.GIF)
Ottey
THE EDITOR, Madam:
IN THE sport of cricket, the benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman. If the umpire is not sure if the batsman is out, then the rules of the game demand that the batsman benefit from any uncertainty. That is what helped the West Indies to defeat the Pakistan team in the recent cricket Test series when Courtney Walsh was given the benefit of the doubt.
Similarly, English batsmen would have benefited from the doubt factor in the last sensational Test match at Lord's.
Not only is the game of cricket predicated on this principle, but the game of life is also based on that arrangement. More particular, the justice system is predicated on the fact that wherever there is reasonable doubt, then the accused must be freed.
However, this principle has been trampled on in the Merlene Ottey case, in the issue of difference between nationals and foreigners, and in the matter of the Caribbean Court of Justice.
When Merlene Ottey was tested positive for the two metabolites of the banned steroid nandrolone in July 1999 it was unfortunate that some leading Jamaicans did not give her the benefit of the doubt. Based on her past record and statement, she should have been presumed innocent until proven guilty.
It was sad that a doctor speculated that her performance must have been enhanced by illegal substance because it was getting better with age. Then there was the leading columnist, whose name I will not call because one must not speak ill of the dead, who said that Merlene Ottey benefited from a hometown decision.
That decision giving her the benefit of the doubt was made by a distinguished panel, which included Dr. Lloyd Barnett and Dr. Alfred Sangster. Now that an international panel has agreed with the Jamaican authorities, then that columnist must be turning in his grave.
However, not only should Jamaicans observe this principle, but so too must the IAAF.
It seems an injustice that Merlene Ottey could be banned for two years before a trial. Testing positive is not a substitute for a trial! Unless the person pleads guilty from the outset then and only then can the penalties be implemented immediately.
Kangaroo justice
Otherwise, it would be like convicting someone of a serious crime before a court hearing. That is a Kangaroo justice system.
The bans should be implemented after the trial otherwise grave injustices will be done to athletes. Merlene should have been given the benefit of the doubt by Jamaicans and the IAAF.
Our discourse on the issue between locals and foreigners should also follow this principle. On June 12, 2000 Dr. Stephen Vasciannie, writing in The Gleaner stated that former American Ambassador Gary Cooper said of the Jamaican Government: "This bandoolu government will have to stop telling lies on me."
Mr. Cooper states that he does not recall making that statement. Who is telling the truth? It could be that Mr. Cooper made the statement and he does not recall it. I would give the benefit of the doubt to Stephen Vasciannie because this is the same Gary Cooper who made some undiplomatic statements in a speech he gave at theJamaica Council of Churches' Banquet in 1995.
It was he, as the guest speaker, who used the occasion to urge the churches to support the use of taxes from gambling for educational purposes. Give the benefit of the doubt to Dr. Vasciannie.
On the idea on the establishment of the Caribbean Court of Justice, the Caribbean judges should be given the benefit of the doubt on expected performance. No one can say for sure that the judges will perform well or poorly. However, the benefit of the doubt should go to them based on past performance. The survey of cases that have gone to the Privy Council in the last decade or since 1982 from Jamaica shows that the decisions of the Jamaican Courts have been upheld in the majority of the cases. There needs to be confidence in our local judges.
I do not know the principal of Campion College, but I wonder if he is being given the benefit of the doubt especially since so many of the charges have already been dropped.
I do have serious problems with the justice system as it relates to how charges are laid against people. There should be meticulous care before charges are laid, and there should be swift recourse on persons who arbitrarily lay charges on people.
Are other persons suffering in silence because they are not being given the benefit of the doubt of being innocent until proven guilty?
Let the game of sports, and in particular the Merlene Ottey case, teach us to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused. The principle must be 'innocent until proven guilty'.
I am, etc.,
DEVON DICK
