What next for Athletics?

Athletics has entered a new moral crisis. After the release of WADA’s report concerning Russian doping, a blanket ban on Russian athletes in international competitions seems more likely than ever. The IAAF has been put into an unprecedented situation for sport; do they try to protect their remaining integrity against future doping scandals, or do they strive towards the Olympic ideal of participation for all nations?

The decision primarily lies with IAAF President Lord Sebastian Coe and whatever course of action he takes it is sure to be momentous; he was elected to the role of President, in part, due to his strong anti-doping stance. This would suggest that he would jump on the opportunity to exclude Russian athletes in order to ensure the survival of his sport.

But then we have to consider Coe as a former athlete, one who competed at the boycotted Olympics of Moscow and Los Angeles. Coe himself stood against the politicisation of the Games, supporting the view of the British Olympic Association that no athlete should be prevented from competing at the Olympics.

Nonetheless he did refuse to compete in South Africa during the apartheid era, showing it is not beyond his moral compass to punish certain actions through boycotts, even those issues that are not strictly confined to the world of sport.

The implications of a blanket ban could be huge; WADA aims to work in the best interests of ‘clean athletes’, yet their recommendation will almost inevitably damage the opportunities for some clean Russian athletes. The Olympic Games could also lose some of their commercial appeal, especially in Russia, the planet’s 9^th most populous country.

The ban would also hinder Yelena Isinbayeva’s hopes of becoming a member of the IOC, through the Athletes’ Commission elections at the Rio Games. However this would not be possible if she is denied the opportunity to compete based on her nationality. This could prove crucial in the decision making process for the IAAF, given Isinbayeva’s considerable stature within the federation as well as her support for Coe’s bid for Presidency.

Yet the consequences of not following WADA’s recommendations could be even more grave; Coe’s every move as President has been monitored by Sunday Times journalists looking for their next front page scoop, and any perceived failure to tackle doping could result in another barrage of bad publicity for the sport. Furthermore any positive drugs tests from the Rio Games could blow up in his face several years from now and threaten his tenure as leader of Athletics’ governing body.

We also need to make sure that we do not turn Russia into a scapegoat for doping. It is very easy for people in the west to criticise rival nations for cheating in sport, but the issue is not confined to former Soviet shores, and we cannot act as though a Russian ban would be like waving a magic wand around the sport.

It is clear that Seb Coe is leading the IAAF through choppy waters, and it is imperative that he picks the right course for the organisation, or else risk being run aground.

Will Eurosport cause a crisis for the Olympics?

Olympic sports have been dealt a series of blows in recent weeks, from doping allegations surrounding Alberto Salazar’s athletes to heated debates over the eligibility of competitors representing Britain, but today’s news of Eurosport’s Olympic rights in is likely to hit the games the hardest.

Let me be clear, I have nothing against Eurosport: they show the events that other channels daren’t, they don’t cut away from the live action for needless punditry and their commentators are far more knowledgeable and dedicated to sport than most BBC staff. Despite this, the channel is not best suited to be the main broadcaster for the world’s largest sport event given it only attracts about 5% of the TV audience compared to 72% for BBC One.

Due to Government regulations, this deal does not mean Eurosport will hold exclusive rights over the 2022 and 2024 Games, and 200 hours must be shared with a free-to-air broadcaster. However this amount is minimal compared to the BBC’s London 2012 coverage, and we are open to adverts from commercial channels such as ITV and Channel 4 that could pick up the rights instead of the BBC.

Then we have to worry about the cost at which Eurosport will sub-license the television rights, which could paralyse the eventual free-to-air broadcaster into a position of poor quality coverage or minimal broadcast hours.

I for one can guarantee that the BBC is at least partly responsible for my love of the Olympics; from Newsround reports to Blue Peter pieces, I always knew to be excited about the Five Rings.

And that’s before I mention the BBC’s extensive coverage of the Beijing games in 2008 that captivated the imagination of a 10 year old version of myself and fuelled a passion for sport. It fills me with regret to think that so many children will be deprived of inspiring experiences like mine simply because the main rights holder isn’t a free-to-air channel.

Imagine the consequences of that. Fewer children taking up sports, a smaller talent pool, fewer Olympic medalists, reduction of funding for athletes. It is a chilling thought.

To say this was a short-sighted decision by the IOC would be an understatement. They are risking the exposure of the games on an entire continent for the sake of €1.3bn to fill their coffers. Now we are just left to hope that Europsort are generous to the BBC and that a replica deal will not be made in future. In the mean time, let’s just enjoy the Beeb’s Olympic coverage for as long as we can.