Russian Skaters Allowed to Compete as Neutrals (AIN) to Qualify for 2026 Winter Olympics

[MacMadame]

BTW, I decided not to modify my original thread title just to spite you. For the record, I did consider using "ISU decision concerning the participation of a limited number of Individual Neutral Athletes (AIN) from Russia & Belarus at Olympic Qualification Events under strict conditions" but, in the end, felt it was too long and unwieldy.

There's a limit on the length of thread titles so you couldn't have changed this perfectly reasonable title to that one even if it was better. Which it is not.

 

[caseyedwards]

There's a limit on the length of thread titles so you couldn't have changed this perfectly reasonable title to that one even if it was better. Which it is not.

Theres a very easy short title “ISU to determine eligibility of Russian skaters for Olympics!” Or “isu to force Russians to submit to political tests for eligibility for Olympics” Because that’s what it is. It is not in Any way “Russian skaters allowed to compete as neutrals to qualify for Olympics.” That’s so wrong it’s almost a lie. It’s very Christine Brennan! Isu is NOT declaring all Russians neutrals and all Russians are eligible to compete. Isu is saying they will first determine if anyone is eligible. And the answer is probably no. And so no Russians will compete.

Are any Russians skating at 2026 Olympics? If ISU says they don’t support the war or know Valieva.

 

[Andrey aka Pushkin]

I don't understand the ISU decision. I can't imagine subjecting Shmuratko or Ukrainian coaches to share a space with someone like Zhulin. What have chamged? Have the war stopped? If not - what is the difference now?

The correct question should be not why the Russians are allowed now, but rather why they were banned in the first place.
A state attacking a different state is not a legal reason to ban athletes, neither is "athletes from the other country will feel awkward". It's been 2 years, and I'm still puzzled about the legal quad axel IOC did to ban the Russians, even if on an intuitive level I understand the sentiment and even share it.
Based on that, I suppose, the decision to allow them now can be explained, and supposedly also the criteria of what constitutes the fulfillment of the conditions.

Regarding the actual participation: there are practically no Russians who train outside of Russia (I think Davis/Smolkin were the only ones?), and I absolutely can't see any US/other skater deciding to represent Russia Neutrality based on the heritage, not to mention that they'd have to make the move on their own because why would Russia bother. There's pressure on the athletes not to "betray" their motherland, whatever, but it is generally very limited; neither Russian sports federations (with the exception of the ones dominated by North Caucasus republics), nor Russian sport ministery showed any interest in any retaliation against athletes attempting to compete as neutrals - it will depend on Putin's left leg's arthritis on that particular day. If he decides to make these skaters' or their families lives hell, obviously, no one will attempt to qualify. Most of the skaters or Russians in general don't really have a possibility to just leave Russia at will.

 

[TAHbKA]

The correct question should be not why the Russians are allowed now, but rather why they were banned in the first place.
A state attacking a different state is not a legal reason to ban athletes, neither is "athletes from the other country will feel awkward". It's been 2 years

Еxactly. What have changed? Either the 2022 decision was wrong and the Russian athletes should receive an apology and brought back or the 2022 decision was correct, nothing have changed and I don't see why are they allowed now. It's the between that baffles me.

 

[Andrey aka Pushkin]

Еxactly. What have changed? Either the 2022 decision was wrong and the Russian athletes should receive an apology and brought back or the 2022 decision was correct, nothing have changed and I don't see why are they allowed now. It's the between that baffles me.

The Russians (not to mention the Belarussians, who aren't even an official side in this war) were banned under a bullshit legal excuse because "it was the right thing to do", so there's nothing surprising that they are now being brought back under a bullshit excuse with bullshit conditions that will be applied in a bullshit way

For the record, I absolutely don't disagree it was "the right thing to do", but I think organizations, especially international ones, should operate within legal/illegal frame, rather than right/wrong one. Once they start acting "по понятиям", the results become murky and questionable at best. So, to summarize, practically I think it means that participation of a specific athlete will depend on absolutely random decision of some random ISU/IOC official who will happen to be responsible for it. There's no point in even guessing whether participating in a show or distancing from it will play any part in the decision making.

