From: peter stuart:
> Did they use this rule against all of the athletes that competed in ALL of
> the meets that Butch Reynolds was in while under the SAME circumstances ?
> If not, it would be tough to use it now. It would look like some countries
> and athletes were getting preferential treatment.
I remember the Reynolds situation as follows:
With Butch Reynolds, the IAAF never used the rule, only threatened to use
it. Leading up to the trials, there was a standoff between TAC and the IAAF
because Reynolds had gotten an injunction to compete from a U.S. court. The
IAAF said that anyone who competed in the 400m trials, semis, or finals
against Butch would be declared ineligible. TAC had no choice but to let
him compete. For several days, the athletes were on edge, not knowing if
competing in the trials would make them ineligible for the Olympics. But
they didn't have much choice, either, if they wanted to make the Olympic
team. One or two non-marquee names may have pulled out.
Ultimately, the IAAF backed down a few hours before the first round of the
400m, and didn't enforce the rule. I have no idea if negotiations between
TAC and the IAAF accomplished this or if the IAAF just backed down. If I
recall correctly, at one point in the process, they even threatened to make
anyone who competed in the meet ineligible, not just the 400m runners.
Reynolds, of course, was in no kind of shape after his ordeal and didn't
make the final.
It is amazing how many similarities there are between the two situations in
terms of the actions of the national federation, the courts, and the IAAF.
One important difference is that in the Reynolds situation, the IAAF would
have been disqualifying 8 of the top 10 400 meter runners in the world, and
turned the Olympic 400m into a joke. In the Baumann case, the runners to be
disqualified are a lot more "expendable" from an IAAF standpoint, although I
honestly don't know if this has anything to do with their decision.
IMO, the reason for the difference is simple -they can get away with what
they are doing now and not do any real damage to the IAAF. The
ramifications of their actions with Reynolds might have been as great as
either an American track boycott of the Olympics (probably not, but there
was talk), even more legal problems in the U.S., which ultimately could have
resulted in courts seizing IAAF funds that pass through the U.S., or most
frightening to them, having their authority overridden by the IOC in the
best interests of the Games.
- Ed Parrot
