Archive for year: 2025

A

Chapter 1 — Introduction:

There are sporting events that produce results. And there are moments that expose systems.

The 100-meter final of the 1988 Seoul Olympic Games did both. It crowned the fastest man alive, then dismantled him within forty-eight hours. For many, the Ben Johnson case has become a familiar morality tale. A sprinter dopes, wins, tests positive and becomes a symbol of what the Olympic movement must purge to remain pure.

It fits a narrative the world readily accepts.

Yet from the perspective of a professional negotiator, the case reads very differently.
High-stakes environments — whether political, corporate or athletic — rarely turn on a single act. They turn on asymmetries. Asymmetries of power, information, access, timing and narrative control. These asymmetries shape outcomes long before any visible event takes place. They are the quiet architecture behind public drama.

Looking at Ben Johnson through this lens reveals a story that is not simply about doping. It is about:

• who controlled which information at which moment
• who interpreted the rules as they were evolving
• who operated within established networks of access and influence
• who understood the strategic environment and who misread it
• who shaped the narrative that followed

This is not an attempt to rewrite history or absolve wrongdoing. Johnson doped for years and he has acknowledged that fact. But he was also operating in a world where doping was neither rare nor surprising, where enforcement was selective, where major federations exercised quiet authority and where political symbolism often outweighed procedural fairness.

A negotiator does not look for villains. A negotiator looks for structures.

Structures reveal why events unfold the way they do and why different actors see the same moment through radically different lenses. The structure behind the Ben Johnson case is massive, intricate and revealing. It holds lessons that extend far beyond the track.

This essay does three things:

1. It highlights the sport-political and analytical context that shaped the events in Seoul.
2. It frames the case through the tools of negotiation: power reading, information asymmetries, narrative anchoring, behavioural assessment and tactical inference.
3. It examines the human dimension — the technical brilliance of Johnson, the institutional strength of Lewis, the evolving science of anti-doping and the moment -when old assumptions collided with new realities.

At its core, the tragedy of Ben Johnson is not simply that he doped. It is that he stepped onto the track honestly believing he was in the clear, unaware that the analytical ground beneath him had shifted.

He believed he would test negative after a taper his team considered safe. He believed the rules of detection had not changed. He believed he was running clean in the sense his world understood the term.

He was wrong.

Understanding why he was wrong — and why others were not — is where the negotiator’s view begins.

Chapter 2 — The Foundation: A Book, a Series and a Story Rediscovered

Every complex story has an entry point. For the Ben Johnson case, the most substantive modern entry point is the book World’s Fastest Man by Mary Ormsby. It is more than a biography. It is a record of decades of interviews, archival work, institutional analysis and human observation. It is the closest thing we have to a comprehensive, first-person anatomy of Johnson’s rise, fall and long aftermath.

2.1 A book that does not sensationalise, but illuminates

Ormsby’s work succeeds because it avoids the usual traps.
It is not a polemic, not a defence brief, not a mythmaking exercise. It is factual, intimate and unflinchingly honest.

It offers:

• precise reconstruction of the years 1981 to 1988
• the internal dynamics of the Charlie Francis training group
• the role of Dr Jamie Astaphan and the pharmacological decisions made
• Johnson’s own psychology — ambition, pressure, loyalty and misjudgment
• the institutional environment: Canadian athletics, the Dubin Inquiry, the global sprint culture
• the long-term consequences for Johnson’s life, reputation and identity

Ormsby’s method is thorough and human. She lets evidence speak through context, not drama.

But as accomplished as the book is, it does not attempt what this essay does:
to analyse the system around Johnson using the interpretive tools of negotiation, power reading and forensic framing.

Where Ormsby narrates, this essay interrogates.
Where Ormsby describes, this essay decodes.
Where Ormsby presents events, this essay maps the structures beneath them.

2.2 Why the upcoming Paramount series matters

In 2026, the story will reach a new global audience with Paramount’s Hate the Player, starring Shamier Anderson as Ben Johnson.

The show promises emotional impact, cinematic compression and narrative tension.

It will:

• dramatise rivalries
• foreground the personal stakes
• explore betrayal, ambition and identity
• draw attention to the politics of Olympic sport in the late Cold War era

What it cannot do — by definition — is provide the analytical scaffolding that explains why the system behaved as it did, how certain actors exercised influence and what remained invisible to the public eye at the time.

A series tells a story.
A negotiatior’s analysis tells you why the story –was inevitable.

2.3 How this essay positions itself

This essay does not compete with Ormsby’s book or with Paramount’s series.
It sits beside them, offering something neither medium is designed to deliver.

It provides:

• an integrated, multi-layered analysis of power, process and perception
• a technical explanation of Stanozolol, testing thresholds, tapering and detection science
• a re-reading of the 1988 100-meter final through biomechanical and forensic logic
• a structural deconstruction of the doping control environment in Seoul
• a detailed interpretation of Andre Jackson’s presence and purpose in the testing room
• a scenario-based model explaining the strategic landscape surrounding Johnson

It does so while maintaining full respect for the athlete at the center of this story.
Johnson was flawed, but he was not simple.
His choices were his, but the stage on which he made them –was shaped by others.

2.4 Why now

There is a renewed cultural interest in stories where:

• truth is contested
• institutions act with opaque motives
• individuals operate with partial information
• consequences appear disproportionate to intent

The Ben Johnson case is a precursor to the dilemmas we see today across business, politics and international sport.

It is a story about what happens when human decisions meet structural forces — and the human cannot see the full map.

This essay is written for that moment.
It draws on rigorous research, the insights of negotiations practice and the clarity of hindsight to provide a deeper, more coherent understanding of what happened in Seoul and why the outcome remains emotionally powerful more than three decades later.

Where the excellent book reveals, this essay interprets.
Where the series will dramatise, this essay explains.

Chapter 3 — Methodology: A Negotiator’s Lens

Understanding the Ben Johnson case requires more than historical facts or sporting context. It requires a disciplined interpretive framework — one that recognises that high-stakes environments are shaped by structures of power, asymmetries in information and the strategic behaviour of individuals operating under pressure.

A negotiator approaches such situations differently than a journalist, a historian or a sports scientist.
The negotiator’s first instinct is not to judge, but to map.

3.1 The structural view: What a negotiator sees first

Where others see events, a negotiator sees:

• incentive structures
• information flows
• access hierarchies
• actors with different risk thresholds
• narratives that pre-shape perception
• timing windows that decide outcomes before anyone moves

This lens is especially powerful in the Johnson case, because the outcome was not determined on the track alone.
It was shaped by:

• doping protocols
• laboratory capabilities
• institutional politics
• inter-team knowledge disparities
• and a symbolic need to demonstrate “control” in a Cold War era Olympic environment

3.2 Five analytic pillars

This essay applies five core tools of negotiation analysis to reconstruct what happened around Johnson:

1. Power reading

Identifying who holds formal authority, who exercises informal influence, who can bend rules and who cannot.

Applied here:
The IOC, IAAF and USOC operated with structural dominance that the Canadian delegation did not match.
Lewis’s camp had institutional proximity and cultural access; Johnson’s did not.

2. Information asymmetry

Determining who knows what, when and with what confidence — and how that shapes decisions.

Applied here:
Lewis’s environment had better insight into the upgraded Stanozolol detection methods.
Johnson’s team relied on outdated clearance guidelines.

3. Narrative anchoring

Understanding how early narratives frame later interpretations and limit plausible responses.

Applied here:
Lewis as the clean, charismatic star.
Johnson as the powerful, controversial rival.
These narratives shaped how the world interpreted Seoul within hours.

4. Behavioural inference

Reading actions, posture, risk choices and emotional cues not as anecdotes, but as data.

Applied here:
Lewis’s conservative race tactics;
Jackson’s presence in the testing room;
Johnson’s statement “They got me”;
the team’s confidence in their tapering plan.

5. Process control analysis

Identifying who controls the protocols and procedures that validate or invalidate outcomes.

Applied here:
The upgraded Cologne-Seoul analytical partnership,
the strict management of the doping control sequence,
the presence of an unauthorised observer from Lewis’s camp,
and the swift institutional response once the positive test was confirmed.

3.3 Why this methodology matters

Without this framework the Ben Johnson case remains –a simple narrative about wrongdoing and punishment.

With it, the picture becomes richer and more precise:

• Johnson doped, but he did not win because he was doped.
• He lost not because he cheated, but because he misjudged what others knew.
• He walked into a testing environment that had changed -without his awareness.
• His rival’s camp understood the moment better than his own.
• The institutions that governed the sport had interests that extended beyond any individual athlete.
• The decisive events occurred not only on the track, but in the laboratory and the testing room.

3.4 A note on fairness and restraint

This essay does not claim omniscience.
It distinguishes clearly between:

• verified fact
• deductive inference
• structural probability
• and human interpretation

The goal is not to accuse, vindicate or dramatise.

The goal is to understand — at a systemic level.

3.5 Terminology and clarity

For clarity, commonly used terms in the analysis include:

• IOC — International Olympic Committee
• IAAF — International Association of Athletics Federations (now World Athletics)
• USOC — United States Olympic Committee
• GC/MS — Gas chromatography mass spectrometry, the core analytical technique for doping tests
• Stanozolol — The anabolic steroid detected in Johnson’s sample
• Taper / Tapering — The planned discontinuation of a drug before competition to avoid detection
• Metabolite — A chemical breakdown product measured in urine, not the drug itself
• Narrative frame — The underlying storyline through which events are interpreted

These terms will be integrated seamlessly; the text will remain fully accessible to a non-technical but educated audience.

Chapter 4 — Context: Sprinting, Power and Doping in the 1980s

To understand the events of Seoul, one must first understand the decade that produced them. The 1980s were not merely a period of exceptional sprinting; they were a collision zone of athletic ambition, geopolitical tension, rapid scientific evolution and institutional contradictions.

The track was a stage, but the forces shaping the athletes were far larger than any single race.

4.1 A decade where sprinting carried geopolitical weight

In the late Cold War era, elite sport was –a proxy battlefield.
Nations measured themselves not only through diplomacy and economics, but through athletic dominance.
The 100-meter final — the race that crowns the “fastest human” — carried symbolic value far beyond sport.

Victories were political statements.
Defeats were national disappointments.
Athletes became instruments of state pride.

This environment created incentives that were powerful, often unspoken and structurally embedded.

4.2 Doping was not an anomaly. It was a system-level reality

By the mid-1980s, the global sprint scene existed in a world where performance-enhancing drugs were both pervasive and expected.

Across federations:

• East Germany and the USSR operated state-managed doping programs.
• The United States had individual actors supported by private medical networks.
• The Caribbean and parts of Canada had semi-structured pharmacological cultures tied to coaching groups.
• Testing was inconsistent, technologically uneven and politically mediated.

The idea of “clean versus dirty” was largely rhetorical.

The real distinction was between those whose systems shielded them and those who miscalculated.

Ben Johnson did not emerge in isolation.
He emerged from a global performance economy where pharmacological support was neither rare nor surprising.

4.3 Institutions shaped outcomes as much as athletes did

Three institutions defined the sprint landscape of the era:

1. The IAAF

Then led by Primo Nebiolo, it was a body caught between commercial expansion and political realities.
The desire to modernise and project authority often conflicted with the uneven enforcement of doping rules.

