Why Russia's ban was a painful necessity

The IAAF’s blanket ban on Russia’s participation in athletics events at Rio 2016 was always going to be polarising. No matter what Seb Coe said to world’s press in Vienna on Friday, his organisation was bound to come under criticism for approaching the issue of doping in the wrong manner.

Since the announcement, cries from St Petersburg to Vladivostok have denounced the decision as politically motivated - an accusation that seems to meet any bad news for Russia in 2016.

In my humble opinion, the decision was not driven by politics, or at least not the kind of western imperialism that many have alleged; the IAAF would have struggled to maintain any semblance of integrity had they chosen to allow Russian participation in light of WADA’s damning report.

Nonetheless, the announcement will have considerable political ramifications in Russia. I such a corrupt country, sport is a useful tool of the government; citizens can be distracted from government failings with athletic achievements that boost national pride.

Had the IAAF not maintained its ban, the Russian authorities would have felt nothing more than a slap on the wrist - Russian athletes would have competed as though nothing had happened and Russian officials would not have missed out on the chance to show that their country is in some way superior to others.

This is where we get to the crux of the issue. We are dealing with a system of state sponsored doping. The Kremlin clearly believes that cheating in international sport is somehow beneficial to their country, and this mentality will continue unless the consequences for having such a system outweigh any potential benefit.

That is what makes the IOC’s pending decision on a potential “compromise” so concerning. If concessions are made for certain individuals such as Yelena Isinbayeva, the impact of the IAAF’s decision will be greatly undermined as athletes close to Putin would have no complaints over the ban, giving the Kremlin little reason to tackle doping.

The IOC may feel itself caught between a rock and hard place. They have to contend with their internationalist ideology and their aim for representation of every country in the flagship Olympic sport. However, more important is ensuring the level playing field for athletes, and if doing so involves draconian measures, then the IOC simply have to bite the bullet.

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.

Sochi 2014 Opening Ceremony - My Verdict

Well the 22nd Olympic Winter Games are officially underway and after a ceremony of extravagance I feel mixed emotions to the production.

Personally I felt that Sochi's Ceremony was derivative of previous ceremonies; The entire premise was fitted into the cliché of a young girl discovering the heritage of the host country, something that was perfected in Sydney in 2000.

Not only this the formation of the Olympic Rings, although clever and relevant, appeared to resemble that of London, not to mention the fact that it failed in practice (I choose not dwell on this fact though as I fear someone could be executed over this error given the extremity of Russia's government).

However some parts of the ceremony were beautifully fantastic: The Swan Lake doves were a stroke of genius and Peter the Great's Navy made a great use of the projections onto the stadium floor.

It is plainly obvious why the stadium roof was seen as a necessity for the spectacular and it was crucial to the constellations segment which seemed to tick the box of the apparently obligatory winter sports portion. The constellations were somewhat reminiscent to the constellations featured in Vancouver which had more cultural significance yet Sochi's starry figures were more dazzling.

I was very surprised that the director chose to include a reference to the Soviet years and even more so that it was portrayed positively. In my opinion this was much better than dancing around the subject and the organisers should be congratulated.

The lighting of the cauldron did not seem as breath-taking as in the previous editions of the event and seemed to borrow a concept of the lighting the cauldron with fireworks from the games of Torino.

In summary I can't help but feel that this would have been mesmerizing had London's ceremony not been among the most original in the history of the games and so by comparison these appeared to lack originality. Given that these are the most expensive Olympics in history I was quite disappointed with the quality of this Opening.

How Scottish Independence could change sport in the UK

In 365 days time Scottish residents will vote in a referendum that could change the future of the United Kingdom forever, in this post I will be exploring how Scottish independence could affect athletes both north and south of the border.

According to BBC Sport, the Scottish Sports Minister, Shona Robison believes that, should Scotland be granted independence, it could compete at the 2016 Olympics under St Andrew's Cross.

Among the criteria to receive a National Olympic Committee (NOC), is being an internationally recognised independent state, which could prove difficult to achieve within the limited time frame.

Although Robison draws parallels to Montenegro which became independent in 2006 and managed to compete in the Beijing Olympics just two years later, which proves it is possible.

However it should be noted that the referendum on independence only has the power to start discussions between in Edinburgh and Westminster over Scotland's detachment from the rest of the UK, which could postpone Scotland's sovereignty indefinitely, making it challenging for Scotland to receive a recognised NOC in time for the Rio games.

But how successful will Scotland be in the Olympics?

During the 2012 London Olympics Scottish athletes were part of teams that were responsible for winning 12 out of 65 medals for Team GB. Nevertheless only 3 medals were won by Scottish athletes competing in individual events.

In the 2010 Commonwealth games, Scotland achieve 10th place on the medal table, with 9 gold medals and 26 medals overall. I would consider this to be low for a country as developed as Scotland with a sophisticated sporting infrastructure, even with consideration to its relatively small population.

