Japan’s largest fish market, Tsukiji, caught fire last week in a blaze that burned for 15 hours, destroying massive portions of the historic building that has housed the market for decades. No one was injured in the fire but the cause is still unknown. The fire will not shut down the market, which has been a popular tourist destination since it opened in 1935, but it has brought international attention to the market–which is facing a dramatic move that few of the tourists visiting its stalls and shops are aware of.

Concerns about the antiquated refrigeration systems in the market and the building’s vulnerability to earthquakes have been present for years but the fast approaching 2020 Olympics accelerated plans to move the market, as Tokyo Governor Yuriko Koike looks to create space for athletic venues and housing during the games. The Tsukiji market was meant to be relocated last year to the man-made island of Toyosu, a location which was not convenient for fishmongers or tourists, but was purpose-built with modern appliances and resources. However, Toyosu was occupied by the Tokyo Gas Company from 1966 to 1988 and industrial chemicals had saturated the area, skyrocketing past legal levels.

Officials claimed that they had sanitized the land but Koike revealed in a press conference last fall that those measures had never in fact taken place–yet she still plans to move the fish market to Toyosu. The local government has invested millions in cleaning up the Toyosu site but it has not yet been declared safe–leaving both the fishmongers who work there and tourists who plan to visit wary. The original site of the Tsukiji market will be rebuilt as a culinary theme park while the traditional fish market will be moved to Toyosu in the summer of 2018. More than 70 percent of the fish wholesalers working in Tsukiji oppose the move but unfortunately the decision is not theirs to make–there is no union, no collective bargaining and even if there was, this is not the type of battle unions are usually designed to negotiate.

Hosting the Olympics is an intensive process for any city–the infrastructure fiasco at Sochi and the massive protests in Rio are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to exploring all that can go wrong when hosting the international event. Koike faces an almost impossible decision–leave the Tsukiji market where it is, a crumbling building vulnerable to fires and earthquakes, or move it to the new site, where contamination could destroy the health of everyone who sells and shops for fish there. The market can’t be shut down–not only is it a tourist destination, it is the largest fish supplier for the restaurants of Tokyo. In a nation where sushi is sold on every corner, the fish supply cannot be cut off overnight. The fate of the market rests now rests entirely on the shoulders of the clean-up team working to purify Toyosu. If the site is still contaminated next summer, Koike will be back to square one–with the clock ticking closer to the Olympics every day.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Tourism and Toxicity at the Tsukiji Fish Market appeared first on Law Street.

Sportswear brand Nike has announced that it will launch a high performance hijab, to help female Muslim athletes perform at their best. Muslim women who wear a hijab will now have an actual item of sportswear that represents them and doesn’t make them choose between function and their beliefs. The new product goes under the name Nike Pro Hijab and is designed to better deal with problems that traditional hijabs could pose when used in a sports setting, such as being too heavy, too sweaty, or easily coming loose.

Nike said in a statement that the hijab has been officially in the making for a year, but really for much longer than that if you consider Nike’s mantra that, “if you have a body, you’re an athlete.” The statement added that Nike started discussing the matter seriously in 2012, when runner Sarah Attar became the first female track athlete to compete for Saudi Arabia in the London Olympics and did so in her hijab. She finished the 800 meter race almost 45 seconds after the other runners, and the audience gave her a standing ovation. A few days earlier her teammate Wojdan Shaherkani, who competed in Judo, became the very first Saudi woman to compete in the Olympics.

As a hijab wearing athlete, I’m stoked for @nike‘s pro hijab line. Moreso I love that its approved/featured by ACUTAL hijab wearing athletes pic.twitter.com/qzIRtQcQ9Y

— Rowaida Abdelaziz (@Rowaida_Abdel) March 7, 2017

Nike said that it started to work on the hijab when Muslim female weightlifter Amna Al Haddad visited Nike’s sports research lab in Oregon to discuss problems she had with her own hijabs. She said that she only had one that worked to exercise in, and that she had to wash it by hand every night. After that, the Nike team collaborated with athletes to develop a more breathable and lightweight garment.

Many women see Nike’s announcement as a victory for Muslim female athletes all over the world.

This is the most amazing thing!! Imagine how comfy it’s gonna be – better than those other scarf things hijabis have to wear now. https://t.co/QqPfR1FlUF

— Aisha Baker Parnell (@bakedtheblog) March 7, 2017

But on the other hand, some people on social media pointed out that smaller and less influential sports brands have been making athletic hijabs for several years.

