IOC Executive Board asks Ethics Commission’s advice on Yuliya Stepanova Case

Image Credit: Óscar Fdez./Twitter

With around six days post to IAAF decision to allow the Russian Whistle-blower Sprinter Yuliya Stepanova to compete at Rio 2016 Summer Games, the apex Olympic Body today decided to seek advice of its Ethics Commission on the case.

This follows the IAAF Doping Review Board, chaired by Robert Hersh (USA), declared Mrs Stepanova (Russia/800m) eligible to compete in international track and field competitions as a neutral athlete under IAAF Competition Rule 22.1A (c) for “having made a truly exceptional contribution to the protection and promotion of clean athletes, fair play and the integrity and authenticity of the sport.”

In a letter sent on the first day of July to IOC, the IAAF Secretary General notified the apex Olympic body of the decision of its Doping Review Board- that Mrs Stepanova is eligible to compete in international competitions as a neutral athlete with immediate effect, including at the forthcoming Olympic Games. According to the IAAF criteria, such a participation is always subject to the rules of the organiser of the relevant international competition – in this case it is therefore subject to the Olympic Charter.

Following her clearance from the IAAF, Stepanova, in a letter dated July 5th, 2016, requested the IOC for the right to compete as a neutral athlete at the Rio 2016 Olympic Summer Games, having fulfilled the qualification criteria established by the IAAF.

The process for the verdict by the IOC Ethics Commission will include the opportunity for a hearing for Stepanova and once the advice is available, the IOC EB will then take all of the circumstances of the case into consideration and decide whether it merits an exception to the rules of the Olympic Charter.

The subject of a participation of Mrs Iuliia Stepanova in the Olympic Games Rio 2016 involves important ethical aspects, the IOC Executive Board (EB) has decided to ask the IOC Ethics Commission for its advice in this respect.



Post a Comment