Think twice before you jump into the Olympics bidding game

Is India going to throw its hat into the Olympic Games bidding ring? There is heightened speculation as President of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) Thomas Bach arrives in New Delhi on April 26 and meets the Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, the next day.

India had never officially bid to host the Games though there had been proposals to go for a bid in the past, the last one being a less-publicized vote by the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) in December, 2009 to bid for the 2020 Olympics.

With the Modi Government projecting a “new image” of India abroad, alongside concerted attempts to attract foreign investment, and with everyone talking about a great push for the corporates at home, there could be a serious possibility of India joining the bidding fray in the coming months.

Needless to say, the big construction companies at home and abroad will stand to gain, not forgetting those that would provide technical know-how and expertise in planning and executing a games of this magnitude where more than 12,000 athletes could be expected by 2024.

There could be many other gains on the sports front and an array of economic benefits, both direct and indirect. But would this be worth it? That should be the lingering doubt as the Government examines the possibility of a bid, if that were to happen, in the coming weeks.

The ‘applicant city phase’ for the 2024 Games will start on September 15, 2015. That means, in just over four months time the Government of India will have to at least complete the preliminary assessment of the city intending to bid, the broad costs for bidding, a rough estimate of the costs should India win the bid, the mechanism of the bidding process and an assortment of other details.

Olympic Agenda 2020

As per the new Olympic Agenda 2020, the IOC would be helping out candidate cities in the bid process. It has started registration process for consultants who will help the cities formulate their bids. This is being done to ensure that cities are not fleeced by consultants and campaigners and the highest ethical standards are followed in the bid process.

If India decides to bid following the visit by Bach, it will be doing so at a time when a few other contenders, notably Boston (USA), Rome (Italy) and Hamburg (Germany) have declared their intention to bid while Paris also looks to be seriously contemplating its second bid since 2005. Paris lost to London by four votes in its bid for the 2012 Games.

Other cities being mentioned in recent reports include Budapest (Hungary), Baku (Azerbaijan) and Doha (Qatar). The list may grow or shrink in the coming weeks.

In 2009, the then Union Sports Minister, M. S. Gill, had dampened the spirits of the sports administrators by saying India should not be thinking of holding the Olympics.

“I am not sure if India should be thinking of the Olympics. Look at the poverty here”, Gill told the Rajya Sabha during a discussion on the preparations for the 2010 Commonwealth Games. “China spent $50 billion for the Beijing Olympics. Are you ready to spend that much?” Gill said. (China actually did not spend that much, with official figures showing only $ 5.5 billion though unofficial figures put it over $25 billion. But Russia reportedly spent more than $ 50 billion for the Sochi Winter Olympic Games in 2014, the most expensive Olympics ever).

A previous attempt by the IOA to contemplate a bid for the 2016 Olympics was effectively scotched by the then Sports Minister, Mani Shankar Aiyar.

Changed scenario

Today things might have changed in Government thinking despite the scams involving the hosting of the Commonwealth Games in New Delhi in 2010. Still the Government would do well to analyze all the implications of even going for a bid before actually committing itself.

There are a number of theories that interested parties encourage you to believe about why a country should go for an Olympic bid. From economic benefits and boost to tourism to the possibility of gaining greater respect among the comity of nations are just a few of the plus points often mentioned. Also there would be the undisputed benefits in sports development including sports infrastructure.

Brazil is going to do it next year so as to show its emergence as an economic power apart from attempting to increase the country’s prosperity. The infrastructure development in Brazil alone may cost more than $20 billion, reports have said. The London Games cost came to around $15 billion, officially the costliest Summer Games till then.

Will it be prudent for a country like India to spend billions of dollars? Say $ 40 billion?

Cost v benefits

The cost v benefits analysis should guide the politicians and bureaucrats when it comes to taking a final decision on India bidding for the 2024 Games. Whether the city is New Delhi or Ahmedabad (which some reports have indicated could be the venue)  the bidding costs alone would be in millions of dollars notwithstanding the more streamlined, less expensive procedures being adopted by the IOC under Olympic Agenda 2020.

