American Olympians had failed drug tests/ Officials reluctant to

The U.S. Olympic Committee and American sport federations for more than a decade allowed athletes who failed drug tests in qualifying events to compete in the Olympic Games and other world-class competitions.

The Orange County Register reviewed more than 10,000 pages of confidential documents from 1988 to 2000 that reveal for the first time how the U.S. Olympic movement failed to deal with its own doping issues and kept test results secret while accusing other countries of failing to control drug use in athletics.

The documents reveal more than 100 cases in which athletes failed tests that would have disqualified them at the Olympics but were ruled "inadvertent use" by U.S. officials.

While the rulings may have been within the letter of the law, critics question whether elite athletes could honestly have been unaware they were taking banned substances.

And in the cases examined by The Register, the officials in charge appear to have granted appeals after cursory investigations and limited deliberations.

A spokesman for the current U.S. Olympic Committee denied drug cases were handled improperly.

"There is no evidence the USOC ever suppressed or concealed the results of drug tests," said Darryl Seibel.

The documents tell a different story. An internal audit from 1998 criticized the USOC and the national governing bodies for a reluctance to penalize athletes because of an "emotional attachment" to young stars.

One of the most striking examples came in the days leading up to the 1988 Olympic Games in Seoul, South Korea, the site of the biggest drug scandal in sports history: Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson testing positive for steroids.

When Johnson was disqualified, his gold medal went to second- place finisher Carl Lewis. But Lewis, along with sprinter Joe De- Loach and hurdler Andre Phillips, had tested positive for banned stimulants at the U.S. Olympic trials two months earlier.

Although the positive tests could have been cause for disqualification from the Olympic team, the three were simply given warnings.

The athletes would not have received the same lenient treatment if they had tested positive for the banned stimulants at the Olympics, records and interviews show. Stimulants are considered a less serious offense than steroids. But under International Olympic Committee rules, the three would have been disqualified - just as Johnson was.

Anita De Frantz, a member of the International Olympic Committee's Athletes Commission in 1988, said that while the U.S. committee may have had technical grounds to allow athletes to compete, all athletes are supposed to be accountable for anything that was put into their bodies.

"All I can say is shame," said De Frantz, a bronze medalist rower in the '76 Olympics. "I'm glad the system today has changed, but shame on the folks who did that."

Former IOC Vice President Richard Pound agreed that the notion so many athletes could have inadvertently taken banned substances lacked credibility.

"Inadvertent use is complete nonsense," said Pound, now the director of the World Anti-Doping Agency, the group that oversees drug testing at the Olympic Games.

The anti-doping effort was so disorganized, complicated and prone to accusations of favoritism that the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency was formed in 2000 to take over testing and sanctions. The group last week joined with the World Anti-Doping Agency to adopt a single set of standards and sanctions.

Richard Schultz, who headed the U.S. Olympic Committee from 1995 to 2000, said he was troubled by The Register's findings.

"Obviously if there were 100 people that were found positive for performance-enhancing drugs and they were allowed to compete, I'd be very upset," he said. "What it says is there needed to be a different approach and that's what I pushed for."

Breakdown on a world stage

The biggest spectacle in sports, the Olympics have become a multi- billion dollar event in which for some countries Olympic gold is priceless.

Drug testing was introduced at the 1968 Games in Mexico City. With a global audience, the IOC decided to test athletes to ensure competition was pure and no athletes received an unfair advantage.

In the next two Summer Olympics, eight athletes were stripped of medals for testing positive - even for substances as common as allergy medication.

The IOC in 1988 distributed a list of more than 70 banned substances to athletes and each Olympic committee. In addition, the USOC and the governing bodies made available to athletes lists of over-thecounter drugs and herbal supplements that contained banned substances.

The 1988 U.S. Olympic guidelines called for a six-month suspension for first-time offenses, and publicly U.S. officials took a hard- line stance.

"The Doping Control policies of the USOC are that each athlete competing in the Olympic Games will have been tested and found negative," Dr. Robert Voy, then the U.S. committee's chief medical officer, wrote in a 1988 memo.

"Anyone who is found positive for substance abuse will be disqualified from the Olympic Team."

So how did the United States send athletes to competitions when they failed drug tests?

When pressed for an explanation, current USOC officials pointed to a provision in an internal drug policy from 1988 that said doping was taking a substance with the "sole intent" of cheating.

"Without proof (that) a substance was used for the express purpose of enhancing performance in competition there was not a doping violation," the USOC's Seibel said.

Robert Ctvrtlik, a founding member of the World Anti-Doping Agency, said U.S. officials seemed to interpret the regulations "to create a smoke screen" around the drug offense.

At the Olympic trials in 1988, athletes who tested positive were given 10 days to file an appeal. Voy, the former medical director, said the appeals committee consisted of USOC executive director Baaron B. Pittenger, Dr. James Betts, a surgeon at Children's Hospital in Berkeley, Calif., and Dr. Don Catlin, director of the drug lab at UCLA.

Section 8.2.3.1 of the U.S. Olympic Committee rules stated if the appeals panel "determines 'innocent use,' the athlete will not be penalized and no further testing is necessary."

Documents show it was Pittenger who wrote the letters telling Lewis, DeLoach and Phillips that their drug tests were positive. And it was Pittenger, citing "my review of your appeal," who signed the letters notifying the athletes they were being cleared to compete.

He now says he can't remember the circumstances.

"I honestly can't recall all the details," said Pittenger, who was later on the USOC's Anti-Doping Committee. "The NGBs (national governing bodies) were responsible for prosecuting of an athlete if they were positive. Once they turned that over to the NGB the USOC was out of the loop."

Ollan Cassell, head of track's governing body during the Seoul Olympics, disputes Pittenger.

