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)

Pechstein had a fair trial, says CAS

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a statement on March 27, 2015, to point out that German speed skater Claudia Pechstein had a "fair trial".
Breaking its silence on the Pechstein issue that has shaken the foundations of the international arbitration court, based in Lausanne, CAS said "Claudia Pechstein had a fair trial, not only before the CAS Panel but also before the SFT (Swiss Federal Tribunal), and the judgment of the SFT, which remains in force, should have settled this matter definitively in 2010."
A German appeals court had upheld Pechstein's right to claim damages against the International Skating Union (ISU) after her doping case was disposed of by CAS and SFT.
In what could be of far-reaching consequences in sports arbitration around the world, the Munich court had questioned the neutrality of CAS and ruled that under German laws the winter Olympian could claim damages in a German court against the ISU.

"If, like in the Pechstein/ISU case, arbitration agreements were to be considered as invalid by state courts, even when not challenged at any stage during the arbitration, then the basic principles of international arbitration would be compromised," CAS has very rightly pointed out about the most startling ruling by the German court that theoretically at least opens up the possibility of a clutch of litigation around the world in all types of courts.

In a two-part piece on this blog, the issues were explained earlier 
The latest CAS statement is here

Is there a need for selection criteria for Olympics?

The ‘one-size-fits-all’ selection criteria for multi-discipline games announced the other day by the Union Sports Ministry may not solve all the problems that the government periodically faces prior to such games nor would it put a stop to arguments or litigations.

The most notable aspect of the latest announcement is, from now on, the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) and the National Sports Federations (NSFs) would not be able to fall back on the plea “we were not told” about selection standards.

     “It has been decided that for participation in multi-disciplinary sports events such as Olympic Games,  Winter Olympics,  Asian Games, Commonwealth Games, Asian Indoor Games, Asian Beach Games, Youth Olympics,  Asian Youth Games, Commonwealth Youth Games, Paralympics and Para-Asian Games, the performance  of the sportspersons in the individual events during the last twelve months prior to commencement of the event should not be less than the performance achieved by the 6th position holder of the previous edition of the respective tournament in measurable sports,” stated an official release.

Before we go into the issue of selection norms for the Asian Games and the Commonwealth Games, let us look at the relevance of such yardstick for the Olympic Games.

Participation in Olympics today is determined by qualification procedures laid down by the concerned International Federations in consultation with the International Olympic Committee (IOC). The process, as in shooting for example, begins around two years ahead of the actual Games.

In shooting there is a ‘quota place’ and a ‘minimum qualification score’ (MQS). A shooter may earn a ‘quota place for a country but need not be picked eventually to be the representative of that National Olympic Committee (NOC) in the event in which he earned the quota. The National federation makes that choice.

Should the ministry standard be applied here just in case the MQS is lower than the government norm and the shooter who gained the ‘quota’ is no longer in contention because of either poor form, ill health or any other valid reason that may satisfy the federation?

Athletics to have 'invitation' places

Take for example athletics. The IAAF qualification standards for the Rio Games are yet to be announced, but going by the formula adopted for the World Championships this year there could be just one standard instead of the ‘A’ and ‘B’ standards that used to determine whether a country could enter just one athlete or two or three in each event.

This could also mean the standards, to be announced next month, would be tough, at least tougher than those ‘B’ standards of the past. In many cases they may, however, not be as tough as the ‘sixth-place standard’ of the previous Games. And the crunch comes here.

Let us take the men’s discus standard for the last Olympic Games. It was 65.0m for ‘A’ and 63.0m for ‘B’. The sixth place in Beijing Olympics in 2008 went for 65.88m. The sixth place at the London Olympics in 2012 was 65.85m, and the standard for this year’s World Championships is 65.0m. For Rio, one can expect this to be more or less the same. If the ministry’s standard is to be the determining factor then it could turn out to be tougher than that prescribed by the IAAF.

An impressive 63.62m it was that Krishna Poonia achieved for her sixth place at the London Olympics. She has not crossed 63.0m since. Nor has the Asian Games champion Seema Ankush Punia (nee Antil ) done that kind of distance since 2004. In fact after 2012 Seema has not gone beyond 62 metres. Will it then be logical to fix the ‘sixth-place’ standard of the London Olympics in women’s discus as the selection norm for Rio?

