Summary: Adam Nelson Speaks The 2004 Olympic silver medalist may get gold before Christmas. But is it too little, too late? by The Trailer LONDON – By now you’ve probably heard that Yuriy Bilonog of Ukraine, the 2004 Olympic gold medalist for shot put, has tested positive for a banned substance when the IOC took a second look at a small fraction of the samples taken during the 2004 Games. And while the IOC will meet from Dec. 4-5 in Lausanne, Switzerland, to decide what punishment, if any, will be administered, one man, Adam Nelson, is particularly interested. Nelson, 37, was the 2004 Olympic silver medalist in the shot put, and should Bilonog’s medal be stripped, Nelson stands to receive his gold medal eight years after the fact. The Trailer: How did you hear about the news? Did any of the governing bodies contact you? Adam Nelson: Nah, I haven’t heard anything from anybody officially. I got an email from a friend who’s a reporter, and he said ‘Have you heard about it?’ and I just read the article. Honestly, this is not a new subject for me. In 2004, two days, three days after [the end of the Games], when I was still in the village in Athens, I heard that someone—they didn’t say who, but they thought it was Yuriy—had tested positive. Nothing happened. I got a call from a friend two weeks later who said he had been speaking to a credible source within the IOC [International Olympic Committee], and he said the same thing. I’d love to say that if it’s not true, then someone owes Yuriy an apology. And if it is true I’ll certainly have a different take on it. The Trailer: That’s supposed to be the early part of December, the IOC’s ruling? AN: It’s December 5th, but the article that I read back in July, they were debating whether to expedite the hearings because there’s a statute of limitations of eight years, and it’s unclear when that expires. So that’s the other part: are these tests going to be within the statute of limitations? The Trailer: You’ve been outspoken on the penalties for dopers for a long time, even saying they were committing fraud and should serve jail time. Does your past opinion still stand? AN: So my personal opinions haven’t changed much—and my opinion, we’re too soft on doping. You either have a doping policy that’s absolute, or you don’t. As I’ve learned more about the drug testing system, there are flaws there. In a recent study I read from 2010 there are around 270,000 samples collected worldwide, and of that, I think there was a one percent adverse findings rate [one percent that comes back positive]. I’ve been in sports long enough to know that everyone thinks the number of dopers is between five and 15 percent, depending on the sport, so one percent is still well undershooting what the realistic expectation is. But that aside, my personal opinion about the drug testing is one [failed] test and you’re gone. We find ourselves making exceptions for people—there’s got to be some grey area where shit just happens. But at the end of the day I feel like we’re making a lot of exceptions for people who are repeatedly violating the nature of the rule. The reason it’s so important to me is because it does not matter what I say, what I do, or how well I do on the field; the assumption of guilt will always follow me because I compete in the shot put. It doesn’t matter that I’ve never had a positive test—it means less now than it did 12 years ago. If you’ve read any of Tyler Hamilton’s book [a tell-all about doping in the Tour de France] and you know anything about the BALCO cases, not having a positive test does not mean you’re not cheating anymore. So I’m guilty by association and by look: I’ve got a thick neck, and I compete in the shot put, and I make a lot of noise when I compete, and sometimes I get angry. I get frustrated when I see or hear about people who are taking drugs, and who are beating the system. They’re stealing from everyone in the sport.
