Butch Reynolds ’92 All Over Again?

[dcunited]

... taken from the OT issue of T&FN:
... Stay tuned for the next exciting chapter!

Wasn't there something about the athlete being awarded a huge judgment and then the ruling was later reversed?

I know it all hinged on whether or not the sample was his or not and whether a second sample could come back negative. Nowadays that's arguably easier to answer.

[26mi235]

I've never quite understood the ridiculous concept of "contamination".

Change a few letters tamination -> trol.

I see your point, but I've never knew there was such a principle. Maybe it goes back to those early pro/am days where they weren't allowed to compete against each other?

Ridiculous really, as the other athletes have no control over who's in the lane next to them. In an ideal world, the athletes could refuse to compete against people, but why should they have to give up their chances of making the team for someone who shouldn't really be running there?

The contamination rule allows the 'authorities' to have control. It allows them to leverage control of some events to those that they would not otherwise be able to control by keeping athletes from being able to compete with others. The AAU did it and so have other ruling bodies.

[tandfman]

It took me a moment to figure it out. I think what he means is if you keep the prefix "con" and replace "tamination" with "trol," you get "control." It appears he's making a political point here. If I've deciphered this incorrectly, just add me to the clueless crew.

[EPelle]

I've never quite understood the ridiculous concept of "contamination".

Change a few letters tamination -> trol.

? I am clueless.

[AthleticsInBritain]

I've never quite understood the ridiculous concept of "contamination".

Change a few letters tamination -> trol.

I see your point, but I've never knew there was such a principle. Maybe it goes back to those early pro/am days where they weren't allowed to compete against each other?

Ridiculous really, as the other athletes have no control over who's in the lane next to them. In an ideal world, the athletes could refuse to compete against people, but why should they have to give up their chances of making the team for someone who shouldn't really be running there?

[26mi235]

I've never quite understood the ridiculous concept of "contamination".

Change a few letters tamination -> trol.

[guru]

I've never quite understood the ridiculous concept of "contamination".

[gh]

Here's the details on how the Reynolds thing played out, as taken from the OT issue of T&FN:

<<DAY IN COURT

How Reynolds Ran

Almost overshadowing the first half of the competition proper in New Orleans were the latest episodes of tracks longest running soap opera, The Reynolds Affair.

As we left you in the last issue, Reynolds had just defied the IAAF by running in a pair of meets, finally earning a qualifying time for the Olympic Trials.

Were now in sultry Louisiana, waiting for the meet to begin:

June 18 U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Kinneary issues a temporary restraining order in Columbus, Ohio, allowing Reynolds to compete in the Trials.

June 19 Judge Eugene Siler of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati stays the lower court ruling, thus barring Reynolds from running. Reynolds lawyers say it's unlikely they will pursue further action, the Supreme Court being their only option.

Comments TAC President Frank Greenberg, "It certainly seems this would be the end of it.”

June 20 TAC is shocked by the unexpected announcement that the Reynolds case has reached the top: US. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has found in favor of Reynolds and orders TAC to let him run. The heats are rescheduled from 2:45 to 5:00.

Justice Stevens, charged with handling emergency matters from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, finds that Reynolds' laywers had shown the probability that in a future civil suit Reynolds could win.

All but two other 1 lappers say they will not run against Reynolds and risk being declared contaminated by doing so.

The heats are postponed to noon of the 21st; the IAAF stands firm on its threat to declare ineligible any 400 runner who competes against Reynolds.

June 21 The heats are postponed again, to the 23rd, originally scheduled as the first of the meet's two rest days.

IAAF President Primo Nebiolo and TAC 'head Ollan Cassell work to get the IAAF Council to waive the contamination rule just for the Trials, amid wild speculation that if the one meet waiver isn't granted, Nebiolo will invite the top U.S. 400 men to a European meet. The first three finishers would then comprise the US. team in Barcelona.

June 22 A bizarre twist to the situation comes when a West Virginia court rules suspended shot putter Randy Barnes eligible to compete in the Trials (see box).

June 23 The IAAF grants a waiver on' contamination for only the Trials; if Reynolds competes anywhere else in the world, the rule will be strictly enforced. The IAAF adds that no other ineligible athlete may compete in the Trials.

The running finally begins. Reynolds impresses with an emotion fueled 44.58, the fastest prelim ever, then runs strongly again, clocking 44.68.

"The feelings and adrenaline I had going was almost uncontrollable," says Reynolds, who afterward wears a t shirt bearing the message "Drug Free Body."

June 24 Reynolds runs 44.14, his fastest time since '88, in his semi.

