THE TEAMMATES WHOSE VOICES MUST BE HEARD

SYDNEY -- AN EVENT both remarkable and troubling has been occurring at the
Athletes' Village in the past few days.

Politics by way of protest.

Members of Jamaica's track and field squad are in open revolt against
teammate Merlene Ottey.

They don't want the veteran sprinter on their team.

To that end, more than a dozen members of the Jamaican track contingent
have held noisy demonstrations, complete with hell-no! chants, a sit-in at
the village's international zone, and placards that read: "Merlene Out,
Peta-Gaye In. No Relays."

Peta-Gaye Dowdie is the young runner and current Jamaican champion who got
bumped from her 100-metre Olympic berth - to which she was selected after
winning the event at national trials in July - when officials gave that
coveted gig to Ottey, making these her sixth consecutive Games.

Forty-year-old Ottey tested positive for steroids last year and was banned
from competition. That ban was lifted this year and Ottey returned to the
track. Despite finishing fourth at nationals, Ottey said she was confident
she would be named to the individual 100-metre event as well as the 4x100
relay squad. And she was right.

Now the rest of the relay runners want nothing to do with Ottey. The
Jamaican tracksters have vowed to skip the relay entirely if Peta-Gaye
isn't reinstated in both the relay and the 100 metres. Nothing personal,
they claim. It's the integrity of the selection process they are defending.

It's all been quite sordid and very embarrassing.

Whether one agrees with the athletes' tactics or not, at least it's clear
where they stand. They've given themselves a voice, even if that voice will
in all likelihood be ignored by their country's sports officials.

Which is a long way of getting around to the perplexing matter of Canadian
equestrian Eric Lamaze.

He too has tested positive for banned substances - repeatedly, although the
circumstances behind his offences are more complex. And he too has raised
the ire of his teammates on the Canadian show jumping squad, although not
in so theatrical a fashion. The jumpers aren't parading their enmity in the
Athletes' Village or walking around with placards around their necks. But
anyone who asks will get a fairly honest response: Lamaze's conduct has
upset the team and continues to cause them annoyance.

But does anybody in Canada's sports hierarchy care what these athletes
think? They haven't even been consulted. When a high-level
behind-closed-doors meeting was convened on Saturday in Ottawa, those
present were all suits: lawyers with the federal Department of Justice,
Sports Canada, Heritage Canada, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport,
the Canadian Olympic Association and the Canadian Equestrian Federation.

Noticeable by their absence were any of Lamaze's once-and-probably-future
teammates.

Those show jumpers will simply have to live - and compete as a team - with
the results of a political decision by the Canadian Olympic Association.
That yea/nay on whether Lamaze will be allowed back on the Olympic squad is
expected today.

To recap: Lamaze, 32, was informed by the equestrian federation on Aug. 18
that he'd tested positive for a banned substance, ephedrine, a stimulant.
That substance was contained in an herbal dietary supplement, Ultra Diet
Pop, which had been improperly labelled. Lamaze was not aware of the
ephedrine but his positive drug test nevertheless resulted in a lifetime
ban issued by the Centre for Ethics in Sport. That was the punishment as
dictated by the organization's rules for a second offence involving banned
substances - and Lamaze had been kicked off the Olympic team in 1996 after
testing positive for cocaine. (Though he missed the Atlanta Games, the
four-year ban was subsequently tossed out by an adjudicator, Ed Ratushny, a
University of Ottawa law professor and NHL player agent.)

On the night in question (as police would say), Aug. 18, Lamaze admits he
went off the deep end, reverting to the comforts of cocaine, an addiction
he thought he'd overcome. It was a lapse, he insists, "and for that I am
truly ashamed."

In fact, the mind-bending ban that drove Lamaze to the blow was
subsequently, and quietly, lifted on Aug. 24 when all concerned
acknowledged the peculiar circumstances behind Lamaze's ingestion of
ephedrine. But he was back in the good graces of the sports politburo for
less than a fortnight.

On Aug. 29, Lamaze was subjected to a random out-of-competition drug test.
And on Sept. 8 the equestrian foundation informed the COA that their boy
had tested positive for cocaine - again. They kicked him off the team -
again. And imposed a lifetime ban - again.

Thus the Canadian equestrian squad left for Sydney without Lamaze. But he
hired a lawyer and fought back. That lawyer, Tim Danson - of French/Mahaffy
fame, having long represented the families of the two slain teenagers -
presented Lamaze's case to an adjudicator (the same one, Ratushny), as a
Category II Reinstatement Application, the criteria for which are described
as "exceptional circumstances surrounding the infraction."

Essentially, Danson argued, there had been no intent to cheat, no intent to
boost his athletic performance. Further, Danson and Lamaze maintained that,
because he'd already been turned into a non-person, certainly a non-COA
athlete, by the original cocked-up ban, his behaviour during that period
before his first reinstatement should not fall under the jurisdiction of
the equestrian federation or the Centre for Ethics' punishment guidelines.
Follow?

On Monday, Ratushny delivered his verdict. Lamaze was back in. That is, his
lifetime ban had been rescinded. But Ratushny doesn't have the authority to
deposit Lamaze back on the Olympic squad. That decision rests with the COA.
Meanwhile, Lamaze is apparently on his way to Sydney, where his splendid
horse Millcreek Raphael awaits.

The circumstances are bizarre. And what may be legally acceptable is not
always morally justified. The equestrian federation has skedaddled out of
the equation, saying they will leave this matter to the COA.

We likely all have opinions on this. Some of us would argue that cocaine is
not a performance-enhancing substance; that it's a recreational drug,
albeit illegal, where the high can last mere minutes. No way would cocaine
make Lamaze a better equestrian or give him an edge over the competition.
Others, such as ethics centre chair Dr. Andrew Pipe, take the opposite
view, which is why his organization argued against the ban being repealed.
"In basketball, players even have a term for the performance buzz they get
from cocaine," Pipe told The Star yesterday. "They call it skying."

But my opinion on the subject doesn't matter. And neither, I respectfully
submit, does Pipe's.

Cheating can, arguably, be quantified and evaluated. Ethics, like morality,
can't. Ethics are subjective. And the COA, as a quasi-judicial authority,
has, quite frankly, no moral heft. It is a blatantly political entity.

The only opinions that count in this whole mess are those of Lamaze's
teammates - and their views haven't been solicited by anyone in a position
to do something with that information.

Let the equestrians be the judges.

Rosie DiManno usually appears Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday.
E-mail: dimanno@hotstar.net