THE EDITOR, Sir:
Orville Higgins must get over himself. It seems as if every issue surrounding this matter has to be twisted by him. To what end, only God knows.
From the outset, under the guise of journalistic objectivity, Higgins has been hell-bent on assuming the worst and making sure that us lesser mortals do the same. One gets the sense that he is disappointed with the ruling, as it does not conform to the various theories and scenarios he had postulated.
In his column 'Is public warning punishment enough?' (Gleaner, October 4, 2013), he makes another pathetic attempt to spin the results to find congruence with his flawed reasoning.
Yes, we should be objective in our assessment of the matter, but he seems to be going too far. His previous article set the stage to contort any outcome of the hearing.
Higgins seems to assume that the fervency with which we defend VCB is for no other reason than because she is Jamaican. Jamaicans are neither stupid nor na´ve, and we are quite aware that people in all spheres of life do succumb to temptations from time to time.
HISTORY OF RESPECTABILITY
But here is a woman who has conquered the sprinting world for years, won many awards, made pots of money, is still one of the fastest female athletes, and can still command respect and attention at any sprint meet.
Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, despite her being Jamaican, this is the kind of thinking that is underpinning our support for the great VCB?
Don't you think she deserves our full belief in her innocence until otherwise proven? Does this make us irrational and emotional because we in fact give her our support?
Higgins is a journalist(?), and as such, his independence must be preserved, but he should remember that he is also Jamaican. Please respect the ruling of the duly constituted body that deliberated this matter.
The tone of his arguments leads me to believe that he is hoping that the IAAF does not ratify the decision. Then he could say, 'I told you so'.