Stoning the stoner and other tales
by Jon Worley

Caught up in the current public frenzy of crucifying people for misdemeanor offenses, the International Olympic Committee took away Ross Rebagliati's gold medal because he tested positive for pot. The press compounded the idiocy of this act by constantly equating Rebagliati with Ben Johnson, another Canadian stripped of a gold medal because of a drug test. On the surface, that reference might make sense. But let's compare: Ben Johnson took a lot of anabolic steroids, known dangerous but performance-enhancing drugs. He was so stoked on the things in Seoul that the whites of his eyes were yellow. Even I could see that, watching on TV a few thousand miles away. Rebagliati, on the other hand, may not have toked it up (how many folks would test positive for, say, cigarette smoke? I'm allergic to the stuff, but I certainly would have a positive test), and any way, name me one idiot who believes that marijuana is performance enhancing.

The Court for Arbitration of Sport made such questions moot when it vacated the IOC's decision, letting Rebagliati keep his medal after all. The court's ruling was that since the IOC hadn't made a deal with the international ski federation concerning pot, it couldn't disqualify people for a positive test. The IOC, unlike, say, the PGA in the Casey Martin case, said it would abide by the ruling. Of course, there is no further court where the IOC could appeal. In a Starr-like fashion, however, while the arbitration court was making its ruling, the IOC leaked large amounts of information on the case. Rebagliati had 17.8 nanograms of something (the reports said "marijuana", but I'm pretty sure his urine didn't have little bits of bud floating around in it) per milliliter, which led one of the leakers, an "unidentified source" of course, to state unequivocally, "He was completely stoned out there."

As shocking as this may be to lots of folks who dislike potheads and snowboarders (and there's plenty of bleedover between the groups), very few people take to the slopes with a head full of smoke. You do that, you end up like Sonny Bono or Michael Kennedy. Not to be morbid or anything, but come on. It's a lot more fun to crash down a hill sober than stoned (on pot or alcohol or whatever). Now, once you're down for the day, maybe some aches and pains from your many wipeouts, well, why not toke it up a bit? Doin' nobody no harm, just taking the edge off the evening. Not unlike that evening cocktail, something the stodgy membership of the IOC should be able to comprehend. And come on: Pot is performance-enhancing? I saw the run. It was tough enough sober. No way Rebagliati would have any advantage with pot in his system.

And yet, even in the stories telling of the decision that allowed Rebagliati to keep his medal, there were references to Ben Johnson. A guy who took great liberties with his own health by chemically increasing his muscle density. Definitely increasing his speed using a banned substance. Equating Rebagliati with Johnson just isn't fair. The arbitration court recognized that, so why can't the press? Because no news means bad news. At some point, the dogs have to be called off, but not before my deadline. Let that other newspaper, TV station, whatever take the fall. Not me, say the collective members of the press.

Yeah, you know exactly where this is going. And from me, a person with a real-live journalism degree from perhaps the best j-school in the country. Real journalism is NOT about collecting information and publishing it. There's a middle process, one called interpretation. What does the information, real or not, actually mean? Can it be trusted? Does the information make sense? All of these questions have to be answered before a reporter writes a story and before an editor clears it. And yet, as we have seen in the Lewinsky and Rebagliati cases (the fact that the latter is a sports story does not let the reporters off the hook), the entire goal seems to be to find the most outrageous statement that can be attributed to someone or something (my personal favorite is "anonymous beltway rumor", which ran in an AP story recently) and print it.

That's not journalism. Like it or not, every story editorializes. There is no way to "Tell it like it is." Because every person interprets information differently. The goal is, and has to be, "Tell it like you see it." Be fair, be as objective as possible, but when push comes to shove, the story is a product of its creator. And should be judged as such. And each creator, be it a newspaper, radio, TV or Internet reporter, should be most concerned with getting the story RIGHT, not just getting the story. A quick re-reading of All the President's Men is instructive. On more than one occasion, Ben Bradlee told Woodstein that a story would be held until they could positively confirm it. In almost every case, that judgment was the proper one.

In a rare show of restraint, Newsweek held the Lewinsky story until it could confirm some things. The magazine even had one of the infamous Tripp tapes, and yet it held. This is a magazine which is not exactly well-known for top-notch journalism, and yet it made the proper call. Of course, when everybody and their dog started reporting the story, Newsweek went back to its more familiar "Hard Copy" style of journalism, publishing that odd bit about Vernon Jordan and Bill Clinton "talking pussy" on the golf course. That initial restraint was a short-lived moment of sanity.

The Rebagliati case took three days to resolve. Not long enough for people to notice the egg on the faces of the IOC and the reporters who published the leaks. The Lewinsky situation is still playing out. But if its resolution is similar, both Ken Starr and the press will have a heavy price to pay for scandalmongering. Perhaps the circle is closing. The modern perception of the press dates from Watergate, and perhaps another presidential scandal will put news gatherers back where they belong: in the bars and ratholes of society. The best place to do some real reporting of real news.

Jon Worley would have stuck with journalism if the hard drinking requirement was still in effect.

return to the Shut up, I'm talking page
return to the LIES home page
return to the A&A home page