Athletics: IAAF to defy court ruling
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.THE GULF that exists between the US court system and the International Amateur Athletic Federation was filled with grapeshot yesterday as both sides mustered their forces following Thursday's ruling in an Ohio court in favour of Butch Reynolds.
The world 400 metre record holder's lawyers have vowed to hound the IAAF for the dollars 27.3m (pounds 18m) damages awarded to him by a US federal judge, John Kinneary, partly for lost earnings following a two-year IAAF ban for drug abuse, which Kinneary ruled was false and 'disseminated with malice'.
'It will be a long process, but if necessary we will take it to the Atlanta Olympics in 1996,' Mimi Dane, an attorney for Reynolds, said. 'They (the IAAF) have underestimated us.'
Dane and other attorneys for Reynolds said they would seek to sequester money owed to the IAAF by US-based sponsors. At least four US corporations, Coca-Cola, Visa, Mars and Mobil, are sponsors for IAAF events.
The IAAF, however, has previously pointed out it has no money or assets in the US, nor any sponsorship money outstanding there.
Yesterday, it responded to the court ruling with a full statement which maintained its defiant stance, and threatened libel action against him.
'It has been suggested that the result of the proceedings in some way vindicates Mr Reynolds. They do not. The only evidence before the court was that of Mr Reynolds. The award for damages is effective only in Ohio. In the IAAF's view this judgment is worthless as it is obtained by a court which does not have jurisdiction to consider this matter.
'The IAAF's position remains that Mr Reynolds was tested positive for drugs in a test conducted by one of the best laboratories accredited by both the IOC and IAAF. Nothing Mr Reynolds has done has disproved that.
'In continuing this campaign he has made a number of libellous allegations about the conduct of the IAAF and its officers. Initially the IAAF took no legal action against Mr Reynolds, regarding these outbursts as representing merely the frustration of a justifiably punished athlete. However, at the next IAAF Council meeting (In Jakarta in January) the IAAF will consider the possibility of commencing proceedings against Mr Reynolds for libel and taking further disciplinary action.'
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments