IT’S always disappointing when you feel that someone you have held on a pedestal for a very long time lets you down and I think that is the case currently with Sir Craig Reedie and the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada).
There is a school of thought that if you come up through the system to a position of authority you will have empathy with those that in effect you are representing. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to be the case in this situation.
Wada’s decision to allow Russian athletes back into the fold doesn’t seem to take into account the concerns of the majority of athletes from across the world. To them this feels like a massive slap in the face and this decision means that Russia will be free to test its own athletes again and also issue Therapeutic Use Exemption certificates.
Craig Reedie, for those who may not know, is from Stirling and was a badminton player in the 60s. After retiring, he took up several positions as a ‘sports administrator’ and is currently Wada president, a former chairman of the British Olympic Association and vice-president of, and a serving representative on, the International Olympic Committee. However, we have to ask, has he become distanced from those at the coal face, has he been locked in his ivory tower for too long that he doesn’t understand the mood in the camp?
The fall-out from this decision, I believe, has been monumental and it has taken a few casualties along the way. One high profile member of the committee, Beckie Scott, the Canadian Olympic gold medallist, resigned from the Wada compliance review committee after it recommended the Russian anti-doping agency’s reinstatement (although she remains the chair of Wada’s athlete committee) – and that is just the tip of the iceberg.
So what are we saying to our athletes, who can be called on at any time, night or day, to produce a sample for drug testing? This intrusion into their personal lives is welcomed by our athletes who want the world to know they are clean and want sport to be a clean and level playing field. Today they must be asking themselves: “What is the point?”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel