No doubt most of us can remember being told as a child not do something. Don’t open that box, don’t look in that cupboard. As soon as we were told not to do something it made many of us more determined to do exactly that. Many children will push boundaries to see just what they can get away with.
In sport, and especially on the field of play we have seen this come more and more to fore in the past twenty years as more and more money comes into sport, and the margins between winning and losing become so finite.
Standout moments are Maradona’s famous “hand of God” goal against England, Thierry Henry’s punched goal for France against Ireland in football. The Australian cricket team bowling under arm, and more recently taking sandpaper on the pitch to scuff up the ball. In Badminton at the London Olympic Games having already qualified for the knockout stages, players on both sides of the draw in the Doubles and in two games had been attempting to lose their last group stage matches in order to gain a more favourable draw in the quarter finals. All eight players were thrown out of the competition.
Away from the sporting contests themselves there are plenty of stories of individual sports stars crossing the line in terms of their antics or behaviour. Their employers, the competition in which they play, or even international Associations if they are a major draw card have stepped in to quash such stories becoming public knowledge. Substantial payments have been made on many occasions to buy people’s silence and protect that player’s reputation. Even some media outlets have been convinced not to run certain stories.
Regrettably because of this protection many of those individuals do not learn from their mistakes. That is why when their career is over we see them making the same mistakes again, and this time they are very public. The simple reason being no one is there to clean up after them. They no longer have a value to that club or sporting organisation.
One athlete who tested positive for recreational drugs and was suspended revealed that having been a part of the sporting system straight from school they reached a point in their late twenties where they resented being told every day what time to be where. They said they that they started to push back by staying out drinking, and turning up late and hungover. The club in question did nothing. There was no talking too, it was all hushed up. From alcohol they progressed to drugs and the rest is history.
How many sports today are truly moral and stand by their principles?
If sport is business then we all know that the waters in big business are very murky, so it should come as no surprise that sport too has some muddied water.
This is probably a truism as frequently many of us have been told that sport reflects life.
The International Olympic Committee along with Football’s world governing body FIFA, are two if not the most powerful sporting bodies in the world.
These two organisations position themselves as being above World Politics but they are as entwined as any international organisation can be.
To try and illustrate this former FIFA President Sepp Blatter was quoted as once saying “I have no problem with G14. How can I oppose something that as far as I am concerned, does not exist?” However as any sports fan will know he was constantly politically incorrect and came out with inappropriate statements, such as when he spoke to La Gazzetta dello Sport in March 2006 when a match-fixing scandal came to light in Italy’s top two divisions. “I could understand it if it had happened in Africa, but not in Italy.” He was quoted as saying, even though the African confederation’s votes had assured him the Presidency of FIFA.
Then of course Blatter’s and FIFA’s world came tumbling down as the everyone witnessed how corrupt the World body had been for a number of decades. Blatter tried to absolve himself of responsibility by reportedly saying “You cannot ask everyone to behave ethically.” and “We, or I, cannot monitor everyone all of the time. If people want to do wrong, they will also try to hide it.”
The head’s of the IOC have tended to be more cautious and diplomatic with what they have had to say than Mr Blatter. After they suffered their own bribery scandal it was important that they ran a tight ship. The organisation’s vision according to its website is to “build a better World through Sport.”
Under its ‘Principles’ the IOC states that it is also “committed to promoting sport in society, strengthening the integrity of sport and supporting clean athletes and other sports organisations.”
Point five of its mission statement reads: “to take action to strengthen the unity of the Olympic Movement, to protect its independence, to maintain and promote its political neutrality and to preserve the autonomy of sport.”
Point nine states: “to protect clean athletes and the integrity of sport, by leading the fight against doping, and by taking action against all forms of manipulation of competitions and related corruption.”
While point 11 of the 18 responsibilities listed in the mission statement states “to oppose any political or commercial abuse of sport and athletes.”
Two of the last three Winter Olympic Games have been hosted by Russia at Sochi and China in Beijing. Two host cities that had many raising an eyebrow.
In spite of these words being there for anyone to read one has to question if the IOC believe them or adhere to them.
In 2008, prior to the Beijing Summer Olympic Games seven Russian track and field athletes were suspended ahead for manipulating their urine samples.
In 2010, an employee at the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA), Vitaly Stepanov, started sending information to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) alleging that RUSADA was allowing the systemic doping in athletics. It is claimed that he sent two hundred emails and fifty letters over the course of three years.
In December 2012, athlete Darya Pishchalnikova sent an email to WADA containing details of an alleged state-run doping program in Russia. According to The New York Times, the female discus thrower’s email reached three top WADA officials. Despite this the agency decided not to open an inquiry, but instead bizarrely forwarded her email to Russian sports officials.
