IOC can’t eat its cake and yet have it
It was bound to happen and it is not the first time.
The IOC now seems caught in a very hard place. This comes in the aftermath of the ruling by the Court of Arbitration for Sport in the case of the young Russian figure skater, Kamila Valieva, incredibly talented and only 15 years old, who emerged as a star at the Winter Olympics taking place in Beijing, China.
Background to a crisis
Reports from several sources appear to confirm that Kamila Valieva was tested on Christmas Day, 25 December 2021. This was during the Russian National Championships. However, her sample was not submitted to any laboratory until this year. Indeed, it was on 7 February that it was determined by the Swedish testing facility that the test was positive, revealing that they found trimetazidine in her system.
Sarah Gantz writing in The Philadelphia Inquirer, noted that Deepika Thacker, a cardiologist at Nemours Children’s Hospital in Delaware stated that Trimetazidine is a medication used to improve blood supply to the heart among people with the coronary heart disease angina. The drug causes the blood vessels to dilate, allowing the heart to work more efficiently for a longer duration of time.
Once the Swedish laboratory confirmed the presence of trimetazidine in Valieva, the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RYUADA) imposed a provisional suspension on her on 8 February. However, the positive result and RUSDA’s provisional suspension came after she had already helped her team to win a gold medal in the competition and before she charmed the world of winter sports with an historic first female athlete to complete a quadruple jump at an Olympics – a rotation of four times in the air.
According to the BBC’s Sonia Oxley, “Valieva appealed against the decision – on what grounds, it is so far unclear – and Rusada agreed to lift the suspension the following day.
The International Olympic Committee (IOC), World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) and the International Skating Union (ISU) then launched an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to get the provisional ban re-imposed.”
On Monday 14 February, Valentine’s Day, Valieva received what must be the best gift she could at this stage of her career.
Emily Giambalvo and Adam Kilgore, writing in the Washington Post on 14 February, noted, the CAS decision essentially rationalized that “Valieva is considered a “protected person” under the World Anti-Doping Agency’s code because she is under 16 years old, and the world anti-doping code treats such competitors with different standards of evidence and offers no specific guidance for provisional suspensions for them; she would suffer irreparable harm if suspended and then later found innocent; CAS found “serious issues of untimely notification,” meaning that Valieva did not have time for a full legal process before the Games.”
Matthieu Reeb, Director General of the CAS, speaking at a news conference declared, “The panel was very concerned that if a provisional suspension was imposed on the athlete, and later at the end of the day, at the completion of all procedures, she would not be sanctioned or would have a very low sanction, the provisional sanction would have caused serious damage.”
It is worth noting therefore that the CAS did not address the actual matter of Valieva’s positive drug test. It ruled on what was before it in the appeal from the IOC and other organisations, the matter of the lifting of the provisional ban by RUSADA that enabled Valieva to compete.
The Grand Fracas
Some may recall that the saga with Russia and RUSADA dates back to then International Athletics Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), now World Athletics, took on board the MacLaren Report.
The world governing body for athletics has actually been leading the challenge to the Russians even when, at times, it seems that it is doing so without the forceful, vocal and other forms of support from the IOC.
Some may also recall that at the IOC’s Session in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, ahead of the Summer Olympics of 2016, some got the impression that there may well have been some ‘bad blood’ between WADA and the IOC. There were those who also thought that Craig Reedie, then head of WADA, was somehow being targeted, if not being made =the scapegoat.
Lord Sebastian Coe, backed by his Congress, insisted on not allowing a Russian team to compete. The IOC may well have been disappointed.
The IOC also moved on to encourage the creation of the International Testing Agency (ITA) even though many thought that it was a means of undermining the institutional efficacy of WADA.
For its own World Championships in 2017 and again in 2019 and at both Congresses that preceded each, World Athletics got overwhelmingly positive support to maintain its ban on Russian participation at these events.
