i.o.c. she was still all allowed to compete even though she had adopting history if your mother was not allowed to compete in the e.u. by the i.o.c. because she already had served a suspension for doping that was the only reason there you see if i remember correctly a few days before the rio games issued some specific guidelines for the selection of russian athletes there were four and now there are seventeen but in the case of mrs the fume of. the main criteria for the refusal of her admission of the games was the fact that she was already suspended for doping and said that it's not a proper argument proper criterion because we already ruled in the past that if an athlete as already served a suspension for duping he should not be sanctioned a second time for the same office so we released her and i think a few other athletes for that reason well this is interesting because right now you're saying the i.o.c. criteria back then was flawed but now there is seventeen and they're much more complicated and veg and now you're saying that it's fair. that's like this cast a saying that according to the

this isn't confirmed that they have not committed any wrongdoing and the i.o.c. had wrongly sanctioned them for something they had not done theoretically. could challenge those this isn't the grounds on which you can charan's this isn't some before this resupply in court are very limited and i don't see how they could be successful after the verdict was announced russian athletes were of course in high spirits as they had believed their dreams and careers had been dashed loyal i'm assuming you know i found out about the decision during my training c.a.'s decided to overturn my disqualification my band i had only positive thoughts in my head about that i've been ready to ski for a long long time keeping up my training but i had a question right away what about the olympics are we able to dispute this and get an invitation but i was waiting for the results of the appeal when i came back from practice it's amazing news then my scouts and team started congratulating each other such a relief when not guilty and the whole public will know that a lot of people thought we da

hearing in the in the room but in the case of young chang trial did it come to the point when the i.o.c. had to provide something to the court not the geneva case but here for this case here in the panel only review the question of the application of the law of the rules of the i.o.c. it's reviewed only the process whether it was fair whether it was nondiscriminatory discriminatory. it found that it was not critical there was no. the rules were not unfair and they have complied with by the i. so it was only a legally stick approach again there was no review of every. for the entire case of the sochi case was not discussed here the report was last discussed here it's only the review of the i.o.c. process which was discussed here i just wanted to ask you about the mechanics of the arbitration who comes in first who delivers the messages first who is represented and is the decision unanimous does it have to be unanimous what happened in this room in this room exactly so technically we have an application from the. fifteen russian athletes who were challenging the i.o.c. decision not to invite t

turn and deciding not to act against the i.o.c. who had block some of the cleared athletes from competing at the games we spoke with the court secretary-general asking him about the reasons behind both its and the i.o.c. is decisions the full interview is available on our website that's r.t. dot com but here is a quick preview. these athletes applied but were denied access to the games because the i.o.c. decided not to invite them so it was not a sanction it was an eligibility issue that's a legal difference for us. only reviewed the question of the application of the law of the rules of the i.o.c. it's reviewed only the process whether it was fair whether it was nondiscriminatory discriminatory. it found that it was not critical there was no. the rules were not unfair and they have complied with by the i.o.c. so it was only a legally stick approach again there was no review of every. for the entire case of the sochi case was not discussed here the report was last discussed here. the fact that you cannot establish the give evidence of the

i.o.c. which had blocked some of the cleared attlee's from taking part in the games we spoke with the court sixty general asking him about the reasons behind the bow of the court and i.o.c. decisions you can watch the full version of this interview on our website that's ninety dot com just for now though here's a quick preview. these athletes applied but were denied access to the games because the i.o.c. decided not to invite them so it was not a sanction it was an eligibility issue that's a legal difference for us. the panel only reviewed the question of the application of the law of the rules of the i.o.c. it reviewed only the process whether it was fair whether it was nondiscriminatory discriminatory. it found that it was not critical there was no. the rules were not unfair and they have complied with by the i.o.c. so it was only a legally stick approach again there was no review of every. for the entire case of the sochi case was not discussed here the metro report was last discussed here. the fact that you cannot establish the give evidence of that. doesn't mean that you have establishe

i.o.c. which had blocked some of the cleared out from competing at the games we spoke with the court second general asking him about the reasons behind both the court and i.o.c. decisions full interview is available on our website that's r.t. dot com but here's a quick preview. these athletes applied but were denied access to the games because the i.o.c. decided not to invite them so it was not a sanction it was an issue that's a legal difference for us. only reviewed the question of the application of the law of the rules of the r.u.c. it's reviewed only the process whether it was fair whether it was nondiscriminatory discriminatory. found that it was not critical there was no. the rules were not fair and they have complied with so it was only illegal is to approach again there was no review of every. for the entire yuki's of the sochi case was not discussed here the report was last discussed here. the fact that you cannot establish the give evidence of the good deal doesn't mean that you have established the innocence of the athlete this is the other way with the sochi case because the i.o

