It has been nearly eight years now since Marius Vizer, then head of what was called SportAccord, launched one of the most memorable inside-the-Olympic-world attacks of all time — maybe the grand prize winner! — on the International Olympic Committee, saying at a gathering in Sochi, Russia, that the IOC was running a system he called “expired, outdated, wrong, unfair and not at all transparent.”
Vizer, then and still also head of the International Judo Federation, speaks his mind. To this day. Nonetheless, he and IOC president Thomas Bach have, at least for public consumption, significantly patched up differences. And for the past eight years, no one, at least inside the Olympic landscape, has sought so directly and forcefully to take on Bach and the IOC.
Umar Kremlev, IBA president since 2020
Cue Umar Kremlev and the International Boxing Association.
On Wednesday, as the IOC’s policy-making executive board was meeting inside Olympic House by Lake Geneva to discuss, among other things, what to do about boxing, a mass of — let’s be clear, peaceful — pro-IBA protestors rallied against what they perceive to be the IOC’s heavy hand when it comes to the IBA.
The protestors further believe a key issue at hand may be boxing’s place on the Olympic program in LA28.
That’s not it.
Bach has made it 100% clear, time and again, that he is an avid supporter of boxing. He has said, time and again, that boxing has a clear and vivid Olympic history and that there is perhaps no sport on the Olympic program that has, time and again, demonstrated the ability to see athletes rise up from impoverished conditions wherever they might be in our fragile world and thus, through their stories, to inspire.
Absent an unforeseen turn of events, boxing — the sport — is hugely likely to be on the 2028 program. The country that gave rise to the most famous boxer of all time, Muhammad Ali, who won gold in Rome in 1960, that then saw Ali light the cauldron in Atlanta in 1996 — is not gonna have boxing on the program? Come on.
The IOC statement after Wednesday’s EB meeting said nothing about boxing’s place on the program. It had to do with the IOC’s response to a mostly technical letter the IBA had sent, the IOC noting (in a droll tone) the IBA allegations “are generally refuted,” the IOC going on to say it would now determine if there are “still major concerns regarding IBA’s practices and activities.” It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out the IOC answer. Please see the binary, yes/no way they framed it.
The IOC historically has been very direct in saying when it wants to boot you from the program. Ask the wrestling people, who survived a near-death experience in 2013.
To reiterate — nothing Wednesday of the sort.
A scene from the IBA protest Wednesday outside Olympic House in Lausanne
Further evidence — as IOC spokesman Mark Adams said at a briefing after Wednesday’s meeting, “To make it absolutely clear, the IOC has no problem with the sport of boxing or the boxers but there are problems with the suspended federation.”
In truth, the “problems” really are not with the suspended federation.
They are with Kremlev.
The problems, really, are three.
1. It’s not so much that Kremlev is Russian, though that’s inextricable from the equation, because Kremlev is strongly believed to have ties to certain people in Russia at, let’s say, high levels.
The Russian thing, cont.:
At the recently concluded IBA women’s world championships in New Delhi, Russian and Belarussian boxers competed under their respective flags; more than 10 nations, including the United States, Britain, Ireland and others, stayed away. Earlier this week, the IOC board suggested to international sports federations that they open a “pathway” for Russian and Belarusian athletes to compete as “individual neutral athletes.” Obviously, IBA is going its own way.
2. It’s not even so much that IOC leadership has in its possession documents that they believe identify Kremlev as criminal. OK, but since when in the Olympic world — we don’t need to delve into too many examples here — has that been an automatic disqualifier?
3. The issue, bluntly, is that key elements in senior IOC leadership do not like, trust, respect (take your pick) Umar Kremlev.
To that point, Kremlev has over the months tried making nice with the IOC. That didn’t seem to get him anywhere.
Now he’s trying more of a, ah, more direct approach. Protestors in the dozens if not hundreds outside Olympic House! TBH it’s pretty obvious he might well care less about the IOC if they aren’t going to give him the time of day. OK, sure, but ask: if his approach now reflects a more aggressive positioning (though to reiterate: peaceful protesting), what game is the IOC playing? Is it not playing hardball? What should Kremlev do? Meow like a kitten? From his vantage point, he is the duly elected president of a federation.
So we’re at a delicious standoff. And the leverage belongs to?
The kinda-sorta obvious solution would be for Bach and Kremlev to get together, neutral site, sure, and see if they could find common ground. Kremlev doubtlessly would take the meeting. For his part, in his time as IOC president, Bach has assuredly met with, hmm, all manner of people.
There hasn’t been this much disco inside the party in, oh, eight years. Stay tuned.