Skip to main contentSkip to navigationSkip to navigation
Drug cheat Ben Johnson featured in the Sportsbet ad
Canadian athlete and drug cheat Ben Johnson featured in the Sportsbet ad which has been banned by the Advertising Standards Board. Photograph: YouTube
Canadian athlete and drug cheat Ben Johnson featured in the Sportsbet ad which has been banned by the Advertising Standards Board. Photograph: YouTube

Sportsbet's Ben Johnson ad banned for making light of drug use

This article is more than 6 years old

Ad for phone-betting app found to have breached advertising standards after featuring Canadian drug cheat next to words ‘putting the roid in Android’

A Sportsbet ad featuring Olympic drug cheat Ben Johnson has been banned by the Advertising Standards Board because it makes light of the use of performance enhancing drugs in sport.

The Canadian athlete, who was was stripped of the 100m gold medal after testing positive for anabolic steroids at the Seoul Olympics in 1988, stars in the ad for a new Android phone-betting app.

The ad relies on double entendres and puns about steroids such as: “Nobody knows performance enhancement like Ben Johnson”, “unfairly fast android app” and “get on it”. Next to an image of Johnson are the words: “Putting the roid in Android”.

After receiving a large number of complaints from the public as well as from the Australian Sports Anti-doping Authority, the advertising watchdog’s board found the ad was unethical and breached section 2.6 of the advertising standards code and it was taken off air on Friday.

An investigation found the ad depicted “performance-enhancing drug use in sport in a manner that is contrary to prevailing community standards on health and safety” and all four versions of the ad have been banned.

“In the board’s view the use of Ben Johnson in conjunction with a humorous message about drug use conveys a message that there is not a negative side to drug use and cheating and could be seen as a suggestion that there are benefits to gain from cheating or from behaviour that will enhance your performance,” the board said in its case report released on Tuesday.

“The board also considered that, despite the parody, there is little consequence depicted for these actions as the athlete is portrayed in a positive way, rather than showing a negative side to the choices he made in his sporting career.

“In the board’s view, the overall tone of the advertisement makes light of the use of performance-enhancing drugs and of using performance-enhancing drugs to cheat in sport.”

When the advertising campaign was launched last month it was immediately criticised by politicians, including sports minister Greg Hunt, who said it was “utterly inappropriate”. Gambling critic Senator Nick Xenophon said it “glorified a drug cheat”.

Some of the complaints received by the ASB were:

“Asada [Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority] does not condone the message sent in this advertisement. This advert makes light of the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sport and sends the completely wrong message that the use of drugs in sport is normal.”

“This advert makes light of the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sport and sends the completely wrong message that the use of drugs in sport is normal.”

“This advertising campaign belittles the achievements of clean athletes and denigrates those who work to protect clean sport across the world.”

In its defence of the advertising campaign, which has been very successful for the company, Sportsbet said it was a parody and that community concern about the morality of using Johnson was “plainly irrelevant”.

“The fact that Sportsbet has paid Mr Ben Johnson a sum of money to appear in the advertisements and promote Sportsbet’s Android App and that doesn’t ‘sit well’ with a pocket of the community based on their moral compass or otherwise is plainly irrelevant for the purposes of the determination to be made by the ASB,” the company said in its official repose to the ASB.

“A further threshold issue is that the advertisements are clearly and obviously a spoof and parody. They are in no way intended to be – nor could a viewer reasonably consider them to be – a portrayal of a realistic situation.”

Comments (…)

Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion

Most viewed

Most viewed