The coronavirus pandemic has given Russia bashing a new twist. As was true beforehand, the latest edition of disparaging Russia is short on conclusive supporting facts.

The title of Thomas Rid’s March 16 New York Times article “Can Russia Use the Coronavirus to Sow Discord Among Americans?,” is a tell all, as is his take on (as he puts it) “Russia’s bumbling military spy agency, GRU. It was GRU that was caught red-handed in 2016 meddling in the presidential election.”

Rid’s article diverts to the issue (which he presents as fact) of the USSR and post-Soviet Russia looking to sow ethnic discord in the U.S. – something I partly addressed in my Strategic Culture Foundation article “Getting Real with the U.S. Foreign Policy Establishment Realists“, of this past August 21. Besides the example (in that article) of George Kent suggestively seeking to sow ethnic tension in Russia, I’ll add that the Cold War era U.S. government interacted favorably with the anti-Russian Captive Nations Committee, creating Captive Nations Week (an official U.S. holiday), which (as outlined in its program) portrayed Russia and Russians as a negatively exploitative grouping – something that understandably offended anti-Communist Russian Americans and some others having a sense of universal ethics. So there’s no misunderstanding, I don’t dispute that the USSR made propaganda out of ethnic intolerance in the U.S.

Rid doesn’t lay out how Russia can successfully subvert the U.S. relative to the coronavirus pandemic. He comes across as someone who might downplay instances like the U.S. government’s conducting of chemical experiments on the American population. Is that Soviet and/or Russian disinformation?

James Holmes’ March 20 National Interest article “Beware of Pandemic America“, starts off with this tabloid thought: “Note to China and Russia: despite appearances, the time of coronavirus may not be an opportune time for you to chisel away at America’s global standing.” With this take in mind, it’s somewhat ironic to see EU and NATO member Italy, seeking and getting Chinese and Russian assistance to combat the coronavirus.

Does Holmes prefer that Russia and China not assist others in addressing the coronavirus pandemic? China is just now starting to rebound from its bout with the coronavirus. Russia isn’t out of the woods on this challenging health issue. With these factors in place, it doesn’t seem likely that either of these two countries are in an especially improved condition to successfully thwart the U.S.

Holmes’ article references some past historical occurrences which don’t involve Russia or China. His piece ends with a bravado warning about what has happened to some of America’s prior adversaries. Before accepting Holmes’ article, one would think that a realist leaning venue like The National Interest, might ask him to offer examples of where Russia and China might “chisel away at America’s global standing“?

Holmes’ piece is a classic example of not attempting to acknowledge and understand the positions of others being targeted for mischievous behavior, while suggesting that virtue is completely on only one side. When left unchecked, this kind of thinking serves as a recipe for increasing the likelihood of a future conflict. An earnest American red, white and blue patriotism shouldn’t be confused with a rah, rah, red, white and bull skullduggery.

The U.S. remains quite militarily engaged in China’s near abroad, much unlike Beijing’s presence in the Western Hemisphere. With or without the coronavirus, like it or not, China appears destined to achieve greater worldwide influence. For American geo-strategists and some others, managing this likely reality in the peacefully best possible way, seems like the best case scenario.

In the post-Soviet era, Russia has a military position, which (much unlike the Soviet period) primarily concerns itself with its immediate periphery. Moscow’s activity beyond its near abroad is comparatively quite limited, when compared to the U.S. Given its size and geostrategic predicament, Russia’s annual defense expenditure is indicative of a country that’s not so interested in a traditional big power expansion. In military spending, Russia doesn’t rank among the top five nations.

Shifting gears, Isabelle Khurshudyan’s and Simon Denyer’s March 20 Washington Post (WaPo) article “Suspected Russian hackers struck the last Olympics. Tokyo worries it could be next.“, doesn’t conclusively prove that the Russian government has been involved with attempts to undermine the last and next Summer Olympics. The modus operandi of this article is along the lines of the Russiagate narrative. Politically partisan sources are uncritically referenced. Among them is the American sports legal politico, Travis Tygart, whose use of “despicable” is projection on his part. Tygart has repeatedly called for all Russian athletes to be banned from the next Olympics. He’s comparatively lax when it comes to being so heavy handed against others. It’s therefore not inaccurate to view his stance as bigoted.