If it is New Delhi, some infrastructure could be shown as available during the bid process. By January 2017, if not earlier, cities will be expected to show proposed infrastructure if not the partially-completed ones.

More than 90 per cent of the eventual costs go towards infrastructure, including rail tracks, roads, flyovers and airports, and since the IOC is constantly trying to keep the costs down, it would be better to have a city with some sports infrastructure good enough to host Olympic events than start from scratch. 

In February-March, 2017 the IOC Evaluation Commission will visit candidate cities.  In June that year the IOC will publish the Evaluation Commission report. Anytime after that the IOC Session would be convened to decide the host city for the 2024 Games.

What have experts said of the so-called economic benefits of hosting the Games? Much of it had been dismissed as myths by many economists and planners. A study made by a team from the Oxford University in 2012 before the London Games showed average cost overrun of the Games (Winter and Summer) from 1960 to 2012 to be 179 per cent. The Summer Games (excluding London) showed an average overrun of 252 per cent.

The planners, economists, advisers and sports administrators have to take this factor into consideration while advising the Government to go for the bid.

Much of Greece’s debt crisis, reports have said, could be traced back to the Athens Olympics in 2004. The majority of its sports infrastructure used in 2004 has remained in disuse, reports say.  And Greece is still struggling, it would seem, to maintain the venues.

Montreal took three decades to clear debts

Montreal took three decades to clear its debts amounting to 2.8 billion dollars after hosting the 1976 Olympics.  

Montreal’s eventual bill of $ 6 billion worked out to 796 per cent cost overrun (Oxford University study), a dubious distinction by which the Canadian city still heads the escalation charts of the Olympic budgeting.

Today, the figure of $4.5 billion proposed by Boston for the 2024 Games to the US Olympic Committee is being questioned by experts.  Economist Andrew Zimbalist whose piece for the IMF in 2010 on the plus and minus points of hosting the Olympics is mentioned above and who has written the book on Olympic costs, ‘Circus Maximus: The Economic Gamble behind Hosting the Olympics and World Cup’ was quoted as saying that Boston could end up spending $10 billion to $15 billion.

“When the promoters of the Olympic Games try to convince the public officials to support the Olympic effort, they come in with a bare bones plan with very few frills, and then over time once the commitment is made all of the elaborations, all of the frills come on top of that” Zimbalist was quoted in a recent report.

There will be a rush of tourists during the Games and after that, we are invariably told when a city is about to bid for a multi-discipline games.

The tourist rush that never was

In reality, it never works out like that. Around 1,32,000 tourists were expected for the Sydney Olympics in 2000. Only around 97,000 turned up. Post-Games, estimates put the figure of tourists in Sydney at 10 to 12 million a year. Sydney has managed with about 2.5 million international tourists a year. Last year it went up to around three million, according to figures released by the New South Wales Tourism department.

During the Olympics, the otherwise normal tourist inflow goes down since no one would venture to come at that time thinking that there would be a shortage of accommodation.

The National Olympic Committee (NOC) invariably projects huge revenues gained from the IOC  (which takes the television rights to be distributed among organizing committee,  the international federations and itself) towards operational costs and athletes' funding etc. But eventually the costs of infrastructure and running of the Games reach astronomical proportions as had been the experience of many a host. The IOC has world-wide sponsors helping it fund National Olympic Committees (NOCs), but advertising is taboo during the Olympics.

London eventually felt satisfied with the success it achieved in organizing the last edition of the Games. Beijing in 2008 and Sydney in 2000 also had that feeling of “achievement” in putting up a grand show.

Will it be worth it for a country like India, provided it gets the Games?

Big maintenance nightmare

Maintenance of the infrastructure built for the mega events is a nightmare. We have seen that after New Delhi hosted the 1982 Asian Games and the 2010 Commonwealth Games. Meagre allocation of funds has left several Delhi venues in poor shape. Many plans had been worked out but there is no sign yet of a successful, cost-effective one.

