Ban Russia, Ban USA, Blame Canada

[5thhorseman]

It appears part of it is traditional. The Olympic Truce originating in ancient Greek tradition requires competitors to suspend hostilities around the games. Of course one can interpret that in many ways.

The official line from the governing bodies is it's a safety concern, e.g. bombings, harassment, protests, etc.

[UWSaint]

But no one elected the Olympic Committee or the IIHF to run sporting events and conduct international trade policy, you know?

One would think this gives them even more right to decide who participates and who doesn't.

Any private/non-profit org. that isn't tied to a Government, surely has the right to decide how to run their business no? Even if we disagree with it.

Much like Lululemon. No fat people allowed. IOC can say no Russians, as they make their tights stretch too much?

Wait.. lost the metaphor somewhere there, but you get my point I hope.

I do get the point, and its not a bad one.

I don't think there's any question about "rights;" the question this thread poses is about whether we think their exercise of the right is a good idea or a bad idea. And part of the reason that I think its a bad idea is that it is dead-on-arrival from an effectiveness perspective (influencing Russia) and it is illegitimate for an organization who has its standing because it organizes hockey to play politics, particularly where doing so undermines their raison d'etre (in the case of IIHF, host the best U20 national teams at the World Juniors).

Say what you will about sanctions (I tend to take a pretty dim view generally), but they can be effective and they are a legitimate tool of statecraft. Something short of an embargo or war, but trying to inflict a pain to force a result.

IIHF ain't a state.

And I'd also object to it going to war.

[UWSaint]

The official line from the governing bodies is it's a safety concern, e.g. bombings, harassment, protests, etc.

Manufactured bull shit.

To be sure, there's always some concern about these things at events these days, whether the crazies that are psychologically disturbed and want to be seen, terrorists wishing to fuck virgins in heaven, or the issue-of-the-day. These are baseline concerns -- ones that exist to restrict freedom whenever the state wants the excuse to unleash their inner tyrant. But really there's not a strong signal that there is a substantially increased risk b/c Russian athletes over what's always in the issue-of-the-day category, and if there is some increased risk, you kind of have to nut up if you are the host jurisdiction. You get the money from events, you organize a proper level of security.

[donlever]

Having a Team Russia at the WJC's in the good ol' U S of A would be, if properly managed, a license to print money....

...and that's what's life's all about in the end amirite?

The Benjies??!!

[Picker of Cherries]

Ban the Yanks for Pearl Harbouring Venezuela and murdering 80 soldiers, just to steal oil. Ban Russia for Ukraine.
Now if we can only find a way to ban Czechia, Sweden and Finland, we’ll be set.

[UWSaint]

Ban the Yanks for Pearl Harbouring Venezuela and murdering 80 soldiers, just to steal oil. Ban Russia for Ukraine.
Now if we can only find a way to ban Czechia, Sweden and Finland, we’ll be set.

Hah! Canada wins gold!

[Topper]

Ping Pong diplomacy

Sports is a political tool

[Per]

A well written article by the hockey profile and sports writer Szymon Szemberg.

Szymon Szemberg is the CEO of the European Hockey Club Alliance E.H.C. He was head of information of the International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) 2001-2014 and COO of the Champions Hockey League (CHL) 2013-2015.

IT'S TIME TO GIVE THE REAL REASON WHY RUSSIA IS OUT

The IIHF’s Disciplinary Board has determined that the IIHF Council’s decision to ban Russia from IIHF championships could not be maintained in its current form. And that’s very good. The IIHF Council’s decision to exclude Russia was based on shallow reasons like “the safety and well-being of players, officials, fans, volunteers, and all participants.”

It’s time for the executive body of the International Ice Hockey Federation to give the real reason for keeping Russia out – the aggression of a sovereign nation, daily murder of innocent people and the most horrific war crimes since World War II. And that with full support from the Russian ice hockey community.

When the IIHF recently reinstated accomplice Belarus to certain IIHF championships (Belarus that is an enabler, partner and supporter of Russia’s war) and when voices are raised to reinstate Russia back to international hockey, one may believe that things have improved since Russia staged the biggest act of war since WWII when they invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022, and that the end of the war may be near.

To the contrary. Things today are worse than in 2022. Much worse.

Although there are no official numbers of Ukrainian casualties, reliable estimates suggest between 75,000 and 215,000 Ukrainians have died, including both military personnel and civilians. Three million households are affected or ruined. Direct damages to Ukraine are estimated at 195 billion US dollars and growing by the hour. The total cost for recovery is currently estimated at USD 588 billion. Other sources say that it will be closer to, or even exceed, one trillion US dollars.

This is a war where the unprovoked aggressor attacked a sovereign country with recognized borders in order to annihilate an entire nation just because Russia feels that Ukraine has no right to exist. It attacks and targets civilians indiscriminately; houses, schools, hospitals, playgrounds and terrorizes the population by targeting energy, transport and water supplies.