 

[Tesla]

I thought they were banned for violating the Olympic Charter or something by invading Ukraine right after the Olympics.

 

[Vagabond]

I thought they were banned for violating the Olympic Charter or something by invading Ukraine right after the Olympics.

You are correct, and Andrey is being Andrey.

https://olympics.com/ioc/news/ioc-executive-board-suspends-russian-olympic-committee-with-immediate-effect

 

[withwings]

Еxactly. What have changed? Either the 2022 decision was wrong and the Russian athletes should receive an apology and brought back or the 2022 decision was correct, nothing have changed and I don't see why are they allowed now. It's the between that baffles me.

Exactly.

 

[Sylvia]

Original thread in GSD from March 1, 2022 (closed by @SHARPIE on Sept. 4, 2024 - "Several posts deleted and now closing this thread. Political discussion is only permitted in the Politically Incorrect forum."):

ISU Statement on Russia's war against Ukraine - Participation in international competitions of Skaters and Officials from Russia and Belarus

The ISU Council reiterates its solidarity with all those affected by the conflict in Ukraine and our thoughts are with the entire Ukrainian people and country. The ISU Council reaffirms its full solidarity with the ISU Members in Ukraine, the Ukrainian Speed Skating Federation and the Ukrainian...

www.fsuniverse.net

 

[Andrey aka Pushkin]

I thought they were banned for violating the Olympic Charter or something by invading Ukraine right after the Olympics.

Yes, as I said "a bullshit legal excuse".

Since the start of the Olympic movement there have been tens if not hundreds of wars and invasions, including specifically Russia invading specifically Ukraine specifically during the Olympics in 2014. None of them resulted in anything because it just didn't strike a cord the same way the invasion of 2022 did. And since there was a wall to wall boycott by literally everyone from airlines to credit cards, IOC felt obliged to join the bandwagon. So obviously now the decision to soften the ban unsurprisingly sounds like utter nonsense with no less nonsensical and vague definitions. A bullshit ban can be removed only using bullshit reasoning.

 

[Andrey aka Pushkin]

You are correct, and Andrey is being Andrey.

https://olympics.com/ioc/news/ioc-executive-board-suspends-russian-olympic-committee-with-immediate-effect

List of wars: 1945–1989 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

List of wars: 1990–2002 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

List of wars: 2003–present - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Go ahead and check how many of these wars resulted in a ban of athletes from any of these countries despite "violating the NOC territorial integrity of" the corresponding states.
But Vagabond is being Vagabond.

 

[MacMadame]

Yes, as I said "a bullshit legal excuse".

Since the start of the Olympic movement there have been tens if not hundreds of wars and invasions, including specifically Russia invading specifically Ukraine specifically during the Olympics in 2014. None of them resulted in anything because it just didn't strike a cord the same way the invasion of 2022 did. And since there was a wall to wall boycott by literally everyone from airlines to credit cards, IOC felt obliged to join the bandwagon. So obviously now the decision to soften the ban unsurprisingly sounds like utter nonsense with no less nonsensical and vague definitions. A bullshit ban can be removed only using bullshit reasoning.

So because the IOC didn't do the right thing in the past, they can never do the right thing again? It's not a BS excuse. The problem isn't that they were banned and why. The problem is that the IOC has turned a blind-eye to this sort of thing in the past.

 

[TAHbKA]

IOC can come up with whatever but at the very least it should be consistent about it.

 

[Karen-W]

IOC can come up with whatever but at the very least it should be consistent about it.

So, does that mean that if they've never done something before they are not allowed to change their position?

 

[Vagabond]

IOC can come up with whatever but at the very least it should be consistent about it.

So if they were wrong in the past, they should stick to being wrong?