Will not hosting the Olympics ensure a host country of a better placing in the medals standings?

Not necessarily. Canada had the dubious distinction of not winning a gold in 1976, the only host country to do so, when it hosted the Games in Montreal.  Both Canada and Mexico (host in 1968) have not done too well in the games since hosting them.

The home advantage would surely give an edge to India if t were to host the Games as Commonwealth Games 2010 showed. But then there is no guarantee that the medal-winning streak would be sustained. It did not happen in the Glasgow edition of CWG last year. CWG 2010 though well-conducted were eventually trashed as scam-ridden by the critics.

For a country that spends less than Rs 2000 crores annually on sports and which does not have basic facilities at many centres for Olympic sports (for example synthetic turf for hockey or track for athletics at centres where they matter the most), where athletes struggle to get international exposure for want of funding, which just has one Olympic gold in an individual event (Abhinav Bindra in shooting in 2008), which finished 55^th on the medals table in the last edition in London and which has perennial problems with its sports administration, the money that may be spent for bidding, running into millions of dollars, could well be diverted for useful purposes.

What are the chances?

With Tokyo set to host the 2020 Games, it is doubtful the IOC members would go in for another Asian city for the next edition. It is also extremely doubtful if India would get the games on its first attempt when cities and countries have tried to get them repeatedly and failed.

US President Barack Obama had campaigned personally for Chicago last time, but it lost out early in the voting from among the short-listed cities with Tokyo, Madrid and Rio fighting it out from the second round onwards.

If you start thinking that Bach’s visit might just set the stage, then think again. Bach said less than 10 days ago that Paris would be “exemplary hosts” in 2024. 

The IOC chief is obviously keen to get more countries involved after a spate of withdrawals from bidding cities for the 2022 Winter Olympics.(Finally, Almaty, Beijing and Oslo have been left in the fray).

A decision to go for an Olympic bid requires a deep understanding of the issues involved, an understanding of the priorities in sports, those of the people of a country, and about the legacy that the games may leave. Rushing into it will be of no use since money will need to be sunk to show a large part of sports infrastructure by 2017 in time for the evaluation process. If the Government uses this as an opportunity to make a more serious bid for 2028 not many may crib. By then, hopefully, India would have created adequate infrastructure facilities for its sports community spread across the country and would have hauled itself up to the top-20 standings on the Olympics medals table.

Post-script

On the evening of Monday, April 27, 2015, Thomas Bach told the media that India would not be bidding for the 2024 Olympic Games.
"We were happy to see that the PM (Modi) was sharing this feeling — that he is seriously looking at the Olympic candidature." Bach said. "However, he wants to be well prepared and have all the expertise. It was an opinion shared by us," an AP report quoted the IOC President as saying.
(updated 11.15 p.m, April 27, 2015)

Who gets to vote in IOA?

The IOA in a bind (part 2)

The Government has dithered over several issues despite clear directions from courts. Between 2010 and 2014 it diluted the government guidelines, made certain portions of the tenure guidelines rather confusing, and now finds itself unsure of taking on the IOA. The Delhi High Court has given it some more time.

In its order of 19 December, 2013, the Delhi High court noted that the Union’s affidavit mentioned the following:

“That the Union of India vide its letter N o.F.8-17/2009-SP.III Vol.II dated 23rd February, 2011(Annexure I) has already conveyed to the IOA as follows: -

(i) inclusion of State Olympic Associations as voting members is not in conformity with the Relevant Rule of the Olympic Charter which deals with the composition of NOC. State/UT Olympic Associations are to represent IOA at the State level and for discharging that function,

they need not get the voting rights.

(ii) IOA should be a confederation of NSFs dealing with Olympic Sports and not a confederation of its own affiliated and other sports bodies.

(iii) The Executive Council with 28 members is very large.

(iv) Clause VIII (a) of IOA‟s Constitution is very restrictive and all the members of the Society should be free to contest the elections for any post.