Its government included, Russia at large embraces the Olympics, thereby making it suspect that there’s an underhandedly concerted effort by that country to ruin the Summer Olympics. Before the announced postponement of the 2020 Tokyo Summer Olympics, Russian affiliated sports organizations weren’t at the forefront in calling for that stoppage, when compared to a number of non-Russian sports bodies.

The WaPo article at issue makes reference to the attempt to formally ban Russia from the next Summer Olympics. It’s within reason for Russians en masse to oppose that endeavor. Linking that opposition to a Russian attempt to destroy the Olympics altogether is (put mildly) unproven and quite suspect.

Western mass media has generally continued to skew the particulars involved with trying to formally ban Russia from the next Summer Olympics. As an example, a March 12 BBC piece “Tokyo 2020: Maximum of 10 Russian Track and Field Athletes to Compete as Neutrals“, says without any challenge:

“It has also fined the Russian Athletics Federation $10m (£ 7.8m) for breaching anti-doping rules.

Athletes will be banned from Tokyo 2020 if half of that fine isn’t paid by 1 July.

In December, Russia was given a four year ban from all major sports events.”

A number of otherwise pertinent issues aren’t delved into. If the UK were substituted for Russia and with the same circumstances, one suspects that the above linked article would’ve been written much differently.

Why the collective guilt against athletes, if a fine by an organization isn’t paid? How are the athletes by default responsible? Is it because they’re Russian? That’s collective guilt bigotry. In other situations, it’s considered bigoted to collectively caricature a given ethnic and/or national group based on crime statistics, as I’ve previously noted.

Why only have ten Russian track and field athletes compete, if there’re more clean Russians whose performances qualify? In some other instances, quotas against an ethnic and/or national group have led to reasonable claims of discrimination. Shortly after the announced postponement of the 2020 Tokyo Summer Olympics, Sebastian Coe, the head of track and field’s governing body, said that more than ten Russians might be eligible to participate in that Olympiad’s rescheduled program. He stated this without acknowledging any wrongness on the initially stated quota of ten.

BTW, according to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), (which has generally exhibited a bias against Russia), that country in 2016 ranks sixth (behind among others) the U.S., France, Australia and Italy in drug related infractions. There doesn’t appear to be any indication that Russia’s sports doping situation has gotten worse since 2016.

The aforementioned BBC piece omits that Russia has appealed the faulty WADA recommendation (to formally ban Russia from the next Summer Olympics in Tokyo) to the CAS (Committee of Arbitration for Sport). This legal body doesn’t have a track record of always agreeing with a prior decision. Hence, it’s not etched in stone that Russia will be officially banned from the next Summer Olympics.

Prior to the worldwide effort to combat the coronavirus endemic, Russia has been formally represented at major sporting events – track and field (AKA athletics) being an exception. If the CAS rules in favor of Russia, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) should make sure that competing Russian track and field competitors are officially represented as Russians at the next Summer Olympics.

The British head of World Athletics, Sebastian Coe, brazenly supports a ban on all Russian track and field athletes, until it can be firmly established (in his view) that they’re clean. Coe’s take has been widely reported in Western mass media, with little, if any second guessing of the hypocrisy he exhibits.

Despite missing three consecutive drug tests, American sprinter Christian Coleman, was allowed to compete at this past World Athletics Championships. It’s quite doubtful that any Russian would be allowed the benefit given to Coleman. As is true with a number of other sports, there’re credible reports indicating that World Athletics has an inconsistent worldwide drug testing regimen.

A few years ago, an ESPN “Outside the Lines” segment (aired at an early Sunday morning low ratings time slot), noted that some top Jamaican track and field athletes have regularly missed drug tests, as a Jamaican whistleblower on this issue has been castigated in her country. (Pardon me for not having a transcript of that show.)

Regarding non-Russian Olympians, Coleman’s situation is by no means an isolated one. Numerous Norwegian cross country skiers, along with prominent US Olympians Serena Williams, Simone Biles and Justin Gatlin, are among a non-Russian grouping that fall in the category of either missing drug tests, failing them, or getting an exemption for using an otherwise banned substance.