 

[Andora]

Let's not pretend this was the first time Russia broke the olympic charter - it wasn't even the first time they invaded Ukraine on the heels of the olympics, with the 2014 Crimea invasion. And while no one but Eteri seems to care about Georgia, they didn't exactly welcome Russia with flowers and candy in 2008...

Russia has been a persistent belligerent. You want to ban other countries for that as well? I'm alllll for it. But Russia isn't being unfairly targeted here, at all.

The mistake is overturning the ban for no good reason, no matter what Russian apologists suggest.

 

[MsZem]

I thought they were banned for violating the Olympic Charter or something by invading Ukraine right after the Olympics.

That doesn't apply to Belarus, though?

 

[Vagabond]

That doesn't apply to Belarus, though?

Yes, it does. Belarus is supporting Russia in its war effort.

Accomplice liability, don't you know?

 

[Andrey aka Pushkin]

So because the IOC didn't do the right thing in the past, they can never do the right thing again? It's not a BS excuse. The problem isn't that they were banned and why. The problem is that the IOC has turned a blind-eye to this sort of thing in the past.

If an organization is so highly selective about "its charter" that it's used once out of hundreds of cases, the claim a decision has a legal base in the aforementioned charter is bullshit. If laws are applied so selectively, they are not laws but political decisions, and IOC's entire existence is based on the notion of "sports is above politics". If it banned athletes every time there's a war, it would be in a permanent state of internal struggles between different camps and no competition ever would have taken place (look at UN).

So no, no one in good faith can say that IOC's decision was legal and consistent, and it is unsurprising that now when the decision is partly reversed, it looks bad from all sides. Again, since I am obviously not in line with the chorus of FSU, I want to stress - my objection is not because I so desparately need Russian figure skaters, and not because I support Russia in this agression in any way, and even not because to ban Russians was not a morally "right" decision. My objection is that this decision was political and inconsistent rather than legal, and IOC must not make political decisions it can't justify, define or defend. I have my thoughts as to how this crisis should have been managed, but no one cares.

I am hoping, though, this ban is unique, and this situation will never repeat itself. Maybe the system can withstand one such political decision, IDK, but it definitely must not become the norm.

 

[Andrey aka Pushkin]

Yes, it does. Belarus is supporting Russia in its war effort.

Accomplice liability, don't you know?

Fantastic...
So not only IOC is taking sides in a political conflict, but also becomes a judge of which level of complience is unacceptable.
Why didn't it ban Iran then, which supplies Russia with weaponry or North Korea that supports it with soldiers? Which, if I may, a much greater war effort than Belarus provides. Should we extend this to political support too, and add some Latin American countries? How about China, let's ban China - it gives Russia economic and political backing! India is buying Russian oil and gives the revenue for the aggression, let's ban India now.

And while we're on it, Ukraine conquered parts of Kursk region, is that still within defensive war or becomes an agression? And is it justified by the court of IOC? What steps from Ukraine would make it a legitimate ban target of IOC? How about EU for all its parts, plus UK, plus US, all of which support Ukraine to roughly the same extent as Belarus supports Russia if not more - would it make sense to ban all them too?

As I grew older, I found time after time instances when things that are absolutely damn clear as sun and total axiomes for me, somehow not understood and challenged by other people. This is one of those. This ban was political and made out of shock, political pressure and desire to be in line with the Western institutes. It has nothing to do with legality. It can be justified from the moral point of view, obviously, but then anyone with a functioning brain must be able to understand it opens the door for complete disintegration of IOC as an international organization that unites mortal enemies. And then I see someone absolutely seriously saying things like "accomplice liability", as if this claim makes any sense or legal justification, and realize some people are simply living on a different planet than I am.

 

[On My Own]

If the IOC starts to ban countries off warcrimes, I'd love to see it happen to the States, if only because this forum will have a meltdown over the "bad faith", "disingenuous", "strawman", et cetera et cetera arguments that would be written in the document administering that ban.