There are any number of examples, especially of interest to Indian athletes, say men’s shot put (20.84), women’s 100m (10.94s), 400m (50.17s) etc where if the ‘sixth-place’ standard is applied the dreams of becoming an Olympian might recede for the Indian athletes.

Concessions become the rule

Concessions will then have to be made, as is normally done, in order to clear the few athletes who make the grade as per the IAAF standards. The IAAF this time would also be having an ‘Olympic ranking list’ to “invite” athletes who could be missing the ‘cut’ for qualification.

The same situation may be theoretically available in swimming also, though going by the last few games it has been shown that here it is much tougher for an Indian to make the grade as per the qualification system adopted by the International Federation (FINA). In swimming, individual rankings will count towards qualification with two sets of standards. ‘A’ standard will ensure automatic qualification.

In weightlifting, on the other hand, placing achieved by teams in various championships will be the benchmark to decide allocations of quotas.

In badminton, the qualification will be based on rankings as of May 5, 2016. The singles list will go down to the 34th place, with provision for continental representation and restriction of entries per NOC. In table tennis it would be a combination of rankings and continental qualification process that will decide who gets to play in the Olympics.

Obviously you cannot have a clause that says “the sportspersons must have achieved 6th rank in the last 12 months” and stick to a government-approved criterion. What if he or she is 34^th-ranked in badminton and fulfills the rest of the criteria for qualification? (In actual terms the qualification list will go down much deeper than 34th rank in singles since entry restrictions will limit the numbers per country to just two in singles and a maximum of 16 per NOC in all events put together. The 34 quota places will also include compulsory continental representation places.)

In boxing, wrestling etc competitors will earn quota places through pre-designated championships while in team games, countries make it either through a qualification tournament or on the basis of continental quotas normally decided by the results of the continental games or championships.

Little scope for Govt criteria

In short, there is hardly any scope for any government-determined criterion to be brought into play in deciding the composition of any of the Indian teams for Olympics. Unless of course there is such an abundance of talent, say in athletics for example, that more than three athletes are vying for places in the team, all having attained the qualification standard in a particular event.

The ministry would thus do well to announce that for the Olympics, standards as prescribed by the respective International Federations, or qualification procedures already agreed upon by the IOC and the International Federations would determine the eligibility.

Every International Federation has already finalized its qualification process and the total number of athletes to be allowed in each sports discipline in Rio and the number of events in all sports had been agreed upon and announced. There is provision, where necessary, to utilize ‘unused quota places’ under various formulae in all disciplines.

Asian Games and Commonwealth Games do not have either a qualification process or minimum qualification standards. For nearly two decades the Asian Games selection criterion approved by the Sports Ministry was the ‘third-place’ norm, meaning the bronze-medal-winning mark of the previous Asian Games or the last Asian championships, whichever was higher.

In 2006, the ministry diluted this to the ‘sixth-place’ standard. In 2010 no strict standards were applied and the federations made their own norms or used their discretion in recommending names.

Last year when it applied the 'sixth-place' criteria, there were protests and controversies as the ministry cut down a 942-member contingent proposed by the IOA to 679, mainly excluding sports and individual athletes who in its opinion stood no chance of figuring anywhere. The pruning exercise was carried out by the Sports Authority of India (SAI) and carried forward by the ministry, though eventually the PMO's help was also sought.

There are no official figures about the eventual size of the contingent since a few teams managed to get the clearance of the courts and a few others, despite being initially rejected by the ministry, made it to Incheon. This happens all the time of course.

The announcement of a clear-cut criterion at this point is thus welcome. This may or may not prevent last-minute recommendations and/or manipulation of criteria, arguments and counter arguments the next time. But the message is clear_achieve the standards or otherwise lose your chance to make it to the Asian Games.

Low weightlifting standards in CWG

There is a rush to gain inclusion in Indian teams in sport like weightlifting and wrestling at the CWG level since the standards are low while that in athletics and swimming, in contrast, are quite high, comparable to world levels in a majority of the events. The uniform ‘sixth-place’ criterion thus becomes illogical in respect of CWG.

