Basic HTML Version
A
t the time of writing this editorial, the Paralympics are
scheduled to begin in Rio de Janeiro later this week,
but they will be going ahead without the Russian team
competing.
This is as a result of the International Paralympic Committee (IPC)
banning all of Russia’s athletes from the Rio Paralympics over the
allegations of state-run doping.
Despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of Russian
Paralympians have never been suspected of foul play, let alone
caught cheating, the ban extends to the entire Russian team of 267
athletes who qualified to compete in 18 sports in Rio.
The president of the IPC, Sir Philip Craven, said that the move had
been made “in the best interests of the Paralympic Movement.”
In justifying the ban, he referred to the McLaren report on doping at
the Sochi Winter Olympics which stated that 35 samples of Russian
Paralympians had allegedly been tampered with by Russian sports
authorities.
Yet these same allegations did not lead to a blanket ban of all
Russian athletes from the Olympics in Rio when the Games started
on 5 August. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) left it up to
individual sports’ governing bodies to decide if Russian competitors
were clean and should be allowed to take part. Any Russian who
had served a doping ban was not eligible for the Olympics. In all,
278 of the 389 Russian athletes set to compete in Rio were cleared.
This situation has arisen as a result of the report for the World Anti-
Doping Agency (WADA) that found the Russian government and the
FSB security service had over years covered up hundreds of doping
cases across the majority of Olympic sports, as well as Paralympic
events.
Whilst it is clearly the right thing to do to give severe and long
lasting bans to athletes who have been using banned substances
to improve their performance, a blanket ban appears to be harsh
on those who have never taken drugs. However, the scourge of
drug cheating has to be wiped out and if blanket bans for particular
sports or even entire nations are the only way, so be it. But there
does appear to be inconsistency here with different treatment of
the same issue by two very similar peak bodies.
When the IOC handed the problem off to the individual sports’
governing bodies it could have been interpreted as avoiding the
problem and not taking responsibility for the action that was
required. The IPC obviously took a different view on how to deal
with the issue and, irrespective of whether you consider that they
are correct in their decision, they must be commended for taking a
tough stance and full responsibility on a matter that strikes at the
very heart of sport.
But the Russian ban was not the only drugs controversy at the Rio
Games
The swimmers at the Rio Olympics managed to hit the headlines not
only for shattering world records but also for bringing the issue of
drug cheats to the fore. Swimmers from Australia and the USA broke
unwritten Olympic etiquette by speaking out against competitors
they deemed “drug cheats.” The villains were swimmers from Russia
and China who had been reinstated after serving suspensions for
performance-enhancing drugs.
One of them was Russian swimmer Yulia Efimova, who had served
a 16-month ban for doping. After Efimova competed in the 100
metre breaststroke semi-finals, she waved a “No. 1” finger in the
air––mimicking American Lilly King, who did it after an earlier swim
in the event. King was not pleased and commented on the fact that
Efimova had been caught cheating in the past. King then won gold
over Efimova the next night, and commented. “It just proves that
you can compete clean and still come out on top with all the work
you put in.”
King also said US team mates Gatlin and Gay shouldn’t be in Rio
because both had served previous bans for drug taking. “Do I think
people who have been caught doping should be on the team?” King
said. “They shouldn’t. It is unfortunate we have to see that.”
Her stand followed that of Australian swimmer Mack Horton, who
beat China’s Sun Yang to win gold in the 400 metre freestyle and
called Sun, who served a three-month ban for testing positive for a
banned stimulant in 2014, a “drug cheat.” After the race, Horton said
his win was one “for the good guys.”
Their strong words were supported by other swimmers, including
Michael Phelps, and echoed by many fans and commentators.
Many would agree. However, should one mistake blight an entire
career? The problem is that it depends on a number of issues and
factors that mean that it is very difficult to have a one-size fits all
approach.
Even the IOC and IPC take a different view on how to deal with the
issue.
By Steve Boucher
Touchline issue 24 | September 2016 | 3
TIME FOR
CONSISTENCY
editorial
IN DEAL ING WI TH
DRUG CHEATS