IAAF slammed for revealing names

Ian Gordon
Sunday 21 November 1999 00:00 GMT
Comments

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 International Amateur Athletic Federation has been slammed by British athletics chief David Moorcroft for revealing that British shot-putter Carl Myerscough had failed a drug test.

The International Amateur Athletic Federation has been slammed by British athletics chief David Moorcroft for revealing that British shot-putter Carl Myerscough had failed a drug test.

Moorcroft is upset that the athlete's name had been released by the world governing body before UK Athletics had dealt with the case.

The 20-year-old from Blackpool, a world junior shot-putt silver medallist, failed an out-of-competition test on May 28 for the banned anabolic steroids Methandienone and Oxymetholone.

"We take great offence that the IAAF have take this reported action without any consultation with UK Athletics, the national governing body charged with dealing with these issues, either prior to or following the IAAF release today," said UK Athletics chief executive Moorcroft.

The governing body added they have been following their anti-doping rules in dealing with the case in a confidential manner and had informed the IAAF that a Drug Advisory Committee had been convened for next week.

It is the second time this year that the IAAF have released the name of a British athlete who had failed a drug test before a hearing had taken place.

The IAAF included the name of 400m runner Gary Cadogan in a list of suspended athletes in their regular newsletter.

Cadogan was subsequently cleared by his federation of taking the anabolic steroid, nandrolone, though that case - along with sprint legend Linford Christie - was referred to arbitration by the IAAF yesterday.

Christie, Britain's greatest sprinter, will have an agonising wait before learning his final fate after testing positive for nandrolone in February.

The IAAF arbitration panel will meet early next year and if they find Christie guilty he will be banned for two years.

But in a statement to PA Sport, Christie renewed his claims of innocence.

He said: "As far as I am concerned the matter has already been dealt with long ago by the UK Athletics disciplinary panel.

"I am innocent and have been comprehensively cleared. In any case I am retired as an athlete and look forward to furthering my career in coaching and broadcasting."

UK Athletics' disciplinary committee cleared Christie after he had tested positive for nandrolone at an indoor meeting in Dortmund and forwarded their findings to the IAAF.

After considering Christie's case last weekend the world body's anti-doping commission refused to accept UK Athletics' findings.

Reigning European 200m champion Doug Walker is already awaiting his arbitration hearing after the IAAF said they believe there is a case for him to answer after metabolites of nandrolone were found in his sample last year.

IAAF general secretary Istvan Gyulai, referring to the documentation supplied concerning Christie, said: "The IAAF does not agree with the decision taken earlier. The doping commission unanimously decided the athlete should not have been acquitted.

"The rules are very clear and very firm. The question is not how the substance got into the body but whether the substance is in the body."

A date for Christie's hearing has still to be set but it is likely to be well into the New Year.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in