The Russian Olympic Committee (ROC) expects the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to reinstate it by 1 March, despite apparent violations of the OAR Conduct Guidelines in the final stages of the PyeongChang 2018 Winter Olympics. ‘The IOC Executive Board has voted to lift a temporary suspension of the Russian Olympic Committee automatically after verification is complete of all doping samples collected during the Olympic Games and, of course, in the absence of positive samples’, read a 25 February ROC statement. ‘According to the rules on the verification process, this should take up to 72 hours’.

After the Olympic Athlete from Russia (OAR) team won gold in the men’s ice hockey, the players sang the national anthem (video below), in violation of the OAR Conduct Guidelines. The Guidelines (PDF below) specifically prohibit OAR athletes from ‘singing the national anthem inside an Olympic venue’.

The same Guidelines also require OARs to comply with the IOC Anti-Doping Rules. Two OARs have not complied with the IOC’s Anti-Doping Rules at the PyeongChang 2018 Winter Olympics yet despite this, the IOC ruled that it would lift the suspension of the ROC.

‘Based on the information available, the OARIG noted that these ADRVs were individual and isolated cases that did not show a pattern of systematic organised doping activity’, read a report from the Olympic Athlete from Russia Implementation Group (OARIG – PDF below). ‘Despite a good collaboration from the OAR delegation to respond to these ADRV cases in a prompt and transparent way, the OARIG were convinced that these cases caused significant concern because they represent a violation of the IOC EB decision.

‘Considering this, the OARIG recommends lifting the ROC suspension once all results of the doping tests of the OAR athletes during the Olympic Winter Games PyeongChang 2018 have been confirmed as negative. Should an additional ADRV be found, the OARIG recommends that the IOC EB reviews the circumstances of the new case in order to take the appropriate decision.’

Neither athlete has accepted fault for their Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV). The first was recorded by curler Aleksandr Krushelnitckii. The mixed doubles bronze medals won by him and his partner, Anastasia Bryzgalova, have been reallocated after he accepted an IOC sanction for an ADRV after testing positive for meldonium, although he argues he is not at fault for the ADRV.

‘On 22 February 2018 at 12h19 KST, the Athlete re-confirmed his admission of the violation, accepted a provisional suspension beyond the period of the Games, and reserved all rights accordingly to seek the elimination or reduction of any period of ineligibility based on “No Fault or Negligence” following the conclusion of the Games’, reads the Partial Award from the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in his case (PDF below).

The Russian Curling Federation (FKR) has said that Krushelnitckii’s decision to waive a full hearing did not constitute an admission of guilt, and it would seek the return of the Olympic medals. The FKR said that the IOC and PyeongChang 2018 have agreed to provide video evidence to enable it to investigate how he tested positive.

“Having discussed and comprehensively assessed the situation, we decided to sign (representing Krushelnitckii) an agreement to waive hearings at the Anti-Doping Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport”, said Dmitry Svishchev, the Russian politician who is President of the FKR in a statement. “This does not in any way constitute an admission or guilt or the cessation for the struggle for the honour of our children. This is, above all, a realistic assessment of the current situation […] Refusal of hearings at the ADD CAS is not a defeat and is not surrender. I repeat, to retain the Olympic medal was not a realistic prospect, because the presence of a prohibited drug is sufficient for the annulment of results.

“Our next task is to give maximum assistance to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, to the special FKR working group, to WADA, the IOC, the World Curling Federation, to all stakeholders in order to produce legitimate results for the world’s sporting community, proof of innocence and full justification for Krushelnitckii at a hearing of the WCF. And as a consequence of all the previous steps, the main goal is to return the Olympic medals in a full CAS hearing […] I am sure that together, we will prove his innocence.”

The second ADRV was reported by Nadezhda Sergeeva, who tested positive for trimetazidine. Like Krushelnitckii, although she has accepted the ADRV and the IOC’s decision, she has reserved the right to seek the elimination or reduction of the ineligibility period after the Games. Sergeeva also has a history involving another anti-ischemic drug. She was provisionally suspended by the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) after testing positive for meldonium in 2016.

‘The medical headquarters of the team say that the drug has not been prescribed’, read a statement from the Russian Bobsleigh Federation (BFR). IOC Medical and Scientific Director Dr. Richard Budgett suggested that Sergeeva’s case could have been caused by other medication, in which case it would not be considered an ADRV.

