IOC Forced to Juggle Issues

Caught between two crises--runaway doping in sports and runaway corruption within the Olympic movement--the International Olympic Committee pauses this week to consider a question it would rather not have to answer:

How does an organization unable to control itself credibly set about controlling drug abuse in sports?

The timing of this week’s heavily touted IOC anti-doping summit could scarcely be worse. The three-day meeting opens today amid a backdrop of the worst corruption scandal in the 105-year history of the IOC. Four IOC members have already resigned in disgrace, five others face expulsion and as new revelations pour in, the clamor for IOC President Juan Antonio Samaranch to step down grows louder and louder.

Months ago, when the drug summit was first penciled onto the IOC’s 1999 schedule, the concept carried all the public-relations appeal of a children’s hospital photo op. Never mind that the IOC’s 30-year battle against doping has been nothing short of an abject failure. In its pre-summit literature, the IOC trumpeted itself as “the first to fight against doping” while asking, “Why did the IOC and the Olympic Movement declare the war on doping while the major professional sports associations, which are independent and free to act as they please, remained passive or even indifferent?”

Yes, this week was to have been Samaranch’s canonization as the patron saint in the war on drugs, culminating in the formation of an international, independent anti-doping agency operating under a universal drug policy endorsed by all sports.

But that was long ago. Before Salt Lake City became renowned as the graft capital of the world--reportedly giving more than $1 million in gifts, perks and services during its campaign to win the 2002 Winter Games. Before Sydney admitted to offering $70,000 to two IOC voters on the eve of the election of host city for the 2000 Summer Games--an election Sydney won by two votes. Before the world view of Samaranch swung from patriarchal curator of Modern Olympism to out-of-touch elitist who should have retired years ago, with a portion of his honor still intact.

Instead, the IOC greeted the international media Monday with a bunker mentality. The IOC’s executive board met behind closed doors, under heavy security, before announcing a pair of measures of little substance beyond dire damage control: the adoption of a “code of conduct” for IOC members and their business practices, along with the creation of a five-person “ethics committee” to investigate any future charges of impropriety within the organization.

Then there was the curious, and highly comical, two-page news release concocted by the IOC’s office of communication, bearing the heading: “Corrections on facts concerning the IOC President.”

“In the past few weeks, a great number of innacurracies [sic] and misrepresentations have been widely reported which need to be corrected,” the release began. “The attached document provides a list of corrections. We respectfully ask that you review this document to ensure the information you publish is correct.”

A few excerpts:

* “The International Olympic Committee President is a volunteer and does not draw a salary for his work.”

* “In his 18 years as the IOC President, he has never once traveled from Lausanne to Geneva via helicopter.”

* “When in Lausanne, the IOC President resides in a small suite at a cost of 300 Swiss Francs (211 U.S. dollars) a night. When he is traveling, the room is maintained for him at a discounted rate of 100 Swiss Francs (70 U.S. dollars) per day. Additionally, the IOC President does not own a villa outside of Lausanne.”

* “The IOC President asked several years ago that people stop referring to him with the diplomatic courtesy title of “excellency” from his days of service as Spain’s Ambassador to the USSR and the People’s Republic of Mongolia.”

* “The IOC President does not request luxury hotel accommodations, in fact, he asks that hosts do not provide luxury accommodations.”

* “The President accepts gifts on behalf of the IOC. The gifts are either displayed in the Olympic Museum, placed in storage at the Olympic Museum or placed into storage at the IOC offices. The President also presents many gifts to dignitaries and others as an international gesture of goodwill on behalf of the IOC.”

Yes, you can safely surmise His Excellency does indeed read the newspapers.

These were not the circumstances Samaranch and his top lieutenants envisioned for the hammering out of their historic anti-doping program. These days, Samaranch reigns as the anti-Midas: Everything he touches turns into controversy, up to and including the historic anti-doping program.

Various proposals and quasi-solutions are to be presented for discussion over the next three days, but with most, the debate has already begun.

One proposal, calling for life bans and fines of up to $1 million for extreme cases of “intentional doping,” has been blasted by FIFA and FINA, the international governing bodies of soccer and swimming, as too severe and potential cannon fodder for litigating athletes.

Another, written by the IOC’s original--and still acting--medical chairman, Prince Alexandre de Merode, would ban doping offenders from the Olympic Games and World Championships but allow them to compete professionally in other events. Not surprisingly, this brainstorm has been widely hooted down as a weak-kneed cave-in.

“We are troubled that such a compromise could be seen as undermining the strength of purpose with which the IOC is determined to tackle the drug use and doping problem,” U.S. deputy drug commissioner Donald Vereen wrote in a letter to de Merode. “It may create a widespread perception that [the] conference lacks the ability and wherewithal to adopt the types of strong changes needed to address the problem.”

Even the summit’s pet project, the universal global anti-doping agency, is catching flak. On paper, the idea is considered a good one, primarily because it is to create an independent drug-testing agency--as in independent of the IOC, which is seen as having blown its 30-year window to successfully cope with doping.

But even that good will was thwarted over the weekend by Samaranch, who suggested that he chair the “independent” agency and de Merode oversee the day-to-day operation.

Two of Samaranch’s vice presidents, Dick Pound of Canada and Anita DeFrantz of the United States, broke ranks at that point, arguing, rather coherently, that the anti-doping agency must be free of all and any ties to the IOC if it is to debut with any credibility.

Francois Carrard, IOC director general, fielded several pointed questions on the matter at a Monday evening media briefing.

Addressing the possibility of Samaranch and de Merode co-chairing the agency, Carrard said, “This is a matter for the world conference to decide. The matter is entirely open. . . . [The agency] has to be autonomous, but the question of who chairs or co-chairs it remains open for the conference.”

It is quite a bind in which the IOC finds itself this week--desperate to give its stamp of approval to a face-saving drug policy, yet even more desperate in trying to find someone--anyone--willing to consent to the IOC’s stamp of approval.

*

The Associated Press contributed to this story.