2. The IOC

The Olympics were the premier global sporting event and credibility was its currency.
After scandals and growing suspicion of doping in multiple nations, Seoul was positioned as the moment to demonstrate control.

3. The USOC

The United States held enormous sway — economically, politically and culturally.
American athletes benefited from strong institutional backing, private sponsorships and influence within sports governance.

Canada, by contrast, did not command the same strategic weight.
Its institutions were reactive rather than directive and the Francis-Astaphan training group operated in a quasi-autonomous world of its own.

4.4 The testing landscape was uneven — and evolving fast

Anti-doping science in the 1980s was far from uniform.
Two laboratories were especially influential:

• Cologne (Germany)
• Seoul (Olympic laboratory)

Under Manfred Donike, Cologne had become the world’s most advanced hub for steroid detection.
In the months before the 1988 Games, Donike’s team refined GC/MS methods to identify Stanozolol metabolites with unprecedented sensitivity.

This shift created a new reality:

• Dosing strategies that had been “safe” for years were suddenly obsolete.
• Clearance windows shortened without athletes and some medical advisors fully realising it.
• A well-managed taper was no longer good enough if it was based on outdated assumptions.

Johnson’s team relied on the old model.
Lewis’s environment understood the new one.

That difference alone could decide a career.

4.5 Canada’s position: Virtuous narrative, fragile strategy

Canadian athletics in the 1980s presented itself as principled and rules-oriented.
Yet it lacked the structural muscle, internal research and international connectivity necessary to navigate the new anti-doping landscape with confidence.

Johnson’s training group:

• operated outside national federation control
• depended almost entirely on the knowledge of Dr Astaphan
• lacked internal verification and scientific oversight
• believed in taper protocols that were no longer reliable
• underestimated both laboratory innovation and political context

It was a small team competing against global machinery.

4.6 The culture of the era: Ambition without transparency

The 1980s combined:

• extraordinary human talent
• an underdeveloped regulatory regime
• uneven national incentives
• major technological shifts
• and intense personal rivalry

This produced a landscape where:

• athletes pushed limits
• coaches became pharmacological managers
• laboratories raced to improve detection
• federations made selective decisions
• narratives were crafted before races were run

The Seoul 100-meter final did not occur in a vacuum.
It occurred in a decade defined by contradictions — speed and secrecy, innovation and miscalculation, ambition and institutional complexity.

Ben Johnson was not the only athlete shaped by these forces.

He was simply the one who collided with them at the precise moment when science, politics and timing aligned.

Chapter 5 — Fact Sheet: Ben Johnson

A proper understanding of the Seoul final requires a clear, data-based profile of the athlete at its center. Ben Johnson’s career was built on extraordinary physical ability, disciplined training and an evolving performance system shaped by both innovation and error. This chapter presents the essential facts that frame his trajectory.

5.1 Origins and early development

Ben Johnson was born in Falmouth, Jamaica in 1961 and emigrated to Canada at the age of fifteen.
His athletic identity was not forged in elite academies but in community programs, guided early by coach Charlie Francis, a former Canadian sprinter who believed that world-class performance required both technical mastery and structured physical development.

Key developmental characteristics:

• exceptional natural strength and neuromuscular speed
• rapid improvement in start and acceleration mechanics
• remarkable tolerance for training volume and intensity
• strong competitive temperament
• early emergence as a reliable championship sprinter

Johnson’s ascent was steep.
From a promising junior athlete, he evolved into a global contender within five years.

5.2 Performance evolution: From contender to world leader

By the mid-1980s Johnson was no longer competing for minor finals. He was competing for titles.

Significant milestones:

• 1984 Olympics (Los Angeles): Bronze in 100m
• 1985: Breakthrough season with consistent sub-10.10 performances
• 1986: Commonwealth Games champion, establishing dominance in the start phase
• 1987 World Championships (Rome): 9.83 (later annulled), a race that redefined the limits of human sprinting
• 1987–1988: Emerged as Lewis’s only genuine rival, winning most head-to-head races

Across this period Johnson’s biomechanical strengths intensified:

• unmatched block clearance efficiency
• explosive drive phase
• distinctive parallel-block configuration enabling symmetric power output
• stable posture under acceleration
• compact, high-frequency stride mechanics

This was not merely athletic ability.
It was technique at the edge of innovation.

Years later, athletes such as Maurice Greene, Ato Boldon, Dwain Chambers and Asafa Powell incorporated elements of Johnson’s model, confirming how far ahead he had been.

5.3 Doping history: What is known and what is established

Johnson testified before the Dubin Inquiry that he used anabolic steroids — primarily Stanozolol — from 1981 until 1988.
This use was not continuous. It followed cycles, typically coordinated by:

• Dr Jamie Astaphan, who advised on dosing
• Charlie Francis, who guided training models
• the emerging subculture of pharmacological support across sprinting

Crucially:

• Johnson did not take Stanozolol to gain acute, race-day advantages
• the substance functioned as part of long-term strength and recovery enhancement
• the 1980s consensus suggested tapering windows that seemed safe based on prior detection technology

His doping was real, but his team’s risk model was outdated.
The Seoul laboratory would expose that gap.

5.4 Support system: People, roles and dynamics

Johnson’s environment combined loyalty, informality and technical gaps.

Coach: Charlie Francis
A tactical and technical innovator who built Johnson’s mechanics and competitive mindset.

Medical advisor: Dr Jamie Astaphan
Oversaw pharmacological cycles, but operated with limited scientific rigor and incomplete understanding of the evolving detection landscape.

Training group:
Athletes such as Angella Issajenko, who later became one of the most detailed witnesses in the Dubin Inquiry.

Governing bodies:
Canadian athletics, which had limited control over the Francis-Astaphan system and lacked deeper institutional capacity.

This constellation was high in talent and ambition, low in formal structure and scientific oversight.

5.5 Competitive intelligence: Strengths and vulnerabilities

By 1988 Johnson possessed four distinct competitive advantages:

1. The best start in the world
2. The most powerful drive phase
3. Elite stability in acceleration mechanics
4. A psychological profile built for major championships

Yet he also carried three vulnerabilities:

1. Dependence on a single medical advisor who worked with static assumptions
2. Limited institutional cover compared to competitors from larger federations
3. Exposure to a rapidly improving analytical environment he did not fully understand

In the months before Seoul, these vulnerabilities began to intersect.

5.6 The athlete in full view

Ben Johnson was:

• one of the most technically advanced sprinters of his generation
• a product of a system that pushed the boundaries of performance
• a competitor who thrived under pressure
• an individual whose trust in his support team would ultimately define his fate

He entered Seoul at the peak of his career, not simply as a powerful athlete but as the central figure in a rivalry that symbolised an era.

The tragedy of his case is not that he lacked ability.

It is that his ability was world-leading at the precise moment when the systems around him faltered.

Chapter 6 — The Pharmacology: How Steroids and Stanozolol Shape Performance

Doping is often discussed in moral terms. In reality it is a technical subject shaped by chemistry, physiology and human judgment. To understand why Ben Johnson tested positive in Seoul and why his team believed he would not, one must first understand what Stanozolol is, how it works and how its detection depends on laboratory sensitivity.

This chapter presents those foundations with clarity and precision.

6.1 What anabolic steroids are — and what they are not

Anabolic steroids are synthetic derivatives of testosterone designed to amplify anabolism, the body’s ability to build and repair tissue. They increase:

• muscle protein synthesis
• training tolerance
• recovery rates
• force production

They do not:

• create instantaneous strength
• change biomechanics
• act as race-day stimulants
• produce dramatic acute effects in the hour or even day before competition

Their influence is cumulative and structural.
They allow athletes to train harder, recover faster and sustain higher performance loads -over time.

In sprinting, these adaptations matter during training, -not on the starting line.

6.2 Why sprinters of the 1980s used them

Sprinting requires:

• high neuromuscular output
• fast-twitch muscle density
• explosive power
• minimal fatigue in the final 20 meters

Training at world-class levels is brutally demanding.
Without adequate recovery, athletes cannot complete the necessary volume and intensity to progress toward peak form.

Steroids were used to handle that burden.
Every major sprinting environment in the 1980s — East German, Soviet, American, Caribbean — incorporated some form of pharmacological support. It was a competitive arms race.

Johnson’s use occurred within this global system, not outside it.

6.3 Stanozolol: The substance at the centre of Seoul

Stanozolol is a synthetic anabolic steroid derived from dihydrotestosterone.
It was particularly attractive to sprinters for three reasons:

1. High anabolic effect relative to androgenic effect
2. Predictable performance profile in strength and speed training
3. Belief in a manageable tapering window based on older testing capabilities

It existed in two primary forms:

• Oral tablets, processed through the liver
• Injectable suspension (Winstrol-V), a cloudy water-based mixture of microcrystals

Johnson’s group relied primarily on the injectable form.

6.4 How the body processes Stanozolol

Once administered, Stanozolol is metabolised in the liver and broken down into various metabolites, which the body excretes through urine. These metabolites are what laboratories detect.

Key points:

• metabolites form gradually
• they persist well after the active steroid has left the bloodstream
• their detectability depends entirely on laboratory sensitivity
• athletes can feel “clean” while still producing measurable metabolites

This gap — between perception and analytical detectability — is central to Johnson’s case.

6.5 Tapering: The strategic miscalculation

Athletes of the 1980s used empirical tapering rules:

• Stop Stanozolol two to three weeks before competition
• Assume metabolites fall below detection thresholds
• Base decisions on historical lab performance, not future innovation

These assumptions were shaped by older GC/MS methods that lacked the sensitivity later developed in Cologne.

Johnson’s taper before Seoul reflected this outdated model.
His team believed he was safe.
Their confidence was misplaced.

6.6 Detection: What laboratories actually measure

Doping control laboratories do not detect Stanozolol itself.
They detect specific metabolites — most notably 3’-hydroxystanozolol glucuronide — using gas chromatography and mass spectrometry (GC/MS).

The method works as follows:

1. The urine sample is prepared to isolate chemical constituents.
2. Components are separated by gas chromatography.
3. Each component’s molecular structure is identified by mass spectrometry.
4. A distinctive “fingerprint” confirms the presence of Stanozolol metabolites.

This fingerprint is unambiguous.
It cannot be produced by contamination or accidental ingestion in the testing room.

6.7 Why the “spiked beer” story is scientifically impossible

Johnson later suggested someone could have tampered with his drink.
This narrative has emotional weight, but it collapses under scientific scrutiny.

1. Stanozolol does not dissolve in beer
The injectable form is a suspension of microcrystals.
It is cloudy, bitter and perceptible immediately.

2. Acute ingestion cannot produce the metabolite levels found in Seoul
The metabolic process requires time — usually more than a day — to appear in urine.

3. The GC/MS profile matched ongoing use, not a single exposure
The detected pattern was consistent, repeated and structurally aligned with a recent cycle that had been tapered too late.

Thus, sabotage was not chemically or analytically viable.

6.8 The Donike factor: A decisive shift in sensitivity

Professor Manfred Donike and the Cologne laboratory were the world leaders in steroid detection.
For Seoul, they introduced refined methods that could identify Stanozolol metabolites at much lower concentrations than before.

