The great Games

Usain Bolts race-disqualifying false start at the athletics world championships was provocation enough for the authorities to reconsider their stringent new rule. The rule eventually stayed,but the episode highlighted the importance of Bolt to track and field. Its not just that he brings spectators to competitions with his open-armed charisma and his consistent air of being on the verge of beating yet another world record. Bolt,in the amazing run hes had since the Beijing Olympics,raised the profile of athletics at a particularly fraught time. This past decade,so many champions subsequently tested positive for doping that disbelief became the default reaction to medal-winning feats.

Its this bad odour that the International Olympic Committee had sought to blow away,by ruling prior to the Beijing Games in 2008 that any athlete who tested positive for any banned drug whose use invites at least a six-month ban would be barred from the subsequent Olympics even if s/he has already served out the sentence. The US Olympic Committee challenged this ruling,specifically pegging its appeal on Beijing 400m gold medallist LaShawn Merritts bid to run in the London Games next summer he has in this interim served a 21-month ban. And this week,the Court of Arbitration for Sport ruled the IOCs so-called Osaka Rule is unenforceable.

Does the IOCs initiative amount to double jeopardy? Depends on your point of view on how grave an infringement the use of performance-enhancing substances is. After all,sport competitions rest on the idea of fairness,and unlawful assistance by way of doping is outright unfair. The CASs ruling has certainly not ended this debate.