“Every rule can be broken.” When Thomas Bach, the President of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), said this sentence on Monday evening, there was a clear murmur in the audience of the “Stuttgart Sports Talk”, many of whom were legally knowledgeable. In the discussion, organized by a Stuttgart law firm and this year dedicating two hours to the IOC President, an excerpt from a contribution from the ARD Tagesthemen from August 16th had just been played. Content: The scandalous treatment of the Ukrainian fencer Olha Charlan at the World Fencing Championships in Milan in July, when her Russian opponent caused the Ukrainian to be disqualified by demonstratively demanding a handshake and her entourage by influencing the International Fencing Federation.
When the scandal was out in the world, the sporting competition between Ukrainian and Russian athletes, especially armed with sabers, did not go in the spirit of the fairness interpretation that Bach wanted, leaving the war out of the picture, but the sport seemed overwhelmed, he promised IOC President disqualified Charlan from the right to compete at the Summer Olympics in Paris next year. The IOC President had ignored the applicable rules (FAZ from July 31st and August 5th).
Invitation to speculation
Now, in Stuttgart, Bach said the accusation was “sophistical”. Rules are constantly being broken. The lawyer from Main Franconia thought about the criminal code: thefts are forbidden, but commonplace. In addition: The FIE agreed with his opinion. Charlan’s 60-day suspension was lifted. However, the FIE stated in its statement: “The FIE fully supports the penalty.” Ultimately, a “thorough examination” showed that Charlan had been disqualified “in complete accordance with the official rules”. The murmur in the Stuttgart audience was also noticeable because before the Charlan case and the situation of the Ukrainian athletes in the face of the Russian invasion and the very realistic perspective, there were also Russian opponents in Paris – supposedly neutral in the sense of the IOC face to face, the Bach case was the topic of the meeting.
Since the IOC session in Mumbai in mid-October, the question has been raised as to whether Bach would be allowed a third term as president and whether the Olympic Charter should be changed accordingly. In Stuttgart, Bach also refused to say that he was not available for such a rule adjustment. “The discussions” on this have now begun; Bach calls them “internal consultations” in an “open dialogue”. The sports world will know its result “in due course.” A publicly formulated rejection with reference to the rules to his supporters among the IOC members, who had extensively called for another term in office in Mumbai and with prepared, read-out statements, would in any case be a disrespect to the members and to “democratic principles”. Especially since the power politician Bach appeared annoyed at the insinuation that a set-up was taking place. That is “typical”. Typical? His vice president, the Australian lawyer John Coates, said in Mumbai that he was prepared and had learned the day before that something was coming. Bach confirmed the impression from Mumbai in his native language: The IOC President remains vague and invites speculation.
A comment from Christoph Becker Published/Updated: , Recommendations: 16 Christoph Becker Published/Updated: , Recommendations: 88 Christoph Becker, Mumbai Published/Updated: Recommendations: 4 Christoph Becker Published/Updated: Recommendations: 1
Bach didn’t have time to ask journalists about the talk afterward; he had to go back to the Olympic capital. Lausanne called. It was from there, so to speak, with the eye of the IOC President, that Bach had previously assessed Germany’s considerations for another Olympic bid. Olympic condition sine qua non: Without a guarantee of entry for all athletes, supervisors and journalists accredited by the IOC, no application is possible. It was Bach’s wave of the fence to – actually democratically legitimized – ministers and her threat of an entry ban for Russian athletes, for example. If there was one insight into the Olympic cosmos in Stuttgart, it was perhaps this: which posts and which rules are inviolable are explained by the president.