The ban against Russia competing as a country at the 2018 Winter Olympics didn’t see a noticeable banning of top Russian Olympians for suspected drug use. (Under the Olympic flag and anthem, these Russians competed as the “Olympic Athletes from Russia”) Hence, that prohibition was essentially a form of collective punishment against an entire nation and its people. At the recommendation of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), Russia now faces a banning for the next Summer and Winter Olympics.

On the reportedly altered Russian database of drug test results, how many other countries have been asked to forward as complete an accounting of their respective athletes? As of now and as reported, this particular pertaining to Russia looks shady. Verifiable specifics on the database editing haven’t been released. Regardless, when it comes to drug testing over the past several years, Russia’s top Olympic caliber athletes are probably the most carefully scrutinized in the world. These individuals spend time outside Russia (training and/or competing), where they can and have been suddenly tested. Unless my information is wrong (which I doubt), they also get tested in Russia, with samples going to the WADA and/or a WADA affiliated vender.

The British WADA member Jonathan Taylor, said that a lengthy appeal process at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), could allow for Russia to formally participate at the 2020 Summer Olympics. Taylor is against this scenario – instead favoring for Russia to be excluded from the next Summer and Winter Olympics. He emphasized that a CAS ruling against Russia after the 2020 Summer Olympics, would result in that country getting banned from the 2024 Summer Olympics.

I suspect that most Russians don’t see Taylor as a fair reviewer, who is truly concerned about Russia’s best interests. If Russia can’t achieve a relatively quick CAS appeal in its favor, it’s arguably in Russia’s best interests to have a delayed decision, allowing for a formal Russian 2020 Summer Olympics representation.

As time passes, there’s a chance that a growing number will see how unfair Russia has been treated, in conjunction with organizations like World Athletics and WADA possibly getting an overhaul, to better prevent any unfair treatment against a given nation and its people.

The globalists certainly never banked on Russia rising so fast and furious from the ruins of the Soviet Union to the point where it is now in the position to deter Western intrigues around the world. This was witnessed first and foremost in the miraculously recovering hot-spot of Syria – which, unlike the tragic fate that awaited doomed countries like Ukraine, Iraq and Libya – managed at the 11th hour to escape the jaws of NATO’s regime-change juggernaut. Syria’s salvation was due overwhelmingly to Russian military and diplomatic intervention.

Moscow’s efforts, which could best be described as humanitarian in nature, did not come without a price tag for Russia on the propaganda front. From being wrongly accused of meddling in the 2016 US presidential elections, to being unjustly blamed by a Dutch-led probe for the downing of Flight MH17, it is more than apparent that Russia is under full-scale fake news attack.

No flag
No anthem

Here’s what the WADA ban means for Russia https://t.co/HYqkT7nauG

— RT Sport (@RTSportNews) 9 декабря 2019 г.

This week proved no exception as the West’s anti-Russia machine shifted into overdrive as the World Anti-Doping Agency slapped Russia with a ban from all international sporting events – including the 2020 Tokyo Games and the 2022 World Cup – for four years. The reason is exactly the same as it was ahead of the 2018 PyeongChang Winter Games: the alleged tampering in Moscow of athletes’ laboratory drug-test results. Russia has vehemently denied that any manipulations occurred inside of its labs, and vowed to appeal the decision.

Clearly, the motivation here is to humiliate, provoke and punish Moscow by any means available – even on the field of dreams. Any Russian athlete who wishes to challenge the verdict and participate in the upcoming Games will be required to “prove their innocence” first. If they pass that stage and are allowed to compete, they will not be permitted to don the Russian tricolors, nor will the Russian national anthem be played. Russian athletes, who will be branded as ‘Olympic Athlete from Russia,’ will have to settle for pledging allegiance to the generic Olympic flag as opposed to the Russian national flag. If ever there were a litmus test for a One World globalist government, where athletes play for some singular monolithic entity, this might just be it.