In April 2013, having failed a doping test for the second time – she served a two-year doping ban in 2008–2010, – Pishchalnikova was banned by the Russian Athletics Federation (RusAF) for ten years. Many believed this was revenge for being a whistleblower.
In December 2014 a German documentary aired in which Stepanov and his wife Yuliya Stepanova (née Rusanova), claimed that Russian athletics officials had supplied banned substances in exchange for 5% of an athlete’s earnings and that they had also falsified tests in cooperation with doping control officers. The documentary alleged Russian state involvement in systematic doping, and described it as “East German-style.”
In January 2015, the then-All-Russia Athletic Federation President Valentin Balakhnichev resigned as treasurer of the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF).
Following the airing of the German documentary, WADA commissioned an investigation headed by former anti-doping agency President Dick Pound, the report was published on 9 November 2015. Pound reported widespread doping and large-scale cover-ups by the Russian authorities. His report also stated that the Federal Security Service (FSB) had regularly visited and questioned laboratory staff and claimed that they had instructed some of them not to cooperate with the WADA investigation. Pound’s recommendation was that the IOC should not accept any 2016 Summer Olympics entries from All Russia Athletic Federation until compliance was reached.
On 13 November, the IAAF council voted 22–1 in favour of prohibiting Russia from world track and field events with immediate effect. They also took back two major events that were to be hosted by Russia.
In subsequent months and years the issue became like a Hollywood spy movie. There were high ranking officials who were fired, there were unexpected deaths, there was a defection, and even more revelations.
In March 2016 the IOC announced that it was going to re-anaylze urine samples from the 2008 and 2012 Olympic Games. As 2016 progressed more people became embroiled in the issue and jobs were lost, including the Russian Sport Minister and the IAAF deputy general secretary Nick Davies who was provisionally suspended over allegations that he took money to delay naming Russian athletes who had tested positive.
Next came missing evidence and misinformation, incorrect records or dates and places when athletes competed. There was also intimidation.
On 17 June 2016, the IAAF Council held an extraordinary meeting “principally to give the Russian Athletics Federation (RusAF) a further opportunity to satisfy the Reinstatement Conditions for IAAF Membership.” The council was clearly not satisfied with the information given as they voted unanimously to uphold the initial ban.
It was then announced that the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) had decided to give a one-year ban to Russia. Their athletes would not compete in weightlifting at the Rio Olympic Games.
On 18 July 2016, Richard McLaren, a Canadian attorney retained by WADA to investigate the doping allegations published his report. The report concluded that “beyond a reasonable doubt” Russia’s Ministry of Sport, the Centre of Sports Preparation of the National Teams of Russia, the Federal Security Service (FSB), and the WADA-accredited laboratory in Moscow had all “operated for the protection of doped Russian competitors” within a “state-directed failsafe system” using “the disappearing positive [test] methodology” (DPM) after the nation achieved a poor medal return during the 2010 Winter Olympic Games in Vancouver.
The McLaren report, claimed that the DPM operated from “at least late 2011 to August 2015” and that it was used on a minimum of 643 positive samples.
WADA recommended that Russia be banned from the 2016 Rio Olympic Games. The IOC announced that it would decline 2016 Summer Olympics accreditation requests by Russian sports ministry officials and any individuals implicated in the report and that it would begin re-analysis and a full inquiry into Russian competitors at the Sochi Olympics,
The Russian Olympic Committee lost its appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in July 2016. Three days later the IOC, the body that makes all of these principled claims on their website rejected WADA’s recommendation to ban Russia from the Summer Olympics. They absolved themselves of any responsibility and announced that a decision would be made by each Sports Federation as to whether they allowed Russian athletes to compete in their sport. Although each sport that decided to allow them to compete had to have that decision approved by a CAS arbitrator.
On 7 August 2016, the IOC cleared 278 competitors to compete in Rio. A further 111 were prohibited from competing because of the scandal; 67 of those athletes having been removed by IAAF before the IOC’s decision!
In Rio that Kuwaitis were banned from competing under their own flag, for a non-doping related matter. This was due to Governmental interference. However the Russians were permitted to compete under their flag.
The whole affair rumbled on through 2017 with more data going missing and statements that made one feel that the Cold War had never really ended. In November 2017 Vladimir Putin accused the U.S. of stirring up problems for Russian competitors.
