Suspension of Zola Budd Recommended

The International Amateur Athletic Federation worked through the night Friday and by mid-morning Saturday had found a way to deal with the question of runner Zola Budd’s eligibility--it chose to pass the buck.

In a unanimous decision announced to an overflow group of international media, the IAAF Supreme Council recommended that the British Amateur Athletic Board suspend the controversial Budd for at least one year.

The unprecedented move, viewed as a shrewd tactical maneuver, achieved at least two objectives for the IAAF: It appeased the powerful African Bloc by suspending Budd from at least the Olympic Games at Seoul, South Korea, in September, and it relieved itself of legal culpability if Budd takes the matter to the British High Court. Budd is being penalized because she watched a race in South Africa.

The council resolution included what British officials called a “veiled threat”--the IAAF gave the British board 30 days to consider if it would accept the recommendation for suspension.

If, however, the British board does not take “necessary action,” the IAAF intimated it would suspend the entire British federation, effectively ensuring that no British athlete or official could take part in the Seoul Olympics.

It is only the second time in IAAF history that the group has threatened a member nation with a ban, according to one British official. South Africa is the only member nation to have been expelled.

Budd was suspended by the IAAF last month, pending an investigation that she watched a race in Brakpan, South Africa. The international suspension has been extended during the 30-day period in which British officials will consider her case. In the interim, she will be able to compete only in Britain.

The complex issue involves what the world athletic community sees as Budd’s reticence to sever her ties with South Africa.

Budd had waited for 10 hours in hope of appearing at IAAF meetings Friday, but she was never summoned before the council. Saturday, she did not attend the session and spent the day in seclusion.

Her coach, John Bryant, told the British television network ITN that Saturday’s decision was “blackmail.”

“Zola Budd is just one small pawn in this equation,” he said. “If people go on giving in to these threats of boycotts, there will be no end to it.”

The furor over the allegations of Budd’s participation prompted some African nations to threaten to boycott last month’s World Cross-Country Championships in New Zealand if Budd was allowed to compete. Although she had qualified for the British team, Budd later pulled out of the competition under pressure. Budd has won the world title twice before.

Budd, 21, who left her native South Africa in 1984 and became a British citizen, was able to represent Britain in the Los Angeles Olympics. The fact that Budd became a British citizen in only 10 days--jumping the queue--rankled some here. Budd had also, until two months ago, spent several months a year in her homeland.

South Africa is banned from Olympic competition because of its policy of apartheid, or racial separation.

Saturday’s decision shifts the pressure of a controversial decision from the IAAF to the British board, which has been placed in an unenviable position.

If the British choose to support Budd, as they have all along, they may jeopardize the future eligibility of all British athletes. Further, with the threat of being thrown out of the IAAF, the board has to consider its standing within that group. “We must think of harmony,” one official said.

If the British accede to the council’s pressure and suspend Budd, then the appearance will be that Budd will be sacrificed to save face for the board. Further, by not supporting their own athlete, whom they have vigorously defended in the past, the British lose credibility.

At issue is IAAF Rule 53i, which says that no member may “take part” in any competition in South Africa.

In making its ruling, the council was careful not to say Budd broke the letter of the rule, instead it said, in part, “ . . . it appears to the Council that Miss Budd, at the very least, has been in breach of the spirit of the Rules of the IAAF.”

As to the issue of taking part, the council clearly gave notice that the previous interpretation, which had meant actually running in a race, is no longer acceptable.

IAAF Secretary John Holt read the council’s resolution before a packed press conference. It said, in part, “In the opinion of the council, a person may ‘take part’ in an athletics event, without actually competing, in several ways. Acting as a Timekeeper or Judge, presenting prizes or making a contractual personal appearance, are only some examples. What is required is for a person to be present in a capacity more than that of a mere spectator.

“From the information before the council, including Miss Budd’s affidavit, it was clear that Miss Budd greatly exceeded the bounds of being a mere spectator at the cross-country meeting at Brakpan. Not only was she there in her training gear, but she trained on and near the course, in full view of the crowd, and at one stage, by her own admission, she actually ran alongside ineligible runners in an event in order to support them.”

Saturday’s decision significantly broadened the interpretation of the participation rule and will set a precedent that will likely affect other athletes. Many international runners are drawn to train in South Africa because of the high altitude and mild climate in some areas.

The entire East German national track and field team, for example, trains in South Africa for a time each year.

The 23-member council had failed to reach a decision after nearly five hours of private deliberations Friday at the Park Lane Hotel in London’s Piccadilly section.

A 5-person panel was assembled and worked late into Friday night to come up with the delicate wording of Saturday’s announcement. One delegate, Essa Al-Dashi of Kuwait, had said late Friday that “It is a very complex issue, we must be very careful what we write down.”

This was an apparent reference to the council’s concern about Budd’s legal recourse. The IAAF would not want to leave itself open to a lengthy, and expensive, lawsuit in the British courts.

Bryant, Budd’s coach, had said before the hearing that if the outcome was unfavorable, Budd intended to take legal action.

The African Bloc, which has about 41 members in the IAAF, has been a key mover during these two days, though it had wielded relatively little power until a year ago. It was then that a one-country, one-vote rule was passed by the IAAF, distributing the voting power that had for decades rested with such nations as the United States, the Soviet Union, France and England.

One delegate said Saturday that if the voting change had not been made, they never would have prevailed on this issue.

The charges against Budd are vague and have been greatly reduced since they were first made, based on information from the Supreme Council for Sport in Africa.

It was first alleged that Budd had run in a race at Brakpan, South Africa, last June. That charge was based on a newspaper photograph, which later turned out to be of another runner.

Budd admitted that she had been a spectator at the race.

Then the group charged Budd had given out awards in a race in South Africa last New Year’s Eve. That was later proved to be untrue. Budd said she had been on a training run near the course.