Any publicity is good publicity, or so the saying goes.
It is an adage that Nike seem to have decided to test to the absolute limit.
A couple of weeks ago, reports emerged that Nike had given the American sprinter, Justin Gatlin, a sponsorship deal. The news was met with disdain, to say the least. Gatlin has served not one, but two doping suspensions, returning from ban number two almost five years ago.
The 33-year-old's initial ban was back in 2001 when he was suspended for two years after testing positive for amphetamines. Gatlin successfully appealed his two-year sanction, saying that his positive test was a result of medication he had taken since he was a child for attention deficit disorder and he was allowed to compete before the full two-year period had elapsed.
Gatlin's second offence was more clear-cut. In 2006, the sprinter tested positive for testosterone and he initially received an eight-year ban, which was later reduced to four. Gatlin, who was World and Olympic 100m champion at this point, was dropped by his sponsor, Nike, as a result of this doping misdemeanour.
When Gatlin returned to competition in 2010 on completion of his second ban his results were, initially, unimpressive. However, the American's form returned and he won bronze at London 2012, two silver medals at the 2013 World Championships and in 2014, he was the fastest man in the world. In a season in which Usain Bolt did not race at all other than the relay at Glasgow 2014, Gatlin ran 4 of the 5 fastest times in the world over 100m.
The 2015 season looms, then, with Gatlin as the primary challenger to Bolt's almost complete monopoly of medals at major championships. The 2015 World Championships in Beijing in August look set to be a showdown between the Jamaican and the American. This, it seems, has been too much for Nike to resist.
Despite Gatlin's soiled reputation, the potential of having a home-grown hero was too great a pull for the sportswear giant and it has, reputedly, handed him a three-year, seven-figure deal.
To suggest that Nike are looking at the benefits of sponsoring Gatlin from a financial point of view is stating the obvious. Going on last year's form, the American will be Bolt's most significant rival for the world crown this season and then for the Olympic title next year. Nike have, presumably, deduced that this rivalry will override the existing bad feeling towards Gatlin.
Judging by the initial reaction, Nike have grossly misjudged the mood; the backlash was instantaneous. Athlete after athlete queued up to condemn Nike's decision. Marathon world-record holder, Paula Radcliffe, wrote on Twitter: "I am very disappointed to hear this news. I don't believe it truly reflects the core values of the Nike that I am proud to represent, nor the integrity and the ideals of the people I work with on a daily basis". Darren Campbell, the former Olympic 4x100m relay champion, called the move from Nike "absolute nonsense".
Campbell also made a valid point when he highlighted the fact that sponsored athletes were not granted deals merely on the basis that they can run fast; they are also offered to individuals on the basis that they will be ambassadors for the brand. This is, unquestionably, a serious consideration for companies when they distribute sponsorships deals which is why Nike's decision to endorse Gatlin is so surprising.
The sponsor said: "Justin has served the ban that was imposed on him earlier in his career and has been competing without issue for the last five years. We don't condone his former actions but support the positive changes he made on the track."
In one sense, Nike are right. Gatlin, who denies having ever doped, has served his punishment and should now be free to earn a living just like all of his fellow competitors. But it is not quite as simple as that. Firstly, in 2014, researchers at the University of Oslo found that systematic dopers gain residual benefits from doping so there is evidence to suggest that Gatlin may still be benefiting from something he took earlier in his career. Is that the image that Nike want to portray - that one of their star athletes may be running with chemically assistance?
Secondly, Nike are promoting the message that doping does pay off and that cheats can thrive, so long as they perform on the track. Do what you want, lads, and as long as you run fast we'll sponsor you.
With athletics still reeling from the serious doping scandals, this is the last thing that the sport needs. If Gatlin wins gold at the World Championships later this year, the dissent will get even louder. But the sad thing is, Nike does not seem to care. They want an athlete who can run fast and everything else is superfluous. It's a sad state of affairs but it just confirms what we all already knew: that money talks louder than misdemeanours ever will.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article