Ron Clarke was once one of the finest runners on this planet, and so it was with great interest that I read an interview in which he backs -- in some instances -- the use of performance-enhancing drugs.

In part, here's what Clarke said: "Australian (distance runners) are always battling to be the best of the rest. Which is all you can possibly do nowadays until someone comes on with some remarkable treatment. But as soon as something comes along like EPO, etc., they'll say it's a drug and you can't use it and it's the only thing that levels the playing field. If it's not dangerous, no (it should not be banned), because it just levels the playing field."

Critics immediately jumped all over that, as Clarke has violated one of sport's major taboos. You just can't say that drugs are good without being slapped around a bit. Yet many of these critics haven't taken the time to digest what Clarke really said.

For instance, the Australian legend clearly said drugs should be allowed only if they're not harmful. The critics will surely find fault with that, pointing out the health dangers of steroids and EPO; then again, it wouldn't be so hard to point out the health dangers of aspirin and ibuprofen.

The reason Clarke thinks some drugs should be legalized is that he would like to see a level playing field. "There are two competitions in the world, the altitude runners and the others," he said. And if you know how the Africans beat up on him as a competitor, you would understand where he's coming from.

Personally, I can't fault the man, who at age 65 has earned his right to an opinion, even if he never managed to win a gold medal. Yet I am concerned that his proposal does not go far enough. It is a bit ridiculous to think that the only gulf in the track world that needs to be spanned is one based on the altitude at which one is raised.

What about socioeconomics? Could it be that the family that can afford shoes will produce runners who have an advantage over those who cannot afford shoes? This is an obvious injustice on the Olympic playing field, yet Clarke fails to even mention it as another strong rationale for his argument.

What about talent? The first time I ever raced a mile, I ran 5:37. The world is full of Kenyans, and even a few Americans, who could go a minute faster in their first effort. That is talent, and in my case, the abysmal lack of talent. Yet shouldn't talentless runners such as myself have ready, legal access to drugs that could level that playing field? Why does Clarke not address this issue?

What about hard work? Not everyone has hours and hours of time each day to devote to single-minded training. There is more to life than the quest for ultimate fitness. Yet how does a person with a balanced perspective and a well-rounded life compete with the obsessed? Clarke could make his argument more convincing by taking this into account.

What about motivation? I have witnessed, time and again, that the winners of races are sometimes simply those that seem to want it the most on a raw, visceral level. Perhaps other runners are not able to dig as deep, yet I am sure that all would agree, philosophically, that they, too, would like to win. And the injustice is that in order to win, they have to overcome those who, for reasons that only a great therapist could unravel, have a desperate need to triumph. Sure, we call it "motivation" when we're trying to be nice, but we all know it's not normal. Does Clarke not see the injustice in normal athletes having to compete with over-motivated maniacs?

Clarke is right, but perhaps has the wrong reason. Altitude? So we need drugs to catch up to Adam Goucher and others who were raised in thin air? No. The real problem is that the victory stands are dominated by talented athletes who have worked harder than the rest of us. And until everyone starts taking drugs, people like Clarke will just have to complain about the unfairness of it all.

IAAF bigwigs meet
Prior to the Paris Grand Prix, the leaders of world track & field, the IAAF Council, met to discuss the issues of the day. Here's what they came up with: The Grand Prix Final will now be the World Athletics Final. Whew. That's a relief.

Tennessee sprinter Justin Gatlin will no longer be suspended because the drug he takes is a prescribed one for his Attention Deficit Disorder. Not that anyone would have noticed, since Gatlin has been competing freely in NCAA events, winning the 100 and 200 at the recent Division I champs (the collegiate body does not recognize the drug suspensions of other organizations).

Also, the IAAF awarded the 2004 World Junior meet to Grosseto, Italy, as no one could begin to pronounce or correctly spell the runner-up city, Bydgoszcz, Poland.

On this side of the pond, USA Track & Field named Bubba Thornton and Angie Taylor as head coaches for the 2003 U.S. World Championships team. Thornton achieved acclaim as a top sprint coach at TCU, and has only built on that reputation in six seasons at Texas. Taylor is a former hurdler/heptathlete who has held a number of college coaching positions in the past.

Jeff Hollobaugh, former managing editor of Track and Field News, is a regular contributor to ESPN.com. He can be reached by e-mail at michtrack@aol.com.