Where fairness is the issue, IOC drug policy finishes last

As we sat on our couches in front of the TV, most of us could but dream of achieving the unbelievable feats of speed, skill and strength displayed by the Olympians in Sydney. But such deification, while understandable, also has a negative impact: We run the risk of holding these talented athletes to an unreasonably high standard or perfection.

Romanian gymnast Andreea Raducan lost her individual gold medal last week not because she cheated or because the judges had miscalculated her scores. Raducan lost her gold medal because she had the audacity to get sick before an Olympic competition and then take medicine for it. For shame.

Raducan tested positive for pseudoephidrene, which is found in such medicines as Sudafed. Prior to the competition, the Romanian team doctor had prescribed some over-the-counter Neorofen to combat her cold. Pseudoephidrene — in excess of 24 nanograms per milliliter level — is banned by the International Olympic Committee, but not by the International Gymnastics Federation. Raducan's level was at 90 nanograms per milliliter, which is to be expected given her small frame. Raducan is just four feet, 10 inches and weighs 82 pounds.

The International Gymnastics Federation does not ban pseudoephidrene because gymnastics is not a sport in which drugs can provide much of a competitive advantage. Chinese gymnast Liu Xuan, who jumped from fourth in the individual all-around to the bronze medal with Raducan's punishment, expressed her support for Raducan when she explained: "[In] gymnastics we rely on technique to complete our moves. It's not possible to rely on drugs or strength to complete them, you have to rely entirely on skill."

Gymnasts were among the rare East German athletes that did not receive steroids between the late 1960s and '80s. The Germans found that the muscles of gymnasts became too dense after steroid use, causing many gymnasts to lose the flexibility necessary to finish their routines.

Raducan's gold medal loss is the first of its kind in Olympic gymnastic history. IOC director general Francois Carrard has admitted that the pseudoephidrene provided "no competitive advantage at that competition," but added, "We feel we have no choice . . . In the fight against doping, we have to be tough and be blind to emotions and feelings."

The IOC was right to expel the team doctor from these Games and ban him from any further Olympic participation until after 2004. His error was a mistake, and a highly unprofessional one at that. But by choosing to strip Raducan of her gold medal, the IOC is acting blindly — for all its good intentions, the IOC's decision is without reason or common sense. The enforcement of the IOC's rule stripped Raducan of her medal and violated, rather than upheld, justice. In maintaining the "zero-tolerance" drug policy, the IOC — which should be guaranteeing fair competition for all Olympic athletes — is putting some of the world's best at a distinct disadvantage.

The IOC is not alone in promulgating standards that are out-of-sync with reality. The day after Raducan lost her gold medal, White House drug policy chief Barry McCaffrey lauded the decison as a sign of progress in fighting the use of performance-enhancers. "I think it's the beginning of a new era,'' McCaffrey said. "Right now, there's a 14-year-old girl or a 12-year-old girl, saying to herself, 'I'm going to be a gold medalist at the Athens Games . . . maybe I can go compete and win without . . . injecting human growth hormone into my leg.' "

The only lesson to be learned from Andreea Raducan's story is that paranoia is justified. Never mind that a common, treatable cold provides a competitive disadvantage to an athlete — taking medicine to get better is not worth the risk of losing something you have worked for and dreamed about your entire life. The IOC must start distinguishing between performance-enhancing drugs and those drugs that are designed specifically to combat illness. The IOC should stop imposing a blanket ban on drugs that provide a competitive advantage in only a few sports. Furthermore, the IOC rules should try to allow for more discretion when dealing with gray areas such as the Raducan case. Taking the athlete's intentions into account would not necessarily mean sacrificing the rules' strictness.

In the hopes of retrieving her gold medal and restoring her name, Andreea Raducan appealed to the Court of Arbitration of Sport on Sept. 27. The court was in a unique position to provide some retroactive justice and overturn the IOC's ruling. Unfortunately, it did not. Instead, the court upheld the IOC's legalistic idiocy and declined to return Raducan's medal.

Raducan, who has already proven herself a winner on the competition floor, displayed immense maturity in dealing with this situation. "I'm very disappointed by the result," she said at a press conference following the ruling. "I am convinced that I have done nothing wrong. But in my heart, I am at peace."

Raducan may have found peace at the Olympic Games, but before she can find justice, the IOC must rethink its intolerably inflexible rules. Making the game fair and square ought not and need not turn athletes into victims. Liriel Higa is a Wilson School major from Los Angeles, Calif. She is currently studying abroad in Hong Kong. She can be reached at lshiga@princeton.edu.