This was the turning point:

• taper strategies based on older detection limits were no longer reliable
• athletes were unaware of the reduced thresholds
• Johnson’s team misjudged the gap between their assumptions and the new reality
• Lewis’s environment, closer to institutional corridors, appears to have understood the shift

Johnson entered the final believing he had complied with his tapering plan.
The laboratory proved otherwise.

6.9 The essential insight

Stanozolol shaped Johnson’s physical development over years.
But it did not meaningfully enhance his performance on the day of the race.

His true advantage in Seoul was:

• biomechanics
• technique
• start reaction
• strength built over years
• and mastery of acceleration mechanics

The substance that cost him the medal was not what made him win.
What made him win was who he was as an athlete.

What made him lose was a technical miscalculation in a laboratory arms race he did not see.

Chapter 7 — The Stanozolol Detection: Forensics of a Positive Test

The positive result that disqualified Ben Johnson in Seoul did not emerge from ambiguity. It emerged from a well-documented analytical process conducted independently in two laboratories, using a technology that had quietly advanced beyond what many athletes and advisors believed possible.

This chapter explains what the laboratories detected, why the result was decisive and how the evidence rules out alternative explanations.

7.1 GC/MS: How the test actually works

GC/MS — gas chromatography and mass spectrometry — was the gold standard of anti-doping analysis in 1988 and remains foundational today.

The process consists of two stages:

1. Separation (GC)
   The urine sample is vaporised and passed through a long capillary column, which separates its chemical components by their interactions with the column material.
2. Identification (MS)
   Each component emerges at a specific retention time.
   It is then ionised and fragmented, producing a unique molecular fingerprint.

The combination of retention time and fragmentation pattern identifies a substance with extraordinary precision.

For Stanozolol metabolites, the GC/MS signature is unmistakable.

7.2 What the Seoul and Cologne laboratories found

Both laboratories detected multiple Stanozolol metabolites in Johnson’s A and B samples.
The dominant one was 3’-hydroxystanozolol glucuronide, a highly specific metabolic product.

Key features of the finding:

• clear peaks at the expected retention times
• fragmentation patterns identical to reference standards
• reproducibility across repeated injections
• concentrations well above the detection limit
• confirmation in an independent laboratory (Cologne)

The analytical markers were not borderline. They were robust and internally coherent.

This was not a case that required interpretation.
The chromatograms spoke for themselves.

7.3 Why the metabolite pattern matters

The pattern revealed two critical facts:

1. The metabolites reflected systemic processing over time

Metabolite profiles accumulate gradually through liver metabolism.
They do not spike suddenly from a single ingestion.

2. The concentrations were incompatible with a recent, single exposure

Johnson’s sample showed a level consistent with sustained use followed by an incomplete washout, not an acute event.

This distinction is essential.
The profile matched a taper error, -not sabotage.

7.4 The detection thresholds had changed — and Johnson’s team did not know

Stanozolol detection historically relied on higher thresholds.
Clearance windows were based on these older capabilities.

For Seoul, however, the Cologne laboratory introduced:

• more sensitive ion detection
• improved metabolite isolation
• lower minimum reporting levels
• rigorous confirmation routines

As a result:

• doses that previously cleared within 14–21 days were now detectable
• “safe zones” became unsafe
• metabolite tails persisted longer than athletes expected

Johnson’s team tapered according to the old model.
The new model caught him.

This was not negligence.
It was inability to adjust to an information gap.

7.5 Why contamination or sabotage cannot explain the data

Multiple sabotage theories emerged, none of which withstand forensic analysis.

1. Stanozolol cannot dissolve invisibly in liquid

The injectable form is a microcrystalline suspension.
It is cloudy, bitter and immediately noticeable.
It cannot be mixed into beer without obvious sensory changes.

2. Acute exposure cannot generate the observed metabolite levels

The detected metabolites require metabolic processing over many hours, often more than a day.
No ingestion immediately before or after the race could have produced them.

3. The profile matched known taper patterns

The timing and relative proportions of metabolites aligned precisely with:

• a multi-week cycle
• terminated too late
• underestimating the new detection threshold

4. Two independent laboratories confirmed the result

Seoul and Cologne produced matching profiles.

There is no scientific pathway from “spiked beer” to the metabolite pattern Johnson produced.
The hypothesis collapses at every step:

• chemistry
• pharmacokinetics
• sensory reality
• laboratory forensics

The evidence is conclusive:
The positive result came from Johnson’s own prior Stanozolol use, not from manipulation on the day of the race.

7.6 The human factor: Confidence built on outdated science

The tragedy is that Johnson ran the final believing he was clean.

The Francis–Astaphan group had relied for years on the same tapering logic:

• stop early
• let metabolites clear
• avoid detection

This logic had worked.
It simply did not work in Seoul.

The laboratory had advanced.
The taper had not.

Sadly, the mismatch between expectation and reality mattered more than the substance itself.

7.7 The core insight

From a forensic standpoint, the case is straightforward:

• The GC/MS fingerprint was unambiguous.
• The metabolite pattern matched historical dosing.
• The concentration exceeded the new detection threshold.
• Sabotage scenarios are chemically impossible.
• The decisive factor was not doping, but misjudging the new analytical landscape.

Or, in the language of negotiation:

Johnson was not defeated by what he did.
He was defeated by what he and especially -his trusted team did not know.

Chapter 8 — Seoul 1988: The Race, the Times and the Gap

The 100-meter final of the 1988 Seoul Olympic Games is one of the most studied ten seconds in sporting history. Every frame has been analysed, every stride measured, every expression examined. Yet to understand what happened that day, one must see the race not as an isolated performance, but as the convergence of conditions that made an extraordinary outcome possible.

This chapter reconstructs the race as it unfolded and explains, with technical precision, why Ben Johnson’s victory was both dominant and biomechanically coherent.

8.1 The setting: A perfect stage for historic speed

On 24 September 1988, the conditions could not have been better:

• Wind: +1.1 m/s, fully legal and moderately supportive
• Track: a new, stiff, high-rebound Tartan surface designed for maximum energy return
• Temperature: ideal for sprinting
• Field: one of the strongest ever assembled, including Lewis, Christie, Smith and da Silva

Everything pointed to fast times.
The question was not whether someone would run quickly.
It was how quickly — and who would seize the moment.

8.2 The start: Johnson’s biomechanical masterpiece

Ben Johnson’s start has entered sprinting legend. It was a physical signature unmatched in 1988 and only later replicated by athletes such as Maurice Greene, Ato Boldon, Dwain Chambers and Asafa Powell, who studied its elements in detail.

Two features defined it:

1. Parallel block alignment

Unlike the conventional offset block setup, Johnson placed his blocks almost parallel.
This allowed:

• symmetrical force production
• minimal rotational loss
• a direct, linear application of power
• exceptionally efficient block clearance

2. Both legs firing through a unified drive line

Johnson did not “step out” of the blocks.
He exploded from them.

His first steps were:

• short
• violent
• perfectly aligned
• and extremely efficient

The result was immediate separation.

8.3 Reaction times: The hidden first advantage

The official reaction times were decisive:

• Johnson: 0.132
• Christie: 0.165
• Lewis: 0.178

A difference of 0.046 seconds at the elite level is enormous.
It translates practically into a full body-length by 20 meters.

Johnson’s reaction was not flinching or guessing.
It was elite neuromuscular timing — the product of thousands of rehearsed sessions.

8.4 Acceleration: The most powerful drive phase ever recorded at that time

From 0 to 30 meters, Johnson delivered acceleration mechanics rarely seen before or since:

• stable torso angle
• exceptionally low heel recovery
• compact stride mechanics
• sustained horizontal force
• controlled, rising posture – a lesson of core stability need for speed

At 10 meters he was ahead.
At 20 meters he was alone.
At 30 meters he was a full body-length clear.

The race was won not at top speed, but in the first third, where Johnson’s strengths were overwhelming.

8.5 Top speed: Closer than people remember

Once upright, Johnson, Lewis and Christie displayed very similar maximal velocities.

All three reached approximately 12.0 m/s, the elite standard of the era.

This is crucial:

• Johnson did not win because he was massively faster at top speed.
• He won because he was faster sooner.

His acceleration phase created a margin that even Lewis, with his famous finish, could not close.

8.6 The gap: Why 0.13 seconds mattered

Johnson finished in 9.79.
Lewis finished in 9.92.
The difference: 0.13 seconds, corresponding to about 1.3 meters at racing velocity.

This margin was historically large:

• Most elite finals of the 1980s and early 1990s had gaps under 0.05 seconds.
• A 0.13-second lead is not a victory. It is a separation.

For many viewers it appeared impossible — a sign of something unnatural.
In reality it was the visible expression of a biomechanical truth: Johnson owned the first 30 meters more completely than any sprinter of his era.

8.7 Would Johnson have won “clean” from a testing standpoint?

Yes, almost certainly.

This conclusion is important and it is defensible.

Stanozolol does not materially enhance acute race-day performance.
Its benefits are expressed over training cycles, not in the hour before a race.

Given the field’s performance that day and Johnson’s mechanics:

• Lewis ran precisely what his profile predicted: 9.92
• Christie ran one of his best races ever: 9.97
• Track and wind supported fast times, but fairly for all
• Johnson’s acceleration advantage was far beyond any marginal pharmacological effect

The outcome — Johnson first, Lewis second, Christie third — is the result most sprint analysts consider biomechanically logical.

His performance was dominant not because of what was in his body, but because of how his body moved.

8.8 The real tragedy of the race

The tragedy is not that Johnson won unfairly.

“It is that he won authentically, through strengths that were his alone — yet lost everything because the science behind detection shifted faster than his team’s understanding”

He walked onto the track believing he had tapered correctly.
He believed he would test negative.
He believed the rules of detection were the same as before.

They were not.

A new analytical threshold under Donike’s influence had quietly redefined what was detectable. The mismatch between Johnson’s belief and laboratory reality decided his fate.

He was the fastest man in the world that day, by ability and execution.

He simply did not know the race he truly had to win –was happening in the laboratory.

Chapter 9 — The Doping Room: Power, Presence and the Role of Andre Jackson

The doping control room in Seoul is one of the most consequential rooms in Olympic history.
For Ben Johnson, it was the place where his greatest triumph transformed into an irreversible fall.
Yet the mechanisms at work inside that room were not driven by chemistry alone.
They were driven by process, presence and power.

This chapter explains what happened, who was in the room and why one man — Andre Jackson from Carl Lewis’s camp — became an unexpected but decisive figure in the narrative that followed.

9.1 The rule: Who is allowed inside a doping control room

Olympic doping control is built on a simple principle: neutrality.

Only four categories of individuals are authorised to be present:

1. the athlete
2. one approved representative of that athlete
3. designated doping control officers
4. laboratory or IOC medical personnel

No one else.

The doping room is meant to be a sterile procedural environment, free of influence, ambiguity or external actors.
It is designed to protect the process — and protect the athlete.

9.2 What happened instead: The presence of Andre Jackson

Despite these rules andre Jackson — a close associate of Carl Lewis — sat in the room as Johnson provided his sample.

He was:

• not an official
• not part of Johnson’s delegation
• not accredited for doping control
• not authorised under any IOC protocol

Yet he was there.

