The virus, the cheats and the moral high ground 　

When future historians ponder the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro, they’ll probably puzzle over the decisions made on two topics and the media attention devoted to them.

They might wonder how concerns over a Zika virus outbreak in Brazil — about which health care authorities have issued dire warnings — could be so easily dismissed in the interest of keeping the Games on track.

The historians will likely also be baffled at the International Olympic Committee’s ruling allowing Russia to send athletes to Rio despite hard evidence that many of them take performance-enhancing drugs.

Russia’s latest doping scandal is so damaging, the recriminations so severe, that it threatens to tarnish one of the world’s greatest sporting events forever.

And yet, when both of these dubious decisions are considered, it’s not readily apparent who occupies the moral high ground. The consensus among professional sports pundits and casual observers alike seems to be that, while Russia should certainly be banned from the games, it’s all right to downplay the menace of a potentially deadly virus epidemic.

Surely, though, we should be far more worried about visitors to Brazil contracting a dangerous virus than athletes from any given country winning medals unfairly.

What amounts to a lackluster stand against Russia’s allegedly state-sponsored doping will not stop the Rio Olympics, no matter how much the issue snowballs into international diplomatic and political controversy. In some circles the Olympic Committee is accused of being “soft on Russia.” In others it is praised for showing bravery in the midst of a global conspiracy against one of the most successful nations in the games’ history.

It is hard for people outside international sporting events to comprehend how, in this age of high technology and such massive amounts of money squandered by nations and individuals on war and vices, a reliable system cannot be found to catch cheating athletes.

But it is naive to regard the sprinters and swimmers and all the rest as lacking in shrewdness when it comes to covering up their illegal dosing. Six-time Tour de France cycling champion Lance Armstrong never tested positive for illicit substances and yet became sporting history’s best-known drug cheat.

The popular opinion, however, is that more spending on drug testing is needed and the results would make the expenditure worthwhile. Thus, the current uproar over Russia’s participation in the games becomes much ado about nothing. The problem is reduced to its fundamentals — the testing methods have to get better and those caught doping have to be punished.

We are still left, however, with the inexplicable gulf in reasoning from those calling for Russia to be banned from Rio and yet insisting the games go ahead despite the Zika threat. Such voices ought to pause and consider the consequences should even just one person attending the Olympics contract the virus with lethal results.

Is any sport or any sporting event worth a human life? And, in this case, tens of thousands of lives might be at risk. The standard is faulty, such forthright opinions confusing at best and sad at worst. It is sad because a threat to life is ignored so that the Olympic torch is not extinguished for four more years, and it is doubly sad because we are more concerned about Russian cheats than the possibility of mass casualties.

Double standards are common enough in this world, but it would be a better world if our leisure activities, like watching sports, were more conducive to good behavior. Sports allow for racial, social and religious barriers to be lowered. Instead we see the Olympic Games held hostage by financial, political and diplomatic considerations.

Editorial
The Nation (Thailand)

(Asia News Network)