IT is just over one year to the day that the initial report into Russian doping was released. The McLaren report part one was a damning account of how Russian athletes, coaches and officials colluded to get away with using banned performance-enhancing drugs in the lead-up and aftermath of the London 2012 Olympics. The report shook sport to its core and it was widely agreed that these were the most shocking revelations that modern-day sport had ever seen.
So, 12 months on, is sport in a better place? You must be kidding. That initial McLaren report only served to open the floodgates for what has been a truly abominable year for the reputation of clean sport. The Rio Olympics was marred by the exclusion of the Russian track and field team while positive re-tests from Beijing 2008 and London 2012 have continued to emerge.
It seems that the situation cannot get much worse, so where does the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), which is charged with promoting, co-ordinating and monitoring the fight, go from here? This week is pivotal for WADA. Its president, Sir Craig Reedie, has been at the helm for the past three years and on Sunday, he will be up for re-election when WADA holds its Foundation Board and Executive Committee meetings. Handily for Reedie, the meeting is in Glasgow, just a few miles from his home in Bridge of Weir and even more handily, he is the only person up for election. However, events in the past few days have meant that things may not be quite as straightforward as they first appeared.
Earlier this week, the Association of National Olympic Committees (ANOC) met for their general assembly in Qatar. During this, Reedie faced stinging criticism for the way WADA handled the Russian doping scandal, which broke immediately prior to the Rio Olympic Games. Just as a reminder, as if anyone could forget, the second part of the McLaren report was released less than one week before the opening ceremony of the Olympics. It detailed further evidence of state-sponsored doping in Russia and, in the wake of its release, WADA recommended that Russia’s entire Olympic team be banned from the games. Say what you like about WADA and its failings – and I have – but it must be commended for taking such a stance. Going soft on Russia on the eve of the biggest sporting show on the planet was not the answer and WADA, to its credit, recognised this. The IOC, well, not so much. It disregarded WADA’s recommendations entirely and this triggered a period of considerable bad feeling between the two organisations. However, the IOC, in a remarkable volte-face, has now decided that Reedie is indeed the man to lead the revival of clean sport, with the Olympic body endorsing Reedie for another three-year term at the helm of WADA when he is up for re-election this weekend.
First of all, it seems somewhat strange that Reedie would want to subject himself to another three years of this circus that he has been front and centre of since becoming president in 2013. He has taken public beating after public beating about, amongst other things, his own conflicts of interest, the inefficacy of WADA to clean up sport and the outspoken views of WADA regarding Russia’s inclusion in Rio, over which Reedie’s body has no authority.
His latest beating came at this week’s ANOC assembly because, on the eve of the gathering, WADA chose to announce that the Doha doping lab was to be suspended due to it not meeting WADA’s guidelines. Of course, WADA’s actions were not welcomed by everyone, with some claiming that the anti-doping body engineered the timing of the announcement in an attempt to garner maximum publicity. This was before Reedie personally was shot at by several high profile critics, including the Spanish Olympic Committee president, Alejandro Blanco, asking: “What is WADA for?”
There is little doubt that WADA has lost much credibility over the past year, with the pervading attitude from the anti-doping body in the aftermath of the Russian doping scandal being: “Well, what could we have done? It was just so sophisticated.” Russia’s cheating of the system was, indeed, astonishingly sophisticated but to declare defeat in such a manner is unacceptable.
WADA is facing an uphill battle because much of sport, with a few exceptions, remains more concerned with protecting their personal reputations as well as their sport’s reputation rather than eradicate doping. WADA is by no means perfect but the body does now appear to be willing to do everything in its power to clean up sport. Perhaps it would be better were Reedie not re-elected and someone came in who had no connections in sport and couldn’t care less who they riled. But whether it is Reedie or someone else for the next three years, one thing is for sure, WADA can’t sort out this mess on its own. Until the IOC and individual sport’s governing bodies jump on the clean sport bandwagon, WADA is fighting a losing battle.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here