Some (white) people matter more than the others (brown). That's the only reason this ban exists. Not that I don't agree with the ban, but people are really fooling themselves if they think otherwise, nor will the ones writing those posts ever do anything to hold their own country's crimes to account, lol.

 

[Andrey aka Pushkin]

If the IOC starts to ban countries off warcrimes, I'd love to see it happen to the States, if only because this forum will have a meltdown over the "bad faith", "disingenuous", "strawman", et cetera et cetera arguments that would be written in the document administering that ban.

Some (white) people matter more than the others (brown). That's the only reason this ban exists. Not that I don't agree with the ban, but people are really fooling themselves if they think otherwise, nor will the ones writing those posts ever do anything to hold their own country's crimes to account, lol.

For painfully obvious reasons, I am stepping on egg shells here, but yes, that. Russia has been like a radioactive liquid, poisoning the neighboring states, and it is not limited to Ukraine and Georgia. With all the credit, I trust I know it better than people who rant about it from their couches on the other side of the planet. However, it's not unique, and arguably, it's not even the worst offender if we don't limit ourselves to Europe. The question of which country is the worst is extremely subjective and depends on the ideology of a specific person asked; from the Russia's perspective it's not an agressor, and while this POV is not shared by anyone sane on this forum, there are entire states that are more in line with Russia than not, and it's absolutely not IOC job to decide which set of moral values is the "correct" one. IOC is supposed to be non-political. It's not the "modesty police".

I will disagree, however, about the racial part. It's not about race, and it's not about white people vs. brown people or whatever. It's about general Eurocentrism of any international organization, with imaginary "West" (which includes some Asian countries, for example) being the major financial donor and generally the biggest influence there by a huge margin. Being part of this "West", I'm not opposed to its set of values and interests being promoted in general, but at least let's not pretend it is anything else than a hypocrisy. And given that, let's not play shocked and disgusted when this hypocrisy bites back.

 

[On My Own]

Which skin colour predominates Europe?

 

[Andrey aka Pushkin]

Which skin colour predominates Europe?

Correlation is not causation.

 

[On My Own]

We cannot assume causation, yes. Does not mean it cannot exist, especially when we're dealing with irrationality.

 

[Andrey aka Pushkin]

We cannot assume causation, yes. Does not mean it cannot exist, especially when we're dealing with irrationality.

We can't assume anything about other people in general. But in the term of media coverage, political reaction and general public interest, BLM in the US had greater effect than Syrian civil war, and eathquake in Japan had greater effect than Karabakh. So seemingly the greater factors are geographical and economical rather than racial and religious.

 

[On My Own]

We can't assume anything about other people in general. But in the term of media coverage, political reaction and general public interest, BLM in the US had greater effect than Syrian civil war, and eathquake in Japan had greater effect than Karabakh. So seemingly the greater factors are geographical and economical rather than racial and religious.

Did race and religion have nothing to do with how geographical and economical factors play out nowadays? Or how the power structure has been established in the present day?

 

[Andrey aka Pushkin]

Did race and religion have nothing to do with how geographical and economical factors play out nowadays? Or how the power structure has been established in the present day?

We can dig deep into history of why the powerful and wealthy countries today are powerful and wealthy.
I don't see why it is relevant now.
There are white/Christian countries that historically didn't become wealthy and powerful, and they have less influence than non white/Christian countries that did.
Ergo, race and religion are not the deciding factors now.

 

[Tesla]

Wasn't the IOC ban more because of when Russia invaded?

 

[On My Own]

Wasn't the IOC ban more because of when Russia invaded?

EXPLAINER: What in the world is the Olympic Truce?

A U.N. resolution upholding the Olympic Truce has been passed 15 times. The pact has its roots in ancient Greece, when it was intended to grant athletes from constantly warring city-states safe passage to the Olympic Games.

apnews.com

There are other violations/apparent violations.

Mind you that Russia itself has escaped this before, so I'm glad they finally took action against it.