At the end of September, Thomas Bach said in an interview that Russian athletes who do not support the special operation in Ukraine should be able to participate in international competitions in a neutral status. It was a trial balloon.
How to separate politics from sport? Or vice versa? Is this possible at all, and especially in the current situation? A lot of emotions. They can’t be. It’s a new statement from the IOC, it’s also a long forgotten one. Is this a scam, another speculation that simply sparks another round of confrontation in the sport, or an attempt to at least give something back?
The suspension of housing starts on the “national question” was doomed to cancellation. But all year it worked and continues to work. Meanwhile, the growing degree of hatred in certain sports, the letters of protest, the blackmail – if they appear, we’ll leave – have become so commonplace that it’s not even scary.
From now on, the IOC is always ready to resume the “protective measures”. An “overwhelming majority of participants in the consultations” opposed sanctions against athletes “solely because of their nationality”. At the same time, the IOC even reinforced the new position with letters from the United Nations in the field of the protection of cultural rights and the fight against modern forms of racism, and with a resolution of the General Assembly of the UN: sport has a unifying and reconciling character.
In short, the IOC could not resist and said: “no athlete can be excluded from competitions solely because of their passport, and governments should not decide which athletes can compete and which cannot”. At the same time, he immediately offered passports to Russian and Belarusian athletes and took them away. This is how it works ? “Athletes will compete as ‘neutral athletes’ and in no way represent their state or any other organization in their country,” the IOC said in a statement.
We kept saying: the IOC (in the person of Bach) wants to sit on two chairs. And all along, it seemed like the organization had stepped into a trap by removing Russian and Belarusian athletes, citing tough thoughts about safety, and now it’s trying to get out of it. And drove, and tries. But Thomas Bach is still sitting on the same chair, without changing. And sits there for many years.
And the new “concept” fits perfectly into the previous plans: from now on, the IOC intends to continue to study with the international federations the means of bringing our athletes back to international competitions “under strict conditions”. While clarified as follows: the status is neutral, athletes who “have not opposed the IOC’s peacekeeping mission, actively supporting the IOC” will be allowed to start. And, of course, respecting the WADA code.
To check whether or not someone is suitable for international departures, there will be commissions individually. Not created yet. But they will check anyone who is declared to be speaking in a neutral status. How? And each federation can have its own verification criteria. We remember the story of the two-time Olympic champion Evgeny Rylov, who at the Tokyo Olympics became the first Russian in a quarter of a century to win gold in swimming. Zhenya received a nine-month disqualification from FINA “for participating in an event at the Luzhniki Stadium in Moscow on March 18” during the Day concert for the reunification of Crimea and Sevastopol with Russia. FINA said the swimmer’s actions tarnish the image of the sport, swimming and the organization. More than one Rylov was present at the concert, but only one federation passed the sentence.
Unfortunately, Russian athletes have also already passed individual checks. Before the Olympics in Korea, none of the Olympians knew for sure if they would reach Pyeongchang 2018. North Korea was persuaded to participate in the Olympics and we were removed from the list of “Olympians from Russia”. Then Russia was allowed to bring only a small team: without Anton Shipulin, Sergei Ustyugov, Viktor An, Denis Yuskov, Pavel Kulizhnikov … And IOC President Thomas Bach said that Russia should appreciate that.
“Brother, we are with you,” wrote the then titled biathlete Anastasia Kuzmina aloud. Speaking on behalf of another country, even Shipulina’s sister could not afford a stronger reaction. Our athletes were not expected at the main start of the quadrennial, like everyone else, but without explanation, they were selectively invited.
Certainly, while the confusion had already spread beyond Russia and even the leaders of some international federations were asked to explain why world leaders were not allowed to enter Korea, the IOC nevertheless published admission criteria. There were 17 in total: one was not suitable for punishment – you can apply the other and to any athlete. For example, WADA’s confidential information clause: data obtained from WADA’s whistleblower program and other sources.
Then all the questions revolved around doping. Today, politics rules. And data “from sources”, on the basis of which suddenly “strict rules” work, can be as much as you want. He plays for the wrong club or learns from the wrong coach, and there are also relatives…
Even funny? But the case of the same Rylov, who now clearly has no status, if everything expressed by the press release comes to life, began only with the displeasure of the Ukrainian swimmer Andrei Govorov, supported by the athlete Romanian. And FINA then accepted their complaint. And the sponsors demanded an explanation from Rylov. The laconic answer “without comment” led to the termination of the contract, moreover, the British sent a sanction to the UN in support of Ukraine … Yevgeny Rylov “disgraced” FINA with an expression of his position civil – in its own city, not during startup. And even in silence, without words.
Is the current announcement that our athletes will be allowed to compete in international competitions yet another transplant of a heavy part of the IOC’s body into our chair? Or is the IOC devil in the details again? Those that haven’t been announced yet. For example, how will “purity of mind” verifiers compel each athlete to prove their agreement with the “IOC’s peacekeeping mission”? Shouldn’t I personally sign the paper: I am against the actions of the country? What exactly can they “remember” for him: a rally, a parade or statements on social networks? What if he didn’t have time to say it, but the coach did? And the applications of the military, which are numerous in our sport, as in the sport of other countries, will not be accepted at all?
Is it possible to consider all these questions as empty horror stories, but in fact… It is impossible. Over the last few Olympic cycles, life has taught me that. And generally taught.
There is also something in common that we have all been thinking about and debating for over a year. Neutral flag – evil or way out of the situation, agree or categorically deny? This question under present conditions will be very acute, even more acute than before. For every athlete, for every leader.
The position of the IOC is as follows: the nationality of an athlete should not determine whether he will be allowed to participate in international tournaments. These are the principles of sport. But for every principle, for whatever reason, there is an exception. And now this exception is Russia and Belarus.
And now even the mayor of Paris, the city that will host the next Olympics in 2024, is addressing the press with his vision of the situation: I want the Russian delegation to compete under a neutral flag, as already produced, and not under theirs. The message is the same: in the current situation, it is unacceptable to allow Russia to participate in international competitions, the majority at the top of the IOC opposed the idea that nationality should be decisive, “but in the case of Russian and Belarusian athletes, we must meet strict conditions.
And the first responses to the IOC press release have already flown: the Ukrainian NOC has taken the floor, its president Vadim Gutzeit has declared that if Russia is admitted to international competitions, even under the terms of the IOC, Ukrainian athletes can boycott the Olympic Games. And the UK has already spoken, its Minister for Digital Technologies, Culture, Media and Sport Donelan, quoted by the Times newspaper, saying that the position expressed by the IOC is now inappropriate. Therefore, the UK intends to urgently develop a common view with like-minded countries on this issue.
The ROC strongly disagrees with all the restrictions, additional requirements and sanctions related to the nationality of our athletes and which are again proposed as a condition to return to the international stage. “The priority for us is the same: to guarantee the rights and interests of our athletes. On an equal footing, without discrimination,” said ROC President Stanislav Pozdnyakov. And he underlines: “I see the information from the IOC as an attempt to take a step towards the athletes, but at the same time, unfortunately, it is also two steps back in the opposite direction.”
Will it be possible to separate politics from sport in the time remaining before the next Olympic Games? Maybe there is also a light at the end of this tunnel? While the IOC launched the second trial balloon. But it is already more powerful than the first. And no longer a ball, but a stone. Ring the bell, cover them with words or not, with political demands. Whatever the admission criteria, it is this very essence that will vibrate in the bare residue.
