The President of the International Olympic Committee, Thomas Bach, took care of the safety and well-being of Russian athletes.

This is great news.

But here's the less exciting news.

The idea of ​​keeping Russian athletes safe seems to be used to keep them out of international competition.

Are you a little confused?

If so, please don't worry too much.

You are in very good company.

After all, as follows from the statements of the President of the International Olympic Committee, he is also somewhat confused.

Thomas Bach - on the removal of Russian athletes from participation in the Wimbledon tennis tournament: “We need governments to respect our role.

If we give in, we are lost.

How can fair international competition be guaranteed if governments decide, according to their own political interests, who is allowed in and who is not?

If you allow this, then today it is Russia and Belarus, and tomorrow it will be your country.

There is no country in the world that any other government would love."

Great words and great attitude.

But, unfortunately, this magnificent position sits comfortably side by side in the mind of the President of the International Olympic Committee with a much less magnificent position.

Thomas Bach on the reasons for the removal of Russian athletes from international competitions: “Aggression was shown against Russian and Belarusian athletes in a number of countries, and we could not guarantee their safety at international competitions.

For example, at the Expo, the Russian pavilion was attacked, and then those who were responsible for the security of the Russian pavilion attacked others.

This is not what we want to see in international competitions.”

Is there really only one president of the International Olympic Committee, Thomas Bach, in the world?

Maybe two of them?

No, my hypothesis is probably something from the realm of non-science fiction.

But you must admit that there is a certain logic in my theory: the statements of "Thomas Bach number one" contradict the statements of "Thomas Bach number two" too much.

The first of these two "twin brothers" very convincingly castigates the emerging trend of politicization of sports: "There should be no sanctions for someone simply having a passport of a certain country."

The second of these “brothers” de facto supports this trend and sanctions against athletes depending on their passport: “Look at our colleagues in tennis: in Paris, Russians could play as neutral athletes, and in London, the local government says: “Not in in any case."

This is contrary to all the principles we stand for.

If we leave this to governments, we become a political tool and can no longer guarantee fair competition.”

If we compare the situation in Paris with the situation in London, then the French, of course, behaved more correctly.

But the terms "more correct" and "correct" are not always equivalent.

Why can Russian athletes compete only under a neutral flag?

Isn't this a vivid example of the very transformation of sport into a "political instrument" against which Thomas Bach so fervently opposes?

I don't want to attack the president of the International Olympic Committee with too much criticism.

It is clear that Thomas Bach is under very serious (and what is there just serious - powerful) pressure.

It is also clear that he does not always have the strength to resist this pressure.

Take, for example, the thesis of the IOC President that Russian athletes should refrain from participating in international competitions due to concerns for their own safety.

If we act in line with this logic, then the last Olympics in the world should have been held in 1972.

As you know, at the Olympic Games in Munich in September of that year, a bloody terrorist attack took place, as a result of which 11 members of the Israeli team were killed.

A terrible and terrible tragedy.

But did it lead to the termination or at least the suspension of the international Olympic movement?

No, I didn't.

The next Summer Olympic Games were held as scheduled - in 1976 in Montreal.

If someone encroaches on the safety of athletes, then the measures aimed at ensuring the safety of these very athletes must be improved and increased.

This logic won out in 1972.

This logic should win 50 years later.

And I hope that in the end she will win - preferably with the help of the president of the International Olympic Committee, Thomas Bach.

In the meantime, such a happy ending has not happened, we can state the following.

The ancient Greeks were convinced that the gods led by Zeus lived on the top of Mount Olympus.

So, the modern equivalent of "the main creature on Mount Olympus" - the president of the International Olympic Committee - is somewhat lost.

Thomas Bach clearly wants to quickly "get out of the political windbreak" and return to the right path.

But this is not very easy to do.

The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.