Athletics: Athletics' refusal to accept greatness accounts for the shaming of Lewis

What do we think about when we think about Carl Lewis? Last month's revelations that he and several other American athletes apparently evaded being called to account for doping abnormalities at the national trials for the 1998 Olympics precipitated enough vitriol to fill a water jump.

Lewis was characterised as a cheat. And, given his high-profile comments over the years about the evils of doping abuse, he was also made out to be an arch-hypocrite. In a single word of one of the many headlines which brought this new story line to the world's attention, the nine-times Olympic champion was "Shamed''. To all intents and purposes, he was deposited in the Hall of Infamy alongside the man who so notoriously won that Olympic 100 metres final of 15 years ago only to be disqualified for taking steroids – Ol' Yellow Eyes himself, Ben Johnson. Lewis' cause was not helped by the suspicions that have long circulated concerning the willingness of the United States to operate a comprehensive and transparent anti-doping system. Even at the last Olympics there was controversy over their inclusion of competitors who were thought to have transgressed doping regulations.

The documents made public by Dr Wade Exum, the United States Olympic Committee's director for drug control from 1991 to 2000, pointed to more than 100 positive doping tests involving US competitors – including tennis players and footballers – from 1988 to 2000.

Yet the only specific evidence against Lewis was that his sample at the 1988 Olympic track and field trials was among eight which showed traces of stimulants – ephedrine and ephedrine-related substances.

Stimulants are not steroids. Had the offence been confirmed it would have earned Lewis a three-month ban, as opposed to the four-year sanction for more serious performance-enhancing substances, although nowadays it would only mean disqualification from the event concerned and a warning as to future conduct.

But this week the International Association of Athletics Associations confirmed that it did indeed receive notification of Lewis' adverse test at the trials, along with those of seven other athletes, and was satisfied that the amount of stimulants in each case was too small to merit any sanction – that is, less than 10 parts in a million. In such cases it was only required that the athlete in question be notified of the finding.

So does Lewis remain "shamed''? Do we believe the evidence the IAAF has unearthed from its minutes of the relevant Medical Committee meeting or are we now extending our suspicion to the world's governing body?

The sad truth is that, in athletics, outstanding performances are always open to question. (Try convincing the guys at L'Equipe that Paula's purple patch is legit.) There has certainly been far too much smoke coming out of the US doping control system over the past 15 years for there not to have been any fire. Look at the way the Americans dragged their feet over banning Dennis Mitchell, fourth in the 1988 Olympic 100m, who claimed an illegally high testosterone finding later in his career had stemmed from his activities of the previous night when he had drunk a lot of beer and then made love to his wife five times. Or was it six? She deserved it he said, because it was her birthday.

God's gift was eventually cleared on video evidence. No he wasn't. He was given a statutory two-year suspension. But the delay that preceded Mitchell's punishment was symptomatic of many other cases where the US authorities appeared reluctant to act.

Lewis' reported reaction to the recent furore hardly helped his cause, or that of the IAAF in attempting to prevent the sport's image from tarnish. "Everyone was treated the same,'' he said, apparently sloshing fuel on to the flames. Looking at that quote in context, the effect is different but still questionable. "I don't know what people are trying to make out... everyone was treated the same, so what are we talking about?'' Lewis said. "I don't get it. At that time if you had an offence once then they usually wanted to check what the substance was. Then they gave a warning. That's why there were so many people.''

Is he simply reiterating the official policy of the day? If so, he might have done it more effectively by saying something like: "There was not a case. The proper authorities were informed and the test levels were within acceptable limits.'' As so often in these cases there remain more questions than answers. Why couldn't Lewis have been clearer? What about all the findings not connected with the 1988 trials? What was Exum doing with all this information between 1988 and 2000?

But in terms of hard evidence in the public domain, it has to be said that Carl Lewis remains just as innocent of doping abuse as Paula Radcliffe.