Midweek Fixture: Why the Olympics are dead

The Olympic rings seen ahead of the PyeongChang 2018 Winter Olympic Games. Photo / Getty

The heart and soul of Olympics is rotten, but the athletes will keep it alive.

The XXIII Winter Olympics will start Friday in PyeongChang, South Korea, and it will start much the same way as the summer Games of the XXXI Olympiad did two years ago: against a backdrop of state-sponsored Russian cheating and the International OIympic Committee's ineffectual response to it.

The latest blow to sport's integrity came with the Court of Arbitration for Sport's curious decision to overturn 28 out of 39 suspensions imposed by the IOC against Russian athletes for alleged doping at Sochi 2014.

Remember, this was the cheating outlined in excruciating detail by the director of Russia's "anti-doping programme", Grigory Rodchenkov, first to the New York Times and later in the accidentally stunning documentary Icarus.

Rather than catch the cheats, Rodchenkov instead facilitated them and, he said, with the help of the Russian intelligence system, covered their tracks. Rodchenkov estimated that 100 dirty urine samples at Sochi had been swapped for clean samples that had been collected in the months prior to the Games.

Rodchenkov's jaw-dropping testimony has been by and large corroborated by the two-part McLaren Report, commissioned by the World Anti-Doping Authority.

The first part dropped in time for the IOC to live up to its lofty goal of Olympism*and boot Russia out of the Rio Games. Instead it indulged in the spineless pastime of buck-passing, putting the onus of individual sporting federations – some of them heavily funded by Russia over the years – to determine whether Russian athletes could compete or not.

Athletics and weightlifting were the only sports that placed a blanket ban on Russians competing, while swimming, kayaking, cycling, modern pentathlon, rowing, sailing and wrestling instituted partial bans. The other 15 sports said, "dobro pozhalovat!"

And how did IOC president Thomas Bach react to this embarrassment. Well, with this incomprehensible piece of doublespeak.

Thomas Bach. Photo / Photosport

"If you are convinced of your values then you can also weather a storm because you know in the long run - once the dust has settled and the storm is over - then the people will realise that the values have been respected. This is why in this point I don't have any regrets," Bach wheezed.

No regrets maybe, but the IOC were spurred to launch their own investigation – the Schmid Report – which was essentially a copycat exercise that borrowed heavily from the McLaren Report, except it took until December last year to be made public and soft-soaped the idea that the Russian Olympic Committee had knowledge of the widespread cheating.

Only then did the IOC act with any apparent urgency (and in a way that tends to contradict their claim of "no regrets" over the Rio 2016 stance), but their 11th hour efforts to finally stand up to Russia have been thwarted by the CAS**.

So far, so messy, and this was something former Wada president and now IOC member Richard Pound correctly pointed out. He said, in not so many words, that the IOC had to take an inward look at how they got themselves into such an unholy tangle over Russia when they were presented with such an open-and-shut case of large scale doping – cheating that cuts to the heart of everything they are meant to stand for.

Why had the IOC failed their clean athletes so badly, he asked.

Pound criticised his organisation's response to the doping crisis, in which close to 200 Russian athletes will be allowed to compete in PyeongChang not as Russia, but as Olympic Athletes from Russia (OAR).

"The whistleblowers have been left with no protection from the Olympic Movement and every effort has been made to give a distinctly Russian profile to the OAR team here," the Canadian lawyer said.

What was the IOC's response to this reasonable and not particularly strident observation? It was to shoot the messenger of course.

Gerardo Werthein, an Argentine known to run interference for Bach whenever needed, accused Pound of showboating for the benefit of the press, of deliberately discrediting the hard work of the IOC and of being blinkered when it comes to his attitude to the doping crisis.

But what is there to be blinkered about? Russia cheated on a level not seen since the days of the Iron Curtain. There is no moral ambiguity to traverse here. If clean Russian athletes feel persecuted they should either emigrate or direct their anger to those responsible – their own administrators.

The IOC had a simple role to play here, but it has flubbed every opportunity to do the right thing and launch a blanket ban of Russia and Russians competing in an Olympic cycle.

The IOC may be above the law, but they'll never be above our scorn.

The most galling part of all this? When the Olympics start in two days we'll be constantly left in awe at the deeds of the athletes (the majority of whom we will assume to be clean). It will be a fortnight full of phenomenal athletic achievement.

And the IOC will glory in this and pat themselves on the back… and then pull the wool over our eyes again in two years' time.

* Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy of effort, the educational value of good example, social responsibility and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles. When you think about this preaching in contrast to what the IOC actually practises, it is not uncommon to reflexively dry retch.

** If you need further illustration of how damaged the spokes on the wheel of big sport are, consider the identity of one of the CAS arbitrators who decided to overturn the Russian bans. Austrian Michael Geistlinger was a former secretary general of the International Biathlon Union, a sport regarded as one of the most widely "doped" in recent history. He has previously criticised the McLaren Report and has made pro-Russian statements in the past. This is the sort of character trusted with making impartial decisions in the highest sporting court in the world.

--

There are just two problems with Simon Doull's call for the axing of Kane Williamson and other established test players from the New Zealand T20 squad: talent and money.

Simon Doull. Photo / Photosport

He is right to have concerns, but it wasn't too long ago New Zealand were No 1 in the world at the fickle format and not too much sleep should be lost over three games lost on the bounce, even if the performances were abject.

I tend to agree that a specialist T20 coach should be added to the environment and also believe that Williamson's batting is suited to opening and opening only in T20s.

But the problem with the Black Caps is not their established stars, it is the lack of depth behind them. I'd have more concerns around T20 specialists Tom Bruce and Glenn Phillips than I would Williamson and Taylor.

The other issue is New Zealand Cricket's inability to pay its players market rate. The lure of franchise T20 cricket is strong. I imagine that experienced players would be aggrieved to miss out to lesser players if it meant they lost that shop window to be picked up for the IPL, CPL, BBL or whatever other collection of capital letters you choose.

You could argue the rights and wrongs of that phenomenon all you like, but it's a real consideration.

It's a good debate to have though, and the right time to be having it.

To get the day's top sports stories in your inbox, sign up to our newsletter here