On 5 December 2017, the IOC announced that the Russian Olympic Committee had been suspended with immediate effect from the 2018 Winter Olympics. However as is often the case with the IOC there was a ‘but.’ The IOC’s concession was to allow those Russians who had no previous drug violations and who had a consistent history of drug testing which had produced negative results to compete under the Olympic Flag as an “Olympic Athlete from Russia” (OAR). Yet the findings in the reports had claimed that positive tests hade been swapped with negative tests. So was the IOC condoning such behaviour? Under the terms of the IOC’s edict, no Russian government officials were permitted to attend the Games, and neither the Russian flag nor the Russian national anthem would be featured. Should an OAR athlete win Gold the Olympic Flag and Olympic Anthem were to be used instead.
In January 2018, the IOC identified 43 Russian competitors from the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi that it intended to ban from competing in the 2018 Winter Olympics and all other future Olympic Games as part of the Oswald Commission. All but one of those competitors appealed against these bans to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The court overturned the sanctions on 28 of those who appealed, resulting in their Sochi medals and results being reinstated. However the court ruled that there was sufficient evidence against eleven of the competitors to uphold their Sochi sanctions. The length of the suspensions in many of these cases were also overturned by CAS. Even so there was no guarantee they would be allowed to compete at the Winter Olympics.
A pool of 500 Russian athletes was submitted for consideration for the 2018 Games, and 111 of them were immediately rejected; this included the 43 competitors who had been sanctioned by the Oswald Commission.
There were talks of a Russian boycott but that did not eventuate. It came as no surprise that there were accusations that the IOC had been influenced by the USA.
After the 2018 Winter Olympics the saga rumbled on. In 2020 the Court of Arbitration for Sport, reviewing Russia’s appeal of its case from WADA, ruled on December 17, to reduce the penalty that WADA had imposed. Instead of banning Russia from sporting events, the ruling now allowed Russia to participate at the Olympics and other international events. Once again there was a ‘but,’ for a period of two years, athletes and teams who were to represent Russia are not allowed to use the Russian name, flag, or anthem, and instead were required to present themselves as “Neutral Athlete” or “Neutral Team”.
On the 19 February 2021 The IOC announced that Russia would compete in both the postponed 2020 Summer Olympics (which was postponed to 2021) and the 2022 Winter Olympics under the acronym “ROC”, standing for the Russian Olympic Committee.
Of course come the Winter Olympic Games which has just concluded there was still a cloud over the Russian athletes. Once again the Court of Arbitration for Sport became involved. On February 14, CAS ruled that Kamila Valieva would be allowed to compete in the women’s single ice skating event, the court ruling that preventing her from competing “would cause her irreparable harm in the circumstances”, though her gold medal in the team event was still under consideration. This favourable decision from the court was made in part due to her age, as minor athletes are subject to different rules than adult athletes. However an investigation into her entourage of coaches and doctors continues.
Despite calls for International Federations to withdraw tournaments awarded to Russia prior to the revelations of the alleged state sponsored doping program many sports still allowed Russia to remain as host. FIFA being one, allowing the Confederations Cup and the World Cup to go ahead as planned in 2017 and 2018 respectively.
So what punishment has really been handed down?
Russian athletes are still allowed to compete, but not under the flag of their nation. Has the doping program ceased? Events at the Winter Olympic Games would tend to indicate that it has not. What has been the incentive to close it down?
When one looks at this situation that has been simmering now for almost six years is it maybe too long a bow to draw to say that despite the global demands and requests for Russia to stay out of the Ukraine, the lack of a deterrent and punishment in the sporting world showed their leader that few truly have the moral fortitude to stand up to him and his regime?
On the 28th of February the IOC urged sport federations and organisers to exclude Russian and Belarusian athletes and officials from international events following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. They also announced that they would withdraw the Olympic Order, its highest award, from all high-ranking Russian officials, including President Vladimir Putin.
Not surprisingly the Russian Olympic Committee disagreed with the IOC, saying that the decision “contradicts both the regulatory documents of the IOC and the (Olympic) Charter.”
Athletes from Ukraine and other nations have however understandably urged the IOC and International Paralympic Committee to suspend Russia and Belarus and ban their athletes from events immediately. The Global Athlete movement, which is there to empower athletes, said the IOC’s statement “falls short.”
Once again when leadership is needed the organisation shows that it is out of touch with its member federations, national members and athletes, but possibly more importantly the people of the world. They cannot be neutral on all issues, and if the IOC is a business, then like in business strong and unpopular decisions have to be made. Some of those decisions may end up affecting your business, they may affect your standing, but you have to show that you do indeed have principles and be prepared to stand up for them. Not just promote such principles but fail to adhere to them.