"That's not right," said Cassell, who maintains the decision to clear Lewis, DeLoach and Phillips was the USOC's.

"It was the USOC's tests, and it was the USOC who dealt with it," Cassell said.

Winning gold in Seoul

In July 1988, Lewis, DeLoach and Phillips were found to have levels of banned stimulants in their urine "that may have been sufficient to enhance performance and create an advantage over your competitors," Pittenger wrote in letters to the athletes.

Three urine samples provided by Lewis on three days during drug tests at the Olympic trials in Indianapolis came back positive for pseudoephedrine, ephedrine and phenlypropanolamine, drugs banned by the USOC and IOC.

Lewis, the most decorated athlete in Olympic track and field history with nine gold medals, has been an outspoken critic of drug use.

Lewis received a letter, dated Aug. 26, 1988 and signed by Pittenger, that said "your appeal" is being "treated as a warning rather than a suspension."

DeLoach, Lewis and Floyd Heard, training partners in Houston and teammates on the Santa Monica Track Club, tested positive for the same three substances. Heard was the eighth-place finisher in the Olympic trials 200 meters and did not go on to the Games.

Lewis, DeLoach and Phillips were among the top three finishers in their races at the trials. Under U.S. Olympic Committee policy they were required to submit post-competition urine samples for drug testing.

Athletes were required to fill out and sign forms, disclosing any "over-the-counter medication, prescription drugs and any other substances you have taken by mouth, injection or by suppository."

Neither Lewis nor DeLoach listed anything containing the three stimulants. Phillips declared that he had taken a cold medicine containing pseudoephedrine before competing.

Ephedrine, pseudoephedrine and phenylpropanolamine are the most common banned stimulants found in Olympic athletes. Experts agree that over-the-counter drugs and supplements containing these compounds can give athletes a boost in competition.

Nevertheless, U.S. Olympic officials excused the athletes, and, in DeLoach's case sent him a handwritten note wishing him well on the same tersely worded document that told him he had failed the test.

DeLoach won the gold in the 200 meters, narrowly beating Lewis, who took the silver. In addition to receiving the 100-meter gold initially won by Johnson, Lewis won the second of his record four Olympic long jump gold medals. Phillips upset two-time Olympic champion and world record-holder Edwin Moses in the 400-meter hurdles to win the gold medal.

"It sounds like they determined they were going to be accidental even before they notify the guy," Pound, of the World Anti-Doping Agency, said after reading Pittenger's letters to DeLoach. "It looks like there was an almost automatic forgiveness for some of these athletes."

United States hypocrisy

In the 15 years since the Ben Johnson steroid scandal, U.S. Olympic officials, coaches and athletes have been frequent and vehement critics of the International Olympic Committee and other countries for their roles in the proliferation of performance- enhancing drugs.

But the USOC and the more than 40 national governing bodies failed to address their own problems.

In 1998, with the USOC receiving criticism over testing and sanctions, it decided to commission an independent review of the U.S. anti-doping program. The report concluded that the national governing bodies have "an emotional attachment to and dependence on athletes and are reluctant to discipline their own."

Schultz, the former USOC head, said he pushed for an independent drug agency out of concerns that the national federations had a conflict of interest.

The '98 report also was critical of the USOC.

"(The USOC is sending) mixed signals," said one of the 40 officials, coaches, athletes and international sports figures quoted in the report.

"(There is a) stated policy, but few athletes are sanctioned, use is known, drugs that are known to enhance performance aren't screened for, and not all organizational functions are in place to appropriately administer field test procedures."

In 1999, a decade after clearing Lewis, DeLoach and Phillips, Pittenger complained at a USOC meeting, "Only lesser athletes get sanctioned and the better ones get away with it."

Some former athletes say the stakes were high when it came to selecting the Olympic team and American officials wanted to field the best teams.

But it wasn't just the high-profile track and field team where athletes tested positive in drug tests but avoided sanctions. With so many different drug rule books, the national governing bodies and the USOC were inconsistent when it came to discipline.

Wrestler Alan Fried tested positive for pseudoephedrine in a test June 5, 1993. Track athlete Dion Bentley tested positive for the same drug 10 days later.

Fried received a reprimand from U.S. Wrestling while Bentley was suspended for three months by USA Track & Field. Testing levels are unclear, but both showed positive tests, violating USOC rules.

Sometimes athletes received warnings. Sometimes athletes were suspended.

Sometimes athletes were ordered to compete again.

The U.S. Soccer Federation had at least nine athletes test positive between 1988 and 1999. Of those, all but one were allowed to compete.

In U.S. Skiing, no action was taken against the 11 skiers who tested positive between 1991 and 1998.

Ice hockey had 15 positive tests, and the 15 players were not penalized.

With so many athletes testing positive but avoiding sanctions, many connected with the U.S. Olympic testing program believes America's criticism of others is unjustified.

Voy, the former medical officer, said in a 2000 sworn affidavit: "Based on my experience and expertise, I believe that the USOC and/ or the various NGBs (national governing bodies) have covered up evidence of American Olympic-level athletes testing positive for banned performance-enhancing drugs."

Documents and meeting minutes show officials frustrated and clearly cynical about what several prominent U.S. officials privately described as a losing battle in the war on performance-enhancing drug use.

Athletes past and present said they hope lessons from the past will help guide the rule makers at the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency and the World Anti-Doping Agency.

"They should enforce these rules 100 percent," said Doug Tono, who lost in the 1988 Judo trials to an athlete who had tested positive for stimulants. "If the rules were strict, people would follow them, the public would believe in them, and when an athlete won something, everyone would know that he or she deserved it."

Copyright 2003
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.