Tweet
When greatness is unexpectedly thrust on an inherently backward nation, we end up with dilemmas like this. What do I mean? Read this very relevant editorial to find out.
My source: The Daily Gleaner
(http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/2...cleisure1.html )
EDITORIAL - JADCO Needs To Do More
Published: Friday | August 2, 2013
We should, perhaps, be thankful for small mercies. In which respect, we declare gratitude to Dr Herb Elliott, the chairman of the Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO).
After much prodding in these columns, Dr Elliott has allowed himself to dribble the fact that his agency last year, tested 106 athletes for banned substances. In the five years since its launch, JADCO has "overseen" 860 tests, or an annual average, up this point, of 172 a year.
While the absolute figures, Dr Elliott asserts, may have been fewer than several of our peers, Jamaica, on a per-capita basis, has done well.
"We have done enough tests when you compare by population," Dr Elliott told this newspaper.
Further, JADCO's focus was primarily on track and field athletes, "while some of these other countries have a lot more athletes from a lot more sports to test", Dr Elliott argued.
This newspaper does not question the logic of Dr Elliott's analysis. Indeed, given the global assault to which Jamaica's track and field reputation has been subject since the recent spate of positive drug tests against some of our athletes, we are desperate to believe him.
But as we have noted before, in circumstances such as those Jamaica now confronts, arguments are not won merely by declarations and assertions. These must be supported by unimpeachable data and comparative analyses - which is what we urged on JADCO.
For instance, we would expect JADCO to declare the number of athletes who are subject to its testing regime and break this down by the various sports in which they participate.
We would then expect that the number of tests performed would be reported by category of athletes, whether these tests were performed in or out of competition, and if they were at the initiative of JADCO or at the behest of other agencies or sporting organisations.
Such information ought not to be distributed as by Oliver Twist's Mr Bumble, in grudging dollops or as if JADCO remained ensconced in the Official Secrets Act.
In these days of transparency, such information should be easily available on a website - which JADCO does not have - and in half-yearly and annual reports tabled in Parliament and widely published.
No one doubts JADCO's financial constraints, but solutions are not entirely dependent on money. In this case, a little thought and commitment to transparency is the best way to confront the Dick Pounds of the world. Dr Elliott has made a tiny step in that direction.
The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.
My source: The Daily Gleaner
(http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/2...cleisure1.html )
EDITORIAL - JADCO Needs To Do More
Published: Friday | August 2, 2013
We should, perhaps, be thankful for small mercies. In which respect, we declare gratitude to Dr Herb Elliott, the chairman of the Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO).
After much prodding in these columns, Dr Elliott has allowed himself to dribble the fact that his agency last year, tested 106 athletes for banned substances. In the five years since its launch, JADCO has "overseen" 860 tests, or an annual average, up this point, of 172 a year.
While the absolute figures, Dr Elliott asserts, may have been fewer than several of our peers, Jamaica, on a per-capita basis, has done well.
"We have done enough tests when you compare by population," Dr Elliott told this newspaper.
Further, JADCO's focus was primarily on track and field athletes, "while some of these other countries have a lot more athletes from a lot more sports to test", Dr Elliott argued.
This newspaper does not question the logic of Dr Elliott's analysis. Indeed, given the global assault to which Jamaica's track and field reputation has been subject since the recent spate of positive drug tests against some of our athletes, we are desperate to believe him.
But as we have noted before, in circumstances such as those Jamaica now confronts, arguments are not won merely by declarations and assertions. These must be supported by unimpeachable data and comparative analyses - which is what we urged on JADCO.
For instance, we would expect JADCO to declare the number of athletes who are subject to its testing regime and break this down by the various sports in which they participate.
We would then expect that the number of tests performed would be reported by category of athletes, whether these tests were performed in or out of competition, and if they were at the initiative of JADCO or at the behest of other agencies or sporting organisations.
Such information ought not to be distributed as by Oliver Twist's Mr Bumble, in grudging dollops or as if JADCO remained ensconced in the Official Secrets Act.
In these days of transparency, such information should be easily available on a website - which JADCO does not have - and in half-yearly and annual reports tabled in Parliament and widely published.
No one doubts JADCO's financial constraints, but solutions are not entirely dependent on money. In this case, a little thought and commitment to transparency is the best way to confront the Dick Pounds of the world. Dr Elliott has made a tiny step in that direction.
The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.
Comment