Reduced Russia ban is a ‘blow for clean athletes’
SANCTIONS imposed on Russia for state-sponsored doping have been described as ‘watered down’ and ‘a catastrophic blow for clean athletes’ after the country’s four-year sporting ban was halved yesterday.
The country will not be officially represented at the next summer and winter Olympic and Paralympic Games, the 2022 football World Cup finals in Qatar or any other world championships in sports signed up to the global antidoping code following a ruling by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas).
It marks the latest chapter in the Russian doping saga. In December last year the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) imposed a fouryear ban on the Russian national agency Rusada, declaring it non-compliant after Wada investigators found data from an anti-doping laboratory in Moscow had been manipulated and deleted.
However, the Cas judges have reduced the sanction to two years and Russian athletes untainted by the doping scandal will be able to compete and even wear the country’s name on their kit as long as it does not appear more prominent than the word ‘neutral athlete’.
Travis Tygart, the chief executive of the United States Anti-Doping Agency, was especially scathing about yesterday’s ruling.
‘At this stage in this sordid Russian statesponsored doping affair, now spanning close to a decade, there is no consolation in this weak, watered-down outcome,’ he said. ‘To once again escape a meaningful consequence proportional to the crimes, much less a real ban, is a catastrophic blow to clean athletes, the integrity of sport, and the rule of law.’
Nicole Sapstead, the chief executive of UK Anti-Doping, said her organisation was ‘frustrated’ at the reduction in the suspension and certain aspects of it, such as the concessions on neutral athlete kit.
And British Olympic Association chair Hugh Robertson said: ‘The BOA are committed to upholding the principles of clean and fair sport for all and are grateful to Wada for their resolve in pursuing this important matter.
‘Our only disappointment is that their recommendations were not endorsed in full.’