WITH less than two weeks to go before the opening ceremony of the Atlanta Olympic Games, Irish athletes, and Sonia O'Sullivan in particular, are at the centre of an escalating row over which brand of gear they'll wear.

As of late last evening, athletes selected by BLE are to be given bags filled with complimentary Reebok gear, with a covering letter regarding usage of that from the Olympic Council of Ireland (OCI). But they can also expect to take receipt of a consignment of Asics gear containing a covering letter with conflicting instructions.

The Olympic Council will advise that Reebok gear is to be worn at all times in the Olympic village and on team business, but that Reebok gear is optional for competition. BLE will advise that Asics gear is compulsory on the track and for medal ceremonies.

This long standing impasse between BLE, the national athletics body, and the OCI turned to open squabbling late this week as both parties sought to protect the interests of their sportsgear sponsors.

The OCI say they have an all encompassing deal with Reebok, the world's second largest sports goods firm, and are adamant that the deal permits them to require all Irish Olympians to wear Reebok gear in Atlanta.

The BLE, who operate under the auspices of the International Amateur Athletics Federation (IAAF), have their own deal with Asics (the Japanese company, ranked fourth on the world sportsgear table).

Both sides derive the legitimacy of their respective claims from the international bodies who govern them.

Rule 12 (1A) of the IAAF rule book (1996) states: "At the following international meetings the rules and regulations of the IAAF must apply: Olympic Games, World Championships. World Cup."

Rule 139 then states: "At all meetings under Rule 12 (1A), competitors shall participate in the uniform and clothing approved by their governing bodies, the victory ceremony and any lap of honour are considered part of the competition for this purpose.

This was agreed to by the IAAF (it a meeting during the world athletics championships in Gothenburg last summer.

But the OCI argue that the rule was subsequently made redundant when the executive board of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) met in Lausanne last September.

The IOC reaffirmed the autonomy of national Olympic councils in the matter of team selections and team uniforms and, as a result, Francois Carrard, the director general of the IOC, wrote to Primo Nebiolo, president of the IAAF, advising him that the Gothenburg agreement was meaningless. Nebiolo apparently accepted this view. The powers that be in Irish athletics, however, say they were never alerted to this.

Rule 8.3 of the Olympic Charter states that national Olympic committees (NOC) have the "sole and exclusive authority to prescribe and determine the clothing and uniforms to be worn and the equipment to be used by members of delegations on the occasion of the Olympic games ... This exclusive authority does not extend to specialised clothing worn and equipment used by athletes of their delegations during actual sports competitions . . . Specialised clothing shall be limited to such clothing and equipment acknowledged by the NOC as having a material effect on the performance of athletes."

Therein lies the nub of the problem.

"Take that to its logical conclusion, it supports our position," says Nick Davis of BLE. "We would view shorts and vests as specialist equipment."

"Shirts and vests are by no means specialised," says Pat Hickey of the OCI. "The only specialised clothing which that covers refer to the Winter Olympics and ski suits. I spoke to Francois Carrard this week and have been promised the full backing of the IOC in this matter."

Until the middle of last week it was thought that the two sides had reached an amicable compromise.

The OCI, with the co operation of Reebok (who have invested some £200,000 in the deal), sug

Continued on page 4