3. Government of India reiterates its stand as contained in para (2) above. Inclusion of any of these stipulations in the Code/Guidelines of the Government of India is a matter of decision to be taken in due course after careful consideration.

4. Regarding lack of uniformity in the number of votes given to different categories of voters, Government of India is of the view that the provisions contained in Rule 28 of IOC

Charter should be followed. As per this, voting majority of an NOC and of its executive body shall consist of the votes cast by the National Federations affiliated to the International Federations governing sports included in the programme of the Olympic Games or their representatives.

5. As regards the size of the General Body of IOA, the Government of India is of the view that it should be reasonable and IOA should not have much flexibility to add categories/members.

6. Regarding limiting age and tenure restrictions to 3 office bearers, it is stated that this was done as per the view that emerged following consultations. Government of India favours these restrictions to be followed in respect of all

office-bearers.

Non-Olympic sports get plum posts

Today the IOA is headed by Mr. N. Ramachandran, president of the World Squash Federation, and has Mr. Rajeev Mehta, president of the Kho Kho Federation of India as its Secretary-General. Squash is not a sports included in the Olympic Games programme, though it is an IOC-recognized sport, while kho kho is only an indigenous sport.

Does one have to say more on the topic of composition of the NOC?

Much of the ills that plague the IOA today can then be seen as self-imposed. Even as the NSFs want to show that they would follow government orders, guidelines, codes etc without any breach, for fear of being de-recognized and thus losing precious financial assistance and other benefits, the IOA has remained somewhat defiant.

And there are National Federations, too, that are either stymied by faction fights or contesting provisions of the government guidelines.

The credibility of the IOA had hit a low in 2012. It continues to be low. The courts have taken a dim view of the monopolistic structure of the IOA and the federations. They have time and again directed the Government to deal with these sports bodies effectively so that public funding is legitimized.

Said the Delhi High Court in its order in the IOA petition challenging the Sports Code in May, 2014:

“In the opinion of the Court, aid or recognition is not a one way street.

The Central Government‟s legitimate right to recognize these sporting

bodies, for the purpose of use of the expression “India” enabling national

sports teams sponsored by these NSFs and the IOA to in turn use that

appellation, carries with it, the right to insist that certain basic standards are followed.

“With the right to grant or withhold such recognition is also the

right to spell out conditions, for the grant of aid- as such is undoubtedly the case, because travel expenditure, and assistance for procurement of equipment would be aid (apart from use of state resources such as stadia,

customs duty waiver for importation of equipment, facilitation and coordination during international events etc). The figure mentioned on behalf

of the Central Government towards positive grants for use these last four

years for travel purposes alone was Rs. 435 crores.

“Considering that the NSF and IOA are free to use the national status conferred upon them by the recognition and garner revenue, in the form of endorsement, sponsorships, sale of event coverage rights to the media, etc, there cannot be two opinions about existence of an overriding public or state concerns that such bodies do not remain the preserve of the few, or worse, the moneyed and the powerful.”

The court rejected the IOA’s contentions. ““For the foregoing reasons, it is held that the petitioners’ contentions are rejected. The Court reiterates its conclusions that international sports and regulation of NSFs, and IOA, in respect of the matters which are the subject of these proceedings, falls within Entry 97 of the First List to the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. The Central Government can insist upon adherence to these provisions, without the aid of legislation.

“It is also held that the Sports Code does not violate the freedom under Article

19(1)(c) of the Constitution. Neither are its provisions arbitrary. The tenure restrictions impugned in this case can and are insisted upon as a part of the public interest in efficient and fair administration of such NSFs.”

'Sports administration has reached depths'

The court also remarked about the state of Indian sports in its order.

“Sports administration in this country appears to have reached depths from where neither sporting bodies nor the State seem to care any longer for the successive generations’ sporting future. Reform is to be introduced urgently by the State. Sports administration appears to be mired in power play, where money, influence and chicanery play a dominant part and those who had participated in competitive sports at some stage are given token representation at best, or mostly marginalized.