Most patronising. I’ve been wearing a scarf and exercising fine for years, just as small businesses have BEEN making scarves for activewear. https://t.co/BFpjn8jdCR

— Aaisha Dadi Patel (@aaishadadipatel) March 7, 2017

Some people also levied complaints, saying that Nike “sides with the oppression of women,” or that Nike is taking advantage of religious concerns to make money. But in general, the new product seems to have garnered plenty of applause. The discussion about hijabs in sports has been controversial and FIFA, the international football association, banned hijabs for soccer players until as recently as 2014. The international basketball federation, FIBA, still has a ban in place.

That a world-renowned sports brand such as Nike started producing an activewear hijab is seen as a big step in the right direction. “For a brand like Nike to come out and say that these people exist and are inclusive of hijabis is a big deal,” said Manal Rostom, an Egyptian athlete, to Al Arabiya English.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Nike Launches High Performance Hijab For Muslim Athletes appeared first on Law Street.

Swimwear brand Speedo decided to drop its sponsorship of U.S. swimmer Ryan Lochte after the scandal surrounding his robbery claim in Rio came to light. The company said that it can’t condone behavior that contradicts its values.

Last week, Lochte and three teammates claimed they were robbed at gunpoint at a gas station after a night out in Rio. But when police followed up with the swimmers, their statements differed from each other and Lochte’s nonchalant reaction to being threatened with a gun to his head, to which he responded by saying, “whatever,” also called his account into question.

By Thursday, it became clear that their reports of a robbery were embellished and possibly fictitious. Rio police said Lochte and friends had vandalized the gas station by tearing off the bathroom door and urinating on a wall. They then got out of the situation by paying the gas station owner for the damage. While questions about the Rio police’s handling of the incident came to light after USA Today reconstructed the events, it is clear that significant aspects of the original robbery story were fabricated.

On Friday, Lochte released a statement with an apology, saying he regretted not being more careful and candid in his description of the events. But for people in Rio, the damage to their city’s image is not yet fixed.

Speedo tweeted its formal statement on Monday:

The official response regarding our sponsorship of Ryan Lochte. pic.twitter.com/0DdP2RyceD

— Speedo USA (@SpeedoUSA) August 22, 2016

Other brands that have sponsorship deals with Lochte include Ralph Lauren and Japanese mattress company Airweave. Ralph Lauren said that it will not be renewing its contract with Lochte while Airweave told Bloomberg that it intends to maintain its partnership with the swimmer.

The spokesperson of the International Olympic Committee, Mario Andrada, made headlines when he defended the swimmers’ behavior on Thursday saying, “Let’s give these kids a break. Sometimes you take actions that you later regret. They are magnificent athletes.”

Considering Lochte is 32, that defense seems out of place, especially after social media users bullied U.S. gymnast Gabby Douglas, who is only 20, for being “unpatriotic” during the Olympics.

The bizarre situation led to many reactions on social media, a pattern that continued in light of Speedo’s decision to drop its sponsorship on Monday:

Speedo publicly drops Ryan Lochte. I always assumed it would be the other way around.

— Kyle Clark (@KyleClark) August 22, 2016

Hard to believe a guy with bleached hair in 2016 would turn out to be a total douche. #LochteMessMonster

— KevinDillon (@Dillonopolous) August 18, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Speedo Drops Sponsorship of Ryan Lochte After Robbery Scandal appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Monday!

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Is Hillary Clinton Actually Really Sick?

A few weeks ago, Martin Shkreli exacerbated a rumor that Hillary Clinton was suffering from the early stages of Parkinson’s disease in a RIDICULOUS series of tweets. Most people blew him off, primarily because the man is not a doctor.

This week, more non-doctors are coming out and saying the Democratic nom is truly very sick. Ex-NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani got on “Fox News Sunday” and criticized media outlets for not reporting on Hillary’s “secret illness.” Guiliani told viewers: “Go online & put down ‘Hillary Clinton illness,’ take a look at the videos for yourself.”

This is the video he’s talking about:

We invite you to form your own opinions about this, but many spectators think its complete BS.

With regards to #HillarysHealth, does anyone really think any undecided voters are making choices or changing minds based on that? Anyone!?

