Corruption in sports administration scored new ‘high’ in 2015

The year just ending has proved a watershed year for corruption in sports. This happened to be the year when sports administrators were exposed, across sports, across continents. It is not that corruption had not been heard of in the field of sports in the past. But the magnitude of corruption reported in football and athletics through the course of the year surpassed all that had preceded the two.

We do not know yet the full story in these two shameful episodes in international sports and quite possibly they may occupy a dubious high for decades to come.

The FIFA Ethics Committee has since banned for eight years Sepp Blatter, who resigned as its president  a few days after being re-elected for a fifth term, and Michel Platini, one of France’s World Cup legends and till recently President of the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA). Blatter had looked invincible just as his discredited president Jao Havelange till the latter was shamed in the ISL scandal.

Blatter and Platini banned

Blatter and Platini were banned for financial irregularities in which Blatter was said to have paid two million dollars of FIFA money to Platini in what was described as “disloyal payment”. They were banned from all football activities. Both have vowed to fight the ban. They have the right of appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

In the wake of corruption charges in football, several other deals clinched in the past were subjected to close scrutiny and there were allegations that bribes were paid to officials to secure the 2018 World Cup for Russia and the 2022 World Cup for Qatar. Not just that, seven FIFA officials were arrested in Zurich in May by Swiss authorities following an FBI investigation in May last. More were arrested later. It proved a black year for football with prospects of worse to follow in the next year and beyond.

Football officials were not alone in gaining the ‘privilege’ of being arrested. None other than the former President of the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) Lamine Diack was arrested by the French Police for an alleged cover-up of doping cases. He was released on bail later.

This should rate as the ‘mother of all corruptions’ in the field of sports though at this point nothing has been proved and Diack’s son, Papa Massata Diack, himself accused of corruption, has denied that his father was involved in any dubious practices.

Along with Diack another IAAF official, Gabriel Dolle, the head of IAAF anti-doping, was also charged in the corruption scandal based on hushed up doping charges against Russian athletes. The extent of the corruption or the alleged fraud committed by IAAF officials were not known by the end of the year since a second report into the details of the athletics corruption by the Independent Commission of the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) was withheld in order to facilitate police investigations.

Biggest expose into doping cover-ups

In the biggest expose into cover-ups in doping, German TV journalist Hajo Seppelt revealed the widespread doping practices in Russian athletics, first in December 2014 through a documentary on German channel ARD, and then further through damaging revelations about possible blood doping in international athletics in collaboration with the Sunday Times in August this year.

Also triggering by then an IAAF Ethics Commission investigation was the charge by marathon runner Liliya Shobukhova about extortion demands made by top IAAF and Russian officials. Her agent Andrei Baranov spilled the beans first of the former London and Chicago marathon winner being asked to shell out 3,30,000 pounds sterling for abnormal blood test results being suppressed in order to help her compete in the London Olympics. Shobukhova was eventually suspended and she demanded and apparently received at least some money back.

Seppelt’s first report, based primarily on Russian anti-doping official Vitaly Stepanov and his athlete-wife Yulia Stepanova,  led to the formation of the Independent Commission by WADA. Headed by former WADA President Richard Pound, the commission released an explosive report in November that explained the ‘state-sponsored’ doping in Russian athletics.

The IAAF, with the newly-elected president Sebastian Coe under pressure, suspended Russia from all athletics activities and laid down conditions for its return. Though the exclusion of Russian athletes from the Rio Olympics is not certain at this moment, it is a possibility that no one is ruling out.

Heads rolled in the Russian Athletics Federation (ARAF) as well as the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) which was suspended by WADA. President Vladimir Putin promised co-operation in tackling the doping menace.

The Russian ‘doping machinery’ has raised serious doubts about the efficacy of the anti-doping structure worldwide.  Surely there must be other countries that could have adopted the same “system” as Russia. Sadly, the ‘zero tolerance’ slogan that we keep hearing has turned out to be as hollow as it was always suspected to be by athletes and coaches.

If the president of an international federation could be engaged in a doping cover-up and a national network could be ‘protective’ of dopers, could be bribed and could be manipulated, what hope can “clean athletes” have in other countries?

Second report on Jan 14

The true extent of the involvement of IAAF officials in the cover-up would be known only when the WADA Commission releases its second report. It is now expected on January 14. So far, for the record, it must be mentioned that the officials have either directly or through sources close to them denied any involvement which was to be expected only.

As athletics officials have repeatedly said, and as Richard Pound and others in the WADA have said, doping is not a problem confined to athletics. Nor for that matter should anyone think that Russian athletics alone could have been affected by a state-abetted doping programme.

Indian athletics, in perpetual denial mode on the doping front, would do well to take note of the recent happenings, especially at a time when the president of the Athletics Federation of India (AFI) Adille Sumariwalla is a Council member of the IAAF. The reappointment of the previously sacked, dope-tainted Ukrainian coach Yuriy Ogorodnik has certainly not enhanced the stature of the AFI in the anti-doping world.

Kenyan athletics had already been in the news for its poorly managed anti-doping efforts. Today both the WADA and the IAAF have turned their attention towards that country which we all thought had only natural distance runners who grew up running miles and miles to schools. Marathoner Rita Jeptoo’s doping infraction was the biggest news of Kenyan doping in the year when perceptions about Kenyan athletics changed dramatically.

