Earlier this week it was reported that the Russian track athlete who blew the whistle on Russia's state-sponsored doping had recently moved to a new secret location in the United States because she feared for her life. One would normally associate such a move with organized crime rather than organized sport. Unfortunately, all of the inconsistencies of international sport related to performance-enhancing drugs have created a situation of uncertainty not only for this whistle-blower but also for all athletes and fans. Below are some suggestions to improve that situation.
First, it is obvious that whistle-blowers should be rewarded, not punished. The Russian whistle-blower was not only denied eligibility for the Rio Olympics but she says she received no support from the International Olympic Committee. Given the IOC's complete ineffectiveness in detecting massive doping at the Sochi Olympics, the IOC needs all the help it can get in that endeavor and should be praising whistle-blowers, not condemning them.
Second, one organization should be charged with determining doping infractions, not several, which is a guarantee of inconsistency. It is not at all clear what role is played in this arena by the IOC, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA, the head of which is on the IOC Board), the associations governing the various sports, the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and the International Paralympic Committee (IPC), which regulates the Rio 2016 Paralympic Games. For example, the IOC did not issue a blanket ban on Russian athletes for Rio, but the IPC did.
Third, blanket bans should be banned because they risk punishing the innocent. Imagine working hard enough to overcome a handicap to become a world-class athlete, dealing with living in an authoritarian state like Russia, obeying all the rules and then being banned from the Paralympics because of a mass punishment that gives you no chance to defend yourself. That may well be the situation created by the IPC's high-handed policy.
Fourth, define clearly what zero tolerance of drug abuse means. For example, the drug Meldonium was banned starting this year, which resulted in the bans of many Russian athletes. However, the banning authorities did not do their homework and did not take into account that Meldonium could, after the ban, remain for some still unknown period of time in the system of an athlete who had taken it legally before the ban. This was the situation with Russian swimmer, Yulia Efimova, who was vilified at the Olympics despite having been permitted to compete because of the uncertainties surrounding Meldonium.
Fifth, don't punish young people for life for their youthful mistakes. It is not uncommon in any field for young people to err, but, after they receive an appropriate punishment, they should be rehabilitated rather than vilified. For example, the U.S. sprinter, Justin Gatlin, served his doping punishment but was still tarred with the doping label at the Rio Games. He won a medal, and there is no report that he failed his drug tests. That should be the end of it.
Finally, the idea of keeping urine samples for years is not really helpful. Changing the results of competitions years later is meaningless. The victor will have already reaped the rewards and the loser will not be able to garner any of those retroactively. There is no call from sports fans to learn changed results years later, and learning years later undermines confidence in the whole enterprise.
The authorities should use the best drug detection methods they have, and then call a halt to those detection efforts after the competition ends. That is not a perfect solution, but it is superior to the endless questioning and uncertainty that now exists.
