It does not appear from the written decision that these factors in mitigation were adequately considered by the panel.

“Our client will, therefore, at this time, consider exercising his right of appeal after further consultation with his legal team and will make a decision shortly.”

“