Melnikova Among Russians Approved for Neutral Status, Viktoria Listunova, denied from Lauren Hopkins

[RichardL]

I am fine with Russia being banned for doping and coverup. Cheating in the Games should get you banned. But I continue to be opposed to a ban for political reasons -- and I am for sure no fan of Putin. But the Games should be apolitical.

Politics is one thing, but inciting war is another. I always love you @JaJa but this isn't about some kind of policy dispute.

 

[Sasha]

I mostly agree with Jaja, not because I believe that sport should be apolitical, but more because the current approach feels very ad hoc. At a minimum, political bans should be based on clear, a priori criteria for what actions trigger the ban and what actions are required to end it. The IOC, to their credit, at least has the former with their Olympic Truce policy.

In addition, the complicated nature of international conflict (as well as territorial disputes) makes it really difficult to avoid having to become the arbiter of what is a legitimate military action and what is not. Is that really a position that a sporting body should be in?

 

[JaJa]

Politics is one thing, but inciting war is another. I always love you @JaJa but this isn't about some kind of policy dispute.

what about the notion that the Olympic Games should stand as a venue where civilian athletes come together to compete athletically and thus provide a platform to foster international respect, friendship and dialogue, even or especially among nation/states in conflict? That is so important. Although I concede that the fact that Russia violated the Olympic Truce is a strong argument for a ban at this point. I do see two sides to this.

 

[Sanzhirovka]

The notion that the Olympic Games should stand as a venue where ....

"Should" is carrying a lot of weight here.

Russia is a state with a government that controls its citizens with near omnipresent propaganda. And that propaganda includes using the Olympics and using Olympians - even using athletes who are minors - to bring glory to the state.

Any AIN medal is going to be seen in Russia as Russia's victory.

In Russia, SPORT IS POLITICS. No matter what anyone else wants to believe.

Look at the doping in Sochi. Why in the world would the Russian government go to such lengths to win medals? Because to them, not only is sports politics, the Olympic Games themselves are viewed as an instrument of poltiics.

 

[JaJa]

"Should" is carrying a lot of weight here.

Russia is a state with a government that controls its citizens with near omnipresent propaganda. And that propaganda includes using the Olympics and using Olympians - even using athletes who are minors - to bring glory to the state.

Any AIN medal is going to be seen in Russia as Russia's victory.

In Russia, SPORT IS POLITICS. No matter what anyone else wants to believe.

Look at the doping in Sochi. Why in the world would the Russian government go to such lengths to win medals? Because to them, not only is sports politics, the Olympic Games themselves are viewed as an instrument of poltiics.

I understand that. I have a lot of understanding of the former soviet union states. I am , however, not at all sure that the way to deal with it is to ban them from the Olympic Games

 

[Sanzhirovka]

Well again, the banning from the Olympic Games is, afaik, pretty directly related to violating the Olympic Charter. That is, Russia illegally annexed regions of Ukraine and forcibly subordinated those regions' regional Olympic committees to their own.

FIG is a different matter. However, I personally would want the IOC to force any sports' IOC-recognized world governing body to adhere to the same bans as the IOC.

Specific IOC bylaws or what have you might make that impossible, but I'd be fine with the IOC saying "We have banned Russia and if you want to participate in the Olympic Games as a sport, you must also ban them".

IMO, there simply should not even be any AIN athletes. But in part, that is because I don't think there is any room for neutrality at all as far as this war is concerned. It is blatantly clear to me which side is evil and which side is not.

But I am also the person who refused to stand for the Russian anthem once they brought back the Soviet anthem. To me, it was a sign at the time of where Russia was headed.

And here we are.

 

[JaJa]

In addition, the complicated nature of international conflict (as well as territorial disputes) makes it really difficult to avoid having to become the arbiter of what is a legitimate military action and what is not. Is that really a position that a sporting body should be in?

Right. There is this thing called the "slippery slope."

 

[Sanzhirovka]

And in the case of Russia annexing Ukrainian regions, which part exactly is "complicated"?

 

[JaJa]

And in the case of Russia annexing Ukrainian regions, which part exactly is "complicated"?

Nothing. I believe Sasha was referring to other international conflicts. Hence my reference to the "slippery slope"

 

[Sasha]

@Sanzhirovka, I'm not speaking specifically about the case of Russia and Ukraine. But I do think it's much easier to make a decision about a single, fairly clear-cut case than to develop a consistent policy that you apply across different situations, because each conflict has such a unique set of circumstances. For example, what if (god forbid) the US made good on its threats to annex Canada or Greenland? Should US athletes be banned, or is it okay since there is no explicit connection between gyms and the military in the US? What about athletes who have demonstrably supported Trump? Is that still okay, or should the FIG apply an AIN-type process to decide who gets to compete? And what about intranational disputes - say, the mistreatment of a particular ethnic group within a country? Yay or nay for banning? I mean, it's definitely different from invading a sovereign country, but on the other hand, there can be massive human rights violations ... And who makes these decisions? And on what basis? That's what I mean by complicated.