Politics August 24, 2016
The Russian doping scandal made headlines worldwide when the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) banned Russian athletes from competing in the 2016 Rio de Janeiro Olympics. A trending independent report commissioned by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) revealed that Russian officials participated in systematic doping practices with its celebrity athletes, including destroying samples prior to inspection, accepting bribes in exchange for clean tests and using fake identities to dodge random testing.
What few publications reported is that WADA received detailed information about Russia’s doping practices from one of its athletes as early as 2012, but failed to investigate. According The New York Times, Darya Pishchalnikova, a discus thrower and silver medalist from the 2012 London Olympics, sent a pleading email to the organization asking for help, hoping to put an end to the cycle of doping in her country. Along with her confession, she offered her full cooperation and provided a series of names and facts which a WADA lawyer called “relatively precise.”
Yet instead of protecting the athlete who came forward as a whistle-blower on Russia’s doping practices, WADA “sent Ms. Pishchalnikova’s email to Russian sports officials — the very people who she said were running the doping program.” With report findings that now corroborate the extent of intimidation and harassment exercised against officials and athletes who resisted involvement in Russia’s state-sanctioned doping program, it stands to reason that this action put Ms. Pishchalnikova in the path of significant danger.
What is perhaps most bothersome about this situation is how it mirrors the treatment of women’s voices in many sexual assault and domestic abuse cases – namely, how often female testimony is systematically undermined by authorities not satisfied with “relatively precise” proof. That a detailed first person account with names and thorough facts about Russia’s doping practices was not enough for WADA to at least probe Russian sports authorities indicates a serious problem in how our society interprets the credibility of women’s voices.
In fact, the athlete who now receives credit for blowing the lid off the Russian doping scandal, Yuliya Stepanova, an 800m runner and former gold medalist, approached WADA in 2013 with similar allegations as Pishchalnikova. Frustrated by the agency’s failure to take action, Stepanova secretly recorded meetings with coaches and fellow athletes on her mobile phone. Even with audio evidence compiled over several years, WADA did not respond to her tip-off.
This phenomenon is all too familiar for victims of assault or abuse. As a recent example, Amber Heard’s domestic violence claims against husband Johnny Depp were received with skepticism, despite physical evidence of injury. Heard’s friend, iO Tillett Wright, who says she witnessed signs of the abuse, responded furiously to a TMZ report which contested Amber’s story. “How much evidence does a woman need to present?! She has photos, texts, witnesses, and filed a restraining order… This culture of victim blaming makes me sick.”
According to the Financial Times, when WADA ignored Stepanova’s claims, she and her husband turned over evidence to filmmaker Hajo Seppelt. The journalist produced an hour-long TV documentary exposing Russia’s dope-riddled athletics program and corrupt testing system. Only then, after the public reacted with shock and outrage, did WADA commission an official investigation.
Meanwhile, Yuliya Stepanova and her husband, Vitaly, fled the country, fearing for their safety. Seppelt urged a reporter, “Don’t underestimate the smears and abuses they have endured and the danger they live under … Together, Yuliya and Vitaly have been Public Enemy No. 1 in Russia.”
In an impassioned plea to allow Stepanova to compete independently in the worldwide 2016 Olympics (a request which the IOC later declined), The New York Times calls Stepanova brave – rightfully so. It’s true she “has taken enormous personal risks for the cause of clean sport.” Yet, it’s important to ask if her suffering would have been necessary if WADA had only taken her claims more seriously. If the agency sworn to protect clean athletics had acted swiftly and decisively against Stepanova’s abusers, would she have been spared much of that pain and fear?
Again, “How much evidence does a woman need to present?”