He sat near Johnson.
He engaged him.
He watched him.
He handed him beer.
He observed the process from start to finish.

This was not a procedural accident.
It required coordination, permission and influence.

9.3 Why Jackson’s presence cannot be explained away

Many narratives have tried to cast Jackson as:

• a curious onlooker
• a friendly presence
• an unintentional witness
• someone who wandered in unnoticed

These interpretations collapse under scrutiny.

Access to the doping control room at the Olympics is tightly restricted.
No one “wanders in.”
No one “pokes their head in.”
No one “hangs around” without being challenged.

For Jackson to be there, someone with authority allowed him in and wanted him there.

9.4 What Jackson did not do: No sabotage, no contamination

It is important — and fair — to state clearly what Jackson did not do:

• he did not touch Johnson’s sample
• he did not interact with the testing materials
• he did not disturb the chain of custody
• he did not introduce any substance
• he did not influence the analytical outcome

From a scientific and procedural standpoint, Jackson played no role in creating the positive test.

The chemical and forensic facts make that impossible.

9.5 So why was he there? The Negotiator’s answer: Narrative Protection

From a negotiator’s perspective, Jackson’s role becomes crystal clear when we shift from chemical analysis to narrative analysis.

His purpose was not manipulation.
His purpose was narrative insurance.

Johnson’s camp had a reputation — fair or not — for being unconventional.
There was concern, particularly on the American side, that if Johnson tested positive, his team might claim procedural misconduct or attempted sabotage.

By placing Jackson in the room, Lewis’s camp:

• ensured visibility
• eliminated ambiguity
• preemptively neutralised claims of tampering
• positioned themselves as witnesses to procedural integrity
• controlled the optics of the moment

This was narrative safeguarding, executed –with foresight.

In strategic terms, Jackson was an informal audit mechanism —
a human buffer against any future counter-narrative.

9.6 Why this mattered so much in 1988

The stakes were enormous:

• Johnson was the reigning world champion.
• Lewis was the Olympic icon.
• The IOC needed to show strength after years of criticism about doping control.
• Global media were watching.
• The geopolitical context magnified every detail.

A positive test without independent witnesses could have ignited a procedural dispute.
A positive test with a member of the Lewis entourage present eliminated that risk.

The US delegation — powerful, experienced and institutionally connected — played the situation conservatively and intelligently.

They secured the narrative before the narrative existed.

9.7 Johnson’s reaction: “They got me”

Much has been made of Johnson’s remark, spoken later:
“They got me.”

To some, it implied sabotage.
To others, resignation.

But within the architecture of that moment, the interpretation becomes clear:

Johnson did not mean
“Someone tampered with my drink.”

He meant something closer to:
“The system caught me when I believed I was clean.”
“I misjudged the environment.”
“I did not control the space I needed to control.”

He saw Jackson not as an agent of manipulation, but as a symbol that others understood the process better than his own team did.

9.8 What Jackson symbolised

Jackson’s presence represented three truths:

1. The US camp anticipated risk
   They believed Johnson could test positive.
2. They positioned themselves to validate the outcome
   They wanted a witness in the room, not to interfere but to observe.
3. They exercised institutional access that other teams did not have
   At the Olympics, access is power.

Johnson’s downfall was not caused by Jackson.

But Jackson’s presence demonstrated how differently the two camps understood the stakes.

9.9 The core insight

In the doping room, power was not expressed through action.
It was expressed through presence.

Johnson controlled the race.
Lewis’s camp controlled the narrative.
The IOC controlled the procedure.
The laboratory controlled the science.

And Johnson’s team controlled –none of it.

He won the world’s greatest race.
But the decisive arena — the one he did not see — was already lost.

Chapter 10 — Scenario Analysis: Error, Asymmetry, Soft Setup, Hard Conspiracy

When examining the Ben Johnson case, four broad explanatory scenarios emerge.
Each offers a different interpretation of how the events in Seoul unfolded and why the outcome took the shape it did.
A credible analysis must distinguish them sharply, assess each on its evidentiary footing and identify the structural forces that make some far more plausible than others.

This chapter does exactly that.

10.1 Why scenario analysis matters

High-stakes environments rarely hinge on a single variable.
They are the product of:

• human decisions
• incomplete information
• institutional agendas
• technological capabilities
• narrative pressures
• and timing

A negotiator maps not only what happened, but what could have happened, what was likely to happen and what was controlled to happen.

The four scenarios below represent the full landscape of possibility — but they are not equal in plausibility.

---

Scenario 1 — The Taper Error (high probability)

This is the most evidence-based and analytically robust scenario.

What it asserts

Johnson’s team tapered Stanozolol based on outdated detection assumptions.
The new, more sensitive GC/MS methods introduced for Seoul rendered their taper insufficient.

Key indicators

1. Metabolite profile
   Matches sustained use followed by a taper that was too short.
2. Concentration levels
   Clearly above the new detection threshold, consistent with a miscalculated clearance window.
3. Historical context
   Prior laboratory thresholds would likely not have caught him at that timing.
4. Team statements
   Johnson, Francis and Issajenko all spoke of “safe windows” based on pre-Seoul data.
5. Scientific coherence
   This scenario fits seamlessly with known Stanozolol pharmacokinetics.

Negotiation analysis

This is a classic information gap.
Johnson’s side believed the rules were unchanged.
They were wrong.

Probability assessment

Very high.
It aligns with every verified fact and requires no extraneous assumptions.

---

Scenario 2 — Information Asymmetry (high plausibility)

This scenario does not contradict Scenario 1.
Instead, it explains why the taper error happened and why Johnson’s camp misjudged the risk.

What it asserts

The US environment — including Lewis’s camp and the USOC — had closer proximity to anti-doping institutions and better insight into the upgraded analytical methods.

Johnson’s camp did not.

Evidence points

1. Institutional proximity
   Lewis’s camp had strong relationships with IOC and IAAF officials and the USOC had extensive contacts with Donike’s laboratory network.
2. Historical behaviour
   Previous Lewis positive tests from the US Trials were administratively “managed,” showing institutional familiarity.
3. Pre-Seoul signals
   Lewis alluded in later interviews that he “knew something was coming.”
4. Behavioural evidence
   Lewis ran a conservative final, apparently confident that second place was sufficient.

Negotiation analysis

Information asymmetry is a standard decisive factor in competition:

• One party knows the real constraints.
• The other operates on outdated assumptions.
• The result appears “shocking,” but only to the less-informed party.

Probability assessment

High.
This scenario is structurally consistent and behaviourally supported.

---

Scenario 3 — The Soft Setup (plausible)

This scenario is often misunderstood.
It is not an accusation of sabotage.
It is a description of strategic anticipation.

What it asserts

Certain actors — likely within Lewis’s camp and segments of the institutional environment — anticipated Johnson’s vulnerability and positioned themselves to ensure that:

• the process was documented
• the narrative was secured
• any positive test could not be challenged

This includes the presence of Andre Jackson in the doping room.

Key indicators:

1. Jackson’s access
   Required coordination and clearance.
   It was not spontaneous.
2. Risk management logic
   If you believe your rival is vulnerable, you secure the narrative.
3. No sabotage required
   The laboratory would produce the result.
   The only risk was interpretation.
4. IOC incentives
   The IOC needed a high-profile enforcement moment.
   A cleanly documented process enhanced legitimacy.

Negotiation analysis

In negotiation strategy, this is known as pre-positioning:

• You prepare the stage.
• You reduce uncertainty.
• You box out counter-narratives.
• You ensure the result cannot be contested.

Probability assessment

Plausible to highly plausible.
The behaviour of actors fits this model exceptionally well.
It explains Jackson’s presence without invoking conspiracy.

---

Scenario 4 — The Hard Conspiracy (extremely low probability)

This is the most sensationalised scenario and the least credible.

What it asserts

Lewis’s camp or institutional actors directly manipulated Johnson’s steroid intake by:

• altering injections
• introducing substances
• influencing Dr Astaphan
• or spiking consumables

Why it fails

1. No evidence
   None has ever emerged in inquiries, interviews or testimony.
2. Chemical implausibility
   Acute exposure cannot replicate Johnson’s metabolite pattern.
3. Behavioural inconsistency
   Lewis’s camp acted like a group confident in verification, not manipulation.
4. Process difficulty
   Reaching Johnson’s injection schedule would require extreme infiltration with high risk and low feasibility.

Negotiation analysis

Operational conspiracies of this complexity are unstable, leak-prone and inconsistent with observed incentives.
Actors with institutional power do not need such methods.
They rely on structure, not sabotage.

Probability assessment

Extremely low to zero.
There is no coherent basis for this scenario.

---

10.5 Integrated assessment

The most coherent reading of the evidence is a triad:

1. A miscalculated taper
driven by outdated understanding of Stanozolol clearance.

2. An information asymmetry
that advantaged Lewis’s camp and left Johnson exposed.

3. A soft setup
where actors prepared for the possibility of a positive test and secured the interpretive environment in advance.

These are not mutually exclusive.
They reinforce one another.

Together, they produce a scenario in which:

• Johnson won the race
• Johnson lost the process
• others understood the evolving rules better than he did
• and the institutions were ready to act

10.6 Core insight

Ben Johnson did not fall because of a conspiracy.
He fell because:

• he misjudged the scientific landscape
• his team operated on assumptions that were no longer true
• other actors understood those changes
• and the institutions controlling the process were prepared for the moment

This is how outcomes often emerge in high-stakes environments:
not through plotting, but through advantage distribution.

The world sees a scandal. A negotiator sees a structure. Yet structures alone do not explain how individuals positioned themselves inside them.
To understand that dimension, we must examine the behaviour, expectations and strategic posture of the athletes and their entourages — in particular, that of Carl Lewis.

Signs of Anticipation — Suspicion Without Certainty

Although Carl Lewis has never claimed to possess advance knowledge of Ben Johnson’s coming disqualification, several indicators suggest that his camp operated with a higher degree of -expectation than surprise. This expectation was not rooted in privileged confirmation, but in long-standing suspicion, structural proximity and a clear reading of the unfolding environment.

Lewis had believed for years that Johnson was doping. He felt the sport was failing to intervene and he entered Seoul convinced that the rivalry had already moved beyond pure competition. That belief shaped his emotional and strategic posture long before the final. His conservative race strategy, unusually restrained for an Olympic final, reflected an athlete who -appeared prepared for multiple outcomes.

Including one, in which -second place might be enough.

It was the behaviour of someone uncertain of the race, but not uncertain of the broader trajectory.

His calm, almost detached demeanour in the immediate aftermath of Johnson’s world-record victory reinforced this impression. While many observers expected shock, outrage or visible disappointment, Lewis appeared composed. Time-stamped interviews and eyewitness reports describe him as controlled, measured and focused. It was not the reaction of a man blindsided by a performance; it was the reaction of someone who had long ago internalised the possibility that the story might break in his favour — if not that night, then inevitably.

Lewis’s camp also operated with a level of institutional proximity that Johnson’s team did not possess. Their connections to the USOC, the IAAF and the IOC, including long familiarity with Manfred Donike’s laboratory work, placed them closer to the centre of evolving anti-doping intelligence. They understood, more than most, that Donike had arrived in Seoul with a sharpened focus on Stanozolol detection and they understood the implications of that focus for athletes whose tapering strategies relied -on outdated clearance assumptions.

