Editing Linford Christie (section)

==== Early allegations ====
Christie faced an [[International Olympic Committee]] disciplinary hearing at the 1988 Seoul Olympics because of an adverse drug test for the banned stimulant [[pseudoephedrine]] after he ran in the heats of the 200 m. He escaped sanction after the committee voted by a margin of 11 to 10 and gave Christie "the benefit of the doubt."<ref>{{Cite web | url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/and-what-inquired-mlud-is-linfords-lunch-box-1165856.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220614/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/and-what-inquired-mlud-is-linfords-lunch-box-1165856.html |archive-date=14 June 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |title = And what, inquired M'Lud, is Linford's lunch box?|website = [[Independent.co.uk]]|date = 19 June 1998}}</ref><ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/1033514.stm Christie takes the stand] [[BBC Sport]] (21 November 2000) Retrieved on 2009-01-20</ref> Christie argued that he had taken it inadvertently when drinking some [[ginseng tea]].

At the 1994 European championships staged in [[Helsinki]], where British team captain Christie won his third European 100 m title, he was caught up in a doping controversy after [[Solomon Wariso]], a [[400 metres|400 m]] runner making his international championship debut, tested positive for the stimulant ephedrine. Wariso revealed that he had used an over-the-counter pick-you-up called "Up Your Gas", which Christie had bought at a Florida pharmacy.<ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/4768790/Shadow-over-Christies-reputation.html | work=The Daily Telegraph | location=London | title=Shadow over Christie's reputation | first=Tom | last=Knight | date=22 August 2000 | access-date=7 May 2010}}</ref>

In 1998, less than six months before his first positive drug test, Christie won a [[libel]] action against the journalist [[John McVicar]]. McVicar had insinuated in a satirical magazine that Christie's remarkable rise from 156th in the world to triumph at an age when he should have been in decline could only have been achieved through performance-enhancing drugs. The jury found in Christie's favour by a 10–2 majority. The judge ordered that McVicar should be bound by an injunction restraining him from accusing Christie of taking banned substances. The modest £40,000 damages awarded were outweighed by the legal costs that Christie incurred to bring the case. After the judgment, McVicar called Christie "The [[Judy Garland]] of the 100 metres", referring to the emotion that Christie had displayed before the court.<ref>Thackray, Rachelle (28 June 1998). [http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19980628/ai_n14154422 What the papers said] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071221115244/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19980628/ai_n14154422 |date=21 December 2007 }} ''[[The Independent]]''; Retrieved on 2009-01-20.</ref>