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.

 

[Denn]

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.

I would be okay with this as long as countries weren't attached to the athletes.

But that's a huge part of the Olympics, for better for worse. And when you have a country, that comes with politics, no stopping it, right?

Would you be in favor of athletes competing without their countries attached?

 

[ArnoldRimmer]

I would be okay with this as long as countries weren't attached to the athletes.

But that's a huge part of the Olympics, for better for worse. And when you have a country, that comes with politics, no stopping it, right?

Would you be in favor of athletes competing without their countries attached?

Exactly this. Because of the way we currently organise international sport with athletes representing a nation state, it is inherently and unavoidably political, even if we wish it wasn't. That also isn't going to change any time soon.

This means there is no mechanism available to us for managing such situations that isn't political, complex or the potential start of a slippery slope. Allowing selected Russian athletes in as unaffiliated is certainly that. All we get to do is pick which political, complex possible slippery slope we prefer. I understand arguments for letting Russian athletes compete, but nobody should be in any doubt that they are all of these things.

The FIG in some ways have a harder job than the IOC here not just because the IOC has the Charter, which simplifies, but also because they've already had to contend with the issue of visa denial. If you look at last quad, the UK simply wasn't going to let Russian or Belarussian athletes in for 2022 worlds. Wasn't happening. Whereas that hasn't yet come up for the Olympics, and my guess is it's less likely.

 

[MaryClare]

Exactly this. Because of the way we currently organise international sport with athletes representing a nation state, it is inherently and unavoidably political, even if we wish it wasn't. That also isn't going to change any time soon.

This means there is no mechanism available to us for managing such situations that isn't political, complex or the potential start of a slippery slope. Allowing selected Russian athletes in as unaffiliated is certainly that. All we get to do is pick which political, complex possible slippery slope we prefer. I understand arguments for letting Russian athletes compete, but nobody should be in any doubt that they are all of these things.

The FIG in some ways have a harder job than the IOC here not just because the IOC has the Charter, which simplifies, but also because they've already had to contend with the issue of visa denial. If you look at last quad, the UK simply wasn't going to let Russian or Belarussian athletes in for 2022 worlds. Wasn't happening. Whereas that hasn't yet come up for the Olympics, and my guess is it's less likely.

The UK let Russian and Belarusian tennis players compete at Wimbledon in 2022. It’s all just talk. I don’t know any Russian who has struggled to get a visa post 2022, unless they are on the sanctions list.

 

[ArnoldRimmer]

The UK let Russian and Belarusian tennis players compete at Wimbledon in 2022. It’s all just talk. I don’t know any Russian who has struggled to get a visa post 2022, unless they are on the sanctions list.

I thought the Wimbledon change was in 2023? Whereas in 2022, the UK cancelled visas for the Belarussian basketball team in 2022, so it was very much a thing that was happening.

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-cancels-belarus-basketball-teams-visas-over-ukraine-2022-02-26/

I agree that the picture post 2022 differs, but because of our Olympic qualification rules that was still enough time for it to become an FIG concern too.

 

[Bob]

It annoys me that they choose some countries to ban and not others. There are other wars and massive human rights violations going on in the world with no sanctions against those countries. It just feels wrong.

 

[ArnoldRimmer]

It annoys me that they choose some countries to ban and not others. There are other wars and massive human rights violations going on in the world with no sanctions against those countries. It just feels wrong.

Which is where something like the Olympic Charter comes in handy, and rules on the truce. They have a standard that involves Olympic and date specific fuckery.

 

[JaJa]

Which is where something like the Olympic Charter comes in handy, and rules on the truce. They have a standard that involves Olympic and date specific fuckery.

Very true. I agree. It was the violation of the Olympic Truce (and the doping) that got Russia banned. Which in a sense does NOT render the Games "political" but the reverse in fact, right? It requires that the Games remain non political.

 

[JaJa]

I would be okay with this as long as countries weren't attached to the athletes.

But that's a huge part of the Olympics, for better for worse. And when you have a country, that comes with politics, no stopping it, right?

Would you be in favor of athletes competing without their countries attached?

I am ok with enforcing the Olympic Truce. And hence banning Russia for that specific reason.

 

[KorbutFan]

Surprised there’s been no banning for North Korea considering they’re openly sending soldiers to Ukraine.

 

[Passion]

If Russia is banned because they broke the Olympic truce, why are they also banned from non-Olympic sports that have nothing to do with the IOC or the Olympic Charter?