Within this context, the presence of Andre Jackson in the doping control room becomes more intelligible. His presence was not a coincidence, nor the behaviour of a curious onlooker. It was a calculated act of narrative insurance, a way to ensure transparency, document the process and prevent any later claim of procedural irregularity. His role only makes sense if Lewis’s camp considered a positive test a realistic possibility. Not a 100% certainty, but a scenario –worth preparing for.

Finally, the later revelation that several of Lewis’s own positive tests had been administratively “managed” at the US Trials underscores the –sophistication of his environment. His team understood how the system functioned, where institutional discretion operated and what risks mattered. They were accustomed to navigating the grey zones of compliance and enforcement. It would be unreasonable to assume that this knowledge did not shape their expectations in Seoul.

Taken together, these elements do not indicate foreknowledge. They indicate anticipation — the behaviour of a camp that did not know what would happen, but understood what could happen and –prepared for the moment with a degree of clarity Johnson’s entourage did not share. It was suspicion without certainty and structure without surprise.

Chapter 11 — A Negotiator’s Take: Power, Timing and Narrative Control

The Ben Johnson case is often presented as a story of individual wrongdoing.
But when analysed through the lens of negotiation and systems thinking, it becomes something much larger: a case study in how power is exercised, how information is managed, how narratives are secured and how timing determines outcomes long before any formal decision is made.

This chapter synthesises those dynamics and explains, why the events of Seoul unfolded exactly as they did.

11.1 Power rarely announces itself — it positions itself

In Seoul, power did not shout.
It did not manipulate samples or force outcomes.
Instead, it acted in the quietest, most effective way possible:

• by controlling access
• by shaping process
• by positioning observers
• by anticipating risk
• by managing interpretation

The United States delegation and Lewis’s camp operated from a structurally superior position:

• closer to the IOC
• more deeply connected to the IAAF
• familiar with Donike’s laboratory network
• supported by a powerful national Olympic committee
• embedded in the politics of global athletics

Johnson’s camp, by contrast, was technically sophisticated in training but institutionally isolated.

Power does not always win races.
But it often wins what happens after the race.

11.2 Information asymmetry: The decisive, invisible advantage

Johnson’s team acted on a belief:
that their tapering strategy would hold.

Lewis’s environment acted on knowledge:
that the analytical threshold had changed.

This asymmetry shaped every subsequent event:

• Johnson ran without fear of detection.
• Lewis ran with a conservative confidence.
• Jackson entered the doping room with purpose.
• The institutions were prepared to validate the result.

Johnson’s downfall stemmed not from what he put into his body, but from what he did not know.

Information is the currency of high-stakes environments.
Those who have it shape outcomes.
Those who lack it -hope for the best.

11.3 Narrative control: Winning the story before the story begins

In major public events, the narrative is often established before the facts emerge.
Seoul was no exception.

Three core narratives were already in place:

1. Carl Lewis — the charismatic, media-friendly icon
2. Ben Johnson — the powerful, controversial rival
3. The IOC — an institution eager to demonstrate authority

These narratives set the interpretive frame.

So when Johnson tested positive, the story “fit.”
It required no explanation, no nuance, no counter-scenario.
The world understood it instantly because it -aligned with expectations.

Andre Jackson’s presence in the doping room ensured that even if someone had challenged the procedure, the narrative would remain intact.

This was not manipulation.
It was mastery of perception.

11.4 Behavioural cues: How individuals reveal what they know

Behaviour tells its own story.

• Lewis’s conservative race strategy
  suggested a man who –believed second place was enough. Read that again.
• Jackson’s composed presence in the doping room
  suggested preparation, not coincidence.
• Johnson’s “They got me”
  suggested sudden recognition that he had been operating with incorrect assumptions.

In negotiation, behaviour is data.
It reflects confidence, knowledge, fear and strategy.

The behaviours in Seoul were consistent with Scenarios 1–3:
a taper error, information asymmetry and a soft setup.

11.5 Timing: The quiet architecture of inevitability

Certain outcomes occur not because someone forces them, but because the moment is strategically aligned.

Three forces converged in Seoul:

1. Technological advancement
   The new Stanozolol detection methods.
2. Institutional incentives
   The IOC’s need to demonstrate control.
3. Narrative readiness
   A story the world was already prepared to believe.

Johnson walked into a space that had been reshaped without his awareness.
Once there, the outcome was not yet determined — but it was highly likely.

11.6 The tragedy: Ability at its peak, knowledge at its weakest

Johnson did not lose because he was not the best sprinter.
He lost because:

• he believed he was clean for testing purposes
• he trusted a taper based on outdated science
• he lacked institutional protection
• his rivals understood the shift better than he did
• and the structures around him were aligned against error

This combination is devastating:

Peak physical mastery colliding with minimal informational awareness.

He delivered the greatest race of his life.
And lost everything because the decisive contest was not on the track.

11.7 What this case teaches about negotiation and power

Seoul 1988 offers lessons that extend far beyond sport:

1. Power is not force; it is positioning.
   Those who understand the environment shape the outcome.
2. Information is more valuable than strength.
   Inaccurate assumptions are fatal.
3. Narratives decide before decisions do.
   Public framing is a strategic asset.
4. Processes determine legitimacy.
   Jackson’s presence was not sabotage; it was procedural insurance.
5. People act based on the maps they have.
   Johnson’s map was outdated.
   Others had updated maps.
6. In high-stakes environments the greatest risk is what you do not know.
   This case is the embodiment of that principle.

11.8 The core insight

Ben Johnson did not fall because of an extraordinary act.
He fell because of an ordinary mismatch between his assumptions and the environment’s reality.

He won the race because he was the best sprinter.
He lost the medal because he misunderstood the updated system.

This duality — brilliance on the track, blindness off it — is what makes his story not merely dramatic, but human.

Chapter 12 — Conclusion: A Case Reframed

The story of Ben Johnson is often remembered in headlines: a record, a fall, a scandal that shocked the world.
But when viewed through the lens of negotiation, systems thinking and power analysis, the simple narrative dissolves. In its place appears a far more complex and profoundly human picture.

It is the picture of an athlete whose physical mastery peaked at the precise moment his informational landscape collapsed.

A man who won the race that millions saw and lost the contest that no one ever watched — the contest of evolving science, institutional positioning and narrative control.

12.1 Johnson as athlete: Talent, technique and the race of a lifetime

Ben Johnson’s performance in Seoul was not a fluke, nor an illusion created by pharmacology.
It was the outcome of:

• a lifetime of training
• an extraordinary technical evolution
• biomechanical innovation that would influence sprinters for decades
• a mastery of the start and acceleration phase unmatched at the time
• and an unshakeable competitive temperament

On that day he was the best sprinter in the world. Nothing about the race itself contradicts this.

12.2 Johnson as human: Trust, belief and a fatal miscalculation

What failed Johnson was not strength or willpower.
It was trust.

He trusted:

• a tapering schedule based on obsolete laboratory thresholds
• a medical advisor who did not appreciate the precision of the new GC/MS methods
• a belief that his preparation placed him safely below detection limits
• a system he assumed would operate as it had in past years

This trust was misplaced.
The laboratory had changed.
His assumptions had not.

This mismatch was the hinge on which everything turned.

12.3 Lewis and his camp: Mastery of structure, not manipulation

Carl Lewis did not need to sabotage Ben Johnson.
He needed only to understand the environment better.

His camp:

• had stronger institutional proximity
• anticipated the risk
• positioned itself within the testing process
• ensured a credible witness was present
• and waited for the laboratory to speak

This was not conspiracy.
It was structural intelligence.

In negotiation, the side that understands the system best rarely has to intervene.
It simply allows events to play out.

12.4 The institutions: Incentives, image and selective vigilance

The IOC, IAAF and USOC were not neutral actors.
They were institutions operating under:

• political pressure
• credibility challenges
• media scrutiny
• and the need to demonstrate enforcement after years of criticism

The detection of a high-profile violator served a symbolic and functional purpose.
Johnson’s positive test offered a clear, public demonstration of authority.

No one forced the moment.
But many were prepared for it.

12.5 The deeper truth: A system, not a scandal

When we strip away the moralism and drama, the Ben Johnson case reveals the logic of high-stakes systems:

• structures determine outcomes
• information gaps are lethal
• narratives frame reality
• access shapes opportunity
• and timing is often everything

Johnson was neither uniquely guilty nor uniquely innocent.
He was uniquely positioned at the intersection of every major force shaping the sport in 1988.

12.6 The lasting emotional force

The reason the Johnson case still resonates is not because it is a story of cheating.
It is because it is a story of misalignment.

A man at the height of his ability.
A race executed with perfection.
A belief in safety built on flawed assumptions.
A rival whose camp understood more than he did.
Institutions ready for a moment he never anticipated.

He lost not because he ran too fast.
He lost because he did not see the unseen race — the one happening in laboratories, institutions and narrative spaces.

12.7 What the story means today

The lessons extend far beyond athletics:

• power works through structure
• fairness is not guaranteed by rules
• advantage lies in understanding the environment, not just executing within it
• processes matter as much as performance
• and the decisive factor is often what one does not know

These principles apply to diplomacy, business, international governance, elite competition and any place where stakes are high and information is imperfect.

12.8 Final reflection

Ben Johnson’s legacy is not a cautionary tale about doping.
It is a lesson in the interaction between human brilliance and systemic complexity.

He ran the race of his life, powered by a decade of innovation and effort.
But he entered a world that had evolved without his awareness.

He was prepared for the track.
He was unprepared for the changed system – And that wasn’t his job at the time.

His fall was dramatic, but its cause was subtle — a misjudgment of structure, not a failure of ability.

To understand this is to understand not only the man, but the era, the institutions and the hidden machinery of competitive environments.

Ben Johnson was the fastest man in the world that day.

—————-

I want to express my sincere appreciation to Cecilia Perez-Perez, whose personal insights and long friendship with Ben Johnson illuminated many nuances of his great character, his life and training that are rarely captured in public accounts.

Her perspective — grounded in loyalty, proximity and genuine understanding — added depth and humanity to this project. I remain grateful for the trust and generosity with which she openly shared her memories.

Her stories, her clarity and her genuine affection for the man behind the athlete helped complete the picture in ways, none of the formal source could.

—————-

THE BEN JOHNSON CASE
A Negotiator’s View on Power, Structure and the Race Beneath the Race

By Ralf — Impact Negotiating

About This Essay

This longform essay examines the 1988 Ben Johnson case through the lens of professional negotiation strategy.
It explores not only what happened, but why it happened — and how structural forces shaped the outcome long before the world watched a man cross a finish line in Seoul.

The work blends:

• negotiation analysis and systems thinking
• behavioural interpretation
• institutional mapping
• forensic detail
• and human insight

It is written for readers interested in the deeper mechanics behind high-stakes environments: diplomats, executives, negotiators, athletes, scholars and anyone curious about what truly drives outcomes when pressure is high and information is imperfect.

Copyright

© 2025 Ralf / ImpactNegotiating
All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced without permission from the author.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This essay would not exist without the perspectives, conversations and insights shared generously over many years.

