Olympic Games Rio 2016
- Thread starter Ariana
- Start date
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
You are right Perun. But the problem is, I admit that I do not have have much faith in the innocence of individual athletes from this country, again I stress -in this context-, when they were steered in such a corruptive system. If they really can proof they are innocent, alright. But now more than two hundred can still take part, without any measures.
The doping policy is not attacked (punished) enough in my opinion.
Speaking of faith: I have more faith in the innocence of many other athletes and I wish them to have as much certainty as possible, to have clean opponents.
The doping policy is not attacked (punished) enough in my opinion.
Speaking of faith: I have more faith in the innocence of many other athletes and I wish them to have as much certainty as possible, to have clean opponents.
The only problem is that there are quite a few Russian athletes who live, train, and test in Western Europe/the USA, and I really don't like the idea of banning those people who kept themselves away from Russia. I'd be fine with banning Russia if there was an exception for athletes who can prove they never used the testing facility in question (or, alternately, if they had sufficient non-affected testing).
Ariana
Black-and-white leopard
If that was possible, then I would agree.
I agree that athletes are the least responsible for the situation, but when it comes to professional sports at the highest level, athletes are also the smallest (albeit most public) figures. There is a myriad of coaches, doctors, therapists, federation staff, etc., who all carry the responsibility. Anyone could have blown the whistle. So yes, some athletes might be unfairly disqualified, but there is no other adequate measure to prevent an all-round drug consumption.
I agree that athletes are the least responsible for the situation, but when it comes to professional sports at the highest level, athletes are also the smallest (albeit most public) figures. There is a myriad of coaches, doctors, therapists, federation staff, etc., who all carry the responsibility. Anyone could have blown the whistle. So yes, some athletes might be unfairly disqualified, but there is no other adequate measure to prevent an all-round drug consumption.
CriedWhenBrucieLeft
Meme Only Account
Why can't they go as independents?
Because the IOC said so.
And the athlete who did is not allowed to participate in Rio.
CriedWhenBrucieLeft
Meme Only Account
And that, I think, is the issue; not the banning (or not) of a country. If a country is guilty of state-sanctioned doping then I think it should be banned from the Olympics. No one should be able to represent that country. But the IOC should have let (as they've done in the past) individuals compete as independents.
It happens to be that I agree with you. But the IOC is going the other way, saying that Russia can ban whistleblowers from their team, but not compete as independents.
Remember when the USSR stopped being a country, but they were still allowed to send a team to the 1992 Winter Olympics.
Albie
Keeping an open eye on the Weeping Angels.
Should all athletes be allowed to be innocent until proven guilty rather than asking them to prove it first then compete?
I think we need to be more cautious, yes.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
IOC, more caution please. Because you fail to protect the rights of clean athletes.
- - - - - - -
Russian doping scandal: ‘When it mattered most, the IOC failed to lead’
Thirteen national anti-doping groups tell the Guardian how in ‘its response to the Russian doping problem, the IOC failed to protect the rights of clean athletes’
Exposure of the Russian doping scandal presented the International Olympic Committee with a defining moment in the fight for integrity in international sport. Unfortunately, when it mattered most, the IOC failed to lead.
We represent 13 national anti-doping agencies (Nados). Every day, it is our job to inform and educate, investigate, and drug test elite athletes in our respective countries as part of a coordinated global effort to ensure a level competitive playing field for aspiring Olympic and Paralympic athletes.
Earlier this month, two days after the findings on Russian doping were issued by independent investigator Richard McLaren, we wrote IOC president Thomas Bach with a simple and effective three-step plan for the IOC to protect the integrity of the Rio Olympic Games.
We asked the IOC to: (1) Suspend and exclude the Russian Olympic Committee from Rio; (2) As a consequence of that suspension, provisionally deny entry to all Russian athletes nominated by the ROC to participate in Rio; and (3) Mandate the existing joint World Anti-Doping Agency-IOC pre-Games testing taskforce to apply a uniform set of criteria to determine whether individual Russian athletes should be permitted to participate in the Rio Olympic Games under a neutral flag.
