“All-Russian Athletics Federation” Doping Scandal

Selected Sport Organization Governance Issue 

The selected issue that will be discussed in this report is the “All-Russian Athletics Federation” doping scandal, which was a scandal that exposed systematic doping among Russian athletes. The scandal exposed the fact that the Russian government has a significant role to play in seeking to ensure that its athletes would engage in doping as a way of gaining an unfair advantage when compared to athletes from others countries (Altukhov & Nauright, 2018). The unearthing of this scandal had a significant implication on Russia’s standing as one of the leading athletic countries around the world. Additionally, the scandal also resulted in the country being stripped of 43 Olympic medals, which is notably higher when compared to any other country around the world (Aust & Krieger, 2018). The report seeks to examine the doping scandal from multiple perspectives as a way of gaining a better understanding of the facts associated with the issue.

What are some of the ways Russian athletes were able to avoid detection by sports regulation bodies include the World Anti-Doping Agency? 

According to reports on the scandal, one of the ways through which Russian athletes were able to avoid detection was through the manipulation of urine samples. Whistleblower Grigory Rodchenkov, who was one of the key persons that helped in highlighting the scandal, indicated that the government was running state-sponsored program within which urine samples were switched before they were taken for testing (Kutuev, Bukalerova, & Ulezko, 2018). The expectation was that this would eliminate the possibility that these athletes may be suspected of being involved in doping. The manipulation of the urine samples made it much harder for international bodies involved in the management of sports in seeking to identify the overall possibility of doping in a team regarded as one of the strongest in the world.

Another critical approach used by Russian athletes involved having to use KGB officers, who posed as anti-doping authorities working within the International Olympic Committee (IOC). The officers had a significant role to play in ensuring that they undermined doping tests conducted on Russian athletes as a way of minimizing the exposure of the athletes concerning their involvement in doping. Although the All-Russian Athletic Federation had a principal responsibility towards preventing doping among its athletes, the federation was involved in ensuring that the athletes would not be exposed for their involvement in doping (Duval, 2017). Basically, it is clear that in every approach taken to cover up the doping scandal, the Russian government was significantly involved, as it facilitated the different approaches that the athletes took as part of preventing their exposure.

What was the role of the Russian government in the “All-Russian Athletics Federation” doping scandal? 

The Russian government had a vital role in the doping scandal that involved the All-Russian Athletics Federation. The Russian government engages in the support for athletes, trainers, and coaches, which is an aspect that helps in dominating the fields in different athletics competition. The doping scandal involving the All-Russian Athletics Federation, which is considered the greatest scandal in the history of athletics was characterized by extensive involvement of the Russian government (Duval, 2016). The World Anti-Doping Agency presented a report stating various aspects concerning the nature of the doping scandal, citing the involvement of the Russian government is trying to ensure that the athletes dominate the fields. The Russian government played a vital role in bribing the sports officials to help in covering up the issue of doping. Through the briberies, the Russian government encouraged the athletes to engage in doping without fear of being disqualified from participating in athletics.

An evaluation of the Russian government’s role in the scandal can be viewed from the perspective of the agency theory. Amis, Slack, & Hinings (2004) define the agency theory from the understanding that it reflects on the existing relationships between agents and principals when defining specific actions. In this case, the Russian government can be viewed as the agent, as it plays a key role in facilitating the athletes to compete at the international level, while the athletes can be viewed as the principals. Ferkins, Shilbury, & McDonald (2009) highlight the need for having to advance positive governance strategies that would help ensure that the actions by agents and sports management bodies reflects on the expected international standards. In this case, the Russian government’s involvement in the doping scandal can be considered as a direct result of the need for the government to ensure that its athletes perform in an effective way.

The Russian government was also involved in the doping scandal attributed to its provision of funding for the doping program targeting the athletes. In this case, the Russian government provided direct funding to the federation and engaged in overseeing the activities carried out by the institution. The involvement of the government in the affairs of the institution provided the conclusions that the issue of doping in the federation was a state-sponsored program. The fact that the government was involved in a majority of the activities undertaken within the federation provided enough evidence that there was a significant role player in the planning and execution of plans concerning the doping scandal (Cuffey, 2017). Considering that the Russian government did not identify the issue of doping despite being involved in matters concerning the federation indicates that the whole regime was state-sponsored to help in dominating in athletics.

The Russian government was equally involved in intimidating the processes and staffs engaging in the laboratory testing of the athletes. In this case, the Russian government ensured a heavy presence of the FSB security agencies within the drug testing laboratory with the intentions of the intimidating the individuals engaging in the given processes to determine the whether the All-Russian Athletics Federation supported doping activities. Lastly, the Russian government had a significant role in sabotaging the efforts of the World Anti-Doping Agency (Savulescu, 2016). Considering the influence of the Russian government in sports, it had the ability to undermine efforts to determine whether the federation was taking part in the doping scandal. In the efforts to sabotage the strategies of the anti-doping agency, the government capitalized on the use of medical professionals that would inject the athletes and provide a favourable report.

What were the consequences of the "All-Russian Athletics Federation" doping scandal, how is this likely to affect sports in the country, and how can the consequences be explained using the institutional theory of governance? 

The “All-Russian Athletics Federation” doping scandal had several critical consequences on Russia regardless of the country being considered as being one of the strongest in the Olympic Games. The first notable consequence of the scandal was the 2018 Olympic ban in which 43 Russian athletes, who had participated in the 2014 Olympic Games, were banned from competing in the 2018 edition of the Olympic Games or future athlete activities (Hermann, 2019). The ban was seen as one of the key measures by the World Anti-Doping Agency to highlight the importance of ensuring that federations adhere to the set anti-doping policies that prevent athletes from using specific drugs to enhance their performance.

