528 JUTTA BRAUN
sought after in the West. But his past came to haunt him as the research
done by Brigitte Berendonk in particular cast a shadow on his reputation;
the third civil chamber of the state court in Heidelberg determined that he
could be identifi ed as a “proven doping specialist” and an “active partic-
ipant in doping with anabolic drugs,” but the DLV nevertheless kept him
on as a coach.^137 At the beginning of December in 1991, moreover, twenty
East German coaches confi rmed in a statement that doping had taken
place in GDR swim teams. They also declared that they would strictly re-
frain from using such methods in the future. Since the contracts of these
coaches were scheduled to expire on 31 December 1991, this statement
was more than likely prompted by their desire to maintain a “positive so-
cial prognosis.”^138 The initiator behind this “collective self-accusation”
was Harm Beyer, a member of the swimming presidium, whose stated
goal was to retain the skilled specialized knowledge that they could of-
fer.^139 This statement was countered by a signature petition in which West
German colleagues spoke out against the continued employment of these
coaches from the East who were compromised by their involvement in
doping.^140 The press, however, surmised that these West German coaches
were not necessarily motivated by just their disgust with the GDR doping
system, but also by the fact that they would soon be competing for a re-
duced number of coaching jobs after the Barcelona Olympics in 1992.^141
The confl ict brewing over these personnel issues was not resolved un-
til several years later after Professor Werner Franke fi led a criminal law
suit against diff erent GDR coaches and doctors in 1996. This move ulti-
mately led to the Moabit doping trials as well as numerous other subse-
quent trials at the state level. Even Manfred Ewald and Manfred Höppner
received suspended sentences. The details about the brutal methods and
irreparable long-term consequences of these doping practices that came
to light over the course of the trials not only enraged the lawyers in-
volved, but also the general public.^142 As a form of “history on trial,”^143 the
doping trials became a central part of the legal process of dealing with
SED injustices.^144
In addition, sports were part of another aspect of dealing with the GDR
legacy. This process of working through the transgressions of the SED
dictatorship also called the values of organized sport into question in
unifi ed Germany. The diff erent sports organizations and the DOSB, for
example, were highly unsettled by the position of two GDR sprint runners
who held world records. Ines Geipel and Gesine Tettenborn^145 insisted on
having their records erased from the annals of the track and fi eld asso-
ciation after the turn of the millennium because their record times had
been achieved with the help of doping drugs. Ines Geipel argued in fa-
vor of giving up-and-coming athletes a fair chance, rather than setting