— jay cowit (@jaycowit) August 18, 2016

You can also Google “rudy giuliani kiss trump” if you want.

— Philip Bump (@pbump) August 21, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 22, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

UPDATE: Ryan Lochte has since issued an apology for his behavior:

https://t.co/n82dZH2gfl pic.twitter.com/rGp1nmA94G

— Ryan Lochte (@RyanLochte) August 19, 2016

---

A bizarre story just got a whole lot messier. Earlier this week, it was reported that Ryan Lochte, along with three other U.S. swimmers, were robbed at gunpoint while returning home from a party in Rio. The news seemed to affirm worries that the country was not in great shape to hold the 2016 Games, which so far had seemed to be incident-free, and the robbery of a high-profile athlete such as Lochte didn’t bode well for the country’s image. However, Brazilian police are now alleging that the swimmers’ accounts of the robbery are not adding up, and a judge has ordered that the passports of Lochte and swimmer Jimmy Feigen be seized so that they can conduct an investigation into the claims. Last night, officials pulled Jack Conger and Gunnar Bentz, the other two swimmers involved, off their plane back to the U.S. and detained them.

Lochte has reportedly already left Rio, while Feigen’s location hasn’t been disclosed. Since the news broke, there has been a lot of uncertainty surrounding the details of what occurred late Saturday night. While the International Olympic Committee originally vehemently denied that the robbery took place, it quickly doubled back and confirmed the claims. On Tuesday, Lochte told USA Today that the incident was not originally reported because “we were afraid to get in trouble.”

Now, recent video footage has shed light on inconsistencies in the athletes’ accounts of that night. Footage released by The Daily Mail allegedly shows the athletes returning to the Olympic Village early Sunday morning and going through the x-ray machines with items they claimed were stolen in the incident. The actual timing of the return did not match up with the time that the swimmers claimed to have returned. Additionally, the owner of the gas station where the robbery was said to have occurred also told the Daily Mail that, in the surveillance video he turned over to the police, there was proof that the athletes were never there that night.

It is this video in particular that allegedly prompted the judge to order the passport seizure. Filing a false police report is a punishable offense in Brazil that can lead to jail time.

Fortunately for Lochte, he is back home safe and sound: if he was still hanging around Rio, the judge’s order would prohibit him from leaving the country while the incident was being investigated. His lawyer told CNN that even if an arrest warrant was issued by Brazilian authorities, Lochte would not be turning himself in.

Lochte, the 11-time Olympic medalist, responded to the accusations in a conversation with Matt Lauer. He reportedly told Lauer that Brazilian authorities had not asked him to stay in the country, which is why he left on schedule. He also claimed that he  “wouldn’t make this up,” although there were slight inconsistencies with the account he told Lauer from what he originally told the Today Show’s Billy Bush.

Lochte and the other swimmers better get ready: until and unless their claims are corroborated, they will definitely face anger from the Brazilian people for maligning their country. While there’s a lot of speculation surrounding what exactly happened, one thing’s for certain: an already-unpredictable Olympic Games just got weirder.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Was Ryan Lochte Lying About the Rio Robbery? Brazilian Investigation Gets Messy appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now?

Peter Thiel Opens Up About Gawker

The Daily Beast isn’t the only outlet that has allegedly violated the personal privacy of its subjects. Peter Thiel published an op-ed on Monday discussing his feelings toward Gawker Media for outing him in 2007.

It wasn’t so many years ago, but it was a different time: Gay men had to navigate a world that wasn’t always welcoming, and often faced difficult choices about how to live safely and with dignity.

Thiel wanted to come out to the public on his own terms but, unfortunately, Gawker “violated his privacy and cashed in on it.”

Since then, Thiel has made it his aim to bring down Gawker by any means possible. Those means have come in the form of bankrupting the company through a series of lawsuits against Gawker. Thiel secretly funded Terry Bollea’s, or Hulk Hogan, high profile suit, and subsequently bankrupted Gawker and its founder Nick Denton.

via GIPHY

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 16, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Concerns about violence in Rio in the weeks and months leading up to the 2016 Olympic Games were certainly present–and they seem to have been at least somewhat founded, given that there have already been quite a few incidents. But one of the most well known American stars of the Games, swimmer Ryan Lochte, was robbed at gunpoint last night (along with three other American swimmers), in what may end up being one of the more high profile crime stories of the Rio Olympics.

