On the other hand, it’s comparatively more acceptable to collectively portray Russians as devious cheats. The liberal defense of this hypocrisy is flawed. (Not that liberals are alone in the faulty Russia bashing.) They’ll reference statistics, showing a greater level of Russian sports drug cheats. These very same folks will take a different line on the matter of crime statistics, relative to the African-American community – noting how unfair it is to have a knee jerking apprehension towards that group.

There’s something fishy in the way the Russian athletics (track and field) team has been covered. Suspect coverage is prone to greater acceptance, when the targeted group lacks clout to offset the permeating biases against them. Along with such establishment journalists as Christine Brennan and Matthew Futterman, past and present WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) officials like Canadian attorney Dick Pound and American attorney Travis Tygart, make blanket statements that essentially constitute a form of ethnic profiling.

On a June 16 RT show, Pound exhibited biases against Russia. In my opinion, he didn’t give a good basis to collectively punish all of Russia’s top track and field performers. Banning these athletes from the Rio Olympics doesn’t put an end to drug cheats, while serving to caricature one group, as others are given a longer leash.

On the aforementioned RT show, Dick Pound defends the selective and collective punishment against Russian athletics, by noting how it’s not a legitimate defense to say that a speeding ticket is unjust, because the ticketing officer didn’t ticket other such violators at the time of the infraction. A more appropriate analogy is the «driving while black» occurrences.

Pound is a former world class swimmer, who won four medals (one gold, two silver and one bronze) at the 1962 Pert British Empire and Commonwealth Games. One senses that he would object to a collective ban on every Canadian athlete, for the wrongs of a minority within that group. Given what has been evident in Canada, Pound’s stated (on RT) «state control» image of Russia is ironic. He comes across as taking a moral supremacist position. Awhile back, Pound received flack for a «savages» comment he made regarding Canada’s First Nations (Indian) population. He later expressed regret over that remark after receiving much protest. Some out there, view Russia and Russians quite negatively, with limited second guessing of that position, much unlike some other instances, including Pound’s «savages» comment and the recent American Red Cross poster incident.

Concerning Pound’s RT aired «state control» characterization of Russia, his native Canada has knowingly banned law abiding citizens/residents from Western and some other countries for purely political reasons, as some others with suspect views have gotten the nod for entry. (On this very subject, Srdja Trifkovic’s Canadian experience isn’t indicative of a tolerantly fair and balanced situation.) Somewhat related to that observation, Canada was one of only three delegations (along with Ukraine and the US), which voted against a UN resolution that denounces the glorification of Nazism.

Pound was the one who brought into play the issue of state control, thereby making these comparative points worthy. Seeing how he has carried on, Pound’s objectivity is questionable in determining whether Russian track and field athletes can compete in Rio.

On that particular, he’s by no means alone among non-Russian folks with high level WADA and IAAF (International Association of Athletics Federations) ties. Pound’s state control point provides no conclusive evidence of a direct Russian government supported effort to promote illegal drug taking among Russian athletes – something the Kremlin denies, to go along with its stated anti-doping position.

One has good reason to believe that the WADA appointed Canadian lawyer Richard McLaren might be a politically hired hand, who is being utilized to rubber stamp the WADA and IAAF biases. The well credentialed McLaren has been selected by the WADA to further review the athletics ban against Russia. What’s the relationship between the two fellow Canadian attorneys Pound and McLaren? Why not have a more diverse oversight, for the purpose of offsetting the reasonable belief that a skewed decision might be in the works?

McLaren’s final report is due July 15. He has already suggested a preference to maintain the ban on all Russian track and field athletes. Likewise, the IAAF has denied all but two Russian track and field athletes the right to compete in the upcoming Rio Olympics. The lone exceptions are the US based long jumper Darya Klishina and the documented 800 meters drug cheat Yuliya Stepanova (née Rusanova). A final decision on the Olympic status of the other Russian track and field athletes is due no later than July 21.

It’s ethically challenged for the WADA and IAAF to grant competition clearance to Stepanova, unlike the Russian track and field athletes who haven’t been found guilty of doping. Stepanova participated in a German aired TV documentary which collectively caricatured the Russian athletics team. (That feature is discussed in my Strategic Culture Foundation article of this past January 24 «Russian Athletics Punishment to Hopefully End by next Olympics».)

The hero status that some have accorded to Stepanova is questionable. It’s highly unlikely that her former husband (featured in the German TV aired documentary) and herself know the exact regimens of all of the Olympic-caliber Russian track and field athletes. Stepanova hasn’t given the benefit of doubt to these top performers, most of whom (unlike herself) haven’t been found guilty of using banned substances. Her manner has earned the legitimate disdain of many Russians and others, who favor a fair and balanced approach. 

The IAAF sanctioned 2016 European athletics championships began this month. That gathering serves as a good preparatory contest before the Rio Olympics. Even if cleared in time for Rio, Russian track and field athletes will be at a disadvantage, care of the ostracism from international competition that they’ve experienced since November 13 of last year. Once again, the guilty of doping Stepanova was granted the right to compete at the 2016 European athletics championships, unlike the Russian athletes who haven’t been found guilty of cheating.

The blanket claim that Russian track and field athletes haven’t been getting fairly tested is sheer crock, as evidenced by the number of them who’ve been caught doping. In a rare July 1 BBC segment on this subject, hurdler Sergey Shubenkov categorically states his not cheating and being frequently tested by non-Russian sources. In an open letter to IAAF President Sebastian Coe, hammer thrower Sergey Litvinov notes a flawed side to the WADA and IAAF stance. The inappropriately titled June 22 Russia Beyond The Headlines article «Top 4 ‘Clean’ Russian Athletes Who Can’t Compete in the Rio Olympics», provides additional contradiction to the effort to ban Russian track and field athletes.

