Russia’s sports doping scandal: Why this one may be different

A report on Russia’s drug-fueled cheating in sports comes as the International Olympic Committee realizes it must put an emphasis on ‘clean athletes,’ not just trying to catch the minority of athletes who cheat.

AP Photo
Rusty Olympic rings decorate a fence outside the Russian Olympic committee building in Moscow Nov. 9. Russian track and field athletes could be banned from next year's Olympics in Rio de Janeiro after a devastatingly critical report accused the country's government of complicity in widespread doping and cover-ups.

Yet another doping scandal has hit the world of sports. This time, the World Anti-Doping Agency has recommended that the entire Russian team for track and field be barred from the 2016 Summer Olympics. An investigation by WADA, released Monday, cited Russia’s organized practice of using banned substances to give athletes unfair results in past sporting events.

If the report brings another sigh of resignation among fans about drugs in high-profile sports, it shouldn’t. A string of doping scandals in recent years, from trackster Ben Johnson to cyclist Lance Armstrong, has started to awaken sports officials to the fact that they cannot focus solely on curbing this corrupting practice by detection and punishment. The techniques for doping are changing as fast as the ways to catch cheating athletes. Rather, the culture of sport itself must change.

The Russian scandal comes just as the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has launched a program to promote and protect “clean athletes.” WADA believes most Olympic athletes do not use performance-enhancing drugs. The same may be true about athletes not taking bribes from gambling syndicates to alter the outcome of a contest. The IOC plans to spend $20 million to help athletes keep drug-free and compete with fair play.

In September, the IOC officially awarded an Olympic bronze medal to Australian cyclist Michael Rogers – 11 years after he finished fourth in the men’s individual time trial in the Athens Games. The winner of the gold in the event, Tyler Hamilton, was stripped of his medal three years ago. With the IOC’s new emphasis on helping “clean athletes,” the sports body is finally doing something right for those who do not cheat.

“We have first and foremost to protect the clean athletes. We have to protect them from doping, match-fixing, manipulation and corruption,” says IOC President Thomas Bach.

The special three-person WADA commission that investigated Russia’s massive cheating even suggests the Russian athletic program could quickly reform itself. “The idea is to get people competing under the right conditions,” said Dick Pound, chairman of the commission and an influential member of the IOC. “At some point the Olympic movement and the governments have to say: ‘Are we going to do this properly or shall we all go home?’ ” he said.

Catching athletes who cheat is still an important task. Important reforms are needed in the International Association of Athletics Federations, the body that oversees the track-and-field sports in the Olympics. But sports bodies need to better reward athletes who win cleanly and cooperate openly in fending off drug use. The best in today’s sports culture can overpower the worst.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.