Menu
Olympics

IOC Criticized For Letting Russia Field Rio Team In Wake Of State-Sponsored Doping Scandal

Olympic leaders "find themselves facing questions -- if not outright criticism -- over their decision not to ban Russia" from the Rio Games, according to David Wharton of the L.A. TIMES. Reaction yesterday was "immediate with anti-doping officials and athletes from other countries expressing skepticism." U.S. Anti-Doping Agency CEO Travis Tygart said, "The decision regarding Russian participation and the confusing mess left in its wake is a significant blow to the rights of clean athletes." Wharton notes the IOC "seemed reluctant to issue a ban" from the start, as the organization had "never before excluded a country for doping." Committee members had "hinted at their preference for case-by-case adjudication." British cyclist Chris Hoy tweeted, "What sort of message does this send out? Surely IOC’s job is to make crucial decisions rather than passing the buck" (L.A. TIMES, 7/25). In DC, Rick Maese noted the IOC "approved a list of criteria that athletes must meet, which largely calls on athletes to prove they compete without the aid of performance-enhancing drugs and for the international federations to determine the validity of their claims and make a final judgment." Governing bodies for the various Olympic sports "immediately began studying the criteria and the list of likely Russian participants." The Int'l Tennis Federation was among the first yesterday to "clear Russian players to compete in the Rio Games, saying the athletes have already been 'subject to a rigorous anti-doping testing program outside Russia'" (WASHINGTONPOST.com, 7/24).

VOCAL RESPONSE: In London, Martyn Ziegler writes the IOC faced a "storm of outrage" in the wake of its decision (LONDON TIMES, 7/25). British long jumper Greg Rutherford said, "What we have now is a messy, grey area that doesn't help anyone. This is a spineless attempt to appear as the nice guy to both sides" (REUTERS, 7/25). U.S. sprinter Lauryn Williams: "To know I have no one fighting for me is disheartening." USA TODAY's Rachel Axon notes criticism of the decision has been "strong and swift" (USA TODAY, 7/25). ESPN's Bonnie Ford: "We have no idea at this point how many Russian athletes will be ... eligible to compete. My own theory is that we won't know who is competing until they walk into the stadium tunnel Friday, August 5" ("SportsCenter," ESPN, 7/24). 

TAKING IT EASY: The WALL STREET JOURNAL's Futterman & Germano write the IOC is "seeking to skirt a crisis that would have been created by banishing one of its most important and influential member countries." A country’s entire delegation has "never been banned from an Olympics for cheating, though Russia’s team will likely be severely diminished." Russia’s team was "expected to be among the top-five medal-winning nations, and the fallout from the IOC decision practically ensures that doping will remain in the spotlight throughout the Games." Anti-doping advocates "immediately criticized" the IOC's decision (WALL STREET JOURNAL, 7/25). In N.Y., Rebecca Ruiz in a front-page piece writes the "showdown between Russia and Olympic officials was rich with intrigue beyond the playing fields." In the end, Russian officials "received a reprieve, in their view." The burden "now shifts to sports federations to vet Russia’s individual Olympic candidates." The implications of the Olympic decision "may be muddy, with governing bodies for various sports taking on the complicated task of scrutinizing hundreds of athletes in less than two weeks." Many sports federations have "shown little interest in rooting out drug violations." They are "not expected to take an aggressive approach now" (N.Y. TIMES, 7/25). NBC's Lester Holt said it "could have been a lot worse for Russia" ("Nightly News," NBC, 7/24). In London, Martha Kelner notes legal experts "warned that even if these federations have the appetite to enforce a proper ban on Russia there is not enough time." It is expected that the country will "field a strong team in Brazil" (London DAILY MAIL, 7/25).

ANOTHER BRICK IN THE WALL: In Boston, Shira Springer writes the "dark cloud of doping" hangs over Rio. The IOC's stance on Russia "fell well short of the defining moment many in the antidoping community wanted to see." There will be "many more examples" of state-sponsored doping (BOSTON GLOBE, 7/25). The LONDON TIMES' Ziegler writes there have been "some shameful episodes" in the IOC's history, but "none more cowardly" than this. The IOC "did not just pass the buck," but it "completely abrogated responsibility" for Russia's misconduct. The world of sport was "crying out for strong leadership to show the public that integrity still exists in the Olympics." What it received instead was a "vague set of instructions on how Russian athletes can still compete in Rio." Ziegler: "Russia is off the hook" (LONDON TIMES, 7/25). In N.Y., Jere Longman writes the IOC yet again "professed zero tolerance but contradicted its stance with its politics." The sports federations now responsible for determining Russian athletes' eligibility have "not exactly been vigilant when it comes to curbing the use of banned substances" (N.Y. TIMES, 7/25). The NATIONAL POST's Cam Cole writes the IOC in the end "caved, as it always does, defaulting to whatever compromise it could safely adopt without offending a superpower." Banning a "corrupt sports system, when that system puts money and plenty of it in the IOC’s coffers, was always a longshot" (NATIONAL POST, 7/25).