June 25 Rest day No. 2. A TAC official says the IAAF is going through a stage similar to one experienced by TAC early in its drug testing program. "A draconian period when human rights are occasionally sacrificed," one observer calls it.

The TAC official continues, "But we learned very quickly that if you're going to have draconian measures, you damn well better have people's rights protected.'

June 26 It's over for Reynolds in the individual berth picture, as he finishes 5th. "I'm certainly glad the Trials are over," says Reynolds, who earns consideration as a relay alternate. "I can finally get some rest, take a minute, to cry."

June 30 The USOC asks TAC to submit Reynolds' name as a member of the U.S. team. The IAAF says, "[Our] position remains the same. The athlete is ineligible.'

Stay tuned for the next exciting chapter!>>

[dcunited]

Ugh. That affair sent me over the edge back then.

Fast forward a decade or more and just when I thought it was safe to start getting back in the water, Gat of all people jumps out of trick bag. And LOL that shoe company representative getting the beat down was the cherry on top.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01778.html

We've been drug (no pun) slowly over time, kicking and screaming into our present state of distrustful-ness.

[Halfmiler2]

One never wants to give up on a stance one believes is right, but when I think of all the grief that the Reynolds case caused the Trials in '92, I'm kinda hoping that IF Gatlin gets his injunction that USATF doesn't go nuts trying to fight it.

Not because I want Gatlin to run (no-no-no!!!), but because while his running will be headline-grabbing enough, a protracted court fight of the '92 variety will threaten to submerge the whole danged Trials.

Conventional wisdom says he can't possibly be in shape to make the team, so don't even worry about it. If he does finish top-3, then you say, "sorry dude, it's out of our hands now. IOC said no to Reynolds in '92, they're saying no to you now. Feel free to go to Europe and sue them."[/i]

I imagine it would be much more tame this time around without Primo heading the IAAF. And I imagine the entire USATF Board would rather avoid holding emergency meetings in empty locker rooms this time around.

[AthleticsInBritain]

As someone who was in the IAAF London offices on a daily basis I can say that the IAAF did not move to Monte Carlo because of Butch Reynolds. The likeliehood of the IAAF paying out re Reynolds, even if they had stayed in London is between very slim, and none.

Sorry - that was meant to be more of a very flippant joke that went round at the time than any kind of statement of fact!

I think we've learnt from Dwain Chambers about the headlines that are generated when the NGB makes a stand. What journalist doesn't love scandal and drama? Some people think that part of the reason the Chambers case became so high profile (although I think it would have regardless) was the CEO of Britain's NGB taking such a tough stance and using strong language in advance of Chambers competing. It immediately set up a power struggle.

So yes, I guess lawsuits are a distraction that aren't needed. I can see what you're saying gh and it's practical to take the more pragmatic route. If Gatlin competes, I still wouldn't bet against him making the final though ...

[gh]

One never wants to give up on a stance one believes is right, but when I think of all the grief that the Reynolds case caused the Trials in '92, I'm kinda hoping that IF Gatlin gets his injunction that USATF doesn't go nuts trying to fight it.

Not because I want Gatlin to run (no-no-no!!!), but because while his running will be headline-grabbing enough, a protracted court fight of the '92 variety will threaten to submerge the whole danged Trials.

Conventional wisdom says he can't possibly be in shape to make the team, so don't even worry about it. If he does finish top-3, then you say, "sorry dude, it's out of our hands now. IOC said no to Reynolds in '92, they're saying no to you now. Feel free to go to Europe and sue them."[/i]

[rhymans]

As someone who was in the IAAF London offices on a daily basis I can say that the IAAF did not move to Monte Carlo because of Butch Reynolds. The likeliehood of the IAAF paying out re Reynolds, even if they had stayed in London is between very slim, and none.

[AthleticsInBritain]

AFAIK, and I'm sure the posters here will know better, Butch Reynolds never got his money and the IAAF moved from London so they couldn't be sued.

The thing is, Gatlin could sue in the US and win. He could be allowed to run in the trials. He could finish in the first three and be selected for the team by USATF/USOC. But the IOC and IAAF wouldn't allow him to run in Beijing so what's the point?

[26mi235]

Or they learn that no matter what happens, you just keep suing until you get what you want, even though you were probably wrong in the first place.

Wrong? There is an administrative decision on whether a non-PEDs drug result is a PEDs drug result when it comes to a later drug result. Now that outcome is so naturally obvious that what? He did not dispute the testosterone was apparent in his sample. It is an administrative decision only. CAS does not exactly have the most neutral record in the world, sort of like those 'neutral' arbitration panels that consumers are often consigned to by the fine print.