By Jordan Kobritz
In his 2007 bestseller Where Have All the Leaders Gone? Lee Iacocca, former CEO of Chrysler, discusses the ten C’s that can be used as a test of a good leader: curiosity, creativity, communication, character, courage, conviction, charisma, competency, common sense and the one that he regards as the most important, crisis. If you believe Iacocca, and dismiss him at your own risk, the so-called leaders of the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) have failed the test.
The IAAF, the world governing body for track and field events, banned Russia’s track and field athletes from participating in next month’s summer Olympic Games in Brazil. The IAAF ban was actually an extension of a suspension imposed last fall after a comprehensive report by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) detailed Russia’s “deeply rooted culture of cheating (i.e., doping).” To no one’s surprise, the IOC upheld the IAAF ban.
Given the overwhelming evidence detailing years of state-sponsored doping by Russian athletes, reminiscent of East Germany’s total disregard of the rules in the ‘70’s, it’s understandable that global sport governing bodies felt the need to impose significant punishment. However, what they did — ban all Russian track and field athletes — is an example of “collective punishment,” an act which indiscriminately affects the innocent as well as the guilty. Such action is the antithesis of good leadership.
In defending the ban, IAAF doping expert Rune Andersen said, “This is about a Russian system that has failed…and there need to be consequences.” Dick Pound, former WADA president as well as a former IOC vice-president, who led the investigation of Russia’s doping activities, echoed those comments. In an interview with USA Today Pound said, “If your country is this complicit in a comprehensive and extensive doping program, then the country has to pay the price. And there may be some collateral damage (emphasis added).” You think? Start with Russian pole vaulter Yelena Isinbayeva, a two-time Olympic gold medal winner and current world record holder in the event who is now barred from the Games. Ditto for her fellow countrywoman, high jumper Anna Vladimirovna Chicherova, the gold medal winner in the last two Olympics. Neither athlete has ever tested positive for a banned substance, and their just the beginning of the list of innocents.
On the issue of consequences against a “country,” Andersen and Pound would encounter little debate. The debate, rather, should be centered on “appropriate” consequences. An outright ban of all track and field athletes? Whatever happened to the premise that everyone is innocent until proven guilty? Shouldn’t the gravity of Russia’s crimes as a country, i.e., those of sport administrators, politicians and executives, be balanced against the protection of innocent athletes who have spent their lifetime training for Olympic glory? Both the IAAF and the IOC took the easy way out, what amounts to an emotional response to “show the Russians” that they cannot flaunt the rules with impunity. Such action hardly passes the tests of character, creativity, courage, competency, common sense or crisis, to name more than half the criteria Iacocca uses to test one’s metal for leadership.
The IOC had the opportunity to right a wrong when it considered whether to uphold or overturn the IAAF’s ban. Instead of exercising leadership, the voters opted to concur, and suggested they might go further and extend the ban to include Russia’s entire delegation, a suggestion that is currently gaining support among a number of nations. The IOC did add one caveat to their threat: Russian athletes who could “prove” they are clean “might” be allowed to compete in Rio.
Details on how to “prove” innocence (note the reverse of our legal system where the prosecution must prove “guilt”) weren’t immediately forthcoming, but an organization as powerful and wealthy as the IOC could easily test individual athletes in approved labs. They could also test stored samples from prior Olympics and/or other international competitions. If they wanted to “punish” mother Russia, the IOC could then allow innocent Russian athletes to compete as “neutral athletes” in lieu of competing under their country’s flag, similar to what has been done for athletes in past Olympics.
Furthermore, if the IOC wanted to send a message to Russia and other doping violators, they could impose punishment that included fines; strip Russian athletes who were confirmed dopers of all medals won at the Sochi Winter Olympics where Russia finished first in the medal count; remove all oversight authority for drug testing its own athletes; prohibit Russia from ever hosting the Olympic Games again; and bar any sport administrator or government official who was complicit in the doping scandal from any future role in their country’s Olympic Committee or the IOC. Any and all of those sanctions — and more – are permissible under Chapter 6 of the Olympic Charter. In other words, the IOC could punish the guilty, not the innocent.
The IOC’s position is more than a little ironic, given that the organization is widely acknowledged to be one of the most corrupt sport bodies in the universe not named FIFA. Bribes, vote-buying and scandalous behavior have been endemic throughout IOC history, particularly in reference to awarding sites for the Olympic Games.
A true leader would never cavalierly dismiss innocents as “collateral damage” as Andersen and Pound were quick to do. Nor would a leader acquiesce in the blanket punishment of innocents for the misdeeds of their predecessors, superiors or compatriots. If the IOC hierarchy truly embraced that view, they would all resign.
The author is a former attorney, CPA, Minor League Baseball team owner and current investor in MiLB teams. He is a Professor in and Chair of the Sport Management Department at SUNY Cortland and maintains the blog: http://sportsbeyondthelines.com The opinions contained in this column are the author’s. Jordan can be reached at jordan.kobritz@cortland.edu.