For accuracy sake, it’d help to see a fuller disclosure of the claims made by both extremes on the subject of the Russian Olympic athletics team. Whether from either side, the repeated presentation of broad unsubstantiated claims as facts shouldn’t be considered as acceptable proof. It remains to be seen if the Russian Olympic Committee will successfully defend its track and field team. The doubt for a favorable outcome on their behalf is premised on the reasonably deduced impression that kangaroo court antics have been put forward to deny Russian Olympic athletics competition.

The July 10 TASS article «High Time to Dissolve the IAAF – Russian Sports Minister», provides detail to the Russian disgust with the IAAF.

A couple of Russian whistleblowers openly favor a complete international ban on Russian athletics – never mind the innocents facing penalty, as wrongdoers in other countries essentially have a longer leash. These whistleblowers are described as «hiding» outside Russia. Such a characterization conjures up a certain image among many in the West, who see that nation as a place where going against officialdom is very much subject to punishment.

(In the US, it's commonplace to perceive bravery when attacking official Russia from inside that country, despite numerous examples to the contrary. As one example, on the John Batchelor Show of this past January 5, Stephen Cohen countered this American establishment thought by saying that Russian print media has more dovish criticism of Russian President Vladimir Putin's stance towards the West, when compared to US mass media giving space to mainstream Russian views.

The nay saying comeback will bring up the lessor diversity at the leading Russian TV networks on some key issues. This point has a degree of comparative relevance to the print versus national TV news situation in the US. When the subject of Russia comes up, it's rare to see mainstream Russian views on American mass media TV. Such limited instances include sound bites, followed by a last word mop-up rebuttal, lacking a thorough give and take.

These observations aren't intended to belittle the murders of Anna Politkovskaya, Boris Nemtsov and some others. Rather, it's to note the many individuals of like minded politics who've carried on in Russia, without being beaten and/or killed – adding that the Politkovskaya and Nemtsov examples don't appear to have been Kremlin involved actions. Circa the 1960s, there were numerous politically motivated killings in the US, which haven't been conclusively tied to government involvement. The US and Russia each have citizens who independently commit violent actions.)

The Russian whistleblowers in question have made a serious charge, claiming an extremely high level of Russian athletics team doping, that's quite likely subject to a defamation related lawsuit. Over the years, numerous Americans have fled the US to avoid prosecution in that country. For fairness sake, why hold Russia to higher standards, if it's comparatively lacking in civil liberties? The advocacy for greater freedom in Russia is doomed to failure when collapsible biases are present.

(I'm of the belief that in overall comparative terms with the West, Russia lacks in the area of freedom. At the same time, I believe that it's nowhere near as un-free as some claim, in addition to noting some not so politically diverse occurrences in the West. I'm encouraged by knowing a number of mainstream Russians, who seek greater openness in Russia and abroad. These particular individuals are a patriotically proud people, seeking a better world.)

World Anti-Doping Agency head Dick Pound and Hajo Seppelt, the producer of the German documentary, which ignited the IAAF provisional ban on Russian athletics, acknowledge that the scope of their investigation is limited to Russia, while also acknowledging that doping/doping cover-up isn't exclusive to Russia. This selective form of overview creates an unfair advantage, seeing a greatly scrutinized Russia unlike others.

US hurdling great Edwin Moses, is among those supporting a ban on Russia's track and field athletes at the 2016 Summer Olympics. Moses' association for social change in sports as a director with the Laureus Academy, is contradicted by his discriminatory advocacy towards Russian athletics.

With IAAF oversight, the Russian sports authorities involved with revamping the anti-doping regimen for the athletics team have made significant changes, with some understandable bitterness at the provisional suspension and threat of a Summer Olympics ban. In addition to key personnel changes in the management and administration of Russian athletics (including drug testing), none of the athletes under suspicion are on the current roster. One senses that the Russian athletics team will get the nod to compete in the upcoming Olympiad. Its newly elected president puts the odds at 50 %.

Russia has an interest to not get banned by having a more transparent process on the issue at hand. The greater onus will arguably be on the likes of Moses to well substantiate the collective punishment route. As presented in the German documentary, the allegations of vast Russian athletics doping are premised on a considerable degree of unsubstantiated hearsay. Thus, a reasoned compromise could see Russian athletics with the embarrassing provisional suspension and international review on record, followed by the penalty getting lifted before the next Summer Olympics.

In the event of a standing 2016 Summer Olympic ban on Russia's athletics team, there's a precedent for the athletes on that squad (not found guilty of doping) to still participate, in a way that serves to disrespect their nation.

At the 1992 Summer Olympics, Yugoslavia (then consisting of Serbia and Montenegro) was hypocritically banned from participation because of the war in Bosnia. Croatia wasn't banned despite that country's armed involvement in Bosnia. Ditto the armed nationalist transgressions of the Bosnian Muslim nationalist dominated government, which was represented as the internationally recognized Bosnia.

Individual Yugoslav athletes competed at the 1992 Summer Olympics under a designation that didn't specify their national origin. Inconsistent with that route was the banning of Yugoslavia's world class teams, in men's team handball, volleyball, basketball and water polo. Why couldn't they have competed under a non-national designation like the «Unified Team» (comprised mostly of Russians from the former USSR), that won the men's ice hockey gold medal at the 1992 Winter Olympics? (Due to the sudden dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia and some other former Soviet republics agreed to compete as the «Unified Team» at the 1992 Winter and Summer Olympics.)

All of the aforementioned Yugoslav teams were medal contenders. What not a better way to punish that nation by keeping them out of the Olympics altogether? A matter relating to the biases against Russia and Serbia.