At the Summer Olympics in Tokyo, Japan, postponed by one year to 2021 instead of 2020, World Athletics again maintained its tough stance against Russia, insisting that the latter’s governing body for athletics, has not yet complied with all of the demands imposed upon it by the Congress.
Some may well get a sense that the IOC may be more than a little uncomfortable that World Athletics remains as strident in its stance against the Russians as has been the case over the past several years.
The debacle that has just taken place in China during the Winter Olympics may well be a reflection of the major challenges confronting the IOC which may have been caught wavering in several important aspects of sport. There was the case of the Chinese Tennis player and now the Russian figure skater. The IOC may be found wanting in respect of its seeming flip-flopping with regard to making tough decisions, when they matter claiming that it is a non-political institution. The IOC appears to have lost its capacity to face up to its own seeming intransigencies in the world of sport.
The CAS decision
The CAS is clear about its reasoning that led to the decision it announced in favour of allowing Valieva to compete in the Singles event.
It did not adjudicate on the actual doping incident. That was never before the CAS.
This was something pending for some time in that many multi-sport Games organisers have been utilizing the services of an ad hoc CAS institution during their events. However, as happened here, the substantive matter of the doping case could not have been appropriately addressed by CAS since the athlete would not have been afforded appropriate time to mount a defence.
Interestingly, it does appear that the ruling of the CAS falls in line with the emerging attention being paid to the athlete’s mental well-being that has come into focus since the case of US gymnast, Simone Biles, at the Summer Olympics in Tokyo last year. However, not much attention is being paid to this aspect of sport in this case. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that the case involves a doping violation.
It is also the case that the western media are all lining up against the Russian athlete. At age 15 she is being treated by much of the media as considered capable of making all of the decisions to cheat normally associated with mature athletes. This is surprising since it has long been determined that in Russia doping in sport was State-sponsored. Ought we not have been seeing the children found doping in Russia may well have been caught in the same trap as was the case of the children in former East Germany.
Perhaps we have become so taken up with the final medal count and the concept that ‘winning is everything’ that we are not too keen to address the sad reality of children being abused, yet again so that a nation can boast of the viability of its political ideology relative to its international standing.
However, the suspension has been lifted by RUSADA one day after the revelation of her positive drug test, in response to an appeal by the athlete. Hence the athlete was allowed to compete in the team’s event.
In a sense, some would suggest that the athlete would have been, at least for some time, the plaything of the forces that be, uncertain of her fate, first regarding the team and their access or lack thereof regarding their gold medal and secondly, her participation in the Singles event. Surely, to be consistent, many, including the media, could have spared some thought to her mental state in all of this, at age 15.
One can understand the fury of the IOC and WADA in the whole sordid affair. They must themselves feel ‘cheated’ but they may well have been beaten by their own game. They may have been tangled in the web that is their own regulations.
Seemingly whimpering following the CAS decision, the WADA and IOC are referenced such: “Wada said it was ‘disappointed’ by the ruling, saying it had appeared that Cas had not applied Wada’s anti-doping code which does not allow for exceptions for minors in the case of mandatory provisional suspensions.
“The IOC, meanwhile, said it ‘had to follow the rule of the law’ and ‘will therefore have to allow’ her to compete.
Oxley then noted, “It would be impossible not to hear the tone of reluctance in that statement.”
The comments attributed to the IOC about the medal ceremonies involving Velieva paints the IOC in the mould of ‘sour grapes’. They behave as though they had already had their own decisions in mind even when they appealed. This appears to be very much in the same vein as our Prime Minister, Dr Ralph Gonsalves’ statement some years ago, “They could go to whatever courts they want but they still have to come back to papa”. We may recall that the Privy Council, in making its ruling in favour of former Vincentian Prime Minister, the late Sir James Mitchell, seemed to suggest, among other things, that the former was essentially declaring himself the ultimate judge, rather than the courts.
The ceremony would be moot if it is later found out that Valieva escapes all legal hurdles and is named the legitimate winner in both events in which she participated. Should this happen, there would be no place for either the IOC or WADA to hide.
