IOF Reflections

After responses from the оrganisers and the IOF regarding the apparent Fair Play violation in the World Cup, I also received a response from the Foot Orienteering Athletes’ Advisory Group. Please find it below with their permission to publish it.

The Senior Event Adviser and the Chair of the FootO Commission declined to provide a public response. That is fully respected. However, it raises the unavoidable question of what could stop somebody from stating their opinion if they believe that everything was done according to the IOF Fair Play Principles.

---

This is a very interesting case with lots of learnings for future events. The IOF Fair Play Principles appear to be clear at face value: Organisers shall not allocate persons with a potential conflict of interest to key positions with access to secret/confidential event information.

None of the respondents claimed that the IOF Fair Play Principles were not violated, but there was a wide range of excuses why the violation of the Fair Play Principles did not matter.

In addition, there are also important learnings that may revolutionise our understanding of orienteering preparation at the elite level. For example, there appears to be a consensus that preparation for a given competition happens only during an event. So, as long as the course setters are not involved during competition with their teams, they are perfectly fine preparing their teams for the competition.

There are many rich and far-fetched learnings that we shall review in a separate post. What is clear, though, is that all these learnings shall provide a liberating feeling for future organisers of IOF events who might feel constrained by the IOF Fair Play Principles. No need to worry. There appears to be ample flexibility in getting around the letter and the idealistic interpretations of the rules and principles.

Well, this might not apply to China or other less reputable nations, but that is another story.

The facts about the World Cup Round 2 in Czechia:

Great historic victory in the men’s competition. (the results )

The course setter has been the national team coach of the winner since 2021.

---

Shame on anybody who has second thoughts about the optics of the results. This is not dissimilar to other European events.

These events teach orienteers the right way of applying the IOF’s Fair Play principles in practice.

Earlier, I raised questions regarding the application of IOF Fair Play principles in the World Cup Round 2. I wrote to several stakeholders asking their opinion on whether in it is a potential conflict of interest if the coach of a national team is the course setter on a major IOF event. I published the responses from the organisers in my previous post.

The replies received from the IOF President, General Secretary, and the Chair of the Rules Commission are shown below. As with the responses of the organisers, I would argue with some of their key points, but I will do it only after the World Cup event.

I also received responses from the IOF Senior Event advisor and the Chair of the FootO Commission. They suggested getting back to this topic after the event. That is understandable and appreciated.

There was no response, whatsoever, from the Chair of the Ethics Panel and the two FootO representatives of the Athletes Commission.

From the IOF President:

From the IOF General Secretary:

From the Chair of the IOF Rules Commission:

As promised in my previous post that raised questions regarding the application of IOF Fair Play principles in the World Cup Round 2, I wrote to several stakeholders asking their opinion on whether in it is a potential conflict of interest if the coach of a national team is the course setter on a major IOF event.

I received shareable and substantive responses from the Organisers and the National Controller. It is much appreciated. I share them below so everybody can read them.

Although I would argue with some of their key points, I will not do it now because of the respect that they shall focus on delivering the World Cup event.

I received responses from the IOF President, the IOF Senior Event Adviser, the Chair of the FootO Commission, and the Chair of the Rules Commission. I will come back to these later because they were either not substantive or not shareable.

The IOF General Secretary was on vacation but shall return to the office today. There was no response from the FootO reps of the Athletes Commission and the Chair of the Ethics Panel.

Here is the response from the Chairman and the referenced affidavit from the course setter.

And here is the response from the national controller:

Unless I receive a substantive and shareable reply from the IOF functionaries who have yet to respond, I will return to this topic in about ten days’ time after the World Cup.

Good luck with the event, both for the athletes and the organisers!
Everybody needs some luck on an orienteering event.

The readers of Bulletin#4 of the World Cup Round 2 were in for a surprise as I was informed by some of the athletes: half of the courses were planned by the head coach of a competing national team, a piece of information that was not disclosed in previous bulletins.