The sixth place in the 2014 CWG men's 56kg class in weightlifting had a total of 225kg while the sixth place finisher at the 2014 National lifted 233kg. Not all weight categories in men show this level of disparity but the Commonwealth standards are pretty low.

Among women, the sixth place in Glasgow in the 48kg went for 142kg, the same as that was achieved by the fifth-place finisher in the Indian National championships last year. In the 53kg class the disparity is even wider with the sixth place in CWG showing 173kg, the same that the seventh-place lifter totalled in the 2014 National.

A method will have to be devised to toughen the standards for CWG in such sport where the standards are much lower than our National level, keeping in mind of course the legal issues that may crop up as they did last year for the clearance of the teams for the Asian Games.

Many Indian teams fared poorly in the Incheon Asian Games. A comparison of the claims made by such teams or individual athletes, as projected by the NSFs, and their actual performance in the Games would help the SAI keep a data bank that can come in handy at the time of future clearances. The SAI and the ministry would also do well to remember that once the stage has crossed for getting accreditation for individual sportspersons it would be futile to attempt to stop them. That means a timeline, like the one fixed by the International Federations for Olympic qualification, will need to be drawn up by the SAI to process proposals for the Asian Games and the Commonwealth Games. But who will reform the IOA and the NSFs?

One last point. The last time the PMO shot down 'no-cost-to-Government' formula that is adopted by the Sports Ministry to refuse official funding for teams that in its opinion fail to meet the standards. There is still a mention of 'no cost' in the ministry circular this time. Sticking to a policy is often a difficult exercise. Eventually if everyone gets official funding, it becomes unfair to those who have been left out because of "poor standards".
****
(Amended-14-03-2015)

Anti-doping education can also begin from Federation websites

Every now and then the Union Sports Ministry issues directives to the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) and the National Sports Federations (NSFs) about complying with various guidelines formulated by the Government with regard to their functioning.

More often than not these directives are either ignored or else implemented rather lethargically. For example, the ministry had sought last August details from the NSFs regarding their teams that went to the Commonwealth Games last year, when it found that a large number of officials who were not part of the official contingent had made it to Glasgow. Nothing has been heard of it since.

Communication sans follow-up?

In its communication to the IOA and the NSFs in October last year the ministry pointed out that there were previous communications dated 17 July, 2014 and 6 August 2014  related to these issues that seemed to have been by and large ignored.

As far back as 30 March, 2010 the ministry had declared NSFs receiving Rs 10 lakh or more annual grants as public authority and thereby asked them to provide suo motu information as per RTI Act 2005. Then also there was a directive that they should place certain information on their websites.

So, how will the IOA and the NSFs react to the latest directive issued today, March 2, 2015?

One is not trying to find out who did what. The idea of writing this blog piece is to focus on an area that seems to have been ignored by most of the federations and, unfortunately, missed by the ministry.

‘Anti-doping’ gets priority on the websites of most of the sports organizations the world over nowadays. A section devoted to the subject on a website is the best avenue to spread awareness and educate athletes. To a large extent, it also takes care of the oft-repeated complaint from athletes “but we were not aware of these rules” or “we are not aware of the latest prohibited substances” or “we found nothing of relevance regarding anti-doping when we searched the website."

This may or may not be true, but it sort of provides an alibi to the athlete during a hearing procedure related to an anti-doping rule violation. Many adjudicators in India have pointed out the lack of awareness among athletes on the topic of anti-doping measures and rules and about the need to educate athletes from rural areas regarding dangers of using drugs without proper medical advice. Yet there seems to have been no serious effort made to rectify this situation, particularly through the use of websites including that of the NADA.

The 23 points now

Among the 23 points listed by the ministry in its latest communication, there is one item that deals with doping. The ministry has asked the NSFs to place on its website a“Note on efforts for having dope free sports and compliance to WADA/NADA Code along with details of cases found positive during the last calendar year and action taken thereon”

This is fine from the ministry’s point of view in ensuring that there is compliance. “Action taken thereon” is rather superfluous of course. The National Anti Doping Agency (NADA) that functions under the ministry, is the sole authority in India to lay down rules, test athletes,  carry out ‘results management’ procedures, to bring forward ‘positive’ cases before panels and to impose sanctions as ordered by the panels. The federations have to just enforce these sanctions. NADA updates the list of suspended athletes on its website on a regular basis and there can be little confusion regarding who has been suspended or about the number of athletes under suspension. No national federation keen to continue its affiliation with an international federation will be thinking of not enforcing these sanctions!

