WADA and now the IOC have finally bared their teeth. After months of insistence from WADA, the IOC has excluded Russia from the upcoming Olympic Games in Pyeongchang. Until recently, seemingly untouchable people such as Vitaly Mutko were also given a lifetime ban from all future Olympic Games.
Individual Russian athletes will nevertheless be able to participate in the upcoming Games under strict conditions. However, these athletes will not have to compete for Russia but for the Olympic team. It has not yet been determined how strict these conditions will be and this is somewhat regrettable. The IOC has only communicated a number of guiding principles regarding these conditions. Furthermore, although a panel of experts has been appointed, the IOC will make the final and discretionary decision on the final admission of the individual athlete to the Games.
It is also very likely that a number of pure athletes will be refused and can be criticized. However, a trade-off had to be made between the proven facts and the credibility of the IOC and the sport on the one hand and the risk of a number of unjustified refusals on the other. In my opinion, this consideration passes the test of proportionality due to a lack of alternative sanctions.
The facts as outlined by Mr Rochenkov, the whistleblower who started the ball rolling, and subsequently described and investigated by Professor Richard McLaren, are mind-blowing. For example, during the Olympic Games in Sochi, a secret laboratory was set up next to the official laboratory where, through a hole in the wall, official positive samples were exchanged for falsified negative samples. This operation is said to have taken place with the cooperation of the Russian secret services. The report of December 2, 2017, commissioned by the IOC, and on the basis of which the exclusion of Russia was approved, confirms these facts and piles up the evidence.
Together with the measures taken by the IAAF, the world athletics association, during the Olympic Games in Brazil, this suspension finally focuses on the broader environment of the athlete on a large scale. This evolution can only be welcomed.
The lack of means of action against the athlete’s environment has for many years been regarded as one of the biggest shortcomings in the fight against doping. In many cases, the athlete’s environment and guidance play a decisive role in whether or not to use doping. In a significant number of cases, the athlete is surrounded by people who are even more blinded by the lure of success, fame and money than the athlete himself. In some cases, the pressure the athlete experiences is so great that the athlete collapses. Athletes are often just pawns on a larger chessboard, and in this case probably Putin’s chessboard.
Although the environment of the athlete, such as trainers, doctors, family or in this case representatives of a country, is sometimes punishable by means of national legislation, they usually fall through the cracks.
It is fair to point out that this changed focus on the athlete’s environment was already noticeable in 2015 when the third and most recent WADA code came into effect. The WADA Code defines doping and determines the associated punishments and procedures. This code is considered the most important weapon in the fight against doping and is monitored by WADA. The code is regarded by academics as a form of soft international law that is enforceable across all member countries and sports federations. For example, the IOC makes acceptance of the WADA code a condition for admission to the Olympic Games.
One of the most significant changes in the new WADA Code was the inclusion of the athlete’s environment in the regulations. First, a new doping violation was created, Article 2.10 of the WADA Code, which prohibits athletes from associating with athletes or supporting staff who have previously been suspended or convicted for doping violations. Secondly, a ban was imposed on the athlete’s accompanying staff from using and/or possessing prohibited substances or substances themselves without a valid reason.
However, inquiries show that these provisions and associated sanctions are hardly or not at all applied and that in many cases the accompanying staff remains unaffected. Doping investigations and prosecutions are therefore all too often, and all too easily, focused solely on the athlete.
This text should obviously not be regarded as a license for athletes, and above all, athletes remain in charge of their own bodies and decisions. Nevertheless, more attention should be paid to the context in which a doping violation occurred and to what extent the athlete’s environment had an influence. Sanctioning this environment, i.e. the supporting staff, the family or a government, will also have a significantly greater impact in the fight against doping. A battle in which all parties involved have an interest.
The IOC’s decision to finally tackle the problem at its root on a large scale is therefore a good decision at its core. Only time will tell whether a possible appeal by Russia can still lift or change the sanction.
Mathieu Baert wrote this opinion text in his own name.