Surprise, surprise… the International Olympic Committee (IOC) lamented there’s “insufficient” evidence of Russian doping. We live for these moments. As they say in America:
A lie gets halfway to Wal-Mart before the truth has a chance to put its Crocs on.
Yes, it’s finally happened. The truth finally caught up with the World Anti-Doping Agency and its International Olympic Committee pals. The IOC admitted that Richard McLaren’s 2016 report on the alleged use of doping by Russian athletes “isn’t sufficient to bring successful cases”. Christophe de Kepper, director-general and member of the IOC Executive Board said in a letter to the organisation:
At the recent meeting (21 February) held by WADA in Lausanne to “provide assistance to IFs [International Federations] regarding how to analyse and interpret the evidence”, WADA admitted that in many cases the evidence provided may not be sufficient to bring successful cases.
Finally, justice… and just in time to allow all Russian athletes to take part in the Rio games…oh, wait. Based on the first part of McLaren’s report published on 18 June 2016, which presented the results of his investigation into alleged doping at the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympic Games, WADA recommended that the IOC, the International Paralympic Committee (IPC), and all international sporting federations exclude Russia from their competitions. Consequently, the IOC banned the entire Russian Paralympian team from the Rio games. We could spend all day dissecting the McLaren report, but it’s clear that the IOC has already accepted reality… it’s a bad, bad, bad, poorly done politically motivated hit job. If you want the details, you can read this or this or this. Mark Chapman nailed it back in August:
Bullshit. From start to finish. No western athlete would have to put up with a ban on competing just because he or she was American or Canadian or Dutch, and he or she would damned sure not be told to accept a ban where he or she had not even seen the evidence against him or her because it was secret. The McLaren Report doesn’t prove anything it purports to prove, and it won’t stand up to a challenge.
25 February 2017