Russia displays fascism in its purest form. Also, more than one million Russian occupiers have been either killed or incapacitated in this meaningless war.

To allow Belarus back and to even at this point think about changing Russia’s status from a rogue state to someone you would welcome back, goes against how sport has historically treated athletes from nations who are unprovoked aggressors or who deal with state-legislated apartheid.

After World War II ended, the three Axis powers Germany, Japan and Italy were not welcome in international sport for many years. Although Italy came back to the Olympics in 1948, Germany and Japan were banned until the 1952 Olympics, seven years after the end of the war.

Germany’s first participation in football’s World Cup after the war was in 1954. In the ice hockey World Championship in 1953. That the war was over was not enough. The international sporting community demanded that the country’s sport leadership had changed entirely from the pre-war Nazi support. There was a price to be paid.

And the reason why Nazi Germany and their allies were excluded from sports was not “safety and well-being of players, officials, fans, volunteers, and all participants.”

Due to its apartheid politics, South Africa was banned from international sports for over 30 years, with the isolation beginning in the 1960s and lasting until 1992. The ban officially ended with the repeal of apartheid laws, and the country was re-admitted to the IOC in 1991, returning to the Olympics in 1992.

Also Serbia was excluded from international sports 1992-1995 due to its aggression and atrocities during the Yugoslav wars.

Both when it comes to the Axis powers and to South Africa there was no allowing athletes back into international sports because “you can’t make individuals responsible for the deeds of their leaders”. There were definitely German and South African athletes in those days who were against the politics of their leaders.

There is a difference between athletes in individual sports like tennis or golf, where the athlete represents himself, and national teams who represent both the nation and the national sports federation. Representatives from nations who attack and kill or enable aggressors or officially discriminate against racial groups are not welcome.

The IIHF has a special responsibility regarding Russia. There is probably no other nation where sport – and in Russia in particular hockey and its national body – has such strong ties to the political power.

At least seven members on the board of the Russian Ice Hockey Federation are staunch Putin backers who wholeheartedly support the war and several of them are sanctioned by the EU or the US, or both, for their ties with the Kremlin and for their involvement in the war; Federation president Arkady Rotenberg and board members Roman Rotenberg, Andrei Bokaryov, Nail Maganov, Rashid Nurgaliyev, Vladimir Potanin and Viktor Rashnikov.

Furthermore, close Putin ally Gennady Timchenko is the chairman of the KHL. State owned oil company Rosneft and gas giant Gazprom, that pay for the war in Ukraine, are both heavily involved in Russian hockey.

Although bombing sports facilities and hockey rinks is not on top of the list of Russian crimes, these Vladimir Putin cronies are responsible for and supportive of destroying Ukrainian ice hockey.

At least eight Ukrainian ice hockey arenas and rinks have been severely damaged or completely destroyed since Russia’s full-scale invasion began. Arenas in Kherson, Druzhkivka, Mariupol, two in Kharkiv, Donetsk, Dnipro and in Sievierodontetsk have been systematically leveled by Russian missile strikes, artillery, and guided aerial bombs, crippling the nation's hockey infrastructure.

Russia’s senseless war claimed the life of 9-year-old Ukrainian hockey player Hordii Udovychenko. A young athlete with dreams, a future, and a love for hockey was killed as a result of a Russian attack.

How do you think his parents feel when they read, on the IIHF’s website, these below lines that justify the welcoming back of Belarus to international hockey, Belarus that allowed Russia to stage part of the invasion from its territory, giving Putin the shortest possible land route to Kiev.

"The IIHF has always believed in the importance of the international hockey family staying connected through sport. Bringing the family back together is an important step forward for our federation and for the global game."

The IIHF Council has now the opportunity to change “the safety and well-being of players, officials, fans, volunteers, and all participants” to the real reason for excluding Russia. And although this would be important for the sake of displaying moral standards, it is not the IIHF that will eventually decide the terms for Russia’s return.

It will be decided by the other hockey nations.

The ice hockey federations of Latvia and Lithuania have already declared that its national teams will not play against Belarus in international competition.

The governments of Czech Republic, Sweden and Finland have all very strong positions on Russia’s aggression, and it is unthinkable that the sports and hockey bodies in those countries would act in a way that would conflict with the position of their respective governments.

And as soon as one of these countries would say that they are not playing if Russia is reinstated, there is no IIHF World Championship.

Russia can only be back if all of these conditions are met:

Russia ends the war and pulls back from all recognized Ukrainian territory.
All Putin-supporters must be gone from the Russian hockey community.
Russia commits to paying reparations for damages from the war.

BELOW: Ukrainian ice hockey arenas targeted and destroyed by Russia with the assistance of Belarus.

[donlever]

US and Russia are playing a game in Moscow in recognition of 250 year US B-day I understand.....