This may look like a serious conflict of interest and appears to fly against the Fair Play and Ethics efforts of the IOF launched officially in 2020. The Fair Play Principles for Event Organisers is specific about not allocating persons with a potential conflict of interest to key positions with access to secret/confidential event information.

The question is how shall we reconcile these pieces of information. There could be three possible options considering that a wilful breach of the IOF Fair Play Principles is unimaginable by a respected nation:
a) The organisers and the IOF (represented by the Senior Event Adviser) were not aware of any potential conflict of interest;
b) This is not a potential conflict of interest, just an optical illusion;
c) This might be a potential conflict of interest, but we trust the people involved, they are from a respected nation. How dare you to insinuate them?

Considering, that the 2020 General Assembly’s resolution includes the resolve to “clarify norms, rules, guidelines and enforcement mechanisms to secure the fairness of competitions” I decided to write this evening to people who might help to shed light on this situation:
– the World Cup Organisers
– IOF Event Adviser
– IOF President
– IOF General Secretary
– Chair of FootO Commission
– Chair of Rules Commission
– Chair of Ethics Panel
– FootO reps of the Athletes Commission

I hope to get answers to the following questions:
Is it a potential conflict of interest if the coach of a national team is the course setter on a major IOF event?
If not, what could be considered a potential conflict of interest for course setters?
If yes, what should be done about the upcoming event and what should be done regarding the breach of IOF Fair Play principles?

I will share the replies on this blog for the edification of the orienteering public.

---

On a personal note, I know very well that International Orienteering prides itself on being a sport of Fair Play. Deep trust in Fair Play is a cornerstone of orienteering. Yet it had a number of openly acknowledged fair play with developing nations and even more issues with respected nations – when the IOF leadership was busy looking away. For a refresher on practical Fair Play in orienteering, one can look not only at the unfortunate events in China, but also at a Danish spectator, a Swedish trailer, a Scottish map maker, education on in-forest cooperation and practice, or Swiss course setter selection practices and results.

On 1 July the IOF General Assembly will vote on the confirmation of the indefinite suspension of the Russian and Belorussian Orienteering Federations by the IOF Council.

In this suspension process, the IOF Council violated the Statutes, the Code of Ethics, and several core principles of due process required in civilized democratic environments. The IOF Ethics Panel helped this process by turning a blind eye to the violation of the Code of Ethics by the Council. This case gave a feeling of elements of historic lynching exercised in the US South and feudal despotism, but not of a democratic process of the civilized world.

Will the General Assembly approve the multiple, deliberate, and blatant violations of the Statutes and the Code of Ethics by the Council? Or will it stand up for the Rule of Law within the IOF?

Of course, it may well happen that the “It was not nice but necessary for justice” attitude will prevail. The same attitude that drove the supporters of lynchings in the US South and the hardcore Putinistas in their justification of the “special military operations”.

One may just hope that the IOF Member Federations do better and stand up for the Rule of Law on 1 July.

The suspensions

On 24 February Putin started a despicable war against Ukraine in violation of international laws and normal conduct amongst civilized societies.

On 28 February the IOF Council suspended indefinitely the Russian Federation and on 4 March the Belorussian Federation, though it had no right to do so according to the Statutes at the time (see Council Minutes 211). They could have imposed only temporary limitations until the General Assembly decided on the matter.

In addition, the IOF letter sent to the Russian Federation indicated that the Council also violated the IOF Code of Ethics by making a decision on “non-compliance with the IOF Code of Ethics”.

Only the IOF Ethics Panel has the right to make such a decision. The Statutes do not give any right to the Council to decide on that.

Below, I detail some of the most blatant violations of the IOF rules and general due process by the Council.

Continue reading “Is the IOF governed by the Rule of Law?”