The paradox in athletics

Surprisingly, Kenya finished on top of the medals table at the World Championships in Beijing to drive home a point that it was not just a matter or doping that gave it the edge.

Or was it really a true indication? In-competition testing, especially at World Championships have invariably turned in meager ‘catches’.

This is the paradox that athletics faces today. If a country makes a huge impact on the track there would be raised eyebrows. No one wants to believe that races could be won simply through fair means. Conversely, the Russian and Kenyan examples have given a big boost to those in lesser-developed athletics nations to argue that “everyone dopes” and the only way forward could only be through doping.

It is for the IAAF , WADA and the International Olympic Committee to restore the credibility of the sport.  Coe had talked about an independent testing agency under the IAAF to carry out testing even before he got elected as president. At the same time, the IOC President Thomas Bach had proposed that WADA or an separate unit under WADA take over all international testing and ‘results management’ and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) take over hearing of all doping cases.

Obviously you cannot have an IAAF independent agency and WADA or a WADA-supervised agency to test international athletes at the same time. If that were to happen then the IAAF could be expected to pump more money into its own testing programme than that run by the WADA. And this can happen in other sports as well.

Additional funding for WADA will have to come from all stakeholders, not just the IOC or a group of countries. Otherwise the question of bias and conflict of interests would come in. If WADA has to take over testing, a question would also crop up whether it could be expected to monitor its own testing programme. At the moment WADA is engaged in laying down standards, formulating a uniform anti-doping Code, and monitoring including monitoring of its accredited laboratories.

Focus on cricket administration 

Back home, the focus was on cricket administration. And in keeping with the world-wide phenomenon, cricket bodies also came under closer scrutiny and were exposed. The reign of N. Srinivasan as the Board President and the International Cricket Council (ICC) Chairman came to an end as the Indian Board grappled with a variety of issues related to a report by a Supreme Court-appointed committee that went into the functioning of the Board, and was asked to give recommendations for reforms apart from handing out sanctions against some of the leading characters involved in the IPL  scam.  

The New Year is expected to unveil the final shape of the recommendations of the Justice Lodha committee. Reports already attributed to sources suggested that there could be far-reaching changes in the very structure of the Board in the committee’s recommendations. The legal wrangles could be expected to continue.

If the BCCI is not seeking recognition as a National Sports Federation from the Government of India, can reforms be thrust down its throat? Will it relent? Can politicians be barred from contesting posts in the BCCI? If it can be done in cricket then why can’t such a policy be enforced in all other National Sports Federations? These are questions that the courts would eventually have to rule on.

Even as the BCCI was bracing itself up for further reforms at the behest of the court-appointed committee, the Delhi and Districts Cricket Association (DDCA) found itself in trouble with corruption charges leveled against it. Former cricketer-turned BJP MP Kirti Azad was in the forefront of the campaign against the DDCA, supported by former India captain and spin legend Bishan Singh Bedi, among others. They have been at it for years now.

That the campaign turned into a political 'tamasha' between the BJP and the Aam Aadmi Party  (AAP) was inevitable given the background that the Finance Minister Arun Jaitely, one of the BJP heavyweights, was the head of the DDCA earlier. Azad alleged corrupt officials were shielded, without naming Jaitley at least initially.

Indian Boxing continued to be in limbo thanks to the continuing war that the International Federation (AIBA) waged against the Indian federation (BI). Not satisfied with its early exclusion of the Indian body, AIBA got into the act again and even formed an ad hoc body to run the sport in the country when it had also collaborated with the IOA to form another ad hoc body earlier. 

There were faction fights in other Indian sports bodies as well, basketball being a prominent federation. 

Can there be a clean-up of the sports administration in India? It looks doubtful with the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) and the BCCI in no mood to relent. The IOA and the NSFs have been constantly fighting against what they term “intrusion” of the Government into their autonomous functioning. It is to be seen what fresh proposals the Justice C. K. Mahajan committee will come up with to fine tune the National Sports Code that lays down, among other things, the tenure and age limit of the office-bearers of the NSFs.

AICS revived

Also of significance is the re-appointment of Vijay Kumar Malhotra as the head of the yet-again-revived All India Council of Sports (AICS). It was Malhotra’s continuation despite the age stipulation that forced the Government to de-recognize the Archery Association of India. He has since stepped down from the post though he could be expected to be sympathetic towards the lot of NSF officials who want to cling onto their positions. What role will Malhotra and AICS play?

The courts so far have taken a dim view of the functioning of the federations including the BCCI. Any attempt to dilute the provisions in the guidelines on tenure, first enforced in 1975, would be suicidal. At a time when the call for a complete revamp of the sports administrations across sports has gone around the world, in the light of the FIFA and IAAF scandals, India should be looking forward to bringing in more transparency and accountability in the functioning of the National sports federations.

As Richard Pound said in his speech at the ‘Play the Games’ conference at Aarhus, Denmark, in October last, “autonomy of sport is an outdated relic from an earlier era”. Sports administrators have to realize the time has come to strictly follow the “good governance” principles not just on paper but in practice, too.