IOC says it didn’t shield Jamaica in 2008 Olympic doping case
By Kareem Gantt
The IOC denies that it shielded Jamaica from prosecution in 2008 Olympic doping scandal.
The IOC was in full defense mode on Monday, claiming that it didn’t shield Jamaica from prosecution during the doping scandal that rocked the 2008 Summer Olympic Games in Beijing.
You’re probably wondering why you should care about what happened nine years ago. Well, there is a reason why you should. It’s because powerful sports boards like the IOC (International Olympic Committee, if you were wondering) can get away with murder if left unchecked.
Here’s a little history lesson for the folks who forgot all about that scandal.
Starting with Sweden’s Hans-Gunna Lijenwall testing positive for Ethanol in the 1968 Mexico City Games, doping has always been a nagging problem at the Summer Olympics, and, to change the culture, Beijing instituted a “Zero Tolerance for Doping” slogan for its games.
According to German documentary maker Hajo Seppelt, athletes participating in the Beijing Games from Jamacia were found to have traces of clenbuterol, a muscle-building substance that was banned from competition.
While Beijing largely kept its promise of disqualifying dopers from the games, the IOC moved to protect Jamaica from persecution. Why? Because superstar sprinter Usain Bolt was the star of the Games, winning three gold medals, all with times that broke world records.
The case brought up by Seppelt makes you ask the question — did Bolt achieve that success with natural talent? Or, did he get a “boost” from clenbuterol?
Next: The best Olympian from every state
Nevertheless, nine years later, the IOC is vigorously denying that it shielded Jamaica from prosecution, saying in a written statement:
"“After careful consideration, WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) informed the IOC further to the patteren analysis that the IOC had conducted that WADA could not find any significant and consistent pattern of abuse of clenbuterol in these cases and that it would be appropriate not to take these cases any further.”"
Only, with quotes like that, we should still be asking questions.