33 of the 32 registered delegates supported the Statue Amendments proposed by the IOF Council at the Extraordinary General Assembly on 25 March 2022. This 103% approval is a remarkable achievement considering the additional 6 against and 4 abstaining votes, according to the Official Minutes of the EGA. (also on pages 29-34 of the Agenda and Background Papers of the XXXI Ordinary General Assembly) This remarkable voting record means that the 2/3 majority required for the changes of the Statutes has been achieved. The authenticity of the Minutes shall be above doubt, as it was signed by the President of the IOF, the Secretary General, and the Chairman of the EGA.

On 1 July, the Member Federations present in the Ordinary General Assembly shall vote to approve the minutes of the EGA with the above voting record. One may contemplate what could happen during that meeting.

In an organization with strong governance ethics, one may expect the rejection of the self-contradictory EGA minutes. Consequently, that would mean that the Amendments of the Status are not approved. Thus, the leadership would be required to call another EGA to discuss and approve any proposed amendments. (assuming their statutes are similar to that of the IOF, which categorically prohibits the inclusion of Statute Amendments as an urgent business – see Section 7.6 of the old and Section 7.3 of the questionable new Statues). There might be even questions raised about whether the leadership that signed and published such minutes has the right attitude to lead the organization.

In the IOF, it would not be surprising if the Member Federations would approve the above nonsensical EGA Minutes without even blinking. The IOF Leadership may point out that not all the details of the signed Minutes shall be taken seriously, only the ones the IOF Council deems necessary. The Member Federations, well accustomed to the no-consequence culture of the IOF, would happily oblige. After all, this is IOF business, as usual.

Of course, the Member Federations may choose to show an even higher level of support for the IOF Council. It would be a nice demonstration of the strength and unity of the IOF, and the true sporting spirit of orienteers, if on the GA an even higher proportion, say 110% of the registered voters, would approve the EGA Minutes.

It is dangerous to talk about Peace when a barbaric mad War waged by a few results in an indiscriminate Hatred against many.

I know that I will be shot at from many sides for speaking up against indiscriminate hate instead of raging against Russians. But it is our responsibility, who live in peaceful corners of the world, to speak up against getting succumbed to hate and to try to make sense of the world. We shall try to steer things in a way that increases the chances of lasting peace instead of engrained animosity.

Putin’s plan works. The old KGB fox knows that people love to hate. Hate makes life easy: pure emotion, no cognition, no reflection. Hate makes life simple: we are good; they are wrong. Hate makes us feel good: at least we are doing something against somebody while watching unfolding horror on TV in our cosy homes.

Exclusion and hate ensure that people don’t talk to each other.
It is the antithesis of sport.

On Monday, 28 February, the IOF Council decided at an extraordinary Council meeting to immediately suspend the membership of the Russian Orienteering Federation for no other reason but for being Russian. With this decision, the IOF Council broke more than 60 years of tradition being a non-political organisation, a tradition maintained through the Cold War and numerous conflicts.

In this post, I would like to show that the IOF used to be above politics even during confrontations between member federations. Now it has become a vehicle for Putin’s plan of hate. Even worse, the Council appears to act without considering the future. Let’s face it, for many IOF countries the involvement in a war is not a question of IF, but WHEN. And then what?

Will our sport no longer act as a bridge for peace above politics but as a tool of punishment – as and when political fashions demand so?

IOF above politics

The IOF used to be a bridge over politics for 60 years. Most of the founding fathers were from opposing military blocks in the midst of the Cold War, only 16 years after a World War. Yet, they wanted to make sure that there was a chance to find friendship through sports.

Legend says that Erik Tobé (SWE), the first President of the IOF, was adamant that sport should be separated from politics. He was upset when the athletes of the GDR could not participate in the 1st European Championship in 1962 because the NATO member Norway refused to issue them a visa.

Until now, there were only two cases in the IOF’s history when member federations attacked member federations: in 1968 and in 1999.

