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.”

“