"The Olympic Movement Supports the West": Sysoev on the role of the IOC, the risks of athletes in Tokyo and the strengthening of WADA's power

- Games in Tokyo are called the strangest of all the previous ones.

Without spectators, with a reconstructed motto for some unknown reason, with the admission of transgender people and actions in support of BLM.

Do you understand what is happening with the Olympic movement?

- You need to start with the fact that attempts to improve the entire movement began a long time ago. Until a certain moment, it was quite parity: on the one hand, the socialist camp, on the other, the capitalist one. But then professionals were admitted to the Games, and large investments came to sports. I'm talking about the Seoul Olympics, where for the first time the powerful participation of the world's economic potential was demonstrated. Then it became clear that the Games were turning into a very profitable event from a business point of view. Well, then, as time went on, it was he who began to form the program of the competitions, the form of their holding. If TV ratings show that one sport sells more than another, it will be shown.

- But when the finals of one of the central types begin at 10 am local time just for the sake of being able to watch them in prime time in North America, it seems to me too much.

- There is nothing to be done: today the Olympic movement is economically provided by the West, not us: most of the investments come from the “other” side.

It `s naturally.

It is easier to draw from where the economy is developed.

But I would not talk about the details, but about the situation as a whole.

The IOC is now a huge global concern, which is ahead of the UN in terms of the number of participating countries.

There is no second such organization in the world that would have such a powerful influence on politics, governments and society in general.

Especially in those countries where OIs are carried out on a point basis.

The very system of elections for Olympic capitals has also changed.

The IOC realized that if they are carried out by secret ballot with travel commissions and other things, this is nothing more than an involuntary encouragement of the legal mechanism of corruption.

- Generating huge bribes and scandals?

- Exactly. And look what started to happen: on the eve of the IOC session in Denmark, where the United States and Brazil fought for the right to host the 2016 Olympic Games, the then US President Barack Obama had a conversation with Jacques Rogge. Madame Obama came to the session, and everyone was just sure that the Americans would get this Olympics. And they lost to the Brazilians. And on the podium, the President of the country, Luis Inacio Lula da Silva, bowed almost to their feet.

And in the United States, the reasoning was simple: with Brazil, where big American business and serious capital are concentrated, at that time they had difficult relations, strained.

In order to more freely own this world, it was necessary to throw some kind of bone to the Latin Americans.

By the way, economically, the Americans only benefited from this decision: spending money and human resources on hosting the Games in the United States would be much less profitable than using their own funds and getting benefits for the Olympic Games in Brazil.

- Why did the United States need to cede the right to host the Olympic Games-2024 to France?

- It seems to me that in this way they are simply playing with Europe, while receiving "compensation".

Show who actually owns the "controlling stake".

Relations with WADA are being built in the same way.

The US Senate openly declares: "We have been allocated $ 2.9 billion, which we have to transfer to WADA, but we are going to first transfer half of this amount and see how the agency will be reorganized."

That is, they again show who is the boss in the house: he will arrange how the reorganization is going, and we will give money.

If it doesn't suit you, we won't give it.

- How can you explain that the persecution of Russia by WADA suddenly stopped?

I mean the statement of the president of the organization, Vitold Banka, who, on the eve of the opening of the Games, said that the story with Russian doping was over.

- I think this is a temporary pause, nothing more.

Most likely, people simply agreed that now no one should be able to destroy the Olympic movement, since there is nothing else in return.

- But something became a prerequisite?

- Of course.

Remember the June meeting in Switzerland of our President with Joe Biden?

Everyone wanted some immediate specifics - what exactly they decided on what issues.

But in big politics, in such a delicate, multi-layered, multi-layered, relations and agreements are built in a different way.

We saw, for example, that after this meeting the attitude towards Nord Stream changed and became more loyal.

The tendencies began to soften one, the other, the third, the fourth.

So it is in sports.

The command could simply follow: "Guys, stop beating Russia."

- Why does Biden need this?

- And now he has a difficult position.

Why is he withdrawing troops from Afghanistan?

He needs a break everywhere.

The scandal with the elections has not ended, it is necessary to attract new forces to our side.   

- Is the penetration of the BLM movement into sports, formally supported by the IOC President Thomas Bach, a link in the same chain?

- This again comes to the question of who is the real owner of the IOC.

It is very important for Biden and the entire political beau monde of the United States to reassure America now.

And they are striving with all their might to put this movement into practice everywhere. 

- Don't you think that the Summer Olympics reached such a degree of gigantism that they became meaningless as a phenomenon?

It is absolutely impossible to see all the competitions even on TV.

- I also sometimes think that there should be some kind of simplification. First of all, from the point of view of the cost mechanism. All these requirements for sports facilities, for the introduction of modern technologies, require very large investments. Last year, when the exacerbation of the coronavirus became relevant, Bach, after all, twice, including through the UN, appealed to the world community and once to the governments of the countries: "Provide assistance to the national Olympic committees, the national Olympic movement in their countries."

True, in such situations, I have a question: if you are talking about non-interference in the sport of states, but demand that you be given money, how should this be treated?

