IOC Bans Right To Play From Attending '10 Games, Severs Ties

Koss Says Right To Play Will Still Have Presence At Vancouver Games

The IOC has "banned the international charity Right to Play from attending" the '10 Vancouver Games, and also is "completely severing its ties with the organization without explanation," according to Gary Mason of the GLOBE & MAIL. VANOC in October ruled that Right to Play "couldn't set up an information table in the Olympic Village" due to its conflicting sponsorships with the organization. The matter ultimately was "turned over to the IOC," which in December sent a letter to Right To Play Founder Johann Olav Koss saying that the group "would not be able to promote itself within the confines of the athletes village" during the '10 Games. The IOC in the letter added that it was "ending its association with the charity, which meant that the Right to Play-related Sport for Development and Peace secretariat would no longer be able to use the Olympics to promote its cause either" (GLOBE & MAIL, 1/22). Koss said he previously had sent VANOC "suggestions for partnership." Koss: "I never heard back from them, with the exception of this letter I received from the IOC." Koss said he received the IOC's letter on December 23. Koss: "I'm disappointed. We've been trying hard to make sure we can work together in the best possible way for the interests of the children. We will go on" (TORONTO STAR, 1/22). The CP's Jim Morris reported the IOC "gave no reason for the ban." Koss: "The letter does not explain why they no longer will work with us. It started with a VANOC issue and it has escalated to the IOC." Koss indicated that even with the ban, Right to Play "plans on being in Vancouver." Koss: "We will be there and have a presence, just not an official presence with the IOC or with [VANOC]" (CP, 1/21).

FIVE RING CIRCUS: The GLOBE & MAIL's Mason writes the IOC's move is "one of the worst decisions in its often-troubled history," and the degree to which the IOC can be "small-minded, spiteful and imperious appears boundless" (GLOBE & MAIL, 1/22). In Edmonton, John MacKinnon writes, "To summarily toss a group like Right to Play out suggests the IOC and VANOC have not merely staked out an outrageously overzealous posture to 'protect' their sponsors, but have utterly lost the plot on the Olympic ideals in the bargain." The "distasteful kerfuffle to run roughshod over a humanitarian charity in the name of IOC and VANOC sponsor greed may help recruit more athletes for Right to Play," as well as "public sympathy" (EDMONTON JOURNAL, 1/22).