The one certainty from the Oscar Pistorius incident is that sponsors, fans and sports bodies have been put on notice to invoke higher standards of ethics from their emerging and established superstars. And while the details of the incident are still to be revealed during the upcoming trial, if any aspect of the death of his girlfriend relates to " 'roid rage" - the mood swings that accompany the use of performance-enhancing drugs - then this will be the latest scandal to afflict the world of sports. The difference, of course, is that doping for on-field excellence will have spilled over to felonious criminal behaviour as a side effect of cheating. Doping has, of course, become the catchphrase for sportspersons over the last few years; and more than the athletes who are exposed or confess, the real crime is in the ones who don't.
The truth is that the world of doping is far more sophisticated than that of those who make it their job to catch drug offenders (WADA and the national anti-doping bodies), and this is what will now dictate the world of sponsorship, brand value and stardom. Until now, fans and sponsors were detached from the world of cheating and doping, with blind faith being the motto of the former and contractual solutions of the latter. But now, as heroes bite the dust and society reels from suspected 'roid rage homicides or charities built on lies, the onus will shift to sponsors and investors who create superstars. This will help set higher standards of ethical and moral benchmarks so as to protect society and even the athletes from falling into the trap of pseudo-excellence. The litmus test is no longer a pass certificate from revenue-strapped doping bodies, but an athlete showing a consistent career path with limited fluctuations in size, speed, skill and performance.
So, sponsors who put millions into promoting and creating superstars should now invoke moral and ethical due diligence to mitigate the risk of drug use, or its violent side effects, by future or current stars - the due diligence of an athlete's behavioural lapses, indiscretions and discrete performance fallouts. Also, the upside: his media-friendliness, likeability, genuineness of his skill, personal life parameters and family background. Similarly, teams will need to look at the track record of an individual from a very young age and ensure that no sudden spikes accompany the individual's rise beyond hard work and god-given talent. It could be onerous, but athletes who care about their reputation - and the future of their career and of their sport - will embrace and advocate a higher ethical standard than has been the norm.
The money being invested in athletes is exponentially more than that being paid to them for sponsorships. And it's not just an embarrassment if an athlete is found guilty of cheating; it may also become a "caveat emptor" situation. So, how long can Nike or Gatorade continue to consider itself baffled by the surprise revelations or stupendous anger explosions? They, too, will need to buckle down and evolve their own testing and background checks.
Because, now, even awards and adulation are withheld if an athlete is considered "tainted". In baseball, voting into the hall of fame is dependent on the perceived drug use by a nominee. Ex-stars such as Barry Bonds, Mike Piazza and others are perceived to have cheated through drug use, and so have not crossed the threshold.
Today, we are starting to see the evolution of global brand ambassadors who do their fair share of charitable contributions, are multi-lingual, have infidelity-free personal lives and, above all, are not just clean from a testing perspective, but have every appearance, characteristic and personality trait that goes into being clean and wholesome. This may be a subset of brand ambassadors, but the premium that it commands will be exorbitant.
Athletes are already taking pre-emptive action against any perceived or future allegations against the veracity of their skills or performances. It's not every day that you see superstars in sports like tennis or football coming out in favour of more rigorous testing such as blood testing for the use of banned substances. They realise that the perception of being "juiced" - sudden spikes in performance, strength or speed - will no longer just be rumours. Now, even if an individual has passed every test, he will still need to pass an ethical benchmark before receiving the accolades that accompany superstardom.
The responsibility for ensuring that the ethical and moral due diligence has been conducted on brand ambassadors or superstars will fall squarely on those who have the resources and a vital stake in promoting the sportsperson and the sport: sponsors, investors and the athletes themselves. This will ensure that the fans who have invested the most in sportspersons beyond eyeballs and money, and who help create brand ambassadors or superstars, no longer face the scandal spillover. This is the ethical and moral due diligence that sponsorships in sports require and must incorporate - a cultural trial by fire, if you will.
The writer is a sports attorney
Disclaimer: These are personal views of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of www.business-standard.com or the Business Standard newspaper
