When compared to the leading hardcore Russophobes, Michael McFaul comes across more as being a diva, seeking to maintain a niche within the anti-Russian leaning US establishment. McFaul is on record for saying that he doesn't accept the notion that Russia is inherently prone to negative attributes and bad relations with the West. Given that view and the existing status quo of folks out there, he's arguably not a top ten Russophobe.

Bill Browder is considered a Russophobe by a twist of fate. Prior to his falling out of favor with the Russian authorities, Browder was characterized by some anti-Russian leaning elements as a Kremlin shill. Browder's main focus of criticism is the Russian president and government at large. As is true of McFaul, the available choices indicate that Browder is arguably not a top ten Russophobe.

Several names come to mind that IMO should make a top ten Russophobe list for 2018. Granted, the difficulty in choosing people for such, as there're numerous individuals worthy of consideration.

Whether in 2017 or this year, it's surprising that the outgoing Trump administration UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, didn't get a top Russophobe ranking by RT. During her time as UN ambassador, Haley has spoken about the need to slap Russia, adding that the US and Russia can never be friends.  

An acquaintance describes the Washington Examiner's Tom Rogan, as exhibiting the worst Anglo-American ignorance and arrogance against Russia. Rogan's often enough, unchallenged, Russia related commentary at some leading American media venues, is a tell all sign of US mass media shortcomings – when it comes to having a reasonably balanced presentation of views.

Rogan called for the Kiev regime to bomb the bridge linking Crimea with the rest of Russia. That advocacy of his received attention in Russia.

Rogan recently wrote a very inept piece on the situation with Orthodox Christianity in Ukraine. Whether he likes it or not, a noticeable number of people in the former Ukrainian SSR, don't oppose the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which is loosely affiliated with the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (ROC-MP). That established Ukrainian Orthodox Church (also known as the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, UOC-MP) didn't ask for the Kiev regime and/or the Constantinople (in Istanbul) Patriarchate to get involved with its matters. Note that the Washington Examiner appears to be otherwise prone to support the desire for a separation between church and state.

In conjunction with the Kiev regime, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (formed in 1992) that sought autocephaly approval from the Constantinople Patriarchate, is headed by Filaret Denisenko, who for decades supported the Moscow Patriarchate's ties with the Orthodox churches in Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova. He changed course after not getting a promotion within the Moscow Patriarchate. A noticeable number of individuals in Kiev regime controlled Ukraine support Denisenko's changed position. That aspect doesn't deny the noticeable existence of those in that territory who support the UOC-MP.

The Constantinople Patriarchate doesn't have the same centralized authority as the Vatican. There's good reason to believe that some form of payola might be at play between the corrupt nationalist Kiev regime and the Constantinople Patriarchate. One is hard pressed to find any of the national Orthodox churches (recognized by the Constantinople Patriarchate) supporting the Constantinople Patriarchate's decision to grant autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. If anything, there's a near unanimous to complete agreement of these national Orthodox churches, favoring the position of the UOC-MP and ROC-MP, to not have the Constantinople Patriarchate grant an autocephaly status to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

Among the UOC-MP and ROC-MP faithful (as well as some others), there's a reasonable concern that the Kiev regime and Denisenko's church will use the Constantinople Patriarchate's decision as a basis to seize UOC-MP property. Further complicating matters is the existence of a third and smaller Ukrainian Orthodox Church, known as the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church.

Contrary to Rogan, the ROC-MP and Russian government aren't nationalistically interwoven with each other, in the way that he so very inaccurately suggests. Despite the Kremlin's recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states, the ROC-MP recognizes Orthodox Christian property in these areas as being with the Georgian Orthodox Church. Likewise, the UOC-MP continues to maintain jurisdiction over Orthodox Christian property in Crimea, which is now part of Russia.

As I noted, the sports world has experienced a good deal of overtly anti-Russian advocacy. This situation leads to three individuals with top ten anti-Russian credentials.

Travis Tygart is a US legal sports politico, who has repeatedly sought a collective ban on all Russian athletes – something he has never collectively advocated against any other national group of athletes.