BACH TO THE FUTURE: USA TODAY's Nancy Armour writes clean athletes have been "begging for someone to have their backs," but the IOC "left no doubt who's side it's on." All anyone will remember about Rio years from now is that the IOC "caved" (USA TODAY, 7/25). In Boston, Christopher Gasper asks, "Why does the IOC exist if not to fiercely protect the integrity of the Games?" The decision represents "dereliction of duty" by IOC President Thomas Bach and the IOC exec board (BOSTON GLOBE, 7/25). The AP's Eddie Pells wrote if this turns out to be Bach's "defining moment," he will be remembered for "keeping Russia as part of the club, but losing the trust of thousands of athletes who thought that, maybe this year, they'd get the answers they've been looking for." In a way, Bach and the IOC "may have saved the Games As We Know Them." But the Games are "now filled with wide-scale, unapologetic drug cheating." The IOC ultimately "favored 'individual justice' over 'collective responsibility'" (AP, 7/24). Asked if the IOC did the right thing or tried to avoid the issue, NBC's Bob Costas said, "Probably somewhere in between. It's a substantial penalty ... but some athletes will march under the Russian flag and a lot of people ... said the best message to send would have been to ban the entire Russian delegation." Costas said there will be a "cloud of suspicion" surrounding Russian athletes who receive medals ("Today," NBC, 7/25). 

VLAD THE INFLUENCER: The GUARDIAN's Alec Luhn writes the IOC's decision was met in Russia with "relief and jubilation but also lingering anger over state-sponsored doping allegations that are viewed as a political attack on the country" (GUARDIAN, 7/25). The AP's Tim Dahlberg wrote when Russia President Vladimir Putin  "talks, Olympic officials listen." That is the "biggest reason why Russian athletes -- at least some of them -- will march in opening ceremonies." Putin and the IOC have a "cozy relationship that serves both sides so well" (AP, 7/24). In Toronto, Bruce Arthur writes the bar now "has been set." To be "banned from an Olympics as a nation you must do more than Russia, or perhaps be less powerful than Russia" (TORONTO STAR, 7/25). The WALL STREET JOURNAL editorial board writes the IOC's exec board "must have feared" incurring Putin's "wrath, which we know can be deadly." If the IOC "doesn’t take its own antidoping rules seriously, why should anyone else?" Between FIFA and the IOC, it is a "tossup which global sports body is the most deserving of the world’s contempt" (WALL STREET JOURNAL, 7/25). In London, Paul Hayward writes Russia's "deep political reach should have told us this would happen." External pressure to do with global politics and sport’s "utter subservience to money was always going to shape the IOC’s thinking" (London TELEGRAPH, 7/25).

YOU MAY BE RIGHT: In Toronto, Rosie DiManno writes the IOC "rescued the Olympics from ruin" with its decision. DiManno: "Blanket bans are bad. Period. Bans. Boycotts. All cut from the same cloth of agenda righteousness. Have we not learned at least that much?" (TORONTO STAR, 7/25). The GLOBE & MAIL's Cathal Kelly writes the IOC showed that it is "occasionally capable of something other than cynical self-interest." The "easy thing to do would have been to expel the Russian team," but the IOC "chose the much harder route -- one of prudence." Going forward, all Russian athletes will "face a more rigorous out-of-competition testing program than their international colleagues." Notably, the solution is a "tacit admission by the IOC that it is itself part of the problem" (GLOBE & MAIL, 7/25). 3 WIRE SPORTS' Alan Abrahamson wrote the IOC's decision was an "imperfect compromise"  that is a "marker for the ongoing vitality and relevance of the Olympic movement." The IOC "made -- mostly -- the right call in seeking to balance individual rights against collective responsibility." If the decision had "gone the other way," there "very well may have erupted an existential threat to the Olympic movement" (3WIRESPORTS.com, 7/24).

SBJ Morning Buzzcast: March 18, 2024

Sports Business Awards nominees unveiled; NWSL's historic opening weekend and takeaways from CFP deal

ESPN’s Jay Bilas, BTN’s Meghan McKeown, and a deep dive into AppleTV+’s The Dynasty

On this week’s Sports Media Podcast from the New York Post and Sports Business Journal, ESPN’s Jay Bilas talks all things NCAA. Big Ten Network’s Meghan McKeown shares her insight into the Caitlin Clark craze. The Boston Globe’s Chad Finn chats all things Bean Town. And SBJ’s Xavier Hunter drops in to share his findings on how the NWSL is making a social media push.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

SBJ I Factor: Nana-Yaw Asamoah

SBJ I Factor features an interview with AMB Sports and Entertainment Chief Commercial Office Nana-Yaw Asamoah. Asamoah, who moved over to AMBSE last year after 14 years at the NFL, talks with SBJ’s Ben Fischer about how his role model parents and older sisters pushed him to shrive, how the power of lifelong learning fuels successful people, and why AMBSE was an opportunity he could not pass up. Asamoah is 2021 SBJ Forty Under 40 honoree. SBJ I Factor is a monthly podcast offering interviews with sports executives who have been recipients of one of the magazine’s awards.

Shareable URL copied to clipboard!

https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Daily/Issues/2016/07/25/Olympics/IOC-Russia.aspx

Sorry, something went wrong with the copy but here is the link for you.

https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Daily/Issues/2016/07/25/Olympics/IOC-Russia.aspx

CLOSE