I am grateful as well to the journalists, researchers, scholars and athletes whose work, testimony and reflections helped inform this analysis — especially Mary Ormsby, whose remarkable research in World’s Fastest Man anchors much of the historical foundation.

My thanks also go to the readers of Impact Negotiating for their ongoing engagement, thoughtful questions and willingness to explore the deeper structures behind major public events.

This project is dedicated to everyone who seeks to understand not only what happened, but why.

AUTHOR’S NOTE

My work in international negotiation, conflict management and strategic advisory has taught me that outcomes rarely turn on the visible moment. They turn on structure: the information people have, the assumptions they make, the incentives they operate under and the stories the world is prepared to believe.

For more than fifteen years I have led negotiations in political, diplomatic and corporate environments. I have been trained to read asymmetry, assess behaviour under pressure and map the invisible architecture behind public decisions.

The Ben Johnson case has always fascinated me — not as a scandal, but as a system.
Not as a story of guilt, but as a study in misalignment.

This essay is part of an ongoing effort to bring negotiation and systems thinking into public discourse:
to explain how power operates, how narratives form and how people succeed or fail not only because of what they do, but because of what they cannot see.

If you would like to explore more work on negotiation strategy, asymmetry, influence and high-stakes decision-making, you can find it in the Blog’s:

impactnegotiating.com
impactnegotiating.substack.com

I. The Quiet Inflection Point

Sometimes, a country doesn’t change course with a bang. It shifts with a 900 pages PDF (https://tinyurl.com/2e73ze47)

“Project 2025” looks, at first glance, like just another policy compendium: pages, footnotes, agency chapters, a dusting of slogans. But a negotiator’s eye sees something else: a pre-drafted deal, not between two parties across a table, but between a future administration and the machinery of the state itself. It doesn’t merely ask, What should we do? It quietly answers, How do we take the reins ultra-fast and reset the full frame?

Frames matter. They decide what gets counted as “normal,” who has the authority to set the agenda, and which trade-offs are even allowed to be discussed. Project 2025 is, fundamentally, a frame, an attempt to redraw the boundaries of governance, personnel,  and culture on Day One. It is meticulous. It is systemic. And it is definitely not theoretical.

This essay does not argue politics. It reads strategy.

We’ll map the architecture behind the “Project 2025” document, identify where its blueprint is already bleeding into reality, and outline what it intends to change next, across agencies, in the courts of public opinion, and inside the nervous system of government. We’ll also interrogate the second word in our title -“Deep State”– not as a slogan, but as a diagnostic: what actually exists (institutional inertia, self-preservation instincts, incentive loops), what does not (a single omnipotent cabal), and how that ambiguity becomes a powerful negotiation tool in its own right.

Throughout, we’ll use the language of the craft: framing, anchoring, ZOPA, BATNA, strategic silence. Because geopolitics and domestic governance, at scale, are negotiations: about resources and rules, but also about perception. Tariffs aren’t just economics; they’re anchors. Personnel isn’t just HR; it’s leverage. Media narratives aren’t just noise; they’re the Overton boundary of any possible deal.

One more premise, upfront: we live in a multipolar world. Pretending otherwise is not strategy; it is self-talk. The United States can compel in bursts, but it must persuade for the long game. Trading “short-term relief for long-term grief” through blunt instruments like universal tariffs or by litigating culture instead of negotiating it, shrinks our ZOPA with allies and adversaries alike in the long run.

A negotiator’s task is to widen that zone -without losing the core.

So we start with the text, who wrote it, how it’s structured, where it’s already operational, and especially what it seeks to lock in next. Then we climb one level up: the three pillars of power that amplify any such blueprint: The military-industrial complex, Congress shaped by concentrated lobbying, and a “MSM” mainstream media ecosystem that narrows the perceived range of acceptable positions. Finally, we return to the table and ask the practical question: If you were negotiating with a system intent on resetting the frame, how would you respond? Smartly, lawfully, and to win the peace as well as the point?

No alarms. No euphemisms. Just a clear read of the deal in front of us and the one, we nowadays still have the agency to shape.

II. The Blueprint and Its Architects

Project 2025 is not an ordinary transition guide. It is a mind blowing 900-page operational manual prepared long before any election result, designed to enable a new administration to act with speed, depth, and coordination from its first day in office. It does not simply outline policy preferences, it prescribes the machinery to execute them.

At its core, Project 2025 is a product of the Heritage Foundation, a long-established conservative think tank with a record of influencing Republican administrations since the Reagan era. The Foundation itself coordinates with over 100 aligned organizations, from legal advocacy groups to faith-based policy institutes. This coalition supplies not only ideas, but also a ready-made roster of vetted personnel to insert into key government positions.

The document is divided by federal agency, each section authored by individuals with prior insider experience in that agency. This is not theoretical writing: these are operational veterans drafting from memory and network. They map which positions matter most, which regulations can be rescinded quickly, and which programs should be dismantled or redirected. They also identify legal levers that allow rapid change without new legislation, the administrative equivalent of a shortcut.

From a negotiator’s perspective, the structure mirrors a multi-party contract:

• Each “chapter” functions like a binding clause on a specific area of governance.
• The coalition of think tanks acts like joint signatories, aligning their language and priorities.
• The personnel database is the enforcement mechanism, ensuring the paper plan becomes institutional reality.

It is worth noting that the Heritage Foundation frames this as “restoring” government to constitutional principles. Supporters see it as a legitimate electoral mandate in waiting. Critics see it as a pre-engineered capture of the administrative state, bypassing normal transition frictions that slow radical change.

In either view, the operational advantage is clear: while most administrations spend months appointing staff and learning the levers, this one would begin with both a full roster and a playbook in hand. In negotiation terms, they have pre-set  a giant agenda before even entering the room.

In the next section, we will track which parts of this blueprint have already moved from page to practice, and where the next likely points of implementation will be — because a plan of this enormous scale is not meant to sit idle until a swearing-in ceremony.

It is designed to shape the landscape in advance, so that on day one, the game is already halfway played.

III. From Paper to Policy: What Is Already in Motion

A 900-page plan is only as powerful as its movement into reality. In the case of “Project 2025”, parts of the blueprint are no longer theoretical — they have already begun shaping agency decisions, policy debates, and administrative priorities well -before any change of presidency.

This is where the work of project2025.observer becomes invaluable: The site functions as an open-source tracker, cataloging where the document’s proposals have been translated into tangible policy moves, executive actions, or legislative initiatives. For the reader, it offers a rare bridge between blueprint and outcome: you can compare the original text to ongoing events and judge the trajectory for yourself.

A few patterns stand out when cross-referencing the tracker with the source document:

1. Personnel Pipelines Are Already Active
   Former agency officials aligned with Heritage’s vision have been placed in influential policy advisory roles in think tanks, legal centers, and political committees — positioning them to move directly into government slots without a learning curve.
2. Regulatory Rollback Frameworks Are Pre-Tested
   The document outlines specific regulations to eliminate within 180 days of taking office. Several of these have already been targeted through lawsuits or state-level policy pushes, effectively “beta-testing” the rollback process.
3. Narrative and Cultural Campaigns Are Underway
   Agency chapters that focus on education, immigration, and social policy read less like dry administration manuals and more like cultural re-framing strategies. The tracker shows multiple instances where language from the document has migrated almost verbatim into public speeches and legislative proposals.

From a negotiation standpoint, this is anchoring in advance: By introducing proposals into the public and political sphere now, Project 2025’s authors shift the “Overton Window” so that when the time comes, their positions seem less radical and more like a logical next step.

The strategic implication is simple but profound: when you pre-load the environment with your preferred frames, you reduce the “resistance cost” later. In high-stakes negotiations, we call this setting the table before the guests arrive — and in politics, it can be or made the difference between friction and flow.

The lesson for the reader is not just to watch the headlines, but to connect them back to the source. The full tracker at project2025.observer makes this connection visible, event by event, pls. have a look at.

In the next section, we will look ahead: which proposals are most likely to move from the blueprint into action next, and what domestic and international ripple effects they could trigger in an already multipolar world.

IV. What Comes Next — Anticipated Moves and Strategic Consequences

Every blueprint has a sequencing logic. Project 2025 is not a scattershot wish list, it is a timed playbook. The structure and tone of its chapters reveal a clear progression: secure personnel, neutralize regulatory friction, and then pivot to high-visibility policy shifts that signal strength to both domestic supporters and international observers.

Based on the text, the tracker data, and current political positioning, several moves are likely to surface in the near term:

1. Acceleration of Tariff and Trade Leverage

Tariffs are not just an economic tool — they are a negotiating anchor. When set high, they reset the starting point of any trade discussion in America’s favor, at least in the short run. The risk, however, is a classic one in deal-making: trading short-term relief for long-term grief. In a multipolar world where other major economies — the EU, China, India, Brazil — can and will coordinate countermeasures, the United States risks eroding trust-based trade relationships that took decades to build. Retaliatory tariffs, diversion of supply chains, and bilateral agreements excluding the U.S. are all foreseeable outcomes.

In negotiation terms, this is an overweighted opening bid: it grabs attention and concedes nothing at first, but it can narrow the Zone of Possible Agreement (ZOPA) if the counterparty decides the relationship is no longer worth salvaging.

2. Administrative Bypass via Executive Authority

The document repeatedly emphasizes actions that can be taken without new legislation. Expect early moves in immigration, environmental regulation, and federal oversight to bypass Congress entirely. This approach speeds implementation but risks triggering institutional pushback — from courts, agencies, and civil service networks. The resulting legal battles can drain political capital early in a term, weakening leverage for later, more complex negotiations.

3. Targeted Reframing of Cultural and Educational Policy

Project 2025’s language on education, gender policy, and family structure reads like a long-term reframing effort. The likely sequence is to embed these frames in federal grant criteria, educational standards, and agency communications — creating a “new normal” without a single sweeping law. This mirrors negotiation tactics where norming is more effective than enforcement: change what’s considered standard, and compliance follows without force.

4. Consolidation of Intelligence and Security Narratives

While the document stops short of calling for structural dismantling of intelligence agencies, it clearly advocates aligning them more tightly with the executive’s policy worldview. This could reshape priorities in cybersecurity, counterintelligence, and foreign influence monitoring — with ripple effects in how allies perceive U.S. intelligence credibility. In high-trust partnerships, perception is as critical as capability; eroding one undermines both.

Strategic Consequences in a Multipolar World

In a unipolar environment, such a plan might be executed with little international cost. But the 21st century is not unipolar. Power is now distributed across multiple centers, each with its own negotiation leverage. Moves that project strength domestically can be read abroad as signals of inflexibility or transactionalism, prompting coalitions to work around rather than with the U.S.

In negotiation terms, this is a BATNA inflation problem: overestimating the value of your own fallback options while underestimating the counterparty’s ability to create alternatives. The more other powers succeed in trading, securing energy, or coordinating defense without the U.S., the weaker America’s future bargaining position becomes.

In the next section, we will address the three pillars that amplify and shield such a blueprint from challenge — The military-industrial complex, Congress under concentrated lobbying influence, and the “MSM” mainstream media ecosystem that shapes the perceived boundaries of acceptable policy — and explore how they interact as both, drivers and defenders of the frame “Project 2025” sets.