“As the cliché goes, the state of sports is in a lockjaw where roughly 1.2 billion people have to rest content with a harvest of medals so meager as to be surpassed by just one individual like Michael Phelps. The London Olympic saw India notch up a tally of six medals. This averages to one medal for roughly every 207 million inhabitants. It is not without truth that the common perception that Karnam Malleswari, Col Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore, Abhinav Bindra, Sushil Kumar Tehlan and Vijender Singh were driven for individual personal reasons to focus on competitive sports. Sport administration, the way it is run in India, through coteries, cabals, manipulations and intrigues, seems to discourage a vast majority of the population to devote itself to athletics, shooting, judo, table tennis, gymnastics, soccer, boxing, fencing and the like. Sports can be popularized and made successful, when those who genuinely feel the need to inspire and attract talent, and are themselves driven by inspiration, evolve policies that result in a range of sporting activities becoming as or even somewhat as rewarding as cricket.”

The order has been challenged by the IOA in the Supreme Court.

Court seeks clarity about action taken

In the meantime, in its order of March 20 last, the High Court, in the light of the previous order, said

"We have heard the parties. It is not clear as to whether Union

has taken any action or issued any advisory to the IOA in regard to

the above matters.

"Counsel for the IOA submits that this Court should not pass any

directions in this regard given that the SLP against the Division

Bench’s judgment in W.P.(C)2310/2012 is pending before the

Supreme Court. This Court does not propose to re-visit the issues

which it pronounced upon in its judgment dated 9.5.2014 in

W.P.(C)2310/2012. However, the petitioner’s argument that there is

lack of clarity in the Government’s affidavit appears to be well

founded given that the Union has indicated and relied upon a letter of

23.02.2011.

"In these circumstances, the Union shall indicate proper course of action - and whether it wishes to issue an advisory or direction to the IOA as the case may be. Such action of constituting the Committee if it chooses to do so shall be taken in a time bound manner and preferably within six weeks from today. The Union

shall file its affidavit in this regard within seven weeks.

The affidavit shall also indicate the action taken in regard to the orders of the Court dated 22.08.2014 with respect to desirability and necessity of review of the Sports Code which had been originally

framed as guidelines in 1975. List on 27th May, 2015."

Without going into the merits of the argument in favour of even contemplating an Olympic bid for 2024, considering the financial implications and the country’s standing in international sports, the IOA and the Government_and perhaps the IOC chief_should ask whether the atmosphere for the Olympic Movement in this country at the moment is conducive for such a bid.

(Concluded)

The IOA in a bind as it gets ready to welcome IOC Chief

Two-part piece on the anomalies in the Olympic Movement in India

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) President, Thomas Bach, is scheduled to visit New Delhi this week.

While there is a lot of enthusiasm among the sports fraternity and the media as the IOC chief meets Prime Minister Narendra Modi on April 27, in the light of speculation about India bidding for the 2024 Olympic Games, what could also be of significance could be his meeting with the officials of the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) at a time when the National Olympic Committee (NOC) and the National Sports Federations (NSFs) have increasingly felt uncomfortable in following government regulations and guidelines. 

Will the IOC chief be able to take up some of the issues related to the Olympic Movement in India with the Prime Minister when he calls on the latter apart from pleading for a better environment for sports in the country?

Since the IOC itself advocates ‘principles of good governance’ and adheres to strict norms when it comes to tenure, it is doubtful to see Bach intervening on behalf of the IOA on the tenure guidelines. Though there are grumblings, the tenure guidelines have been accepted by all, whether willingly or out of sheer necessity to bow to Government directives.

Troublesome issues

Still, there could be other points pertaining to the Government-NOC relations which may get Bach’s attention.

The battle between the IOA and the Government over the tenure guideline is old, starting way back in 1975. Today, the modified guidelines that are part of the National Sports Development Code, have further backing from the courts, making things that much more difficult for the IOA and the NSFs.

The IOC had suspended the IOA in December, 2012 alleging “Government interference” and violation of the provisions in the Olympic Charter. The IOC lifted the suspension in February, 2014.