Sebastian Coe heads the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), that still has a ban on Russia, unlike the International Olympic Committee. In 2016, Coe actively sought to have Russian drug cheat turned "whistleblower", Yulia Stepanova compete in the Rio Summer Olympics, unlike the clean medal contending Russian track and field athletes, who were unfairly banned from that competition. Coe apparently approves of Stepanova uncritically participating in a German aired propaganda film, that made a broad unproven claim against Russia's top track and field athletes.

Rune Andersen serves under Coe at the IAAF. Andersen suggested the possibility of banning clean Russian track and field athletes from competing as neutrals, if the Russian sports authorities don't acknowledge all of the core claims made in the quite faulty McLaren report.

Photo: flickr

Upon announcing its decision to ban Russia from the 2018 Pyeongchang Winter Olympics (with some Russian athletes competing under the Olympic flag and "Olympic Athlete from Russia" designation), the IOC indicated that the WADA propped McLaren report's claim of a Russian state-sponsored Olympic and Paralympic doping campaign hasn't been proven. Yet, this fact hasn't stopped the BBC and New York Times from falsely stating that the IOC decision is based on a primary Russian government culpability. Without definitively making the case in the open, the IOC said that there were testing irregularities at the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics, that favored some Russian athletes.

The CAS decision took into consideration that a good number of the IOC banned athletes have been extensively tested inside and outside of Russia over a lengthy period of time, without ever being found guilty of a drug infraction. In addition, the CAS (on the known facts) reasonably concluded that the claimed 2014 Sochi Winter Olympic testing irregularities haven't been firmly concluded. Even if these irregularities occurred (something that remains unclear on account of the claim not being fully presented in the open), one then practically wonders whether it was with the knowledge of any or all of the effected Russian athletes and if their actual test results were indeed positive? Meantime, the prior and post 2014 Winter Olympic Olympic drug tests of a good number of these athletes reveal innocence.

In reply to these particulars, I've heard some Western chauvinist spin, saying that the CAS cleared Russians athletes aren't necessarily innocent, on account that they still could've cheated without getting caught. That very same logic applies to non-Russian athletes who might very well have succeeded in finding a way around the process.

The CAS found 11 Russian Olympians to have been previously found guilty of a drug infraction, that warranted a ban from Pyeongchang, as opposed to the hypocritically flawed IOC decision to implement a lifetime ban against them. The hypocrisy concerns the number of non-Russian athletes found guilty of doping, who didn't receive lifetime bans.

On the matter of gross anti-Russian hypocrisy, note famed US Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps' 2009 admission of smoking pot. Phelps wasn't banned from Olympic competition for that action. On the other hand, the IOC feels that it's appropriate to ban the Russian 1500 meter speed skating world record holder Denis Yuskov from the upcoming Winter Olympics, for a prior marijuana smoking episode in 2008. The unfairness of that move has been noted by some earnest folks in the West. Another of several repugnant anti-Russian IOC acts, concerns the banning of Russian short track speed skater Viktor Ahn.

As I've previously noted, Richard McLaren's claim that 1000 Russian athletes benefitted from a Russian government involved illicit regimen of cheating, would likely mean that ALL of the Russian athletes in question, would be shown beyond a reasonable doubt to have taken such a course. This hasn't been proven at all, with a note that the combined Russian Summer and Winter Olympic and Paralympic participating athletes is (if I'm not mistaken)under 1000.

On the US-based National Public Radio, I heard the WADA connected American legal sports politico Travis Tygart (in rather self serving fashion) suggest his objectivity, by noting how he went after the legendary American cyclist Lance Armstrong. This is sheer BS, as Tygart never advocated banning all American cyclists and-or all US athletes from major competition. In comparison, Tygart (along with Canadian sports legal politico Dick Pound and some other pious blowhards) have favored a collective ban on all Russian athletes.

The likes of Tygart have a committed track record of extreme bias against Russia. In contrast, the IOC President Thomas Bach, comes across as a wishy-washy sort, not fit to serve his position. It's a high point of chutzpah for Bach to second guess the CAS ruling on Russia, by saying that the CAS needs to be revamped. Bach and his fellow IOC cronies have belittled the CAS decision, with the announcement that none of the cleared Russian athletes will be invited to the upcoming Winter Olympics. Russian Federation Council Speaker Valentina Matviyenko befittingly said that the IOC and WADA are in need of restructuring. As of this writing, CAS is considering a follow-up appeal from the banned Russian athletes seeking to compete in Pyeongchang.

