Stephen Vasciannie THE LEAGUE of Extraordinary Athletic Gentlemen has assembled. Or at least a part of the League. Some of the stars for the 100 metres at the World Championships in Paris gathered last Saturday and were taken to their marks. Fire 1, a false start, and the runners return to the blocks. Fire 2, the athletes propel themselves forward almost in unison, and as fast as the human eye can discern, they fly down the track. Another false start. Then confusion.
Jon Drummond, one of the favourites for the event, and our own Asafa Powell, are identified as the culprits, and are ostensibly expelled from the race.
Drummond refuses to accept this twist of fate. His lips move in protest: "I did not move!" He then refuses to accept the decision of the track officials, spreads himself on the track in his assigned lane, gesticulates with vigour, and eventually prompts the postponement of the race.
During Drummond's protest, the cameraman swings over to the section of the stands assigned to high officials of the International Amateur Athletics Federation (IAAF). These officials seem confused. They do not move, save for one man who drinks his bottled water.
Almost all the members of the League of Extraordinary Athletic Gentlemen, still on the track, can trace their origins to West Africa. Almost all the high officials of the IAAF within the camera's focus can trace their origins to Europe. I dismiss, for the moment, the thought that this racial mismatch is a factor in the unfolding drama. The cameraman returns to Drummond.
FIRE ON DRUMMOND
In the end, Drummond and Asafa Powell are kicked out of the race. In the end, too, the pundits turn their fire on Drummond. The matter is classified by the Jamaican papers as the "Jon Drummond fiasco", with a uniformity which prompts thoughts about the herd-instinct in the local media. One of my favourite sports analysts, Oral Tracey, indicates with furrowed brow that the episode was "ugly"; the BBC report carried on TVJ suggests that Drummond's actions were "inglorious"; and Elton Tucker in The Star, not one normally given over to pointless platitudes, calls for "stiff sanctions" against Drummond-like behaviour.
I disagree with the criticisms of Jon Drummond's behaviour on the track last Saturday. If there was a fiasco, it was an IAAF-sponsored, organised and engineered fiasco, with Jon Drummond and Asafa Powell as the victims. If the incident was ugly, it was ugly because the IAAF has a rule about false starts which is as indefensible and thoughtless as a wasted brain. And if anything, we should all take a stiff, hard look at the composition of IAAF officialdom and the inglorious way 100-metre athletes are treated under the rule about false starts.
The IAAF rules concerning false starts flies in the face of elementary considerations of fairness. Assume that Person A and Person B are in a race. Person A makes a false start. He is not disqualified. The runners go back to their marks. The second time round, Person B makes a false start. He is disqualified! How can this be justifiable: both runners have had one false start, but one runner, the one who did it first, is allowed to remain in the race!
Even if you paid me money I could hardly think of a more unfair way of resolving the problem of false starts. I go further: if this rule remains on the books, it will eventually be challenged as unconstitutional in some place which accepts that fairness must be applied in all areas of life the rule discriminates against the second runner, and all runners who happen to jump the gun after the first runner has been allowed his concession.
Incidentally, a second problem with the false start rule manifested itself last Saturday. Asafa Powell is said to have jumped the gun after Drummond, but he too was dropped from the race. Assume, for the sake of argument, that Powell did in fact beat the pistol: could he not say that he moved instinctively because another runner had already started to move? In the split second between the starter's pistol and propulsion, only instinct is at play. How can one realistically disqualify two persons for the same false start in one race?
TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE
All right, the rules for starting need to be reconsidered but Drummond brought the sport into disrepute, some people may argue. Though this approach is superficially attractive, it does not stand up to scrutiny. Drummond is told that he is to be disqualified, he is convinced that he did not propel himself forward before the gun, he has no way of appealing against what to him is a travesty of justice: why should he accept the will of the IAAf, just so?
The protest was the only way that Drummond could bring home his resentment for the unfair treatment publicly meted out to him last week. Even on the slow motion replay there is no clear indication that he jumped the gun. We are being asked to take the mechanical result on faith. When your athletic prospects are at stake and you know you did not propel yourself forward before the gun, you should not meekly accept unfairness.
Drummond did the right thing last week, and if others follow his lead, the IAAF will have to change the rules about false starts these rules are simply awful to athletes.
Stephen Vasciannie is Professor of International Law and Head of the Dept of Government at the UWI and consultant in chambers of the Attorney General.
