As a Rule, They Really Have None

Swimming has a drug problem, but it is not the one its leaders want to discuss. This is not about the Chinese or Jessica Foschi. Swimming’s problem is more basic than that.

Its problem is understanding its rules.

The august leadership that sanctions athletes for failing drug tests does not seem to grasp this contradiction.

The sport’s leaders say something must be done to stop the Chinese women from doping. And in fact, officials from Australia, Canada and the United States voted to ban China from the Pan-Pacific Championships in Atlanta last year.

They say drugs must be eradicated from the sport, even if it means sacrificing individual rights.

They don’t say that the complexities of drug testing are confusing and confounding them. They don’t say they are fuzzy on what really needs to be done.

Instead they recite the mantra: “The rules are the rules.”

But it became abundantly clear after Foschi’s two-day appeal hearing last week in Orlando, Fla., that the rules are not always the rules.

Foschi, 15, of Old Brookville, N.Y., tested positive for the anabolic steroid mesterolone at last summer’s national championships in Pasadena.

U.S. Swimming’s national board of review--a three-person panel selected by the organization to judge the case--voted, 2-1, last November to go easy on Foschi. Bill Stapleton and Jill Sterkel, both Olympians, said they voted for probation instead of a standard two-year suspension because they believed the teenager had not knowingly taken the drug.

They thought they had followed the guidelines of U.S. Swimming in arriving at their decision.

The panelists have since learned about a legal concept known as “strict liability,” which means athletes are responsible no matter how banned drugs entered their systems.

U.S. officials said that is the intent of the rules of FINA, the international governing body for swimming.

Track and field uses the concept too, but makes that clear in its guidelines, warning athletes that anything they ingest, no matter how innocently, can be used against them.

Nowhere in swimming’s rules is strict liability mentioned. But using the concept, U.S. Swimming’s board of directors overturned the panel’s decision and suspended Foschi. Then, in a strange twist, the board wrote in its decision that athletes have the right to present evidence in their defense, contrary to strict liability.

The man who should know best, Alan Richardson, FINA’s medical commission chairman, was stumped when asked about U.S. Swimming’s application of strict liability. He said the rules allow appeals and any evidence that would support an athlete’s claim of innocence.

If that is the case, Foschi was banned for a conceptual rule no one is sure exists.

The Foschis have asked the American Arbitration Assn. for a ruling, hoping the neutral body will overturn the suspension. If it does, FINA is expected to intercede and try to uphold the ban.

Therein lies some of the confusion. U.S. swim officials testified that sometimes U.S. Olympic Committee rules are applied to their meets, whereas some other times, FINA rules are used. Still other times, U.S. Swimming rules apply. And at the Olympics, the International Olympic Committee has its guidelines.

Although the rules are generally in line, the wording is different enough to be questioned under close scrutiny.

“It’s not just swimming, it’s throughout sports,” said Don Catlin, an IOC medical officer and director of the UCLA drug-testing laboratory.

Catlin said the discrepancies between national and international rules usually are minor but address major points.

Before swimming confronts the drug problem with the sudden rise of Chinese women, who won 12 of 16 gold medals at the 1994 world championships, it should initiate standard rules. Officials say it is difficult because of cultural and legal differences.

Still, something must be done because as it stands, many of these officials look foolish on the witness stand.

A number of college coaches testified at the Foschi hearing and what they said concerned Ray Essick, U.S. Swimming’s executive director.

Cyndi Gallagher, the UCLA women’s coach, said it is not her responsibility to educate athletes about drugs and testing. Other coaches were unclear on the nuances of testing and their roles as well.

“Our coaches better wake up and recognize they have an obligation as professional coaches,” Essick said. “If they’re going to complain about it, they sure as heck better start doing something about it.”

The same could be said of Essick and other U.S. Swimming leaders. Although they mean well in their efforts to improve the sport, they need to find a new mantra:

“Fair and clear are the rules.”