IAAF Decides to Strip Ben Johnson of Records : Confusion Results in 2 Votes on Rule That Penalizes Admitted Steroid Users

BARCELONA, Spain —  The International Amateur Athletic Federation voted twice Tuesday to eliminate Canadian Ben Johnson’s name from Official Track and Field Record Book.

The first vote was nullified because a significant number of the 129 delegates to the biannual IAAF Congress thought the question was whether they wanted to break for lunch.

Perhaps that was the reason there seemed to be greater enthusiasm for the first vote, although the second vote, indeed taken after an hour-and-a-half lunch break, produced virtually the same results.

Of the 129 voters, 101 voted for a rule proposed by the IAAF medical commission that could affect several athletes, most notably Johnson. No one voted against the rule, but that does not mean there was no opposition. There were a few outspoken dissenters. But the question of whether anyone was opposed was never put to the members.

The congress passed a number of measures that were designed as a declaration of war against athletes who use banned substances, including anabolic steroids.

The controversial one, which has come to be known as the Ben Johnson rule, allows the IAAF’s 23-member executive council to decertify an athlete’s records, titles and results if he or she later admits to having used a banned substance before those performances.

The rule was precipitated by Johnson’s testimony on June 12 before the Canadian’s government’s commission of inquiry into drug use by athletes. Johnson, who tested positive for a steroid after winning the 100 meters last September in the Summer Olympics at Seoul, confessed that he had used the drug since 1981.

The IAAF action Tuesday gives the council power to erase all of Johnson’s results between June 12, 1983, and June 12, 1989. There is a six-year statute of limitations.

The council will not take action until later this year, but the IAAF’s general secretary, John Holt, said that it is safe to assume that Johnson’s world record of 9.83 seconds in the 100 meters and 6.41 in the indoor 60 meters no longer will be recognized as of Jan. 1, 1990.

Johnson ran 6.41 in the indoor world championships on March 7, 1987, at Indianapolis, and 9.83 in the outdoor world championship on Aug. 30, 1987, at Rome.

Holt said that it is also safe to assume that two Americans will fill the void left by Johnson in the record books, Carl Lewis in the 100 meters at 9.92 and Lee McRae in the 60 meters at 6.50.

Lewis ran 9.92 in finishing second at Seoul, but he later was awarded the gold medal after Johnson, who had run 9.79, was disqualified. Lewis now will probably receive the gold medal that originally was awarded to Johnson for winning the 100 meters in the 1987 World Championships at Rome.

Johnson’s gold medal from Indianapolis will probably be transferred to McRae, whose 6.50 originally earned him second place in that race.

Johnson, who lives in Toronto, could not be reached for comment.

Lewis, in a statement read by his lawyer, said: “I’m very pleased to hear about it. This shows the IAAF is now as committed as anyone to fighting drugs. It sends a strong message that drug use cannot be tolerated.”

Even those who are against the rule seemed resigned to the fact that they were in the minority, but the voting process by which it was passed left them fuming--particularly after the first vote. That vote was decided by applause and announced by IAAF president Primo Nebiolo as unanimous.

“That was democracy, didn’t you see it?” Cecil Smith, president of the Ontario (Canada) Track and Field Assn., said sarcastically. “They must have had a clap-o-meter.”

That vote, later rescinded, came at the end of a 3 1/2-hour debate, in which more than 30 delegates presented their arguments. Fewer than 10 spoke against the proposal, but if fervor were the deciding factor, they would have carried the day.

“We have to support track and field,” said Amadeo Francis, an executive council member from Puerto Rico. “I love track and field. It’s like motherhood and apple pie.

“But I have a conscience. There are a number of athletes who are in the same situation today as Ben Johnson, world record-holders who have used drugs. But only Ben Johnson is being crucified because his country spent millions of dollars to do an exhaustive investigation. I think it’s an injustice.”

Bera Bird, Antigua’s sports minister, suggested that there were racial overtones to the proposal.

“What we are trying to do is use one black individual to show the world we mean business. We know there are other athletes who have taken drugs and have world records. How can we have two standards?”

Two council members, Ollan Cassell of the United States and Dr. Arne Ljungqvist of Sweden, were the primary speakers in favor of the rule. As chairman of the medical commission, Ljungqvist authored the proposal.

But it was obvious from the manner in which he conducted the debate that IAAF president Primo Nebiolo was the force behind the proposal.

Because of the sensitivity of his microphone, he could be heard throughout the large conference hall during speeches in opposition to the proposal muttering in his deep, guttural voice, “Enough, enough; sit down.”

At the close of the discussion, which ran an hour past the scheduled lunch break, Nebiolo called for a vote. But the language he used was vague. There also was confusion because of the interpretation.

His first language is Italian, but he chose to speak in English that was difficult to understand clearly, even for many native English-speakers. By the time it was interpreted into other languages, many delegates believed they were voting on whether to postpone the controversial question until after lunch.

“What just happened?” asked an alarmed Jamaican delegate, former Olympic champion Herb McKinley, an opponent of the rule who had wandered away from his seat to speak with Frank Greenberg, president of The Athletics Congress, which governs the sport in the United States.

“We voted to accept the proposal,” Greenberg said. “That’s not fair,” McKinley said. “I didn’t know we were voting.”

“Herb, you were a 400-meter runner,” Greenberg said. “You know you have to be ready when the gun goes off.”

Greenberg, a Philadelphia lawyer and an amateur musician, later marveled at Nebiolo’s orchestration of the vote.

“I thought it was pure genius,” he said. “He conducted like Toscanini, building up to a crescendo at the final moment.”

But Nebiolo’s conduct also struck a few sour notes with some delegates, who demanded another vote after the lunch break.

“I pay my own way to come here,” McKinley said. “I don’t want to pay $1,500 and then not even be able to participate in the vote. I want my vote to count.”

But even on the second vote, done by a show of hands, McKinley did not have a chance to be counted. In the original proposal, there was a six-year statute of limitations. The West German delegate requested that it be amended to three years.

There were 99 members in favor of six years, two in favor of three years. But those who were against the rule entirely were never asked to vote.

“We passed it by implication,” explained Robert Stinson, the IAAF honorary treasurer from Great Britain. “I would personally have liked to have another vote. I think we all agree this is not the best way to go about deciding a controversial issue.”

Francis, Puerto Rico’s Secretary of State, was so angered by Nebiolo’s refusal to call for another vote that he charged off the dais, through a hall and into a foyer, leaving a trail of reporters behind at the entrance to the men’s room.

“This is a travesty,” he said. “I have to cool off.”

When he emerged several minutes later, Francis said: “We have been under criticism for a long time for our stance on drugs. We have to get tough, but this is no way to do it.

“Primo Nebiolo is appealing to the media. It’s propaganda. I hope you give him what he wants, an image as a dynamic personality.”

Francis said Nebiolo was afraid to call for secret balloting.

“Then you run a chance that you might lose,” he said. “Quite frankly, I don’t think he would have lost.”

The only drug-related proposal that did not pass would have increased the suspension from two years to four for an athlete who tests positive for steroids the first time.

The IAAF already has a rule banning an athlete for life for a second offense. Ljungqvist argued that the proposal authored by the New Zealand Federation would have had the same practical effect on an athlete for a first offense. That proposal was defeated, 61-42.

But at least everyone was satisfied that they had a chance to vote, no small victory on the first day of the congress.