Breaking News
Translate

Russian athletes banned from Rio Paralympics over doping scandal

The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) on Sunday said it has banned Russian athletes from competing at the Rio 2016 Paralympic Games following the country’s doping scandal.

Rio Olympics 2016
Rio Olympics 2016

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that IPC had opened suspension proceedings following the McLaren report, and has now confirmed the ban.

The report, published last month, detailed a state-sponsored doping programme operated by Russia.

The Russian Paralympic Committee will reportedly appeal against the decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

In contrast to the IPC, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) chose not to give Russia a blanket ban from the ongoing Olympic Games.

The Rio 2016 Paralympics, scheduled for Sept. 7 to Sept. 18, begin in 31 days’ time and 267 Russian athletes across 18 sports will miss the Games.

“The anti-doping system in Russia is broken, corrupted and entirely compromised,” said IPC president Philip Craven at a news conference on Sunday.

“The Russian Paralympic Committee are unable to ensure compliance with and enforcement of the IPC anti-doping code and the world anti-doping code within their own national jurisdiction.

“As such, they cannot fulfil their fundamental obligation as an IPC member.

“As a result, the Russian Paralympic Committee is suspended with immediate effect.’’

He noted that the situation was tragically not about athletes cheating a system, but about a state-run system that was cheating the athletes.

“The doping culture that is polluting Russian sport stems from the Russian government.

“The Russian government has catastrophically failed its para-athletes. Their medals-over-morals mentality disgusts me.

“The complete corruption of the anti-doping system is contrary to the rules and strikes at the very heart of the spirit of Paralympic sport.

“It shows a blatant disregard for the health and well-being of athletes and, quite simply, has no place in Paralympic sport.

“Their thirst for glory at all costs has severely damaged the integrity and image of all sport, and has certainly resulted in a devastating outcome for the Russian Paralympic Committee and para-athletes.’’

NAN reports that the McLaren Report found that Russia’s sports ministry manipulated urine samples provided by its athletes.

The report identified 27 samples relating to eight para-sports, five of which are summer sports, including some governed by the IPC.

The IPC has also found evidence that samples were swapped during the Sochi 2014 Paralympic Games and it planned to reanalyse every Russian sample from Sochi.

The IPC allowed the Russian Paralympic Committee to present its case before it decided on the ban.

NAN reports that the IOC was widely criticised for ignoring the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) recommendation to ban Russia from the Rio Games.

Instead, each individual sporting federation was given the power to decide if Russian competitors were clean to compete and a three-person IOC panel then had the final say.

In the end, more than 270 Russian athletes were cleared to compete at the Olympics.

In a reaction to the Russian ban, the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) chief executive, Travis Tygart, said the IPC decision was “inspiring’’.

“The IPC showed strong leadership today in holding Russia’s state-organised doping accountable,’’ said Tygart.

“Their unanimous decision goes a long way towards inspiring us all — most importantly clean athletes — and upholding the Paralympic values we admire.’’

WADA said it supported the decision, adding it was “in the interest of clean athletes and the clean sport movement’’.

The British Paralympic Association said the IPC had taken a bold decision and congratulated it for taking a “clear stand’’.

“It is crucial for the integrity of our sport that those involved, as well as the public, feel confident that all necessary measures are in place to tackle doping and the playing field is level,’’ a statement read.


Disclaimer

Comments expressed here do not reflect the opinions of vanguard newspapers or any employee thereof.