The booing that followed Justin Gatlin’s narrow victory in the men’s 100m final on Saturday night was an ugly sound, and it was meant to be.
The noise, which is thought by some linguists to carry a particular menace because of the volume at which an “ooh” vowel can be shouted, is a sign that something has gone seriously amiss in the compact between an audience and the performers they have paid to see.
Yet Gatlin had done nothing wrong that evening except win. The American sprinter did so in style, breaking late in the outside lane to cross the line narrowly ahead of his compatriot Christian Coleman. He then displayed commendable grace in turning immediately to hug Usain Bolt, who had come third in his final 100m at the World Athletics Championships.
Gatlin has fought hard to rebuild his career after serving two drugs bans in the previous decade. If there is any case for an athlete to be rehabilitated after committing such a grave error of judgment, then the manner in which he has conducted himself since 2010 should have earned him forgiveness.
The failure of a large part of the crowd in the London Stadium to extend that generosity of spirit to Gatlin is sad, but it is not reprehensible. So long as athletics remains benighted by suspicions of widespread doping, it will be legitimate to hold the belief that there should be no way back for a competitor who has fallen foul of the law. It is no less defensible to express this view by jeering.
Advertisement
Erskine May, the manual of parliamentary protocol, prohibits MPs from both booing and clapping. The link is instructive. If an audience is permitted approbation, it must by the same logic be permitted to voice its censure. Applause is meaningless without the possibility of its opposite. Spectators have a right to boo, even if they might exercise that right with a little more consideration.