But we should not just be concerned about a ‘note’ being published on a website regarding compliance. The athletes should be provided information on a variety of topics related to anti-doping, at a minimum the latest rules of NADA and the National and International Federation, the latest WADA Code, the latest Prohibited List of substances, any useful information regarding drugs and supplements, procedures related to doping control, rules regarding  issue of therapeutic exemptions that allow an athlete to use banned drugs, ‘results management’ procedures, hearing procedures, appeals etc.

How they do it

It is best to have an entire section devoted to ‘anti-doping’ as is the practice with most of the sports associations abroad. Take for example the British Athletics website  or for that matter the USATF  one 

These are not only user-friendly websites but also very informative from an athlete’s perspective. The UK athletics website has the following topics under its anti-doping section, 1) anti-doping education, 2) check your medication, 3) register medication, 4) therapeutic use exemption, 5) supplements and nutrition, 6) ADAMS, 7) UKAD anti-doping advice card, 8) rules and procedures, 9) Testing procedures,10) Notice and news, 11) currently under sanction.

The above headings are apart from  ‘WADA Code 2015 explained’,  a ‘Clean sport’ app, doping control test video that explains what happens during a dope test, from notification to provision of a urine sample, and FAQs, quiz and links to other useful websites. All of these obviously placed there to help the athletes.

In contrast, even the Athletics Federation of India (AFI) which has a brand new, refurbished website seems to have not bothered to update its anti-doping rules and procedures.

Rather interestingly, the AFI website lists ‘anti-doping’ under ‘development programme’. You may almost miss this section since no one could be expected to look for it under ‘development’. But that is beside the point.

A look at the rules, available not within the anti-doping section but inside the AFI constitution,  will reveal that these rules are not only archaic and highly misleading they are not even in line with the latest IAAF anti-doping regulations or for that matter the 2004 or 2009 rules of the IAAF.

On one page the existence of NADA is acknowledged, but within the rules the ‘doping commission’ is the supreme authority!

Who has the authority?

Rule 4 lists responsibility for doping control. There is no mention of NADA, the sole agency entrusted with the responsibility of conducting in-competition and out-of-competition testing in India.

The disciplinary procedures still state that an AFI disciplinary panel would hear the athletes. Since 2009, the National Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel, formed under the NADA rules has been handling all ‘positive’ cases in all sports.

That the AFI has not been able to correct these rules despite amendments carried out to its constitution at least on two occasions in recent years is unfortunate.

The sporting world had moved to the WADA Code-based anti-doping rules since 2004 (revised in 2009) but the AFI rules still mention a sanction of two years for a first doping offence, for three years for a second and for life for a third.

And here we are not even trying to bring in a comparison with the 2015 Code that has an entirely different set of sanctions now, but the 2009 Code. Unless we go back to pre-2004 days we may not be able to find anything remotely resembling the AFI anti-doping rules available in its constitution which is an amended version of 2013.

Get the basics right

A large majority of the federation websites does not have an anti-doping section, and only very few have any reference to any rule, forget the 2015 NADA rules or the WADA Code. Those who do have may not be having the NADA rules. Say for example the Badminton Association of India (BAI) . It does have an anti-doping section, but no reference to NADA rules or the NADA.

The Indian Weightlifting Federation website, for example, lists an anti-doping policy that cannot be accessed.  You will be lucky to get the 2015 Prohibited List on one of these websites unless through a link to the WADA website.

The majority of the websites also do not have the constitution of the NSF placed there.

Anti-doping information is a ‘must’ in tackling doping and ensuring that athletes do not fall into the trap just because of lack of awareness or inaccurate information. The websites of NSFs, apart from fulfilling mandatory requirements listed by the Government, should also be expected to provide basic information to the athletes on doping matters so that they are fully familiar with the rules and procedures. The task of the NADA and that of the adjudicators and lawyers will then become that much easier.

**