So it turns out that either very rich countries or politically engaged ones can afford to host the Olympic Games.

Not a single small state can handle such an event on its own.  

- The experience of holding competitions in a pandemic has shown that there is nothing wrong with the absence of spectators in the stands.

There is television, there are sponsors whose advertisements this television will show, and all sports events have long been tailored to the TV picture.

- Why then build sports facilities with stands?

- This is what I am leading to.

At the same time, costs will be drastically reduced.

- I will never agree that watching sports live and on TV is the same thing.

I go to the podium to enjoy the spirit of competition, struggle.

The whole Olympics cannot be reduced to the idea that it is only for athletes.

In this case, it will turn into a too intimate event and will outlive itself.

It's even silly to discuss it.

- A year ago, when the fate of the Tokyo Games was in question, you voiced a proposal to compete for Olympic awards in the framework of the world championships in various sports and in different countries.

- Why not? Invite IOC members there, hang medals for the winners. It should not be forgotten that the Olympic Games are held by international federations and not by the Olympic committee. I am sure that in this case many countries would consolidate their efforts within the framework of the Olympic movement. Japan could leave the opening ceremony, judo tournaments and, perhaps, in those types in which the championships of the planet are not held every year. Nothing terrible would have happened. Moreover, in this version, all the National Olympic Committees seemed to be reaching out to Olympic Tokyo at a difficult moment for the whole world. Then the word "together" from the new Olympic slogan would have sounded completely different. Together! We have hosted these Games with the whole world. Making them as safe as possible.

Now I look at the event from the outside, and I have a lot of questions.

A huge number of people live locked up: "cage" - competition, "cage" - competition.

Have you read the message that the UN Secretary General made to the OI?

- It didn't happen.

- There he talks about peace, friendship, absence of conflicts ... Wait, guys!

Say a word about everyone returning from there healthy.

But they are afraid of this topic, since no one wants to take responsibility.

They transferred it to the athletes, each of whom is obliged to sign a paper that in case of infection, he will not have any claims to anyone.

Not so long ago, one of the former members of the NOC told me: “You know this, like in a clinic in the West.

You come before the operation, you sign ... ".

I myself signed such papers.

But one thing is an operation, to which a person agrees out of despair, and quite another is the Olympic Games, where it is as if deliberately assumed that an athlete, as they say, for the amusement of the public will tear his body as much as possible, giving all his strength.

So guarantee him at least some compensation, if God forbid, something happens.

Even here an element of some cynicism is visible.

- For such steps, world sports must be headed by a very strong and outstanding personality.

Do you think the current president of the IOC would be able to make such a decision?

- I would not say that Bach can handle it.

He's too unfree for that.

And Jacques Rogge would not have been on the shoulder.

Of those IOC leaders whom we have seen in the foreseeable past, I would name only Juan Antonio Samaranch.

His grandiose administrative, political and diplomatic experience allowed him to remain flexible, but make strong-willed decisions.

And they are very strong.

- At the time of Samaranch it was impossible to imagine that the IOC could become dependent on such an organization as WADA.

I believe that its members at the dawn of the creation of the IOC were not always invited even to business lunches.

At what point did the fracture occur?

- The revolution in this matter was once organized by Richard Pound. When he was promised (including us) that he would become president of the IOC, and Rogge was elected to this post in Moscow at a committee session, the Canadian was very offended. The session took place in July, and in August of the same year, re-elections to WADA took place in Lausanne. And the IOC agreed that this organization will move from Lausanne to Montreal, Canada.

As a lawyer and lawyer, Pound is a high-class man.

He built his entire line absolutely correctly.

Moreover, at the same time in Canada a law was passed according to which WADA has no right to leave the territory of the country without a decision of the Canadian government.

Classic!

Then Pound received subsidies and guarantees from the American side that they would give money for the maintenance of the agency, and they began to jointly feed and cultivate this organism, eventually turning it into a legally independent control and oversight body.

Well, when real funds appeared ...

- Has real power appeared?

- Even some!  

- A utopian question, but is it possible to make the commission of athletes, which has existed at the IOC for many years, as significant?

So that she could somehow influence the degree of interference in sports, really protect the interests of athletes? 

- In administrative activities, everything is not as simple as it might seem from the outside. We can trace the paths to an active civil, social, political and administrative career on the example of such outstanding athletes as Bach, Sebastian Coe, Vladislav Tretiak, and we will immediately see to what extent these examples are different. In order for the experience to be successful, one must have certain organizational abilities, the skill of working with people, go through some steps before arriving at a real management system and solving serious issues. Sometimes you have to go into conflicts, make not very pleasant decisions, defend them. This is, I would say, a tart task.

And you great athletes have one peculiarity. Firstly, many perceive any high appointment as a reward for past sporting achievements and are not too eager for professional development. And, secondly, during his stay in sports at the level of exorbitant results, an athlete, both physically and mentally, spends himself to such an extent that he needs help in adapting to a post-sports life. He is not always ready to fight with someone, to fight for something. And no one needs a strong commission within the framework of the current IOC ...