i.o.c. which had blocked some of the cleared athletes from competing at the games we spoke with the court secretary general asking about the reasons behind both the court and i.o.c. decisions and you can watch for version of this interview on our website the salty dot com just for now though here's a preview these athletes apply you know access to because the o.c. decided not to invite them so it was not this sanction it was. issue that's illegal this difference for us. the panel only reviewed the question of the application of the law of the rules of the i.o.c. it reviewed only the process whether it was fair whether it was nondiscriminatory discriminatory. it found that it was not critical there was no. the rules were not unfair and they have complied with by the i.o.c. so it was only a legally stick approach again there was no review of every. for the entire case of the such a case was not discussed here the report was lost discussed here. the fact that you cannot establish the give evidence of the good of the doesn't mean that you have established the innocence of the athlete this is the other

i.o.c. invitation despite having never tested positive for doping well accusations of drug use had prompted the i.o.c. to ban us russian athletes for life they appealed against the decision and the court of arbitration for sport overturned the bans for twenty eight russian athletes at the start of february the court then did the parent u. turn deciding not to go against the i.o.c. well we spoke with the court secretary-general match your review and asked him about the reasons behind the court and i.o.c. has decisions the full interview is on our website r.t. dot com but here is a preview. these athletes applied but were denied access to the games because the i.o.c. decided not to invite them so it was not a sanction it was an eligibility issue that's a legal difference for us. the only review the question of the application of the law of the rules of the i.o.c. it reviewed only the process whether it was fair whether it was nondiscriminatory discriminatory. it found that it was not critical there was no. the rules were not unfair and they have complied with by the i.o.c. so it was only a leg

furious its members see the thing with bitterness and resentment but all things considered the i.o.c. had some trouble standing beside their initial ruling a lot of people asking hell the i.o.c. got the brief so wrong that they were able to throw it out so quickly. well let's let's let's you can look at the decision but let's let's see who will be competing here in the games coming up then we can have this conversation again the embarrassment is understandable the court of appeals decision to reverse the ban was among other things based on the testimony of the very same people who convinced the i.o.c. to impose the sanctions in the first place the mclaren report didn't find any individual violations of the rules of individual sports men because there was only a very limited time the team of mr mclaren had fifty seven death bomb show. to. the russian paralympic team also had its very decided this week two years ago the doors of the summer games in real were slammed in their faces a blanket ban meant no one was welcome this february a team of almost eighty people will have a shot at the gol

was pressuring cas in this decision is that third well certainly from what thomas barth the i.o.c. had was saying it did make it.

and the i.o.c. had the right to appeal the decision of the time and none of them did well this is a point where i once again want to mention all the russian olympic bans well everyone has their own understanding of the words double standards. we discuss the issue with professor of sociology at aston university ellis cashmore he believes there is a double standard at work given that russia's athletes were banned even without testing positive for doping what is novel of course is this apparent relaxation of the warders rule of strict liability waters premise with all its other kind of rules regarding drugs is that the individual athlete is soley responsible for his or her own bodies if you're in a bar and somebody spiked shore drink your responsible for it even if you had left your drink on guarded while you went to the toilet or something like that or turned your back you or the perpetrator of the crime russian athletes have been banned from competing even without giving any kind of positive don't test a

presumption of guilt of the athlete this is the other way around with the sochi case because the i.o.c. had to show that the athletes were guilty the fact that the unable to show the guilt of an athlete doesn't mean that the athlete has nothing to do other with the case is totally innocence this is a logical consequence and this is nothing bad or good about it well it's definitely bad for some people mr reap the athletes from the groups that your court how to deal with haven't been explained their wrongdoings by the i.o.c. but did the international olympic committee at least provide cas with proof of their guilt is difficult for me to go into details because this case we only have the decisions without the reasons so we know the result we know the media release that i have pronounced but we don't know the full reasons for each of these thirty nine cases so the only thing i can imagine as a lawyer is that there were some evidence brought by the i.o.c. which shows some suspicion about some wrongdoings in this situation. well as you heard a couple of minutes ago after the initial cas decision

established the innocence of the athlete this is the other way around with the sochi case because the i.o.c. had to show that the athletes were guilty the fact that the unable to show the guilt of an athlete doesn't mean that the athlete has nothing to do other with the case. we are not acting on the pressure so it was not a pressure for us because we have different panel of arbitrators they work independently and they are not really. they are not employees of caste they are independent people. once they have been notified to the parties we will publish them and weekly continues in just a moment. looking at value surveys russians aren't so different from their european neighbors when it comes to individual rights and freedoms however they do have a very low tolerance for uncertainty in politics that translates into a strong electoral advantage for the incumbent making power transitions rare and precarious what would it take for russians to stop playing it safe politically. the world. so they have all the season is ideally practices they all pressed oppressive measures being deployed against the

