Olympics’ anti-doping leap

Who was really behind a decision to ban Russian track-and-field athletes from the Summer Games over doping? Clean athletes who want sports to reflect a fair test of transcending human limits.

AP Photo
Yulia Stephanova, a Russian Olympic athlete, and her husband, Vitaly Stephanov, blew the lid off systemic doping in Russia.

If you watch the Aug. 5 opening of the Summer Olympics in Brazil, take note of the torch lighting that traditionally opens the Games. This year, the flame could serve as a symbol of the fire lit under world sports bodies in recent years by honest athletes who, challenged by the doping scandals of their competitors, are strongly embracing integrity in sports.

Last week, under pressure from clean contenders, the International Association of Athletic Federations decided to ban all of Russia’s track and field athletes from the Rio Games. The unanimous decision by the IAAF, the global governing body for track and field, was quickly backed by the International Olympic Committee.

The ban is a triple jump in restoring fairness in world sports. Russia, a big medal-winner in previous Olympics, was accused last November by the World Anti-Doping Agency of running a state-sponsored doping program. Even after being given months to reform a deep-seated culture of doping, Russia was again charged by WADA last week with systemic doping and cover-ups.

While some Russian athletes may be clean of banned substances, the decision to impose collective punishment was made necessary by the strong probability of Russian cheating at this year’s Games. The inventive evasiveness of many Russian officials and athletes was made clear in WADA’s reports. If the country’s track-and-field athletes were allowed to compete, the fairness of the entire Olympics would be at stake.

To its credit, IAAF said individual Russian athletes could compete if they prove they have been training outside of the Russian system without the use of performance-enhancing drugs.

That opportunity – a legal “crack in the door” – helps highlight the need for the IOC to return to a focus on the Games as a test of individual performance rather than national pride. In Russia, many athletes were reportedly forced to participate in doping if they wanted to be accepted on the national team.

Sports involves not only a contest to establish winners but as a measure of the ability of humans to transcend physical and mental limits. Athletes must rely on natural abilities, such as agility and concentration, not special chemicals. And they must be able to operate on a level playing field to ensure honest competition.

Those athletes who practice these qualities have been the driving force to clean up international sports. Russia must now move unambiguously to clean up its sports system. In the meantime, fans of the Olympics can applaud this August when an athlete raises the torch to start the Rio Games.

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.