At the 2016 Rio Summer Olympics, Bach took the position that the individual sports federations should decide on whether to restrict Russian partition. With rare exception, most of these IOC affiliated sports bodies decided (based on facts) that Russia shouldn't be penalized at that Olympiad. This time around, Bach has leaned towards the "pressure", as constantly rehashed by leading Western mass media outlets "to do something" against Russia.

A February 2 RT article, provides a healthy offset to the overall biased Western mass media reporting on the subject of Russian sports doping. The former details numerous reasons for not believing much of the negative allegations against Russian Olympians. Among the particulars, is the faulty notion that Russian athletes live and train under the same state manipulated structure. In actuality, a good number of them train outside Russia, with non-Russian coaches. Touching on this last point, The Washington Post's Sally Jenkins had an August 10, 2016 article, that showed how Russian swimmer Yulia Efimova, had taken performance enhancing drugs on her own, while training in the US, as opposed to some Russian state-sponsored method. (On the subject of Russian sports doping, Jenkins' aforementioned piece is an exception to the generally biased trend in Western mass media.)

It's matter of established record that Italy has the most Olympic sports dopers, despite having a smaller number of competing athletes when compared to Russia. Per capita, India, Turkey and Iran have higher rates of such doping infractions than Russia, with South Africa and Belgium having about the same percentage of positive doping as Russia. The December 24, 2017 Worlds Apart show, suggests that a disproportionate number of Western athletes have been given exemptions for drugs having a performance enhancing capability. (That RT show had earlier featured Dick Pound, which I followed up on.)

Among the major Western news media venues, the BBC has a well deserved enough reputation for being the most objective. That observation is relative to the competition and doesn't mean that everything at the Beeb is always kosher. 

The December 9, BBC piece «Russian Doping: McLaren Report Says More Than 1,000 Athletes Implicated», is much like the same day televised BBC coverage aired in the US. In each instance, the opening starts out with words like «according and «claims», regarding McLaren's latest report. Thereafter, BBC reporters erroneously present McLaren's observations as facts.

Two unnamed Russian women ice hockey players (highlighted by McLaren and the BBC), along with some other anecdotes are a far cry from conclusively proving an unethically vast state sponsored doping regimen. At the 2016 Rio Summer Olympics, the heavily booed Russian swimmer Yulia Efimova, was clearly not involved in an illicit state orchestrated doping campaign. The booing of Efimova and other Russian athletes at Rio were the result of misinformed individuals (many from English speaking countries), who've readily accepted the suspect claims stated in the media they rely on.

Efimova's first offence involved using an over the counter supplement legally bought in the US (where she has lived and trained), which has some matter banned by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the sports federations affiliated with it. Her second infraction concerned a drug (Meldonium), that had only recently been banned. Before a panel of non-Russians, Efimova made the case that her use of Meldonium was before it became banned. (Testing can find traces of that drug in a person's body for months after its use has ended.)

Grigory Rodchenkov, the so-called «whistleblower» (who was fired from his Russian sports medicine position for taking bribes to cover up positive tests) hasn't been made available for follow-up questioning. Upon his disgraced dismissal in Russia, Rodchenkov turned up in the US, where he made sensationalistic claims, utilized by McLaren. 

After the release of McLaren's second report, the IOC announced a retesting of Russian blood samples from the 2012 London Summer Olympics and 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics. As time passes, the testing methodology improves. Hence, a retested negative sample from 2012 could turn up positive years later. If there's a sincere effort to clean up doping in the Olympics, there should be an across the board retesting that includes non-Russian athletes. Any reluctance to do so suggests an insincere effort.

The drive to isolate Russia is factually challenged, if not bigoted. It's fair to believe that North American legal politicos Travis Tygart and Dick Pound wouldn't favor a collective ban if the tables went against their respective nation with the same level of «evidence». An underlying current of arrogance, ignorance and hypocrisy relates to the incessant Russia bashing which has been evident.

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.