[UWSaint]

A well written article by the hockey profile and sports writer Szymon Szemberg.

Szymon Szemberg is the CEO of the European Hockey Club Alliance E.H.C. He was head of information of the International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) 2001-2014 and COO of the Champions Hockey League (CHL) 2013-2015.

IT'S TIME TO GIVE THE REAL REASON WHY RUSSIA IS OUT

I'm glad that the international sporting authorities' banning of different bad nations ended war. I am sure that's how apartheid ended, too.

[UWSaint]

US and Russia are playing a game in Moscow in recognition of 250 year US B-day I understand.....

You know what would have been good for international politics? If the IOC had banned the Soviets from competing in the 1980 Olympics because of their 1979 invasion of Afghanistan. That way we wouldn't have the Miracle on Ice.

Come to think of it, the Soviets were always really bad. Those Canada Cups, they'd have been so much better without the Soviets to line up against.

[Cousin Strawberry]

US and Russia are playing a game in Moscow in recognition of 250 year US B-day I understand.....

If you want to go down the rabbit hole, look into the conspiracy theory about DT being an asset for mother Russia. There's some compelling evidence

[Cornuck]

US and Russia are playing a game in Moscow in recognition of 250 year US B-day I understand.....

If you want to go down the rabbit hole, look into the conspiracy theory about DT being an asset for mother Russia. There's some compelling evidence

Here's some reading all in once place - laid out nicely: https://rachelandthecity.com/the-receipts/

[Cousin Strawberry]

Thanks Corn. I've ripped through a few chapters so far.

Absolutely shocking stuff.

[UWSaint]

US and Russia are playing a game in Moscow in recognition of 250 year US B-day I understand.....

If you want to go down the rabbit hole, look into the conspiracy theory about DT being an asset for mother Russia. There's some compelling evidence

And the Russian hookers were pissing on him, right?

There are conspiracies in this world -- i.e., more than one person entering into an agreement to do things in concert with one another where either the existence of the relationship or the nature of the agreement is secret. I'm not someone who concludes that an explanation is false merely because it requires the existence of a conspiracy. But the more complicated the conspiracy, the more difficult it would be for that conspiracy to remain secret, the more behaviors can be as well explained by simpler pathways, the less plausible conspiratorial explanations are to be true. And the more likely they serve only to be a distraction, undermining the credibility of criticism of the official. For example, if one doesn't like the Iran-US/Israel war, there are plenty of arguments to make on the demerits of the action -- and one can do it while acknowledging the arguments in favor the action. But if the reason for opposition is that its because Netanyahu controls Trump, well, that demands a difficult level of proof, without that proof it subjects you to claims of antisemitism, and it therefore tends to undercut or sideline simpler arguments against the war. It sets the bar too high (the claim there's a kind relationship that if it is exists is bad will make many believe that if there's not a relationship, it is not bad -- this isn't a logical conclusion strictly speaking, but it undermines credibility in in the same way credibility is undermined when you make 5 perfect points and 3 false points to make a case -- just stick to the 5 good ones.

Now I know nothing about this USA Russia game, but that's sort of the thing this thread's about. I'm critical of NGO's playing politics because foreign affairs should be done by governments. I also think tut tutting bans are both ineffective towards their ends and undermine the organization's primary purpose, making the organization's ability to achieve that purpose worse.

But I also recognize that there is a power of sport to bring enemies together in common celebration/respect/admiration to things done excellently. And that thing is a simulacrum of battle, without the blood and guts and death, but a vehicle to non-destructively channel the tribal (my team/your team) sentiments we all have no matter our enlightened liberalism or universalism. There's a story -- myth? history? -- that this was why the Ancient Greeks had their Olympics. This is all why Ted Turner did the Goodwill Games after the USA and USSR had their mutual Olympic boycotts.

With respect to Trump/Putin, it seems to me that Trump decided a long time ago that rapprochement between Russia and the West was the best policy. There are a ton of reasons why -- they don't take a conspiracy. In every situation with a bad actor there is the theory that inclusion will soften and there's the counter-theory that isolation will soften (because those regimes will either come hat in hand or they will die). Nixon goes to China -- China was really bad at the time, coming off the Cultural Revolution. But the US embargos Cuba. Same administrations, different approaches, because the situation is different.

Inclusion is often better when the stick is both ineffective (hurts you as much as them) and the person you are whacking the stick with has alternatives to capitulation.....

The US would like to normalize relations with Russia -- who wouldn't? The debate is what the preconditions should be and on what timeline. Surely the Trump administration has been open about wanting this result, and seems willing to have fewer preconditions than those Europe demands. But no matter, to move people towards one another in any kind of negotiation, you often have to soften them (and be softened yourself) first, enjoy a common experience, a small win. Let them have the small win, even. We know Putin loves hockey. Give Putin a hockey game. On an important American day. If that's an elixir, if its a small step towards normalization, then that's not a terrible thing.