A Negotiator’s View: The Ben Johnson Case

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:

It highlights the sport-political and analytical context that shaped the events in Seoul.
It frames the case through the tools of negotiation: power reading, information asymmetries, narrative anchoring, behavioural assessment and tactical inference.
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:

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

Yet he also carried three vulnerabilities:

Dependence on a single medical advisor who worked with static assumptions
Limited institutional cover compared to competitors from larger federations
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:

High anabolic effect relative to androgenic effect
Predictable performance profile in strength and speed training
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:

The urine sample is prepared to isolate chemical constituents.
Components are separated by gas chromatography.
Each component’s molecular structure is identified by mass spectrometry.
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:

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.
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:

the athlete
one approved representative of that athlete
designated doping control officers
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:

The US camp anticipated risk
They believed Johnson could test positive.
They positioned themselves to validate the outcome
They wanted a witness in the room, not to interfere but to observe.
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

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

Institutional proximity
Lewis’s camp had strong relationships with IOC and IAAF officials and the USOC had extensive contacts with Donike’s laboratory network.
Historical behaviour
Previous Lewis positive tests from the US Trials were administratively “managed,” showing institutional familiarity.
Pre-Seoul signals
Lewis alluded in later interviews that he “knew something was coming.”
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:

Jackson’s access
Required coordination and clearance.
It was not spontaneous.
Risk management logic
If you believe your rival is vulnerable, you secure the narrative.
No sabotage required
The laboratory would produce the result.
The only risk was interpretation.
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

No evidence
None has ever emerged in inquiries, interviews or testimony.
Chemical implausibility
Acute exposure cannot replicate Johnson’s metabolite pattern.
Behavioural inconsistency
Lewis’s camp acted like a group confident in verification, not manipulation.
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:

Carl Lewis — the charismatic, media-friendly icon
Ben Johnson — the powerful, controversial rival
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:

Technological advancement
The new Stanozolol detection methods.
Institutional incentives
The IOC’s need to demonstrate control.
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:

Power is not force; it is positioning.
Those who understand the environment shape the outcome.
Information is more valuable than strength.
Inaccurate assumptions are fatal.
Narratives decide before decisions do.
Public framing is a strategic asset.
Processes determine legitimacy.
Jackson’s presence was not sabotage; it was procedural insurance.
People act based on the maps they have.
Johnson’s map was outdated.
Others had updated maps.
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

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

A Negotiator’s View: The Ben Johnson Case

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Social

Interesting links

Contact

Customer Support

Policies