No. 1? Russian swimmer's doping past stirs waves in Olympic pool

World champion breaststroker Yulia Efimova of Russia was allowed to compete at Rio following a 16-month suspension for doping. American Lilly King isn't impressed.

(AP Photo/Lee Jin-man
Russia's Yulia Efimova celebrates winning a semifinal of the women's 100-meter breaststroke during the swimming competitions at the 2016 Summer Olympics, Sunday, Aug. 7, 2016, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

American Lilly King has her sights set on winning Olympic gold and she's not about to let anyone get in her way, especially not world champion breaststroker Yulia Efimova of Russia. King made that clear in a finger-waving display worthy of Dikembe Mutombo as she disparaged the Russian for doping.

Efimova is being allowed to compete at the Rio de Janeiro Games following a 16-month suspension for doping and despite another positive test this year for the now-banned substance meldonium. The 24-year-old Russian is a flashpoint in her country's doping scandal because of her two infractions.

When Efimova waved a No. 1 finger after her semifinal on Sunday, King leaned back and gave her own version toward Efimova's face on a TV monitor. King then qualified fastest for the eight-woman final in 1 minute, 5.70 seconds, just ahead of Efimova's time of 1:05.72.

The two women square off in the 100-meter breaststroke final Monday night, swimming next to each other.

Efimova's positive test for meldonium was placed on hold while world anti-doping officials conduct further studies on the drug.

"If that's what she feels she needs to be able to compete, whatever, that's her deal," King told reporters. "I'm here to compete clean for the U.S. and that's what I'm going to do."

A smattering of boos greeted Efimova after she won her preliminary heat Sunday. The Russian men's 4x100 freestyle relay was also booed when introduced for their final the same night.

Ruta Meilutyte of Lithuania, the world record holder in the 100 breast, said Efimova's doping history is disrespectful to other athletes.

"We train fair," she said. "When something like that happens, it's never nice. These are not the values of our sport."

Kirsty Coventry of Zimbabwe, a seven-time Olympic swimming medalist competing in Rio, serves on the International Olympic Committee's athletes' commission.

"Hopefully, that ban made her clean in a way," she said of Efimova. "Hopefully, people that are cheating now know that they're going to get caught. It's just a matter of time. It's a little disappointing that there are certain people that are here."

As part of the International Olympic Committee's decision not to throw the entire Russian team out of the Olympics, Efimova was initially banned along with six other Russian swimmers who either had positive tests on their record or were named in an investigation of Russia's massive, state-sanctioned doping scheme.

Now, it looks like they'll all be competing in Rio de Janeiro, though world swimming body FINA has not fully explained why.

Efimova is also expected to swim the 200 breaststroke and presumably the 4x100 medley relay.

Efimova declined to speak with reporters after the semifinals, but promised to talk after Monday's final. Earlier Sunday, she described the last six months as "crazy" and said she didn't "understand what's going on."

When pressed about criticism from rival swimmers and coaches, she smiled and walked away.

U.S. swimmer Dana Vollmer said King and Katie Meili assumed all along that Efimova would be racing in Rio and prepared accordingly. Meili also advanced to the final.

"She has something to prove," Vollmer said of King. "That question (about Efimova) kind of adds some fire to a lot of us. Lilly is doing an amazing job of directly putting that into her racing."

Winning gold and in the process beating Efimova would be especially meaningful to King, who will be a sophomore at Indiana University this fall.

"Obviously it would be great with all the doping things going on in the past year or two," she said. "It would be a really great moment for the U.S."

Coventry struggles with the knowledge that sometimes cheating athletes do get a precious moment on the world stage, receiving Olympic medals in the limelight only to get caught later. Then their medal is taken away and re-awarded to another athlete when the world is no longer watching.

"That is hard," she said. "That will be heartbreaking for a lot of athletes."

Meanwhile, another controversy broke out in the swimming competition over accusations of doping. 

Swimming officials from Australia and China are jumping into the fray as a feud over doping between swimmers Mack Horton and Sun Yang keeps boiling over at the Rio Olympics.

The Chinese Swimming Association on Monday asked Horton to apologize for his "inappropriate words" after he labeled Sun a "drug cheat" — a reference to Sun's three-month 2014 suspension over banned heart medication. Australia's Olympic Committee, hours later, shot back in Horton's defense, saying he was speaking his mind in support of clean athletes, and wished him luck.

Horton, 20, made a dig at Sun while the two attended a press conference Saturday after Horton unseated the Chinese defending champion in the 400-meter freestyle. It was the second time in days that Horton had publicly referred to Sun's drug suspension as part of what the Australian team acknowledged is a campaign to unsettle the Chinese star.

Sun had earlier been accused of splashing water at Horton in an apparent attempt to get his attention and Horton made his initial "drug cheat" reference when asked why he had ignored Sun.

Sun, 24, who won two golds at the 2012 London Games, has a long history of bad behavior and tangling with others. He has been accused of disruptive pool behavior by swimmers — both men and women — from several countries. The Chinese team briefly banned him from competing following a raft of disciplinary issues, including crashing a friend's Porsche SUV into a bus in 2013 while driving without a license, landing him in jail.

Sun has previously said he did not know the medication trimetazidine, which he took for chronic heart palpitations, had been placed on the banned list when he tested positive.

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.