During the intervening period, the Union Sports Ministry including the then Sports Minister, Jitendra Singh, the IOA and the NSFs had discussions with the IOC in Lausanne before a “comeback formula” was thrashed out. The NSFs, by then, had bowed to the diktats of the Government but a few irritants remained.

Neither the IOC nor the Government gave much thought to these points though the ministry was keen to ensure that the voting structure in the IOA was changed. The IOC, initially insistent on effecting a change seemed to have given up in 2011 when it approved, for the first time in the history of the IOA, the latter's constitution that provided for voting rights to the State Olympic Associations.

This issue along with a few others have come back now to haunt the IOA in yet another writ petition filed by Rahul Mehra, lawyer and sports reforms activist.

The National Sports Development Code of India, notified on January 31, 2011, is a combination of the Government guidelines of 1975, 1988, 1997 and 2001, plus a series of Government notifications, given further teeth by a modification of the tenure guidelines in May 2010.

The IOA and the NSFs have been arguing that the code was too much of a threat to their autonomy, too intrusive and did not have the necessary legislative approval. The Delhi High Court has ruled otherwise, not just in one case but several cases.

Even as Rahul Mehra engaged the NSFs in a series of court battles, the IOA questioned the legality of the Sports Code in a Writ Petition in the Delhi High Court. It was dismissed in May, 2014.

The IOA had contended that the Sports Code was beyond the executive powers of the Government, that the Parilament did not possess legislative powers to enact a law in this regard and that the provisions of the code were violative of the IOA’s rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19 (1) (c)  and 21 of the Constitution.

On a petition from Rahul Mehra, the Delhi High Court directed the Union Government, on March 20, 2015 to indicate the “proper course of action” regarding the issue of several breaches of rules and convention in the constitution and elections to the IOA as pointed out by the petitioner.

The petitioner’s plea emanated from the apparent inaction of the government following an earlier order of the court.

Advisory or direction to IOA?

The court also asked the ministry to see whether it wished to issue an advisory or direction to the IOA in this matter. It also sought an ‘action taken’ report on the desirability and necessity of review of the sports code as asked by the court in an earlier order dated 22 Aug, 2014.

One of the major issues that had not been resolved to the satisfaction of all the parties concerned had been the voting rights enjoyed by the State Olympic associations in the IOA.

There is no provision in the Olympic Charter for such an arrangement. The IOC had repeatedly pointed this out and in 2010, at a meeting in Lausanne, among representatives of the Government headed by the then Joint Secretary, Sports Ministry, Injeti Srinivas, currently Director-General, Sports Authority of India, IOA and the IOC, many of the issues including the voting structure in the IOA seemed to have been sorted out.

The Ranchi somersault

There was consensus among the IOA members prior to its General Assembly meeting in Ranchi in 2011 that only the NSFs would have voting rights within the IOA and the State associations would be retained as Associate members without voting rights.

But things went haywire on the eve of the meeting and the constitution amendments carried out the next day did not reflect the ‘truce’ that was thrashed out at Lausanne nor the requirements under the Olympic Charter.

The IOA constitution underwent several changes after Ranchi, the last ones at the instance of the IOC to enable the IOA to return to the Olympic fold following the suspension by the IOC.

Today the NSFs whose sport are included not just in the Olympic Games but also in the Asian Games and Commonwealth Games and the indigenous sport of kho kho get three votes each in the IOA General Assembly. The State Olympic Associations along with Union Territories with Legislative Assemblies and the Services Sports Control Board have two votes each. The IOC member in India (there is none at the moment) and the other Union Territories have one vote each. Two Athletes Commission members have one vote each. (It is not clear who elects the members of the Athletes Commission, but that is a different topic that one can come to at a later stage.)

Though it has been claimed that the National Federations governing Olympic sport would have the majority in matters related to Olympics, the rules have continued to provide voting rights to State Olympic associations, obviously with an eye on elections to the IOA.

