http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,4-339164,00.html
June 27, 2002
US sport on trial as Olympic
cheats face exposure
by Owen Slot, Chief Sports Reporter
THE allegations that John McEnroe used steroids when he was a professional tennis
player may seem
shocking, they may raise questions over his achievements and they may, of course, be
completely
untrue. However, their timing is unfortunate. Never before have attitudes in the
United States to
the use of drugs in sport been so heavily questioned.
The suggestion that there is a culture of compliance and cover-up is now openly voiced
and latest
revelations suggest that medals may have been won in the past three summer Olympics by
Americans who
had tested positive for drugs but, nevertheless, been allowed to compete. Baseball has
also been
rocked by accounts that steroid abuse is widespread.
Last month Sports Illustrated published an investigation in which Ken Caminiti, the
former National
League Most Valuable Player, admitted to taking steroids throughout his career and
said that up to
50 per cent of the league’s players did the same. Jose Canseco, a one-time Major
League player,
claimed that 85 per cent of big-league stars use steroids.
Such stories are becoming common and while it is an offence to take
performance-enhancing drugs, it
has been alleged that the drug-testers in the United States have been contentedly
overlooking it.
This is what Wade Exum, the former head of the United States Olympic Committee’s
(USOC) drug-testing
programme, has been saying for two years since he left the organisation.
Exum has been portrayed by the USOC as a disgruntled employee whose job was in
jeopardy, but this
weekend he is to make public the fine details behind his comments. In an interview
with The Times,
Exum explained how only 50 per cent of those who tested positive for drugs received
the requisite
ban and that this was down, in his last couple of years, to one in seven. "I felt
resistance (from
his employers) all along," he said. "Their anti-doping programme is largely PR."
Exum made his initial accusation through his lawyer in June 2000, asserting that the
USOC was
"deliberately encouraging the doping of athletes without considering the consequences
to their
health". Lawsuits were subsequently filed, but Exum claims that he found these hard to
fight because
the USOC lawyers pilfered all his evidence. The USOC had naturally wanted to see the
evidence and,
in the autumn of 2000, were granted permission to make copies of the relevant
documents.
"My lawyers had told them that they could come in and make copies," Exum said. "But
what happened is
they came in, took the boxes and kept them." Exum alleges that the USOC made further
efforts to
quieten him. "The USOC lawyer never did negotiate with me," he said. "But he met with
my lawyers and
asked what would it take for me to just go away."
The USOC, meanwhile, kept Exum’s evidence —some 20 boxes of it — claiming that the
information was
confidential and it was only after a separate court case last month that this position
changed. The
case was not fought by Exum, but a number of American news organisations — CNN, CBS,
USA Today, The
Chicago Tribune and many others —on the grounds that the USOC was illegally guarding
public
information. The victory of the news organisations handed the initiative back to Exum;
it would now
be his decision whether and when to tell all.
To suggest that the whole of the American media has been salivating at the prospect of
the biggest
drugs-in-sport story of all time would, however, be misleading. "The question is
whether Exum is
willing to put his money where his mouth is," Thomas Kelly, the lawyer representing
CNN et al, said.
"He was making some fairly strong claims. Now we have some opportunities to see if
they stand up."
We will see this weekend because on Saturday Exum is promising to make public these 20
boxes of
damning information. Are there gold medal-winners to be exposed? "Yes," he said. "I
went to the 1992
Olympics with a list of people in my pocket who had prior positive tests. There were
ten or 12 names
there." And did they win medals? "I believe so." And were there medal-winners from the
1996 Olympics
who tested positive? "Yup. I recall particularly some cases of some track and field
athletes.
"I think a lot of people know about what went on. Very few of them spoke up. The USOC
operated on a
model where whenever an athlete had a positive test, rather than enforce it, they’d
take on the role
of advocating for the athlete not being sanctioned and letting the IOC or the IAAF or
whatever
international federation be the bad guy."
Exum’s revelations are not the only ones that will shortly come to light. While he
gives accounts of
malpractice in the 1992 and 1996 United States Olympic teams, there is a growing body
of evidence
that suggests there may have been an athlete in the American track and field team at
the 2000 Sydney
Olympics who had tested positive for drugs, but went on to win a gold medal. USA Track
and Field
(USATF) has long disputed this.
Initially, it claimed that the whole story was untrue but last summer an independent
commission
pinpointed an athlete — USOC13 is the test’s reference code — who had delivered a
positive test.
USATF refused to reveal the name of USOC13, arguing that its rules forbade this, but
tried to defuse
the issue by insisting that the athlete was a minor member of the team. Many efforts
have been made
to discover the identity of USOC13 and, at a meeting of the World Anti-Doping Agency
in Montreal
three weeks ago, the strong rumour was that USOC13 was a member of a gold
medal-winning relay team.
If so, the whole relay team would be disqualified. The identity of USOC13 should be
revealed in the
coming months.
The case has been referred to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) when the IAAF
will argue that
the USOC has no legal right to protect its athlete. The Times, however, has discovered
that the IAAF
believes USOC13 may not be a single isolated case. Further investigation reveals that
there may be
five cases in total.
"We have reason to believe that there are further cases," Arne Ljungqvist, the IAAF
vice-president,
said. "We have approached the USATF, the USOC and the two accredited laboratories in
the United
States. Our ambition is to ensure that once this case comes to CAS, we’ll have
information on all
possible cases."
Sources suggest, however, that the USATF is not too keen on any broadening of the CAS
hearing, which
has not yet reached the court because the IAAF and the USATF have failed to agree on
the terms of
reference. The IAAF wants it to focus on all five cases; the USATF is not so
enthusiastic. The
continued lack of compliance from the USATF is a source of extreme frustration to
those who are
fighting for clean sport.
Dick Pound, a former vice-president of the IOC and now chairman of the World
Anti-Doping Agency,
said: "The USATF consistently ignores the rules. They have fought such a determined
rearguard on
this case, they make Horatio on the bridge look like a guy with a white flag. And they
have a
consistent record of not informing the IAAF of its laboratory results."
What does all this mean for Olympic sport? Would Exum’s allegations not be extremely
damaging if
found to be true? "Au contraire," Pound said. "If there is any cover-up, we need to
know. I would
hate to think that the USOC has been part of a systematic cover-up, but if it’s true,
we need to
know. It is open season on anyone who has cheated or who has helped people to cheat."
And, if true, what would be the effect on Olympic results? The rules state that
retrospective action
can be taken on results within three years of an Olympic closing ceremony.
That relay team at Sydney might, therefore, have cause to worry, but the medal-winners
from 1992 and
1996 can hold on to their prizes, however they were earned. Yet, as Pound said: "If
there’s a
technicality that allows someone to keep that medal when they’re proven to have
cheated, whatever’s
hanging round their necks, it’s not gold any more."
It is the young sportsmen and women in the US and their parents who probably have
greatest cause to
worry. Another lawsuit, waiting to go to court in Denver, has been filed by a cyclist
who claims
that when he was on a national junior programme, his coaches put him on a regular
course of anabolic
steroids. If there was no cause for concern before, there is now.
Copyright 2002 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers’ standard Terms and Conditions. Please
read our Privacy
Policy.
To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from The Times, visit the Syndication
website.
