Re:
Craigee said:
But honestly isn't this terrible advertising for athletics? If they had life bans Gatlin wouldn't be there and there would be less doping too.
Of course, but that's part of the reason that there's a bit of
Schadenfreude on here about Gatlin winning. For the same reason as Vino winning at the London Olympic RR in front of Pat McQuaid was a glorious moment; the whole shebang was set out as a vindication of the great success of clean cycling, and would be a coronation for the new clean generation now that the dastardly doping era was behind us... only for the UCI's president, who'd been in on the whole preceding saga, to see it blow up in his face and have to hand the medal over to an unrepentant doper.
Similarly, here, the whole storyline of the veneration of the superstar who saves his sport (using the hyperbole that has been repeated ad nauseaum) against the dastardly spectre of doping has been clung to as a way of shielding a sport which is absolutely full of doping from the negative publicity, save for a few easy victims like the Russians. Many of the other dopers have not been vilified like Gatlin, and that's for a multitude of reasons, ranging from the charisma and global popularity of Bolt to the fact that the 100m is arguably the dirtiest of all track and field disciplines and also the most high profile. Gatlin's return to form left the media drawing an overly simplistic, child-like "good vs. evil" storyline that portrayed Bolt as the conquering clean hero saving the sport from the villainous cheat Gatlin. And as long as good triumphs in the end, they can sweep doping under the rug and say everything is fine. Not all dopers are characterized thus, but it's also this that makes Gatlin's victory so difficult for them to take. Because they've made him out to be a one-dimensional villain, and now he's won; he's been portrayed as a villain so much that they can't sell it as a redemption story (even Vino had the comeback from what had been thought to be a career-ending injury) and because they made so much of a big deal out of his previous bans, they can't gloss over them. Gatlin winning means they have to confront head-on the simple fact that drugs are still a major part of athletics. Because a Gatlin win cannot be claimed a win for clean competition; fans will never buy that. So questions will then follow about how it can have come to pass that Gatlin won. And those questions being asked are much more likely to help
actually clean up the sport (although it would have to get much, much worse before it could get better) than Bolt vanquishing the evil doper and sending people home happily believing in fairytales.
Of course, it also will make a lot of the media who cheerlead athletes with suspect histories squirm, because they can't pretend all the dopers are being caught, and it will make a lot of the administrators and bigwigs squirm because if those questions are asked they may get dragged into it (see the infamous Sebastian Coe "were you corrupt or just incompetent?" question, which may be due a dust-off). But by singling Gatlin out as an anointed super-villain, they've made their bed and now they have to lie in it.