“It is a substance where there is a parent compound, which is a common headache and migraine treatment available particularly in Japan and China”, he said at the 132nd IOC Session (83 minutes on in the below video). “If that’s found, it is not considered an anti-doping rule violation. And if there’s a very low level, as in this case, then that is a possibility.”

132nd IOC Session #PyeongChang2018 #Olympics https://t.co/YRqcdTTm84

— IOC MEDIA (@iocmedia) February 25, 2018

Reaction

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO) expressed indignation at the IOC’s decision to reinstate the ROC. ‘For the avoidance of doubt, it should be clarified that the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) remains non-compliant with the World Anti-Doping Code (Code) as it has not yet met the necessary criteria of RUSADA’s Roadmap to Compliance, following Russia’s proven systemic manipulation of the doping control process’, read a WADA statement.

‘Clean athletes who have had their Olympic moments stolen, whether it be by missing a medal or even failing to qualify as a result of false results achieved by Russian athletes, deserve a more principled and steadfast response’, read an iNADO statement. ‘Successive decisions by the IOC in this matter have demonstrated that the interests of these clean athletes have no priority’.

One such athlete is Kathryn Tannenbaum of the British Virgin Islands. She could not compete in the skeleton at PyeongChang 2018, because ‘no available place’ could be found, despite the fact that she had met the selection criteria. That the ROC was allowed to send athletes to PyeongChang is likely to rankle with her, and other athletes. It also seems unlikely that athletes will welcome the IOC’s decision to reinstate the ROC, due to suspicion that little has changed.

Discussion

A harsh reality of anti-doping principles is that a positive test is a positive test. It may be that both athletes are later proven not to be at fault for their ADRVs. However unfortunately for them, whether meldonium and trimetazidine would benefit a curler and a bobsledder is irrelevant. Both substances are prohibited and any amount present in an athlete’s sample constitutes an ADRV.

The sanctions against the two Russians would also be likely to stand if any sabotage were shown to have taken place in order to cause them to test positive, as annulling them would be unfair to ‘clean’ athletes competing against them. Whether it is fair to sanction an athlete who was not aware that they were taking a prohibited substance is also irrelevant. The medals lost cannot be returned at a later date without compromising the integrity of the anti-doping system.

The IOC has had an unenviable task at the PyeongChang 2018 Winter Olympics. It has had to decide whether allowing Russia to compete in the Olympics compromises ‘clean’ athletes from other nations; but also whether a decision to ban Russia would be fair on ‘clean’ Russian athletes.

As its OARIG Report above reveals, 75% of the 168 athletes (three out of every four) that competed as OARs had never before competed in an Olympic Games. The average age of OAR athletes was just 24. As such, most were not part of the State doping scheme operating in Russia – unless such a scheme is still in operation. And suspicion that little has changed is the nub of the problem.

WADA and iNADO appear to be arguing that the IOC should have acted differently and banned Russia from competing entirely. Given the egregious State system outlined by Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov and Richard McLaren in his Independent Person (IP) Reports for WADA, it is easy to find sympathy with that sentiment. It also doesn’t help that the IOC would appear to rely, in part, on revenue from Russia’s participation in the Winter Olympics to keep its various projects running.

There is little doubt that a blanket ban would not have been fair on the young Russian athletes untouched by the State doping system. However Russian sport administrators and politicians still argue that no State doping system existed, and that its athletes are clean. The attitude of the national federations that represent the two athletes charged with ADRVs by the IOC perhaps indicates that little has changed.

In dealing with Russia, the IOC has always been careful to focus on what is fair to the athletes, and has steered away from sanctioning them for the actions of Russia’s sporting administrators. However, Kuwait has been banned from the Olympics since 2015 for ‘undue government interference in sport’ due to a law passed in 2014.

The ROC has been reinstated despite evidence of the same ‘undue government interference’ in administering a systemic doping system that has compromised the integrity of the Olympic Games. Russia has been allowed to deny and refute that evidence repeatedly. Kuwait would have every right to cry ‘Foul!’

The next Olympics are not until Tokyo 2020. It could be argued that maintaining the ROC’s suspension would send a powerful political message that real changes need to be made before then. Reinstatement sends a different message – that things can remain as they are.