V. The US Three Pillars of Power — Structure, Function and Interlock

No policy architecture of the scale and ambition of Project 2025 exists in a vacuum. Its survival — and its ability to move from paper to reality — depends on three structural supports. Each is powerful on its own, but their true resilience lies in how they interlock, shielding and amplifying each other’s influence.

1. The Military-Industrial Complex

First warned against by President Eisenhower in his 1961 farewell address, the military-industrial complex is more than a cozy relationship between defense contractors and the Pentagon. It is a sprawling, self-reinforcing ecosystem: defense companies, congressional committees, military leadership, lobbyists, and research institutions that benefit directly from sustained or expanding defense budgets.

From a negotiation perspective, this is a locked-in incentive loop — the kind of situation where no party at the table has a true BATNA that involves reducing defense spending, because each derives its core value from maintaining or increasing it. This creates a bias toward solutions that justify military engagement or readiness, even when non-military options exist.

For Project 2025, this pillar provides both a resource engine and a political firewall: defense policy alignment ensures that the most well-funded and politically entrenched sector in Washington has a stake in the plan’s endurance.

2. Congressional Influence Under Concentrated Lobbying

Lobbying is a fact of political life in Washington, but some sectors — notably the pro-Israel lobby led by AIPAC — have refined it to an art form. Through campaign financing, policy scorecards, and direct access to lawmakers, such groups create what negotiators would call a pre-conditioned decision space: before a bill is even drafted, the range of “acceptable” legislative outcomes has already been narrowed.

This influence is not limited to foreign policy. When lobby networks align with elements of Project 2025’s domestic and cultural policy agenda, they can mobilize rapid political cover for controversial moves and suppress dissent within Congress.

In negotiation terms, these lobby structures function as powerful coalition builders — not because they can out-argue opponents, but because they can reshape the coalition map before the debate begins.

3. Mainstream Media and Narrative Control

The mainstream media (MSM) does not operate as a monolith, but the phenomenon of narrative convergence is undeniable. Whether driven by shared sourcing, ideological alignment, corporate ownership patterns, or audience segmentation, the result is a relatively narrow Overton Window: the range of acceptable discourse remains within boundaries that rarely challenge core policy directions.

For a political blueprint like Project 2025, media alignment serves two functions:

1. Framing — presenting certain policy moves as inevitable, necessary, or common-sense.
2. Omission — ensuring that competing narratives or deeper structural critiques remain on the fringes.

From a negotiator’s standpoint, this is frame dominance — the strategic control of how a discussion is defined before the first counterargument is made. When the public only hears the debate framed in terms favorable to the plan’s authors, opposition must first spend energy reframing before it can even begin persuading.

Interlock: How the Three Pillars Protect the Frame

These pillars are not independent silos. The military-industrial complex generates narratives of threat and security that media outlets amplify. Media frames, in turn, create the public and political climate in which lobbying networks operate most effectively. Lobby-backed lawmakers then legislate or budget in ways that feed the defense sector, completing the loop.

From a systems perspective, this is a closed negotiation environment: the actors at the table all share overlapping interests, making it extremely difficult for external stakeholders — whether they are reformers, watchdogs, or voters — to alter the underlying “deal structure”.

In the next section, we will examine the dynamics of media, narrative, and psychological operations (PsyOps) in greater depth — not as a separate sphere, but as the front-facing theater where perception is shaped, consent is manufactured, and strategic frames are normalized. This is where the Deep State conversation begins to take tangible form.

VI. Media, Narrative & PsyOps — The Theater of Perception Management

If the three pillars of power form the structural scaffolding of Project 2025, the media-narrative space is its stage. This is where policy proposals are transformed into public “common sense” and where dissent is reframed as fringe, naïve, or even dangerous. It is also the arena in which psychological operations (PsyOps) blur the line between persuasion and manipulation.

1. Narrative Convergence — How a Frame Becomes “Reality”

In high-stakes negotiations, the party that defines the frame of the discussion often wins before the real bargaining begins. The same principle operates in politics: if mainstream outlets converge on a particular vocabulary, causal story, and moral framing, then most public debate takes place within that narrative boundary.

For example:

• Choice of terms — “election integrity” vs. “voter suppression,” “national security” vs. “domestic surveillance.”
• Placement and repetition — repeating a frame in headlines, op-eds, and talk shows until it feels “normal.”

From a negotiator’s lens, this is frame entrenchment: repeated exposure to a single interpretive lens increases its cognitive weight, making counter-frames feel implausible or extreme.

2. PsyOps in the Domestic Arena

While “psychological operations” often evoke images of battlefield propaganda, the techniques are just as potent in domestic policy shaping. These include:

• Selective amplification — highlighting certain incidents or voices to support a policy line.
• Information flooding — releasing so much narrative “noise” that audiences can no longer distinguish between fact and interpretation.
• Emotional priming — associating policies with fear, pride, or moral urgency to reduce analytical resistance.

These methods mirror classic influence tactics: anchoring emotions before facts, norming behaviors by showing apparent consensus, and scarcity framing to push urgent acceptance.

3. Manufacturing Consent in the Multipolar Context

In a multipolar world, narrative control serves two overlapping functions:

• Internally — securing domestic buy-in and marginalizing dissent.
• Externally — projecting a coherent national posture to allies and rivals alike.

The paradox is that hyper-controlled internal narratives can reduce external adaptability.

If leaders are locked into their own domestic frame, they may miss shifts in the global negotiation table — overestimating their leverage while underestimating others’ capacity to build alternative coalitions.

4. Integration With Project 2025

The policy language in Project 2025 shows an acute awareness of narrative power. Recommendations are often accompanied by rhetorical framing devices that preemptively neutralize common counterarguments. The goal is not just to pass policies but to redefine the political “center” so that these policies feel like the natural baseline.

In strategic terms, this is an Overton Window realignment — the deliberate shifting of what counts as “reasonable” policy so that more radical measures appear moderate by comparison.

5. Where PsyOps Meet Negotiation Strategy

In the world of professional negotiation, framing and norming are most effective when they are invisible. The other side doesn’t feel pushed — they feel as if they arrived at the conclusion themselves. The same applies to political PsyOps: the most successful campaigns are those where the audience cannot clearly trace the origin of the narrative they now believe.

This is the gateway to our “Deep State” analysis.

Because when influence networks, defense interests and media convergence work in concert with psychological shaping techniques, the line between formal government and informal power structures begins to blur.

And it is precisely in this blurred zone where the Deep State — however one defines it — either exists in practice or emerges as a powerful political metaphor.

VII. The Deep State — Myth, Reality, and the Negotiator’s Dissection

The term “Deep State” is one of the most emotionally loaded phrases in modern political discourse. It is used by some as a rallying cry against hidden power and by others as a rhetorical bludgeon to delegitimize opposition.

Its utility as a political weapon often overshadows the need for a sober, structural analysis.

From a negotiator’s standpoint, the task is to strip away the charged vocabulary and identify the actual mechanics of influence and resilience in state systems — what is provable, what is inferred, and what is imagined.

1. Competing Definitions

Broadly, “Deep State” refers to networks within a nation’s institutions that continue to operate according to their own strategic priorities, regardless of changes in elected leadership.

The disagreement is about scope and coherence:

• Maximalist View — a centralized, coordinated, and deliberate power structure that can override democratic decision-making.
• Minimalist View — overlapping bureaucratic, security and corporate interests that resist disruptive change through institutional inertia and self-protection, not through a unified command.

The minimalist perspective aligns more closely with how large organizations — public or private — tend to behave: not as a single chess player, but as a collection of interlocking sub-players each defending their own territory.

2. The Self-Protection Instinct of Institutions

Every large institution develops a survival reflex. In negotiation terms, this is BATNA preservation — ensuring that no matter what deal is struck, the organization retains the capacity to operate and protect its core resources.

For intelligence agencies, the military, or high-level bureaucracies, this instinct can manifest as:

• Policy continuity despite political change.
• Selective compliance with new directives.
• Information gatekeeping — controlling what decision-makers and the public know.

This does not require conspiracy; it is often just the predictable outcome of career incentives, legal mandates, and organizational culture.

3. The Interlock With Influence Networks

The most credible reason the Deep State concept persists is that institutional self-protection often aligns with external power centers:

• The military-industrial complex benefits from sustained threat narratives.
• Lobbying groups influence congressional oversight and budget priorities.
• Media ecosystems help frame these priorities as aligned with public interest.
•  

When these vectors align — Intentionally or Coincidentally — the result can look, from the outside, like a coordinated “state within a state.”

4. The Role of International Influence

One sensitive dimension, often avoided in mainstream coverage, is the degree to which foreign states and their lobbying arms shape U.S. policy in ways that intersect with Deep State-like dynamics.

For example:

• Pro-Israel lobbying networks such as AIPAC have long been among the most effective in Washington, shaping legislative agendas, budget allocations and even the vocabulary used in public debate.
• Similar influence structures exist for other allies, though rarely with the same level of integration into U.S. political and defense decision-making.

The critical point: foreign influence does not automatically equal control! — but when it aligns with entrenched institutional priorities, it reinforces the perception of a Deep State.

5. Why the Term Can Be Misleading

Using “Deep State” as a catch-all risks oversimplification:

• It encourages the belief in a “single mastermind” where in reality there may be parallel, sometimes competing, networks.
• It fuels public distrust to a degree that can delegitimize all governance, not just questionable elements.
• It can obscure the more subtle, documentable dynamics — like procurement lobbying, think tank pipelines, and regulatory capture — that deserve serious attention.

From a negotiator’s view, this is a framing problem: if the public frame is too crude, the wrong solutions get proposed and real leverage points are missed.

6. The Real Risk and the Real Opportunity

The risk: Overlapping, self-reinforcing institutional and private power networks can narrow the range of policy choices without open public debate — especially in high-stakes domains like foreign policy, defense, and surveillance.

The opportunity:

• Transparency and procedural reform can widen the negotiation table, bringing in more diverse stakeholders.
• Media literacy and frame awareness can equip citizens to spot narrative shaping before it hardens into -perceived “truth.”
• International diplomacy in a multipolar context can reduce dependency on entrenched alliances that lock policy into predictable tracks.

7. Taking the Fear Out of the Term

Understanding the Deep State — whether as metaphor or partial reality — is not about indulging in shadow-theater politics. It is about recognizing that power abhors a vacuum and will always seek continuity.

This recognition does not need to paralyze citizens or policymakers. In fact, just as in a complex negotiation, naming the hidden interests and leverage points is the first step toward rebalancing the table.

A public that just understands institutional self-preservation, influence interlocks and narrative framing is far harder to manipulate — and far more capable of demanding governance that serves broad rather than narrow interests.

VIII. Risks, Challenges, and Strategic Paths Forward

Project 2025 is not simply a political proposal; it is a negotiation with the future of governance in the United States. Like any high-stakes negotiation, it contains both offers (promises of efficiency, ideological clarity, administrative discipline) and demands (structural changes, concentration of authority, redefined institutional roles).

To evaluate it responsibly, we must weigh the risks against the opportunities — and do so without leaning into fear or resignation.