i.o.c. invitation despite having never tested positive for doping. well accusations of drug use had prompted the i.o.c. to ban u.s. russian athletes for life they appealed against the decision and the court of arbitration for sport overturned the bans for twenty eight russian athletes at the start of february well the court then did in a power an eternal deciding not to go against the i.o.c. we spoke with the court's secretary general asking him about the reasons behind the court and the i.o.c. has decisions and the full interview is on our website r.t. dot com but here's a preview. these athletes applied but were united access to the games because the i.o.c. decided not to invite them so it was not a sanction it was an eligibility issue that's a legal difference for us. only review the question of the application of the law of the rules of the i.o.c. it's reviewed only the process whether it was fair whether it was nondiscriminatory discriminatory. it found that it was not critical there was no. the rules were not unfair and they have complied with by the i.o.c. so it was only a le

established the innocence of the athlete this is the other way around with the sochi case because the i.o.c. had to show that the athletes were guilty the fact that they are only able to show the guilt of an athlete doesn't mean that the athlete has nothing to do other with the case. we are not acting on the pressure so it was not a pressure for us because we have different panel of arbitrators they work independently and they are not really. they are not employees of caste they are independent people. once they have been notified to the parties we will publish them where the russian athletes prohibited from competing and then i can trace black artists got reaction from the fans around the world in china. it will take a long while for russian athletes journalists like myself that i can tell you first sure to forget the acronym zero eight are after chang twenty eight think well just before the winter games a group of russian designers thought they could take advantage of the international olympic committee's language sanctioned. i put one of those on myself and decided to walk around near the oly

established the innocence of the athlete this is the other way around with the sochi case because the i.o.c. had to show that the athletes were guilty the fact that the unable to show the guilt of an athlete doesn't mean that the athlete has nothing to do other with the case. we are not acting on the pressure so it was not a pressure for us because we have different panel of arbitrators they work independently and they are not really. they are not employees of caste they are independent people. once they have been notified to the parties we will publish them. with russian athletes prohibited from competing under their country's flag to trying to get reaction from fans around the world in young child. it will take a long while for russian athletes journalists like myself that i can tell you first sure to forget the acronym oh ok r after chang twenty eight thing well just before the winter games a group of russian designers thought they could take advantage of the international olympic committee's language sanctioned. i put one of those on myself and decided to walk around near the olympic park a

established the innocence of the athlete this is the other way around with the sochi case because the i.o.c. had to show that the athletes were guilty the fact that the unable to show the guilt of an athlete doesn't mean that the athlete has nothing to do other with the case. we are not acting in the pressure so it was not a pressure for us because we have different panel of arbitrators they work independently and they are not really. they are not employees of caste they are independent people. once they have been notified to the parties we will publish them. with russian athletes prohibited from competing under their country's flag. reaction from fans around the world in pyongyang. it will take a long while for russian athletes journalists like myself that i can tell you first sure to forget the acronym oh ok r after chang twenty eighteen well just before the winter games a group of russian designers thought they could take advantage of the international olympic committee's language sanctioned. i put one of those on myself and decided to walk around near the olympic park a little bit. what kind

and the i.o.c. had the right to appeal the decision of the time and none of them did well this is the point where i once again want to mention all the russian olympic bans well everyone has their own understanding of the words double standards. we discussed the issue with professor of sociology at aston university ellis cashmore he believes there's a double standard at work given that russia's athletes have been banned even without testing positive for doping what is novel of course is this apparent relaxation of warder's rule of strict liability warders premise with all of its other rules regarding drugs is that the individual athlete is slowly responsible for his or her own body as if you're in a bar and somebody spiked shore drink your responsible for it even if you'd left your drink on guarded while you went to the toilet or something like that or turned your back your the perpetrator of the crime russian athletes have been banned from competing even without giving any kind of positive don't test at

and the i.o.c. had the right to appeal the decision of the time and none of them did well this is a point where i once again want. mention all the russian olympic bands well everyone has their own understanding of the words double standards. we discussed the issue of professor of sociology at aston university ellis cashmore he believes that there is a double standard at work given that russia has the athletes were banned even without testing positive for doping what is novel of course is this apparent relaxation of the warders rule of strict liability waters premise with all its other kind of rules regarding drugs is that the individual athlete is slowly responsible for his or her own bodies if your in a bar and somebody spiked shore drink your responsible for it even if you'd left your drink on guarded while you went to the toilet or something like that or turned your back you or the perpetrator of the crime russian athletes have been banned from competing even without giving any kind of positive don't