In 1968, when the World Championship was only a month after the occupation of Czechoslovakia when hundreds of civilians were killed and wounded. There were calls to exclude the Bulgarian and the Hungarian teams because both the Bulgarian and the Hungarian armies contributed to the occupying forces. Erik Tobé was instrumental in ensuring that all teams could participate. Sport was above politics.

In 1999 NATO launched an unauthorized bombing campaign against Yugoslavia. Again hundreds of civilians died who were simply referred to as “collateral damage” in NATO’s campaign to destroy bridges and utilities with the objective to paralyze life in Yugoslavia. The Yugoslavian Federation asked the IOF to issue a statement for peace. The IOF declined for being a sports organization, not a political body.

When did the IOF has become a political organisation? What has changed that the IOF is ready to exclude athletes from competitions just because some mad political leaders commit crimes athletes cannot stop?

Putin’s plan succeeds

It could be funny if it would not be so tragic that the IOF Council is just delivering on Putin’s plan. As Mark Galeotti, probably the best Russia analyst these days, writes in his article:

Isolating Russia is exactly Putin’s plan. The Kremlin would be delighted if we treated all 144 million Russians as its willing collaborators. This is soft North Koreanization, and we ought to do what we can to push back.

Russian athletes have as much chance to fight for a regime change as Chinese athletes. When we exclude them from international competitions, their chance will be that of the North Korean athletes fighting for a regime change.

Probably 90% of the Russian population watches only Russian state media these days. Watching the war in Ukraine special operations in Donbas on Russian TV is a whole different story that one cannot possibly understand if they never lived in Russia. The 10% includes most of the athletes we meet at international events.

Russian athletes are the ones who can act as ambassadors of Western values and views in Russia for the simple reason that they are amongst the few who encounter them.

Putin must be delighted to see them excluded from international competitions.

At a personal level, I am shocked to see how successful was Putin in indoctrinating even people in orienteering (who are far brighter than average folks) with some of the core values of Stalinism: Article 58 of the Soviet Penal Code and the philosophy of Cheka, the predecessor of the NKVD/KGB.

Article 58 on Anti-Soviet activities called for the same punishment for the ones who committed an act the regime did not like, for the ones who planned it, for the ones who contemplated it, and for the ones who were deemed to be in a position that made the authorities believe that they could think about it. This line of thought was perfectly illustrated by the letter of the Ukrainian Federation on Day 1 of the war and also by many Western comments in orienteering social media: If you are Russian, you must be a Putinista, who supports the war in Ukraine and who is delighted to see the destruction and suffering of the innocents. Guilty as charged!

The philosophy of Cheka, the predecessor of the NKVD/KGB, was also straightforward: it is better to see 10 innocents on the Gulag than one anti-soviet element walking free. This is implemented these days with gusto when people talk about the need to exclude all Russian athletes because we cannot possibly know if there is a Putinista or two amongst them who does not condemn the war.

Vladimir Vladimirovich is the undisputable winner when it comes to spreading the philosophy of hate around the World.

What’s next?

The Council, as a responsible body, shall also consider the implications and long term consequences of its decisions. What is the precedent set by this decision?

Does this decision set a precedent for member federations whose country conducts lethal military operations in a foreign country? Let’s face it, for some member federations this is not a question of IF but WHEN. Will we regularly miss our American and Turkish friends, amongst others?

Does this decision set a precedent only for lethal military operations in Europe? Or only military operation against a country of a member federation that counts? Or is it restricted to military operations by Russia against a country of a member federation?

Most importantly, does this decision open a new era of the IOF where moral values will be assessed by the Council and athletes from countries whose leaders do not live up to standards set by the Council will be excluded?

– * – * – * –

Whichever way it works out, this looks like a new area in the history of the IOF. Our sport may no longer act as a bridge of peace between people who may never meet each other otherwise. It may well turn into a device of exclusion and hate, a tool in the hands of political agendas set by various political powers.