Voting rights for State Olympic associations

This is something the Government had been objecting to though it has not taken any action to get this rectified.

This is where the Rahul Mehra petition and the High Court order of March 20 last comes in.

The court had directed the Government in its order of 19 December, 2013 to explain, among other things, why the IOA Executive Council exceeded 20 members against IOC rules, and had a provision for 32 members in the Council, why the general body contained as many as 184 members as against a stipulation of 110-115 members and why State Olympic associations should be allowed to participate in the elections to the IOA while prima facie these bodies did not have any role to play.

The court also wanted the government to state why the restrictive clause about elections to the Executive Council of the IOA was allowed to be retained allowing a virtual monopoly of a few people in the decision-making process and preventing the infusion of fresh representative especially meritorious sportspersons.

(to be continued)

Entry standards for Olympic Games athletics get tougher

The entry standards for the athletics events in the 2016 Rio Olympic Games are out. Expectedly, there is only a single standard, as had been done in respect of the qualification for this year’s World Athletics Championships. In quite a number of events the standards are tougher than those fixed for the World Championships. 

That means it would be an uphill task for lesser-rated athletes just to make it to the Olympics. Of course, Indian officials never tire of talking about that elusive medal from Olympic athletics. There is no harm in aiming for one, but you have to sort out the qualification business first.

Focus on women's 4x400

The Indian focus once again would be on the women’s 4x400m relay team as had been the case for the past two editions of the Olympic Games since the team made the final in Athens in 2004. India finished eighth in its heat in the Beijing Olympics in 3:28.83. The team comprised Satti Geetha, Manjeet Kaur, Chitra Soman and Mandeep Kaur.

The Indian relay team could not make the ‘cut’ for the London Olympics last time. With almost the entire women’s 4x400m relay team serving a doping suspension, the second-rung 400m runners led by M. R. Poovamma had very little chance of making the grade though optimism was not missing right up to the end of the qualification race.

Poovamma is the No. 1 quarter-miler in the country now. And the majority of the suspended athletes of 2011 have come back, most notably Mandeep Kaur, Ashwini A. C. and Priyanka Panwar. The combination of Panwar, Tintu Luka, Mandeep and Poovamma clocked  3:28.68 while winning the gold in the Incheon Asiad.
Poovamma is quite capable of achieving the standard in the 400m (52.00s) but as it happens invariably when a relay team qualifies for the Olympics, the tendency would be to discourage an athlete from competing in the individual event. This is an illogical approach, but it happens with Indian teams.

Today, if a medal for India in athletics in Rio is being mentioned, it is in respect of the women’s 4x400m relay only.

Relay qualification

The top eight teams of the World Relays to be held in May this year plus the top eight teams after that as per the rankings on July 12, 2016 would line-up in Rio in the relays. Those rankings, as in the past, would be based on the aggregate of the two best timings of the teams in international events up to July 11, 2016. Just two teams from two different countries need to be there for the results to be considered for ranking purposes. In the past the IAAF used to designate international meets in advance for relay qualification purposes.

If the Indian team performs as well as it did in the last Asian Games, qualification might not be difficult. However, in order to be in the medal hunt, the quartet will have look for something close to 3:20-plus bracket. At this point,  it looks an impossible task.

In 15 of the 22 individual events among men, the entry standards are better than the Indian National records. Some of them might be of marginal difference only, say for example men’s javelin standard of 83.00m. Rajender Singh Dalvir threw a phenomenal national record of 82.23 in the National Games in Kerala last February.

Indian possibilities among men

Looking at the events in which Indian athletes could possibly aim for qualification standards among men, discus should figure high, since the standard of 66.00m should be within reach of Vikas Gowda, who made the final of the event in London in 2012.

Gowda has only one mark over 66.00 in his career, his national record of 66.28m at Norman, USA, in 2012. He has three other marks over 65.00m. For the last Olympics the ‘B’ standard was 63.00 while the ‘A’ standard happened to be 65.00.

