IF any reader has been confused by the latest series of stories on the so-called Devonshire Cougars drugs test saga, they can rest assured they?re not alone.

Lack of information, misinformation and general confusion continue to surround the issue ? hardly surprising since by its very nature drug testing of any kind has to be conducted in a highly confidential manner.

Regardless, some of the facts that have emerged are cause for serious concern.

The key question is whether those selected for testing were treated fairly and whether proper procedure was followed.

Officials at the Devonshire club appear convinced that the answer to both of those questions is an emphatic ?no?.

From documents obtained by this week, it appears that, at very least, there were inconsistencies in the manner in which Cougars? players Omar Butterfield, Heys Wolffe, Raymond Beach and Domico Coddington were treated when they were required to take drug tests prior to the national team?s match against Santos of Brazil last year.

Two of the players? samples were reportedly deemed ?positive? by the testing agency Benedict Associates, yet ?negative? when inspected by the Government Laboratory.

Coddington was named on the documents as having been required to take a second test, when in fact that was never the case.

Initially, Butterfield and Wolffe were banned from playing for refusing to show up for a third test after their first two were deemed to be invalid. The suspensions were subsequently lifted after, on appeal, it was agreed the testing system had been ?flawed.?

Beach remains on the sidelines under suspension, apparently because of a previous infraction when he was representing the national youth team along with the fact that he shredded his paperwork and refused to attend a third test.

Those are the facts as we know them. Yet, there?s obviously much more information that has not been divulged.

What is particularly disturbing about the whole issue is the inference from Cougars that there has been an orchestrated campaign from either those within Bermuda Football Association or the Bermuda Council for Drug Free Sport (BCDS) to discredit their players.

Some at Cougars, it would seem, are convinced they have become victims of a conspiracy, believing that the bans imposed on their players represent payback for an altercation between Wolffe, Beach and then national team coach Kenny Thompson during the World Cup qualifying campaign almost two years ago.

Cougars, indeed, have often seen themselves as the ?black sheep? of the BFA family, having been booted out of an FA Cup semi-final a few seasons back for fielding an ineligible player.

It?s difficult to see, however, why, in particular, the neutral BCDS or even the BFA would set out an agenda to embarrass or discredit one group of players.

Fingers at Devonshire have pointed to Jon Beard who as BCDS president and a BFA executive, they say, has a conflict of interest. But anybody who has worked with Beard during the countless volunteer hours he has contributed to local sport over more than three decades will tell you his reputation is one of being scrupulously fair.

He also happens to be heavily involved with the Small Island Games, many of whose competitors are regularly subjected to drug testing. Is that also a conflict of interest?

However, Cougars? claims of unfair treatment warrant a full explanation, given the information that has already been provided.

With Bermuda increasingly involved in international competition, drug testing has become part and parcel of the qualification process.

In such a sensitive area, there?s no room for error. Our athletes have to be assured that any test to which they?re subjected is conducted in an environment that meets the highest professional standards.

If there is any substance to Cougars? complaints that their players were treated unfairly, the public deserve to know.

ORGANISERS would have us believe that a late rush of entries added a silver lining to last week?s International Race Weekend, although the figure of 900 offered by Bermuda Track and Field Association president Judy Simmons didn?t quite tally with the official number of finishers ? a paltry 510.

Despite the significant drop in overseas athletes, once again the Weekend provided some stirring performances and ran as smoothly as ever thanks to the efforts from an army of volunteers.

Yet there?s still so much more that could be done to improve the event.

At Friday night?s Front Street Mile, for instance, those spectators either side of the finish line were left completely in the dark ? unable to hear any of the race commentary (for what is was worth).

Would it really be too much trouble to erect speakers at various points along the course and then employ a commentator familiar with both the sport and the competitors to keep the crowd up to date as the races unfold?

And wouldn?t it make sense to distribute programmes listing all of the runners and their bib numbers to those who come out to watch?

Ask any of the runners and they?ll tell you it?s the spectators who line Front Street, as much as the competitors themselves, who make the event what it is.

Perhaps next year those who come out to support the races can be kept better informed.