These simple steps are fully consistent with Wada’s recommendations that followed the McLaren Report and could have been easily implemented by the IOC. It is noteworthy that the International Paralympic Committee has chosen to follow Wada’s recommendation and has begun suspension proceedings to exclude the Russian Paralympic delegation from Rio.
Through its response to the Russian doping problem, which has been percolating for some time, the IOC failed to protect the rights of clean athletes. In so doing, the IOC departed from the tough stance on doping it has previously endorsed, including its prior commitment to “zero tolerance” for doping and to apply the “toughest sanctions available” for what the IOC described as an “unprecedented level of criminality.
Instead, the IOC issued a confusing patchwork of conflicting and insufficient instructions to international sport federations (IFs). The IOC’s hasty and ill-considered directives are legally infirm and have already resulted in an uneven and incomplete response from IFs. By leaving to IFs the responsibility to exclude individual Russian athletes, the IOC ignored that most IFs do not have a ready legal framework for making these decisions.
In contrast, had the IOC used its authority under Article 59 of the Olympic Charter to suspend the ROC, a fairer and more transparent outcome would have resulted. The IOC could have handled the question of Russian athlete participation with a uniform set of guidelines that would have provided the advantages of clarity, consistency and transparency, while avoiding the legal quagmire into which the IOC has cast the 28 International Federations.
By throwing eligibility decisions to IFs without clear guidance and without requiring a minimum level of evidence to demonstrate that Russian athletes have been subject to an adequate advance testing programme, the IOC has violated the athletes’ fundamental rights to participate in Games that meet the stringent requirements of the World Anti-Doping Code. The IOC’s plan affords no guarantee that Russian athletes competing in Rio will have been sufficiently and regularly drug tested under a code-compliant testing programme. Because the benefits of doping can persist for months and even years after banned substances are no longer detectable, there can be no confidence that recent testing will prevent Russian athletes from reaping the ill-gotten rewards of a state-sponsored doping programme. Yet, the IOC’s approach allows Russian athletes to compete based on no consistent standard – while some may have a clean recent test, others may come with no screening at all.
Finally, the IOC took another damaging step inexplicably excluding whistleblower Yuliya Stepanova from participation in the Rio Games. Inconsistent with legal precedent, this shortsighted decision to exclude Ms Stepanova will deter future whistleblowers and significantly undermine the global anti-doping movement.
Through its mishandling of this issue, the IOC has departed from the foundational principles of the World Anti-Doping Code to which the governments of the world and all stakeholders in the Olympic Movement have committed. The IOC rebuffed the recommendations offered by Wada, and each of the 13 Nados signing the letter, and failed to exercise their authority to implement the three-step plan we offered to protect the rights of clean athletes competing in Rio.
The IOC has demonstrated through these actions that, as an organisation made up of national and international sport leaders, it lacks the independence required to keep commercial and political interests from influencing the tough decisions necessary to protect clean sport. A radical change is needed to ensure that such a failure never occurs again.
The Op-ed has been written and endorsed by the heads of 13 National Anti-Doping Organisations around the world: Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland, US
- - - - - - -
Russian doping scandal: ‘When it mattered most, the IOC failed to lead’
Thirteen national anti-doping groups tell the Guardian how in ‘its response to the Russian doping problem, the IOC failed to protect the rights of clean athletes’
Exposure of the Russian doping scandal presented the International Olympic Committee with a defining moment in the fight for integrity in international sport. Unfortunately, when it mattered most, the IOC failed to lead.
We represent 13 national anti-doping agencies (Nados). Every day, it is our job to inform and educate, investigate, and drug test elite athletes in our respective countries as part of a coordinated global effort to ensure a level competitive playing field for aspiring Olympic and Paralympic athletes.
Earlier this month, two days after the findings on Russian doping were issued by independent investigator Richard McLaren, we wrote IOC president Thomas Bach with a simple and effective three-step plan for the IOC to protect the integrity of the Rio Olympic Games.
We asked the IOC to: (1) Suspend and exclude the Russian Olympic Committee from Rio; (2) As a consequence of that suspension, provisionally deny entry to all Russian athletes nominated by the ROC to participate in Rio; and (3) Mandate the existing joint World Anti-Doping Agency-IOC pre-Games testing taskforce to apply a uniform set of criteria to determine whether individual Russian athletes should be permitted to participate in the Rio Olympic Games under a neutral flag.
