Senate Gives IOC a Chance

Amid much bashing of the International Olympic Committee and heavy skepticism that the IOC can reform itself, an influential Senate panel Wednesday took a first step toward bringing the IOC within reach of a special U.S. anti-bribery law.

The Senate Commerce Committee, however, let sit--for now--proposed legislation that would redefine the IOC’s tax-exempt status in the United States, limit its chief sponsors’ Olympics-related tax deductions and redirect millions of TV rights dollars to the U.S. Olympic Committee.

During a three-hour hearing, some senators urged immediate financial action against the IOC. Two senators called for IOC President Juan Antonio Samaranch to resign. And Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) put two IOC members through a courtroom-style question-and-answer session on Olympic finances and the IOC’s announced intentions to reform itself.

But McCain, the committee’s chairman, ultimately concluded the IOC deserves until the end of 1999 to prove it can effect real reform. To keep the pressure on, he introduced legislation late Wednesday that would put the IOC--a private entity based in Lausanne, Switzerland--under a 1977 U.S. criminal statute that forbids bribery of foreign officials.

Nonetheless, McCain said immediately after the hearing, U.S. lawmakers ought to “go slow” because “this is very serious business.”

“I think the worst thing at this moment would be to threaten some draconian measure . . . but that doesn’t mean I would completely rule it out,” he added.

The session Wednesday came five months into the worst corruption scandal in the 105-year history of the Olympics. Investigations found that Salt Lake City bid committee members showered $4 million to $7 million in cash, gifts and services on IOC members to help secure the 2002 Winter Games.

A stream of news reports has since documented the culture of luxury and privilege that came to pervade the IOC after the financially successful 1984 Summer Games in Los Angeles. As Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) put it, “A pattern of private payoffs, palace intrigue and padded budgets has chipped away at the integrity of the Olympics.”

The issue Wednesday was: What, if anything, ought the U.S. Congress do about it?

In recent weeks, several special commissions have wrapped up Olympic investigations. Among them were an in-house IOC board and a USOC panel led by former Sen. George Mitchell (D-Maine). Investigations by the U.S. Justice Dept. and the Utah attorney general are ongoing.

The IOC has expelled six members. Four others have resigned. At least one prominent member, Un Yong Kim of South Korea, remains under investigation.

The IOC announced last month it would create both a special ethics panel and a special group--dubbed IOC 2000--to develop a plan to restructure from top to bottom.

Speaking Wednesday in London, IOC marketing director Michael Payne said future contracts will contain a “morals clause” that will allow sponsors an out in the event of another ethics scandal.

With all that, why Congress?

Because, suggested one of the IOC’s most severe critics, Andrew Jennings, a British journalist who testified Wednesday, the IOC will not really reform itself. Noting that Samaranch is supposed to select the 20 or 30 members of IOC 2000, Jennings said that was akin to the “British selecting the members of the first U.S. Continental Congress.”

And, said McCain, the bulk of the IOC’s financing--perhaps 70%--comes from U.S. TV money and IOC corporate “partners.” Nine of the 11 chief sponsors are American; each pays about $10 million a year to be associated with the rings. “Clearly,” he said, “America has a vested interest in reform.”

During the hearing, IOC member Anita DeFrantz told McCain, “We all recognize for the Olympic movement to thrive, the IOC must become more transparent and more accountable.”

The hearing, however, underscored how elusive a goal that may yet be.

To begin, Samaranch declined an invitation to appear, citing scheduling conflicts. Democrats Richard Bryan of Nevada and Ernest Hollings of South Carolina said during the hearing that Samaranch ought to step down. “I believe this problem starts at the very top,” Bryan said.

Standing in for Samaranch were DeFrantz and fellow IOC member Jim Easton, both of Los Angeles. For 45 minutes, McCain grilled them.

He asked if it was true the IOC still keeps secret the minutes of its general assemblies for 10 years, its board minutes secret for 20 years. Yes, DeFrantz said. And McCain replied, “The American people deserve to know what goes on in those meetings.”

McCain inquired about the principal recommendations for reform listed in the report issued last month by Mitchell’s commission. DeFrantz and Easton categorically supported only one--term limits for IOC members, now essentially elected for life.

“Very interesting,” McCain said with a raised eyebrow.

Three times, McCain asked DeFrantz how much the IOC spent on direct support of athletes. She finally said she did not know.

Repeatedly, McCain asked how much the IOC made each year. Ultimately, DeFrantz asked for time to supply a written response.

Afterward, McCain said, “I had hoped we would come away from this hearing with a better feeling and understanding of the IOC’s intentions on reform.”

But, taking his cue from Mitchell--who also testified Wednesday, saying that “the end of the year would be a reasonable period of time to see if there is meaningful change,”--McCain said that any far-reaching legislation would be deferred.

Later, DeFrantz, a lawyer testifying for her sixth time before Congress, said, “We certainly did not get a ‘go get ‘em, guys’ type of encouragement. Skepticism--maybe that will work as well.”