For each of the athletes that were banned from involvement in the Olympic Games in 2018, the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) stripped them of the medal that they had won in the 2014 games. The stripping of 43 medals from Russia was seen as one of the highest for any country in the world and account for more than four times the number of medals that were stripped for the countries with the second-highest rate of doping. From an athletics perspective, this was seen as a critical step by the IAAF in reaffirming its position on the issue of doping, which was having severe implications for sports in the world. After conducting relevant investigations to help in determining the extent to which the Russian government was involved in the scandal, the World Anti-Doping Agency decided to ban Russia from all significant sporting activities for four years from 2019 (Denham, 2019).

According to the agency, the decision to ban Russia's involvement in sports was informed by evidence that showed the existence of widespread doping violations that were facilitated by the state. The agency also indicated that Russia had failed in dealing with doping violations considering that the state was involved in an elicit doping program that was involved in not only encouraging doping but also helped to avoid exposure of the athletes (Uscinski, 2016). Even though the Russian government denied all allegations of its involvement in doping, the IOC believed in the fact that the government failed in its approach towards ensuring that it establishes clear policies for its athletes to prevent the use of banned substances as a way of enhancing performance among individual athletes.

Based on the consequences, as have been discussed, it is evident that the “All-Russian Athletics Federation” doping scandal is likely to impact sports in the country in several ways. Firstly, it is expected to create a situation where Russian athletes may be viewed from a negative retrospect considering that the country has been cited for its involvement in widespread doping violations. That would mean that lower-level athletes may find it much harder when intending to compete at the international level while considering that they would always be viewed as having engaged in doping. Secondly, the doping scandal is likely to affect Russia's involvement in athletics considering that the reports by the different agencies indicate that the only way Russia was able to maintain its strength as a leading team is through doping. Although Russia may rebuild its position as one of the most active teams in the world, it may take much longer for the country to regain the confidence of other countries at the international level.

The institutional theory of governance provides a rationalized understanding of self-interest motives of government bureaucrats that define the need for having to maximize on institutional pressures to aid in organizational change (Ferkins & Shilbury, 2012). In the case of the doping scandal, the pressures placed by specific government bureaucrats in the Russian government may have resulted in the need for the athletes to engage in the doping program. Hoye & Doherty (2011) highlight the impacts that performance demands tend to have on the athletes, especially in cases where some of these athletes were facing performance challenges in the past. The projected outcome is that it creates a high demand for athletes to engage in unethical practices as a way of maintaining their expected performance outcomes. From the perspective of the Russian doping scandal, it can be argued that the government may have facilitated the doping program as a way of ensuring that the athletes would maximize their performances in a manner that matches what was expected of them.

References

Altukhov, S., & Nauright, J. (2018). The new sporting Cold War: implications of the Russian doping allegations for international relations and sport.  Sport in Society ,  21 (8), 1120-1136.

Amis, J., Slack, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2004). Strategic change and the role of interests, power, and organizational capacity.  Journal of Sport Management ,  18 (2), 158-198.

Aust, D., & Krieger, J. (2018). Communicating in Crisis: The International Association of Athletics Federations' public responses to athletics' doping crisis. Journal of Qualitative Research in Sports Studies ,  12 (1), 263-280.

Cuffey, S. (2017). Passing the Baton: The Effect of the International Olympic Committee's Weak Anti-Doping Laws in Dealing with the 2016 Russian Olympic Team.  Brook. J. Int'l L. ,  43 , 665.

Denham, B. E. (2019). Coverage of the Russian Doping Scandal in the New York Times: Intra media and Intermedia Attribute Agenda-Setting Effects.  Communication & Sport ,  7 (3), 337-360.

Duval, A. (2016). Tackling Doping Seriously-Reforming the World Anti-Doping System after the Russian Scandal.  ASSER Policy Brief , (2016-02).

Duval, A. (2017). The Russian doping scandal at the court of arbitration for sport: lessons for the world anti-doping system.  The International Sports Law Journal ,  16 (3-4), 177-197.

Ferkins, L., & Shilbury, D. (2012). Good boards are strategic: What does that mean for sport governance?  Journal of sport management ,  26 (1), 67-80.

Ferkins, L., Shilbury, D., & McDonald, G. (2009). Board involvement in strategy: Advancing the governance of sport organizations.  Journal of sport management ,  23 (3), 245-277.

Hermann, A. (2019). The tip of the iceberg: The Russian doping scandal reveals a widespread doping problem.  Diagoras: International Academic Journal on Olympic Studies ,  3 , 45-71.

Hoye, R., & Doherty, A. (2011). Nonprofit sport board performance: A review and directions for future research.  Journal of Sport management ,  25 (3), 272-285.

Kutuev, A. R., Bukalerova, L. A., & Ulezko, S. I. (2018). Responsibility for the Organization, Distribution and Use of Substances and Methods Prohibited for Use in Sports.  European Research Studies ,  21 , 506.

Savulescu, J. (2016). Doping scandals, Rio and the future of human enhancement. Bioethics ,  30 (5).

Uscinski, J. E. (2016). What does Russia’s doping scandal tell us about the nature of political conspiracies?.  LSE European Politics and Policy (EUROPP) Blog .