These simple steps are fully consistent with Wada’s recommendations that followed the McLaren Report and could have been easily implemented by the IOC. It is noteworthy that the International Paralympic Committee has chosen to follow Wada’s recommendation and has begun suspension proceedings to exclude the Russian Paralympic delegation from Rio.
Through its response to the Russian doping problem, which has been percolating for some time, the IOC failed to protect the rights of clean athletes. In so doing, the IOC departed from the tough stance on doping it has previously endorsed, including its prior commitment to “zero tolerance” for doping and to apply the “toughest sanctions available” for what the IOC described as an “unprecedented level of criminality.
Instead, the IOC issued a confusing patchwork of conflicting and insufficient instructions to international sport federations (IFs). The IOC’s hasty and ill-considered directives are legally infirm and have already resulted in an uneven and incomplete response from IFs. By leaving to IFs the responsibility to exclude individual Russian athletes, the IOC ignored that most IFs do not have a ready legal framework for making these decisions.
In contrast, had the IOC used its authority under Article 59 of the Olympic Charter to suspend the ROC, a fairer and more transparent outcome would have resulted. The IOC could have handled the question of Russian athlete participation with a uniform set of guidelines that would have provided the advantages of clarity, consistency and transparency, while avoiding the legal quagmire into which the IOC has cast the 28 International Federations.
By throwing eligibility decisions to IFs without clear guidance and without requiring a minimum level of evidence to demonstrate that Russian athletes have been subject to an adequate advance testing programme, the IOC has violated the athletes’ fundamental rights to participate in Games that meet the stringent requirements of the World Anti-Doping Code. The IOC’s plan affords no guarantee that Russian athletes competing in Rio will have been sufficiently and regularly drug tested under a code-compliant testing programme. Because the benefits of doping can persist for months and even years after banned substances are no longer detectable, there can be no confidence that recent testing will prevent Russian athletes from reaping the ill-gotten rewards of a state-sponsored doping programme. Yet, the IOC’s approach allows Russian athletes to compete based on no consistent standard – while some may have a clean recent test, others may come with no screening at all.
Finally, the IOC took another damaging step inexplicably excluding whistleblower Yuliya Stepanova from participation in the Rio Games. Inconsistent with legal precedent, this shortsighted decision to exclude Ms Stepanova will deter future whistleblowers and significantly undermine the global anti-doping movement.
Through its mishandling of this issue, the IOC has departed from the foundational principles of the World Anti-Doping Code to which the governments of the world and all stakeholders in the Olympic Movement have committed. The IOC rebuffed the recommendations offered by Wada, and each of the 13 Nados signing the letter, and failed to exercise their authority to implement the three-step plan we offered to protect the rights of clean athletes competing in Rio.
The IOC has demonstrated through these actions that, as an organisation made up of national and international sport leaders, it lacks the independence required to keep commercial and political interests from influencing the tough decisions necessary to protect clean sport. A radical change is needed to ensure that such a failure never occurs again.
The Op-ed has been written and endorsed by the heads of 13 National Anti-Doping Organisations around the world: Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland, US
CriedWhenBrucieLeft
Meme Only Account
The IOC is fucking useless; they're pretty much on par with FIFA now, in my opinion. An organisation that has fundamentally forgotten what it represents.
No, I don't. However, I do remember various athletes competing in the past as independents because of national bans. I've no idea what the reasoning is behind this not being able to happen again.
Probably. But the IOC has left this catastrophically late, and passed the buck in any case.
The IOC has totally lost its moral compass. I'm not sure if I really care that much any more though.
I understand the caution towards Russia, but I have two problems with the approach. First, banning the entire country would throw presumption of innocence out the window. I don't feel comfortable with that. Second, are we absolutely certain that countries like, say, Argentina, Brazil, China, Indonesia, Nigeria or Turkey are clean? Should we maybe not ban them just in case, for the sake of fair competition? Where do we draw the line?
Dr. Eddies Wingman
Brighter than thousand_suns
But mind you, there are many who would say it.
Ariana
Black-and-white leopard
It's interesting that you talk about presumption of innocence and then go on throwing around the names of random countries, as if you have any proof.
