“Devastated Jamaica is struggling to come to grips with athletics drugs scandal”.

This sobering headline in last Sunday’s edition of the United-Kingdom based newspaper, The Telegraph, tells the story of an athletics-crazy nation reeling from events of the last month. If the Veronica Campbell-Brown positive test in June for a substance that can mask prohibited drugs was not enough to break the hearts of her global following, then the news of Asafa Powell’s and Sherone Simpson’s A-Sample positives dealt a further crushing blow. Cynics have started to fix their already keen eyes on multiple Olympic gold medallist and self-proclaimed legend, Usain Bolt, asking themselves: “Is he next”?

Jamaican journalist Andre Lowe referred to the sense of “shock and dismay” gripping his countrymen at this time. Yet, depending on where you sit, these events may not be so bad after all. This may very well be an indication that the threat of drug use in athletics is being effectively monitored in the sprint capital of the world and that the last five years of anti-doping regulation is bearing fruit.

It was on the cusp of the 2008 Beijing Olympics that Jamaica passed its Anti-Doping in Sport Act. This legislative initiative was quickly followed by the Bahamas in 2009, Bermuda in 2011 and most recently, this country (Trinidad and Tobago). The local legislation is called the Anti-Doping in Sport Act 2013 and it received presidential assent earlier this month.

Attorney-at-law Christophe Brathwaite raised a number of thought-provoking issues in last week Thursday’s Trinidad Express. At the top of his list was the matter of athlete’s privacy rights as enshrined in the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago. Brathwaite recognised that the Act needed a special parliamentary majority as a result of the intrusiveness of the whereabouts requirements, in which athletes must name daily a 60-minute slot where they can be found with certainty.

His concern is valid and, in fact, can be strengthened when one considers that the collection of blood or urine samples is equally invasive to an athlete’s private life. Yet, it is a pleasing trend that generally speaking, most athletes globally have no difficulty with giving their whereabouts to anti-doping regulators.  Athlete-friendly measures are in place, including the web-based Anti-Doping Administration and Management System (ADAMS) which allows sportspersons to update their whereabouts in case of unexpected changes. Firm expectations, but fair.

The global legal system is also endorsing the anti-doping fight. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), which has applauded the enactment of our legislation, noted in December 2011 that the French State Council dismissed a challenge brought by FIFPRO, the global footballers’ representative body. The council observed that the whereabouts rules “are justified by the general interest of the fight against doping and are proportional to that goal’’.

From the standpoint of implementing the legislation, the Trinidad and Tobago Anti-Doping Organisation (TTADO) is not called to re-invent the wheel. The recent successes of sister bodies like the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) in the Lance Armstrong and Tyson Gay cases and the Jamaican Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO) as they deal with the Powell, Simpson and Campbell-Brown positive tests, should go a far way in building the confidence of those persons called to serve under the local Act.

Equally, our sports personalities will have the opportunity to access various internal bodies depending on their specific need. For instance, those with special medical conditions perhaps warranting the use of prohibited substances can approach the Therapeutic Use Exemption Committee. At the same time, aggrieved athletes have recourse to the Disciplinary Panel, the Appeal Panel and in limited circumstances, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne, Switzerland. The Act, therefore, seeks to articulate clear processes and procedures that recognise and safeguard the rights of affected parties.

The regulatory framework here is bolstered by the existence of WADA-approved Anti-Doping Rules since 2011 which can now be adopted pursuant to the legislation. Additionally, the five International Standards that support the World Anti-Doping Code offer more than useful guidelines for National Olympic Committees, National Anti-Doping Organisations, Governments, athletes and their support personnel. These regulations, admittedly, will take some effort to digest but when the integrity of sport is at stake, the bar must be set high and strict stipulations enforced. Firm provisions, but fair.

The days ahead will be approached with a combination of eager anticipation and sober reflection. This country’s credibility as a regional sports leader could only have been enhanced by the passing of the legislation.  It is submitted that the Anti-Doping in Sport Act 2013 neatly finds the middle ground between protecting the rights of athletes and promoting clean sport.

The Act came about after years of research, feedback and consultation. It was debated in both houses of Parliament with passion, vigour and scholarly insight.

It is a welcome addition to the laws of Trinidad and Tobago. Firm legislation indeed, but fair.

• J Tyrone Marcus, attorney-at-law, was a member of the Anti-Doping Steering Committee that assisted the legislative drafters of the Anti-Doping in Sport Act 2013

Source