How many people have heard of the Olympic Truce? As the IOC state on their website “the tradition of the “Olympic Truce”, or “Ekecheiria”, was established in Ancient Greece in the ninth century BC through the signing of a treaty between three kings – Iphitos of Elis, Cleosthenes of Pisa and Lycurgus of Sparta – to allow safe participation in the ancient Olympic Games for all athletes and spectators from these Greek city-states, which were otherwise almost constantly engaged in conflict with each other.”
The IOC decided to re-introduce the Olympic Truce in the early 1990’s and the UN General Assembly has supported the move since 1993. The aim of the modern day Olympic Truce is all that it is all about “protecting, as far as possible, the interests of the athletes and sport in general, and to harness the power of sport to promote peace, dialogue and reconciliation more broadly.”
In order for the Olympic Truce to have a greater impact, the IOC relayed it to the United Nations (UN). Since 1993, the UN General Assembly has repeatedly expressed its support for the IOC and the Olympic Games by adopting by consensus, every two years. This is done one year before each edition of the Olympic Games, a resolution entitled “Building a peaceful and better world through sport and the Olympic ideal”.
The Olympic Truce has now been broken by Russia three times in the last 14 years, first with its invasion of Georgia during the 2008 Beijing Summer Games, Crimea during the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics and now Ukraine ahead of the Beijing Paralympic Games, which begin this week. The IOC’s passing of the buck onto its Sports Federations to suspend Russia and Belarus makes a mockery of the Truce and to some extent the United Nations Assembly too.
The Statement from the IOC Executive Board said “The Olympic Movement is united in its mission to contribute to peace through sport and to unite the world in peaceful competition beyond all political disputes.” These are again just words, and words spoken cheaply for the IOC fails again to back up those words with actions.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing and one only has to look back at the fact that the Berlin Olympic Games of 1936 which went ahead despite global concerns. Many nations questioned the morality of supporting an event being organised by Hitler’s Nazi regime. The Games were used by the Nazi regime for propaganda purposes and were without doubt embroiled in politics. Many nations that were considering a boycott of these Games pointed out that Germany had broken Olympic rules forbidding discrimination based on race and religion. Their attendance would indicate an endorsement of Hitler’s Reich.
Ernst Lee Jahncke is a name few will ever have heard of, but he should be remembered. Jahncke was a former assistant secretary of the US Navy, and he was expelled from the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in July 1936 after taking a strong public stand against the Berlin Games. Jahncke is the only member in the 100-year history of the IOC to ever be ejected.
The IOC pointedly elected Avery Brundage to fill Jahncke’s seat, a man who would later become President of the IOC. A man who supported the Berlin Games and was quoted as saying “The Olympic Games belong to the athletes and not to the politicians.” He also wrote in the AOC’s pamphlet “Fair Play for American Athletes” that American athletes should not become involved in the present “Jew-Nazi altercation.” Avery Brundage and the IOC were the perfect fit.
It was in fact Avery Brundage who managed to steer the Amateur Athletic Union in a close vote in favour of sending an American team to Berlin. Once the USA opted to participate other nations followed suit. Both the US ambassador to Germany at the time, William E. Dodd, and George Messersmith, head of the US Legation in Vienna, deplored the American Olympic Committee’s decision to go to Berlin. However their protestations had fallen on deaf ears. US President Franklin D. Roosevelt did not become involved in the boycott debate, despite strong warnings from these two representatives and other American diplomats regarding Nazi exploitation of the Olympics for propaganda purposes. Roosevelt continued a tradition in which the American Olympic Committee was allowed to operate independently outside of political influence. In many countries this is still the case, but one questions how that can still be so.
Today, by trying to take a holier than thou position in the world the International Olympic Committee now finds itself in a very tight corner. In such situations how is it possible “to maintain and promote its political neutrality and to preserve the autonomy of sport?” For the past six years its attempts “to protect clean athletes and the integrity of sport, by leading the fight against doping, and by taking action against all forms of manipulation of competitions and related corruption” have been extremely half-hearted and some would say weak. Is this because the IOC has very little to do with sport today and is in fact embedded in politics and big business?
If sport as we have been told is indeed a reflection of life, we have witnessed a nation and its athletes being told not to do something, but they went ahead and did it anyway. Were they punished? Or did we see the equivalent of modern day parenting where a child is rarely scolded? To many around the world the offending nation was not punished and the powers that be failed to adhere to the principles upon which they claim their organisation is built. The boundaries were pushed to the limit and the offending nation saw that those in power were men of words rather than men of action. The promote principles and ideals that they do not live by. Is not the same true with our World leaders? Is it any wonder that some continue to defy the rules if there are no consequences for breaking them?
