Masalela's case and questions of selective justice

Mqondisi Dube | Tuesday February 24, 2026 13:01

Masalela was disqualified, for what was termed improper conduct after he raised his hand in a gun-like gesture directed at his nearest opponent. The move to disqualify him raises difficult questions about consistency in officiating. Masalela is one of Botswana’s brightest middle-distance talents known for his competitive grit on the track. Yet in a matter of moments, his performance in Poland was overshadowed by a ruling that many argue could have been handled differently.

Disqualifications in athletics are not uncommon. The rulebook exists to preserve fairness and officials are tasked with making rapid decisions under intense scrutiny. In Masalela’s case, however, critics contend that the punishment appeared severe when compared to similar incidents that have drawn only warnings.

The controversy centres not only on the act itself, but on the perception of selective enforcement. Some similar cases have resulted in reprimands or cautions. At times, physical contact in middle-distance is inevitable. When one athlete is disqualified while another, in a different race at a different time, is merely warned, it fuels suspicion that justice is unevenly applied.

If athletes and supporters begin to believe that decisions hinge on subjective interpretation rather than consistent standards, confidence in competition erodes. This is especially sensitive for competitors from smaller nations, who may already feel they operate without the 'protection' enjoyed by powerhouse federations.

At the same time, it is important to resist reducing every disciplinary decision to bias. Race officials operate within frameworks established by governing bodies such as World Athletics. These rules grant discretion depending on the severity and impact of an infringement.

One case may be deemed accidental in a certain context but interpreted as reckless in another. Without access to the full deliberations of the officiating, we are bound to give the benefit of the doubt to the official, but concerns of bias will always linger.

What motivated a disqualification rather than a warning? If the conduct impeded another athlete’s progress or compromised safety, a strict penalty is justified. If, however, it was marginal and did not alter the race outcome, many would continue to argue that a warning would have preserved justice.

For Masalela, the episode should serve as a lesson, harsh as it appears. Sport demands adherence to rules. In the high-stakes environment of international competition, even minor lapses in judgment can carry damaging consequences. Athletes must remain aware that tactical aggression, while often necessary, cannot cross into conduct that officials may deem unfair.

Ultimately, the broader conversation must focus on clarity and consistency. Governing bodies should ensure transparent communication around disciplinary decisions, explaining why certain actions warrant disqualification. Such openness would reduce speculation and reinforce confidence in the system.

Masalela’s talent and promise remain unquestioned. He should not drop his head due to this incident, difficult that may be. It is part and parcel of a career he signed up for. The Botswana Athletics Association should draw lessons and instil a sense of discipline in up and coming athletes to ensure that gates for any concerns of bias are closed through engaging in clean and fair runs that do not fall foul of the rules.