Euro 2020 LOC chief Alexey Sorokin tells RT ‘WADA ban will not affect Russian part of Euro 2020’

Says UCL final in St. Peterbsurg unlikely to be moved

Full story on RT Sport https://t.co/FRhwWBHaN9 |

— Danny Armstrong (@DannyWArmstrong) 10 декабря 2019 г.

Aside from punishing Moscow for scuttling Western designs in Syria and beyond (incidentally, news of WADA’s ban came just as Vladimir Putin was sitting down in Paris for the Normandy Four summit with Angela Merkel, Volodymyr Zelensky and Emmanuel Macron in an effort to stabilize the situation in Eastern Ukraine, as well as relations between Moscow and Kiev), the Western capitals have never quite recovered from Russia’s flawless handling of the 2018 World Cup, hosted by 11 Russian cities and visited by an estimated 3 million fans from around the world.

Here was a golden opportunity for Russia to prove firsthand that the Western media has been portraying Russia in a completely misleading light for many years. And much to everyone’s apparent surprise it worked. In what amounted to a massive PR disaster for the Western world, those millions of visitors took home with them glowingly positive reviews about Russia and the Russian people, thereby flushing many years of Western anti-Russia propaganda down the proverbial toilet.

According to FIFA President Gianni Infantino: “Everyone discovered a beautiful country, a welcoming country that is keen to show the world that everything that has been said before might not be true. A lot of preconceived ideas have been changed because people have seen the true nature of Russia.”

Infantino also went on record as calling Russia 2018 “the best World Cup ever.”

Needless to say, the Western policymakers would like nothing more than to deny Russia from receiving any further global accolades in the future.

Danny Armstrong, a Moscow-based sports commentator for RT, described the folly of attempting to ban Russia from Euro 2020 next year, where four games are already scheduled to be held in St. Petersburg.

“Would fans, organizers and commentators be banned from stating they are in Russia? We’re do you draw the line?

“I think given that this level of scrutiny isn’t generally applied to other nations and the cynical calls for heightened stringency from USADA in reaction – who has had more than its fair share of doping scandals – there’s more than a whiff of motivation to potentially eliminate a rival,” Armstrong said via email.

Just had a very good meeting with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and representatives of Russia. Discussed many items including Trade, Iran, North Korea, INF Treaty, Nuclear Arms Control, and Election Meddling. Look forward to continuing our dialogue in the near future! pic.twitter.com/tHecH9a9ck

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 10 декабря 2019 г.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who was meeting with Donald Trump in side of the Oval Office when the WADA decision was made public, couldn’t resist taking some cracks at members of Congress who predictably criticized the high-ranking Russian delegation being invited to the White House.

“If [Adam] Schiff can describe the ministerial-level contacts normal to any country and my meeting with the president in such a way, then I believe that they will soon accuse our diplomats, just as they have our athletes, of doping and call for criminal punishment,” Lavrov told reporters.

Although it is certainly a positive sign to see one of the highest ranking Kremlin officials respond to these ongoing attacks against Russia in a tongue-in-cheek manner, fully aware of the derangement syndrome that is motivating them, there can be no doubt that such actions against Russia are being viewed in Moscow as passive forms of very real aggression that cannot go unchallenged forever.

In other words, the world should be very wary of the other shoe dropping when that shoe belongs to a nuclear-armed military power whose patience must be wearing very thin.

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.)

Bigotry has been definitely at play. From Juliet Macur’s July 20 New York Times (NYT) article «First Medal of Rio Olympics Deserves to go to a Whistle Blower», is this contemptible excerpt: «The whistle-blowers are holding their breath. The Russians and clean athletes are, too». That kind of sentiment has been expressed elsewhere. Substitute «Russians» for some other group in such a negatively applied way and see the selective outrage. No NYT journo would write a bigoted comparison that differentiates between law abiding citizens and African-Americans, followed by a utilization of crime statistics as «proof» for such a presented contrast.

