COMMENTARY : IAAF Isn’t Helping the Sport’s Image

There probably are no more than three or four people who know whether quarter-miler Butch Reynolds ever used an anabolic steroid, but the fact is that the issue has become so obscured by legal and political machinations that it has almost become forgotten.

One thing clear from the beginning of this runaway train of a story is that there were several procedural violations in the drug test on Aug. 12, 1990, at Monte Carlo, that resulted in Reynolds’ two-year suspension, reason enough for The Athletics Congress, which governs track and field in the United States, to exonerate him.

For example, the official in the analytical laboratory at Paris who was in charge of recording the incoming drug tests from Monte Carlo twice circled a number on forms that did not correspond to the number on the form signed by Reynolds. As a result, it was impossible, based on the forms, to determine whether the tainted urine sample came from Reynolds.

Testifying in a hearing in May at London, the official insisted that Reynolds indeed had supplied the sample in question, flippantly explaining the discrepancy by saying: “I am unlucky with circles that day.”

But despite considerable evidence that its own procedures to ensure accuracy and fairness in drug testing were violated at Monte Carlo, the International Amateur Athletic Federation, the world governing body for track and field, never deviated from its position that Reynolds would not be eligible to compete again internationally until Aug. 12, three days after the closing ceremony of the 1992 Summer Olympics at Barcelona.

It was the IAAF’s arrogance in insisting upon the infallibility of its judgment, much more than it was the question of Butch Reynolds’ innocence or guilt, that again brought the sport into disrepute.

How arrogant is the IAAF?

When it became apparent within the last month that Reynolds had momentum on his side in the U.S. federal courts, the IAAF’s president, Primo Nebiolo, acted unimpressed. “We will never accept a decision of any court in the world against our rules,” he said.

Nebiolo had already given in once in this case, backing down after having declared that any runner who competed against Reynolds in the U.S. championships last year would be ineligible to compete at the World Championships because of the IAAF’s so-called contamination rule. Reynolds had won the right to a lane in the meet through a hearing arranged by the U.S. Olympic Committee with an independent arbitrator.

But Nebiolo warned that his patience, as well as his charity, had been exhausted, and when he threatened to suspend anyone who ran against Reynolds this year from the Olympics, officials from TAC and the USOC took him seriously. So did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit at Cincinnati late Friday, when it ruled that Reynolds could not run in the first round of the 400 meters here today in the U.S. Olympic trials.

It was difficult to find anyone among Reynolds’ fellow quarter-milers, other than his brother Jeff, who felt particularly sorry for him. Many were irritated because he had gone to the brink of jeopardizing their Olympic hopes, and some said they never believed he was innocent in the first place.

But all of them should beware that they will receive similar treatment if they find someday that their individual interests do not correspond with those of the IAAF.

It happened to Larry Myricks after the World Championships at Rome in 1987, when Nebiolo initially refused to investigate charges that Italian track and field officials manipulated long-jump measurements so that an Italian athlete would win the bronze medal that rightfully belonged to the American. Nebiolo relented only after one of the guilty parties admitted to the corruption.

It happened a short time later to Zola Budd, whose right to compete for Great Britain was revoked because of pressure applied by the IAAF’s African representatives, who are so crucial to the maintenance of Nebiolo’s power base. The grievance used to exile Budd was that she participated in a meet in South Africa by presenting flowers to the winner of a road race.

Now, it has happened to Butch Reynolds.

When Reynolds finally had his hearing with the IAAF in May at London, the arbitration panel, commissioned by the IAAF, deliberated for only three hours before ruling against him. More to the point, the panel announced before it began deliberating that it would take only three hours.

“The fix was in,” said Tim Baker, a member of the TAC panel that earlier had needed two weeks to deliberate before deciding in Reynolds’ favor.

It is difficult to conclude otherwise. This is a sport that is beginning to make professional boxing look good by comparison.