provide a second sample, escaped suspension through a technical loop-hole, it was revealed yesterday.

Austin Woods, chairman of the Bermuda Council for Drug-free Sport (BCDS), explained that because the BCDS review panel, before which the players had to appear, had not been convened at the time the alleged drug policy infractions were committed, the players could not be penalised.

Just last weekend, Bermuda Football Association announced that players involved in the controversy had been cleared to play for their clubs. But they would have to submit to further drug tests before representing Bermuda on the international stage.

As many as nine national squad players are reported to have been involved, although both the BFA and BCDS have refused to confirm that number.

Woods said that the BCDS review panel met on Thursday, October 7 to "consider whether or not a reasonable excuse existed for individuals refusing or failing to comply with the drug use control procedure.'' "It was the opinion of the Panel, in the absence of there being a permanently constituted Review Panel, immediate notification of athlete non-compliance to the BCDS Results Management Committee was not sufficient,'' said Woods in a statement.

"The Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) say that the Panel (not the Results Management Committee) must be notified in three days, and therefore, by the time the Panel was notified to convene, the BCDS had exceeded the time frame by 12 days.'' Woods said the rights of athletes had to be protected. And "in this case,'' he added "athletes who submitted their excuses in writing within a few days of the infraction should not have had to wait until all of the athletes submitted their written excuses.

"Each athlete had 14 days to submit written excuses after they received notice that there was an infraction.

"The BCDS had determined that the Review Panel should be notified after all suspended athletes had had the opportunity to submit their excuses for non-compliance.

"As a result, the panel ruled in favour of the said athletes, and whilst this may have been a technical matter, the effect of what might have been a year's suspension was set aside.'' Woods said the panel had now recommended that in future the Results Management Committee could act on behalf of the Review Panel.