Like her other NYT Olympic covering colleagues, Macur has been an uncritical cheerleader of their newspaper’s exclusive feature of the Russian doctor, Grigory Rodchenkov,  who has made a series of eye opening claims that (to date) haven’t been firmly established. Likewise, The NYT has given uncritical praise to the questionable report by Canadian attorney Richard McLaren, at the behest of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). McLaren’s report is largely based on Rodchenkov’s claims. Rodchenkov hasn’t been accessible for follow-up. Rather than seeking to cover-up the claim of a Russian state sponsored doping campaign in sports, the Russian government has openly sought a further questioning of Rodchenkov.

In his report, McLaren states a need to get it completed by a certain date – with the obvious intent to serve as a tool to further propagate the call to ban the Russian athletics (track and field) team, as well as the rest of their Olympic compatriots before the start of the Rio Olympics. WADA’s bias against Russia has been clear. It was no surprise that the WADA appointed McLaren went along with their line.

A detailed second guessing of McLaren’s report is provided by Rick Sterling in his Counterpunch articles of August 3 «The Biased Report that Led to Banning Russian Athletes» and 12 «Banning Paralympic Athletes to Bash Russia». I can see instances where McLaren and his supporters will take issue with Sterling. That aspect serves the argument for a greater point-counterpoint scrutinizing of McLaren’s report. Meantime, it isn’t appropriate to fully accept McLaren’s report.

The Russian athletics team got screwed over big time. That wasn’t enough for the heavy anti-Russian advocacy, which sought a complete ban of Russia at Rio.

The suspiciously sudden attempt by the International Association of Athletics (IAAF) and WADA to ban Russia’s lone Rio Olympic track and field participant, Darya Klishina, from competing was rejected on appeal. To the bone, Alexander Mercouris’ August 14 Duran article «Darya Klishina – Last Remaining Russian Track and Field Athlete in Rio Suddenly Banned From the Olympics», expresses my immediate reaction to the announced banning of Klishina.

It remains to be seen whether the ban on the Russian Paralympic athletes will remain in force. The IAAF, WADA and International Paralympic Committee (IPC) appear out of control in not respecting the rights of Russian athletes. In the interests of fairness, these organizations are in need of a comprehensive outside review and overhaul. Meantime, it’s not impractical to seek some interim scrutiny over the three.

Besides harboring bigoted thoughts about Russia/Russians, some in the West harp on a previous time in history. Matthew Futterman’s July 22 Wall Street Journal article «Why Russia Makes the Olympics Better», reminisces about evil Soviet era Russians during the Cold War, in conjunction with his stated depiction to fear competing against present day Russian athletes – a reference to whether they’re clean. Futterman doesn’t take into consideration the lack of actual evidence against Russian Olympians en masse, while downplaying the non-Russian use of banned substances in Olympic sports.

Within reason, one can question Futterman’s characterization (in his article) about Soviet period Olympic cheating against the US. I share his view that the US got a raw deal in the 1972 men’s Olympic basketball final against the USSR – a scenario involving some Soviet allied countries on the review panel of that game. On other matters, a bias of that sort isn’t as clear cut. Circa the 1970s, the US wasn’t generally among the top competitors in the very judgmental sports of gymnastics and pairs figure skating.

Sally Jenkins’ August 10 Washington Post article «In Vilifying Russian Swimmer Yulia Efimova, Americans are Splashing Murky Waters», might very well be the most objective US mass media article concerning Russia and the Olympics. Jenkins clearly reveals that Efimova wasn’t acting under a direct Russian «state sponsored» program, with her prior drug offences being quite minor when compared to some other illicit drug taking occurrences. Jenkins’ article isn’t the norm to be found in Anglo-American mass media.

An additional point to Jenkins’ piece concerns US swimmer Michael Phelps’ stern anti-illicit drug taking stand, as a direct follow-up to what his swimming compatriot Lilly King said against Efimova’s Olympic participation. Upon her initial denunciation of the Russian swimmer, King seemed unaware of the previously banned status of American track sprinter Justin Gatlin. After being informed of Gatlin’s prior offences, King said that he should be banned as well. Phelps has taken a cordial selfie with Gatlin, without any mention of doping.

