It appears USATF knew of Gatlin's second positive test well before (2 mos. minimum, as test happened at KU Relays and the results were in 30 days thereafter) the Nationals in 2006 and yet chose to prominently market Gatlin (posters of him were everywhere) for said Nationals. Poor decision. Could the CEO have prevented this?
Same w/ decisions to allow other tainted and/or suspect athletes to compete at Nationals, knowing that they're in all likelihood dirty, e.g., Marion Jones to name one. Could the CEO have prevented this?
Nike's minions are idiots and do not represent the company well -- particularly in athletics. The company's products are nice: kits, boots, etc. The company's labour practices are suspect at best. Talk to athletes, coaches, agents, trainers/masseuses, lawyers, and factory workers about how they've been treated by Nike and its minions.
In athletics, Nike is an antitrust suit waiting to happen. And the others (Adidas, Reebok) are NOT competitors. They're just in the same market. Nike employs well-paid executives who see this -- and it appears, after analysis of the risk vs. benefit, the company concludes the benefit of making the multi millions it does quarterly outweighs the risks to which its business practices expose it. See Kasky v. Nike, Chicago Nike Store v. Nike, and other like litigation.
All the best Craig. And you thought dealing w/ dirty athletes and the politics of USATF was a headache.