Triple jump should come next in the Indian qualification hunt. Arpinder Singh’s 17.17m last year and Renjith Maheswary’s best of 17.07m in 2010 compare favourably with the Rio Olympic standard of 16.90m.

The fact that Arpinder’s best last year happened to be 16.41m and he does not have any other mark of 17.00m apart from his Lucknow effort of 2014 that displaced Renjith from the national records list, could be pertinent here.

Renjith’s  overall record, in contrast, is better. The Kerala jumper has three marks of 17 metres or more and three other results of 16.90m or better.

The 20.50m set as the standard in shot put could be within the capacity of Om Prakash Singh or Inderjit Singh if not both. Om Prakash’s national mark stands at 20.69m. He does not have a mark over 20.07m after that though he does have five performances over 20.00m overall.

Inderjeet Singh, the most sensational shot putter in recent times crossed 20 metres for the first time at the last National Games. He is however well short of 20.50, with his effort of 20.14m in Thiruvananthapuram.

Walkers may have an easier task

The walkers have a comparatively easier task among men, with marks of 1,24,00 and 4,03,00 being fixed as standards for the 20km and 50km events.

Twelve of the 21 individual events among women have standards that are lower than Indian national records. This should not give the impression that anything is going to be easy. They are not in track events and though field events might look a lot better proposition for the Indian women, in terms of qualification, there could be hurdles.

The events that look beyond the reach for Indian women and have marks better than the national records are 100m (11.32s), 1500m (4:06.00), 100m hurdles (13.00), high jump (1.94), pole vault (4.50), triple jump (14.20), shot put (17.80), hammer (71.00) and javelin (62.00).

In women’s discus, in which Krishna Poonia made the final in London, finishing a creditable sixth, the qualification standard of 61.00m looks ordinary by Indian standards. However, Poonia has not touched 60 metres since her national record of 64.76 in 2012, while Seema Ankush Punia, the Asian Games champion last year, has recorded best of over 60 metres since 2006 only in 2012 and 2014. In 2012 the ‘B’ standard was 59.50 and the ‘A’ standard 62.00m. Seema has a personal best of 64.84 (This mark achieved in Kiev in 2004 has not been approved as a national record).

India had 13 qualifiers including four walkers in the last Olympics. Gowda and Krishna Poonia made the final while Tintu Luka made the semifinals in London. Walker K. T. Irfan had a highly impressive 10^th-place finish in the 20km event.

Tintu can look ahead

Luka, incidentally, should cross the qualification hurdle without much fuss. The standard of 2:01.00 should not be a very difficult proposition for Luka, P. T. Usha’s trainee at the Usha School of Athletics near Kozhikode, Kerala. Last time the standard was 2:01.30. For this year’s World Championships also it is 2:01.00.

By doing away with the ‘B’ standard, the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) has obviously attempted to tighten up the qualification. The ‘B’ standard used to be attainable for quite a number of athletes around the world in the past. The present standards are stiffer than 'B' and mostly slightly lower than the 'A' standards of the past.

Three athletes per event are still eligible to make it from a country but all of them will need to achieve the single standard.  If a country does not have a single qualified athlete, then it could field a male and a female athlete in an event of its choice except 10,000m, steeplechase and combined events.

The IAAF is aiming for a total of 2005 entries for Rio, men and women put together. If athletes who have achieved the norms do not make up the numbers, the IAAF would invite athletes based on their rankings in the world ranking list (except 5000m, 10,000m and road events) to be issued on July12, 2016. NOCs would be required to submit entries by July 18. The qualfication period has begun from January 1, 2015 and it will end on July 11, 2016.

How far the new TOPS programme of the Union Sports Ministry for the Rio Olympics would help boost athletics performance, with the help of experts from Ukraine, Belarus and other foreign countries is yet to be seen. Needless to say, looking at the entry standards the mere qualification itself looks an enormous task for the Indian athletes, especially if the proposed stringent doping control measures are put in place by the National Anti Doping Agency (NADA) and the Athletics Federation of India (AFI).

(amended 21April, 2015)