The IAAF head Sebastian Coe’s stated negativity on Gatlin highlights the former’s hypocrisy. Gatlin isn’t the only US Olympic track and field athlete with prior drug offences. Yet, he and other non-Russian track and field drug cheats (US and otherwise) will be competing in Rio, unlike the clean Russian track and field athletes (as well as some of those with a prior banned status, who served the penalty time allotted to them), who Coe approvingly banned.

Only now, does Coe speak of having the Russian track and field team reinstated sooner rather than later. This one time world record holder in the 800 and 1500 meters eloquently spoke out against boycotting the 1980 Moscow Summer Olympics where he competed. By denying the clean Russian track and field athletes a Rio Olympics entry, Coe knows better than anyone the damage he has done to them.

Coe/IAAF didn’t give the clean Russian track and field athletes ample enough notice on the dubiously revised standard of needing to train outside Russia for an extended period for Olympic track and field consideration. Never minding that drug cheats can and have existed outside Russia.

Moreover, Coe has openly sought getting the 800 meter drug cheat Yuliya Stepanova approved for Rio competition. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) correctly denied that request. For justice sake, too bad the IOC couldn’t have been more forceful against the IAAF/WADA bias against Russian athletes. Stepanova was busted for doping in Russia. Her changed anti-doping stance came after (not before) she was caught. Stepanova has been continuously involved in caricaturing Russia’s top track and field athletes without clear supporting evidence.

For Coe, she’s the better example of what a Russian athlete should be unlike Yelena Isinbayeva, Sergey Shubenkov, Maria Kuchina, Sergey Litvinov and the other clean Russian track and field athletes, who steadfastly claim innocence with no evidence against them.

There’re other like-minded individuals besides Coe who’ve received kid gloves treatment. The former WADA head Dick Pound has been at the forefront in seeking a blanket Olympic ban against Russia.

Pound’s main arguing points are collapsible. He has repeatedly made reference to apartheid era South Africa as one example of a precedent for banning a nation from the Olympics. That absurd red herring overlooks the multiethnic dynamic of Russia’s Olympic team, government and society at large – a far cry from apartheid era South Africa.

Pound is right in saying that innocent apartheid era South Africans missed out on an Olympic opportunity. That view isn’t a legitimate basis to ban Russia from the Rio Olympics. Two or more wrongs don’t make a right. Many of us would like to believe that the international community has evolved in finding workable ways to avoid a primitive collective punishment approach.

Another Pound talking point portrays the Russians seeking to get off in the manner of a speeding violator, who says that other drivers are speeding as well without getting charged. That perception is wrong.

The Russian consensus supports penalizing drug cheats, as opposed to the primitive collective punishment route favored by Pound. I’ve likened his advocacy towards Russia to instances like the driving while black situation in the US. In addition, British academic Ellis Cashmore makes the analogy of revoking the driving license of every resident in a whole town, because a disproportionate minority in such a community (when compared to other towns) are found guilty of wrongdoing.

The collective punishment sought against Russia is premised on the idea of an unproven vast state sponsored doping regimen of athletes. Rather coincidently, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, recently came out with a statement that the late Serb President Slobodan Milosevic wasn’t part of a «criminal enterprise» in Bosnia. (Of possible interest, a sharp difference of opinion on this topic exists between Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty’s Gordana Knezvic and Andy Wilcoxson.)

Aspects of international law are big on conspiracies like the aforementioned «criminal enterprise» and «state sponsored doping» examples, which are used to punish a given group. The banning of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) from the 1992 Summer Olympics was wrong, seeing how other countries at war weren’t banned from the Olympics, for acts that led to many more deaths than what happened in Bosnia. The likes of Efimova, Subchenkov, Isinbayeva, Kuchina, Litvinov and most other Russian athletes, don’t seem to be part of a state sponsored doping program.

Notwithstanding, the Russian government acknowledges a doping problem in Russia and has announced an implemented regimen to curtail that activity. Another subject to tackle is the considerable lack of objectivity within the IAAF, WADA, IPC and a good portion of Western mass media.  

For the reasons stated in this essay, the spin portraying a cowardly corrupt IOC of not doing the right thing in completely banning Russia from Rio, isn’t a well-founded position. The aforementioned instances against Yugoslavia (in 1992) and Russia (at present) are indicative of a cultural bias.

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.