That is not even giving consideration to the cut in funding that Scottish athletes could face if Scotland does leave the United Kingdom; most athletes rely on UK Sport for funding but that funding could be withdrawn for Scottish athletes post 2014. Not to mention sponsors, who may not see financial benefits in supporting a Scottish athlete, who would be unlikely to receive media attention south of the border after the referendum.

Furthermore, Britain's greatest ever Olympian, Chris Hoy, said in May that Scottish athletes would suffer as they would be restricted from certain training venues and would not be able to train with as many experienced athletes like he did when he trained in Manchester.

In conclusion, Scottish Independence would harm Team GB due to the loss of some of the nation's best athletes from the team, while also badly endangering the dreams of potential Scottish Olympians.

Where are the 2020 Olympics going?

The IOC is just hours away from announcing the host city of the 2020 Olympic Games, choosing from one of Tokyo, Madrid and Istanbul. While all three cities have their individual merits, they are each faced with their own individual problems. In this post I will be exploring these issues and which city is most likely to win.
 
Madrid
The Spanish capital is bidding for third consecutive Olympic Games after losing out to the cities of London and Rio de Janeiro in which they achieved 2^nd and 3^rd respectively. On that basis they could continue their upward trajectory and leave Buenos Aires with the rights to host the Olympic Games. However their bid is fraught with issues that harm their potential.
 
The most obvious issue is that the Spanish economy is in a terrible state (when I went their last October it became apparent that striking is the national pastime), undoubtedly the budget for the games would be restricted by the recession on the Iberian Peninsula.
 
However it should be noted that Madrid’s bid takes advantage of the city’s existing infrastructure and sports venues which in some respects makes it the safe option for the IOC to choose.
 
It could be argued that the Santiago train crash in July displays a weakness in Spain’s infrastructure although I do not think that the crash will drastically change the minds of any IOC members who would have considered voting for Madrid.
 
Tokyo
Bookmakers consider this to be the frontrunner in the race to host the games due to its good infrastructure and compact venue plan however like their competitors they have hurdles to overcome.
 
The biggest issue affecting Tokyo is the Fukushima Nuclear plant, which has been leaking radioactive water, and may be contaminating water in Japan. The worse part of this is that the Tokyo bid committee keep trying to downplay this rather than showing that they are trying to deal with this. People also seem to forget that Japan sits on the boundary of three tectonic plates and is prone to earthquakes which could slow down construction of venues in preparation for the games.
 
Istanbul
In my opinion this is the strongest bid of three, the Turkish economy is one of the fastest growing in the world and Istanbul is supported by a unique culture that sets it apart from the rest.
 
The Istanbul bid is hampered by high levels of doping within Turkey, which Lamine Diack, President of the IAAF, drew attention to earlier this year. To respond Turkey issued 31 2-year bans to athletes convicted of doping. In my opinion this shows that Turkey is determined to address the issues that affect sport in rather than turning a blind eye to these issues.
 
Earlier this year it became apparent that Turkey may not be as politically stable as was previously though amid anti-government protests, however these protests seem to be forgotten and I don’t think they will affect the outcome even though at the time of the protests I thought hope was over for Istanbul.

 
Overall each city has its unique charm and many are describing this as the closest race to host the Olympics in a long time however I feel confident that Istanbul will get the games, partly on the basis that they have never hosted the games before and due to economic prosperity within the Eurasian country that gives it the edge over the others.

Why are wintersports underfunded?

Last week UK Sport announced a funding increase for British Winter Sports in order to prepare for the Sochi Olympics in February. While a boost of £443,200 may sound like a lot, sports that take place in the colder half of the year aren't getting a fair share of funding.

The 2012-13 winter sport season was an incredibly successful season for British athletes; overall they won 2 Gold medals, 1 Silver and 3 Bronzes, which would equate an all time best for Team GB at the Winter Olympics. However despite this success the total sum of funding for these sports is just shy of £14 million.

Now I understand that you may be reading this thinking that is a lot, especially in the economic climate in the UK at this moment in time however, Summer sports such as Field Hockey receive more than all winter sport, even though at best it can win us 2 Olympic Gold medals, which I see unlikely against the likes of The Netherlands and Argentina.

While I understand that UK Sport is not swimming in cash, the figures are depressing. The best funded of all Winter sports is Skeleton which is receiving less than £3.5 million according to the UK Sport website, even though British skeleton athletes are among the best in the world.

Whereas sports in which Team GB are hopeless, funding is comparatively abundant. Basketball was awarded £8 million on an appeal even though we are unlikely to get anywhere spectacular in this sport dominated by the USA.

British Skeleton told me that they cannot even afford a youth programme until after the Sochi Olympics. This deeply worries me as our success will not only be limited in the Winter Youth Olympics in 2016 but possibly in Pyeongchang 2018 onwards.

I find it depressing that sports on snow and ice are overlooked by UK sport while they still splash their cash on hopeless summer sports. I hope that this will change soon or else we may never surpass the record Winter games tally set in 1924.