1. The Risks

a. Speed as a Weapon
The accelerated 180-day implementation window is framed as decisive governance. In negotiation terms, it’s a deadline tactic designed to reduce counter-mobilization. The risk: democratic oversight and institutional checks may be bypassed before a counter-offer can even be formed.

b. Institutional Capture
By pre-placing ideologically aligned personnel into agencies, the blueprint reduces the friction of transition. The risk is not in competence but in homogeneity — fewer internal voices to challenge policy blind spots.

c. Polarization Through Framing
When narratives are framed in absolute terms — “restoring America,” “fighting the Deep State” — compromise space narrows. The risk is that governance becomes a zero-sum game rather than a platform for durable consensus.

d. Overlap of Power Pillars
The military-industrial complex, lobbying-influenced legislatures, and media ecosystems can, when aligned, lock policy in place regardless of electoral shifts. This reduces flexibility in responding to a multipolar world.

2. The Challenges

a. Multipolar Realities
In an era where China, the EU, India, and emerging alliances assert their weight, any attempt to isolate the U.S. through tariff escalation or unilateralism risks trading short-term relief for long-term grief in global markets.

b. Public Trust Deficit
Decades of media consolidation, polarized coverage, and perception of elite capture have left the public skeptical of all narratives — official or alternative. The challenge is not only to restore trust but to rebuild the capacity for shared facts.

c. Policy vs. Culture War
Many Project 2025 initiatives blur administrative reform with cultural redefinition. Negotiating cultural shifts is far more volatile and resistant to compromise than negotiating tax policy or regulatory scope.

3. Strategic Paths Forward

a. Negotiating in Advance
Just as Project 2025 has pre-loaded the public arena with its frames, those seeking balance must introduce counter-frames now. This means proactive, specific proposals, not reactive opposition.

b. Transparency as a Leverage Point
Publicly mapping which proposals have moved into policy — as project2025.observer does — makes it harder for changes to occur without scrutiny. In any negotiation, forcing clarity on the deal terms increases accountability.

c. Building Resilient Institutions
Institutions should diversify their advisory pipelines, bringing in expertise across the ideological spectrum. In negotiation terms, this is expanding your ZOPA (Zone of Possible Agreement) to avoid deadlock and capture.

d. Media Literacy as Civic Armor
A public able to spot framing, anchoring, and narrative repetition is far less vulnerable to manipulation — whether from political campaigns, lobbyists, or foreign influence networks.

e. Engaging the Multipolar Table
Rather than resisting global power shifts, the U.S. could leverage them: negotiating trade, climate, and security arrangements that recognize mutual interdependence rather than denying it. This approach increases strategic options instead of narrowing them.

4. A Closing Thought

The most effective negotiators are those who can hold two truths at once:

1. That concentrated power, whether labeled “Deep State” or not, will always seek to preserve itself.
2. That public agency — the ability of informed citizens and institutions to influence outcomes — is real and renewable.

Project 2025’s greatest long-term impact may not be its specific policies but the precedent it sets for how deeply and quickly a single ideological framework can attempt to reshape a democratic system. Recognizing this, the challenge, and the opportunity, is to meet speed with foresight, framing with counter-framing, and concentration of power with diversification of voice.

In the end, as with any negotiation, the outcome depends not only on the strategy of one side but on the caring preparation, clarity and will of the other. For the matters of truly significant importance to you and yours, ask yourself:

How will you transfer “permission” into your counterpart’s system next time?

IX. A Negotiator’s Closing View
Every deal, whether between two business partners, nations at war, or a government and its people, is ultimately an exchange of Power for Trust.
Project 2025, stripped of slogans, is an audacious bid to consolidate the former while redefining the terms of the latter.
The lesson is not to fear the ambition of such a move, but to understand its mechanics: deadlines compress resistance, framing shapes perception, and pre-positioning wins battles before they start.

For citizens, institutions, and allies, the takeaway is clear: don’t wait for the signing ceremony to show up at the table. The real negotiation is already underway — and those who arrive unprepared will not be part of the final draft.

To Prepare and Prevent in time, or Repair and Repent later, the choice is ours.

ResolutionFlow is not merely another negotiation service; it’s an elite-level solution tailored specifically for discerning professionals and private individuals navigating high-value, complex transactions. Our comprehensive approach serves:

• High-End Real Estate: Luxury real estate agencies, premier property brokers, senior executives at prominent investment firms.
• Yacht Sales & Charter: Yacht brokerage specialists, luxury yacht managers, affluent individuals involved in yacht acquisition or chartering.
• Private Aviation: Aviation brokers, private jet firm directors, aviation consultants and frequent private aviation users.
• Art Facilitation: Art house directors, senior curators, art advisors, prominent art dealers, and high-value collectors.
• Sports & Entertainment, Energy & Commodities Trading, Infrastructure Development: Executives, agents, and decision-makers managing sophisticated, multi-stakeholder negotiations.

Core Value Proposition:  “One Engagement. Complete Resolution.”

ResolutionFlow simplifies complex transactions by seamlessly integrating Facilitation, Negotiation, Mediation and updated 2.0 Final Offer Arbitration into one adaptive, cohesive process. No handoffs, no confusion, just streamlined progression to optimal outcomes.

The ResolutionFlow Advantage: “Adaptive Excellence in Action”

Our unique process unfolds dynamically, tailored precisely to your evolving situation:

1. Strategic Facilitation:
We build immediate trust, identify key opportunities and set the foundation for efficient agreement.

2. Seamless Negotiation & Mediation:
When interests align, we transition fluidly to expert negotiation or neutral mediation, efficiently advancing discussions towards mutual benefit.

3. Precise ZOPA Mapping:
Our experts pinpoint the Zone of Possible Agreement with surgical precision, maximizing the value created for all parties and accelerating deal completion.

4. Proprietary FOA 2.0 Arbitration:
Should negotiations stall, our innovative Final Offer Arbitration identifies and leverage asymmetrical, high-value and outcomes that surpass traditional arbitration or litigation methods.

Why Choose ResolutionFlow?

• Fluid Adaptation: Our single-process approach evolves seamlessly with your needs, eliminating costly transitions between multiple providers.
• Strategic Efficiency: Significantly reduce time, minimize expenses and preserve critical relationships often strained by fragmented negotiations.
• Comprehensive Expertise: Access a single elite team adept in all methods: Facilitation, Negotiation, Mediation, Arbitration, ensuring consistent quality and depth of expertise.
• Value Preservation: Unlike adversarial processes, ResolutionFlow proactively maintains relationships and reveals hidden opportunities, delivering long-term strategic advantages.
• Certainty of Outcome: Every engagement definitively resolves, ensuring clarity, closure, and peace of mind.

Financial Flexibility for your -Maximum Convenience:

ResolutionFlow provides adaptable, hybrid pricing tailored precisely to your transaction:

• Daily Engagement: You chose daily rate: $800 to $2,800 per day (typically spanning approximately two days+).
• Success-Based Commission: You choose our commission range: 0.5% to 3% of facilitated deal value, to perfectly match your strategic priorities and financial comfort.

ResolutionFlow: Your Definitive Advantage

When stakes are highest, conventional solutions aren’t enough. Choose ResolutionFlow, where artful negotiation meets scientific precision and complexity transforms effortlessly into exceptional outcomes.

ResolutionFlow: One Decision. Exceptional Results.

In simple terms, the Principle of Direct Temporal Sequence refers to the understanding, that every event or action unfolds in a clear, deliberate and chronological order, where each step directly Shapes and Influences the next one.

In other words, every action taken at one moment has a direct causal impact on subsequent moments and outcomes, simple as that. In nowadays science, this principle isn’t related to Negotiations anywhere, reason I like to do it and found out it can be.

And if you do, it adds probably “another dimension” to your negotiation preparation game, let’s think of concession planning, where now not only the “what” but the “when” is considered as well, turning a common, reactive interaction into a proactive, strategically engineerd success, because:

Negotiations don’t simply unfold over time; they unfold because of time. Every small choice, even tiny delays or subtle sequencing decisions, profoundly influences psychological perceptions, negotiation dynamics and ultimately, the final outcome.

When applied specifically to negotiation, for me, this principle means a bit more awareness about:

• Sequential Influence: Each negotiation move (initial offer, concessions, disclosures, pauses) directly sets the stage for the next interaction. An action in one moment influences the expectations, reactions and behaviors of all parties involved in subsequent moments.
• Timing as a Strategic Asset: Recognizing the power of timing allows negotiators to deliberately pace their actions, understanding that –WHEN something happens matters as much, if not more! than –WHAT actually happens. Science back’s this up, you might want read that again, please. For instance, a concession offered too early might signal weakness, while precisely timed silence might subtly enhance leverage.
• Cumulative Effect: Our actions don’t occur in isolation; they accumulate psychological and strategic momentum. Initial interactions set expectations, mid-point concessions influence perceived flexibility, and later moves close the deal by leveraging the built momentum.
• Predictability and Trust: Maintaining consistent timing and deliberate sequencing builds trust and reliability, essential to cooperative outcomes. Conversely, erratic timing damages credibility and breaks negotiation flow.

Let’s think of some advanced, temporal strategies for daily negotiations and those, ready to elevate their preparation and practice a bit with several sophisticated timing approaches that can finally transform outcomes.

Strategic Sequence Disruption

While direct temporal sequence provides a framework, –occasionally breaking expected patterns can. create. advantage. When your counterpart anticipates a standard negotiation flow, a deliberate deviation can –Reset Dynamics.

For instance, in environments where negotiation typically begins with small talk to warm up the “emotional room temperature” followed by agenda-setting and such.., diving directly into a key concern instead can be startlingly effective. The Surprise creates Engagement and communicates seriousness without aggression or such, you might experience doing the very same, but way later in the process, that’s truly facinating!

Controlled Information Flow

Information is negotiation currency, and its strategic release or withholding shapes outcomes. Rather than simply deciding what to disclose, start plan when to disclose it. Re-order it. See how it works. Adjust.

Consider salary negotiations: Revealing your current compensation early limits options, while disclosing it after establishing your market value and contributions shapes how that number is interpreted.

The Sequence transforms the same information into either a -Ceiling or a Floor.

Cultural Awareness of Temporal Sequence

Different cultures follow different negotiation rhythms. What constitutes “direct” sequence varies dramatically across boundaries. While American business cultures often prize efficiency and quick resolution, many Asian business contexts value extended relationship-building phases before substantive discussion.

The international negotiator who rushes past cultural preliminaries isn’t being “efficient”—they’re disrupting the expected sequence and potentially damaging outcomes.

For me, it’s the “Temporal Dimension of Excellence”

The principle of direct temporal sequence once more reveals negotiation as a beautiful, dynamic flow rather than a static exchange. By realizing first and understanding later how each action sets the stage for what follows, you transform random interactions into strategic progression.

The next time you enter a negotiation, whether for a major contract, a team resource allocation, or even a family decision, consider not just what you’ll say, but when you’ll say it.

How will your opening move shape expectations?

How will you pace concessions?

When will you introduce key information for maximum impact?

Sequence isn’t just about order, it’s about creating causal chains that lead naturally to your desired outcome. By adding this temporal dimension to your toolbelt, you don’t just participate in negotiations; you choreograph them just a tiny bit more, or, as some like to put it:

“To some extend, Negotiations are like a great piece of Jazz: Structured Improvisation.. You need to know which notes to play first to set up the melody”

Let me know pls. how factor in sequence planning went for you and best till next time.