Bach defends IOC handling of Russian doping scandal

International Olympic Committee President Thomas Bach, center, poses in athletes village between Nawal El Moutawakel, left, head of the IOC’s evaluation commission, and Brazil’s Olympic Committee President Carlos Nuzman in advance of the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, August 1, 2016.

Individual sports’ federations have spent the last week deciding whether to allow Russian competitors to perform in Brazil after the International Olympic Committee ruled out a blanket ban following the publication of the McLaren report, which claimed Russia was guilty of state-sponsored doping. Two swimmers could be told on Tuesday whether their demand to be allowed to compete has been successful.

Bach again pointed blame at the World Anti-Doping Agency for failing to act sooner on evidence of state-backed doping in Russian Federation, and said it would be wrong to make individual athletes “collateral damage” for the wrongdoing of their government.

He explained that his organization was not responsible for the timing of Richard McLaren’s report, claiming that a large scale doping program, which involved security services, was carried out by Russian Federation.

When asked if the International Olympic Committee is responsible for the lack of clarity about the Russia’s participation ahead of the upcoming games, Bach’s reply was: “No, and it is for objective reasons”. “This requires clear responsibilities, more transparency, more independence and better worldwide harmonisation”.

Pressure for the full sanction followed a World Anti-Doping Agency report by Canadian lawyer Richard McLaren that accused Russia’s sports ministry of overseeing a vast doping conspiracy involving the country’s summer and winter sports athletes. The IOC ordered individul federations to decide which Russians should be banned.

Bach said the “nuclear option” of a blanket ban was unacceptable. “The result is death and devastation”.

Given the IOC President’s growing reputation for suppressing dissent, and given the enormous internal powers at his disposal, the potential downside of a No vote for members with ambitions to get ahead in the Movement, or most effectively to advance the Olympic cause of their countries and athletes, was very considerable.

“What you should not forget in all this debate is the broad support the International Olympic Committee executive board has in this decision”.

“It saddens me to say this, but at times WADA has seemed to be more interested in publicity and self-promotion rather than doing its job as a regulator”, Werthein said.

Bach defended the IOC’s decision, saying despite the criticism, his organisation was not emerging from this scandal with a black eye.

“No, I haven’t been talking to any Russian government officials since the publication of the McLaren report”, said Bach.

This kind of favour-trading has long underpinned most Olympic decision-making and, I have to say, has contributed to a reasonably strong track record over the years, particularly when it comes to the highest-profile decisions such as the choice of Olympic and Paralympic Games hosts.

In a separate drugs controversy, British cyclist Lizzie Armitstead has been cleared to race in the Olympics after winning an appeal against an anti-doping rule violation.

“We need to do a lot more to show that we really do care about fair play, honest competition and clean athletes”, he said.