WHY GATLIN’S GOLD IS GOOD FOR ATHLETICS

Now cheerleaders must confront doping evil instead of hiding behind the genius of Bolt

IF THE sense of embarrassment was palpable, the outrage and disgust that accompanied it were almost laughable.

The sport of athletics got what it deserved on Saturday night after casting Usain Bolt as its saviour and Justin Gatlin as some kind of pantomime villain. Perhaps it is what it needed, too.

Bolt has been the brightest star in track and field for almost a decade and it might well have been a massive anti-climax to see him beaten in his last competitive individual race by a convicted doper. But to hide behind his towering frame and pretend that there has been little need to look beyond him is as disingenuous as attempting to heap all the blame on Gatlin and some dodgy Russians for the sport’s problems.

Gatlin is certainly not the exception. Not when five of Bolt’s seven rivals in the 2012 Olympic final on the same London track have tested positive for performanceenhancing drugs; not when the concerns over widespread doping extend way beyond Russia’s borders. And not when the IAAF, the governing body, remain at the centre of the biggest sporting scandal of the lot — the alleged extortion of athletes in exchange for covering up their positive tests.

Doping is a global disease and it was with good reason that, earlier on Saturday night, we found ourselves watching Ethiopia’s Almaz Ayana obliterate another world class 10,000m field with a degree of cynicism and concern, given recent evidence of widespread drug use in athletics in that country.

We do so because, for all the pleasure and excitement we might derive from watching Laura Muir in this evening’s 1500m, we cannot ignore the possibility that some dark forces are conspiring against her — not least in the form of athletes being coached by individuals still under suspicion.

Too often the sport does not want to know. Too often there is a kind of omerta and even attempts to divert the focus away from the grim reality on to those who are not prepared to idly accept that there is nothing to see here.

It was Steve Cram who heralded Bolt as the sport’s saviour on the BBC two years ago when the world record-holder beat Gatlin in Beijing. And it was Cram who said the other night that there are some members of the British media who want to see Mo Farah lose.

That is childish nonsense; a vain attempt to control the narrative and shift the attention away from the questions that have to be asked. They must be asked for as long as Farah remains under the guidance of a coach who is still being investigated by the American anti-doping agency — two years after allegations surfaced on a programme broadcast by Cram’s employers.

Clearly, prominent members of the athletics community like Cram would prefer it if we were all cheerleaders. As would British Athletics, judging by the fact that access to Farah is being denied to reporters they consider most likely to raise subjects they would prefer to be off limits.

Our former 1500m world champion and the voice of BBC athletics would no doubt approve of such reporting restrictions, having once described the coverage of the Alberto Salazar story as a Farah ‘witch-hunt’. Cram has also claimed that nothing untoward is going on at the Nike Oregon Project. We await the outcome of that USADA investigation. But, as a former athlete with close affiliations to Nike, Cram might wish to remember that the American sportswear giant gave Gatlin a new sponsorship deal as recently as 2015.

By winning on Saturday night, Gatlin actually forced athletics to confront its problems in a week when Lord Coe dared suggest that doping is not its biggest threat.

Bolt was chief among those who disagreed. He followed the IAAF president by calling for athletes to stop using drugs or risk killing track and field altogether.

But he also found himself defending Gatlin late on Saturday night. Bolt knows how preposterous it is that all the anger and outrage is directed at the American while everyone else gets an easy ride.

Bolt was asked if it was a disaster for the sport that Gatlin had won. ‘I’ve always said he’s done his time,’ said Bolt. ‘And I’ve always respected him as a competitor. He’s one of the best competitors who has ever competed. So for me it’s deserved.’

The supporters inside the London Stadium cheered for Yohan Blake, ignoring his own doping suspension, and demonised Gatlin, probably unaware of the complexities of the controversial 35-year-old American’s story.

It is a little harsh to brand him a twice-convicted doper when his first offence was for a stimulant he had taken since childhood for attention deficit disorder. Even the United States Anti-Doping Agency concluded that there was no intention to cheat.

His subsequent conviction for a banned steroid was a good deal more serious, of course, and Gatlin only succeeded in having an eight-year ban reduced to four by turning informant.

BUT as Bolt said, Gatlin has done his time and for Coe to be drawn into a debate about automatic life bans for drug cheats also does the sport a disservice.

As Coe explained to the BBC, trying to impose life bans for anyone who fails a drugs test is fraught with problems and in some cases could be incredibly unfair.

If anyone is in a position to save athletics it is nevertheless Coe. But he also needs to accept that his own role has to be scrutinised. He was closely allied to the Lamine Diack presidency and claims not to have opened an email sent by Dave Bedford that detailed the extent to which corruption existed at the top of the IAAF long before it was exposed by journalists.

We need to recognise that the biggest problem is that antidoping agencies lack the power and funding to tackle the problem.

Even now, with blood passports and more stringent testing programmes, the war against doping is one of the biggest cons in sport.

Bolt was actually asked if improved testing methods were the reason the 100m final was a relatively slow race. ‘Wo, Wo, Whoa what? What’s she saying?’ he said. ‘I’m sure everyone up here takes that as very disrespectful.’

Respect should nevertheless go to the French reporter for asking the question, even if Bolt’s own performance was clearly hindered by a back issue.

The slower times were quite comforting when compared to, say, a certain Ben Johnson taking a 10th of a second off the 100m world record back in 1987.

Three decades on, we at least knew we weren’t being duped. We knew the winner was a cheat and that might just help put a stop to all the pretence.