Lochte was with other Team USA swimmers Gunnar Bentz, Jack Conger, and Jimmy Feigen. They all left a party together at “Club France,” hosted by the French Hospitality Club, around 3 AM and got in a cab. Lochte described the mugging to NBCNews, saying:

We got pulled over, in the taxi, and these guys came out with a badge, a police badge, no lights, no nothing just a police badge and they pulled us over. They pulled out their guns, they told the other swimmers to get down on the ground — they got down on the ground. I refused, I was like we didn’t do anything wrong, so — I’m not getting down on the ground.

And then the guy pulled out his gun, he cocked it, put it to my forehead and he said, ‘Get down,’ and I put my hands up, I was like ‘whatever.’ He took our money, he took my wallet — he left my cell phone, he left my credentials.

The incident was confirmed by the U.S. Olympic Committee, but a spokesperson also said that they athletes “are safe and cooperating with authorities.”

Bentz, one of the swimmers who was mugged, also tweeted:

@TheGunnyBunny P.s. the gold medal is safe

— Gunnar Bentz (@TheGunnyBunny) August 14, 2016

With all the safety concerns associated with the Rio Games, a high profile incident like this seemed almost inevitable. While thankfully only possessions were lost, it’s expected that security could continue to be ramped up as the Games continue this week.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ryan Lochte, Other Team USA Swimmers, Victims of Armed Robbery in Rio appeared first on Law Street.

Hey, hey, it’s Friday.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now?

Daily Beast Outs LGBT Athletes In Rio

The Daily Beast is in big, big trouble after one of its reporters used the popular dating app, Grindr, to bait Olympic athletes into interviews. Two problems: The athletes had no clue they were being interviewed, and the reporter, who is straight, later used the interviews to out the athletes as gay.

The bigger ethical issue, though, lies in the fact that in many countries represented at the Olympics, homosexuality is often punishable by death. So Nico Hines, douche bag of the year, is facing major backlash, particularly from Slate, which published a scathing article condemning his actions. The Daily Beast has since taken down the article and released an apology from the Editor-in-Chief.

So…@dailybeast is trash. @NicoHines is trash.
Whomever Hines’ editor is is trash.

Duly noted.

You don’t endanger lives for clicks.

— April (@ReignOfApril) August 11, 2016

It is disappointing that the @thedailybeast published @NicoHines‘ story in the first place. That wasn’t journalism.

— deray mckesson (@deray) August 11, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 12, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

The Olympics in Rio de Janeiro have finally started, with the official opening ceremony on Friday night celebrating the history and culture of Brazil. But it’s not all fun and games–activism is present too and the Black Lives Matter movement hopes to make its voice heard.

Brazil has had a rough time leading up to the games. The country is in a tough recession, the impeachment of President Dilma Rouseff weighs heavily, doping scandals abound, and the Zika virus and contaminated water concerns have made the games a hard task for organizers.

But the ceremony was a success despite a limited budget, featuring the Brazilian National anthem played by acoustic guitars, and traditional dancing as well as a tribute to the different peoples who make up the country of Brazil.

#Olympics2016 underway with opening ceremony highlighting Brazilian history https://t.co/d01ObmmrsG pic.twitter.com/LJiaXyqqXv

— ABC7 Eyewitness News (@ABC7) August 6, 2016

This is the first Olympics held in South America, so there are high expectations for this year’s event. And naturally, activists take the opportunity to get their issues acknowledged in the limelight.

The Black Lives Matter movement is well established in the U.S., but Brazil does not yet have an equivalent movement that is as vocal and well organized. That is why on July 23, a couple of activists from BLM traveled to Rio to walk together with some 200 Brazilians in a protest march against police violence. The march ended in a ceremony at the Candelaria Cathedral, the location of the 1993 police killings of eight children sleeping by the church.

The population of Brazil is very diverse due to its history of European explorers, Black slaves, indigenous people, and Japanese immigrants. People with darker skin tones are often discriminated against and victims of police violence–according to an August 2016 report by Human Rights Watch 77 percent of victims of police killings in Brazil are Black.

“The most important thing that we can do is build together and mobilize our people to spread the word,” said Daunasia Yancey, a BLM member among those in Rio, to AOL news.

This obviously isn’t the first time that activists have taken action at the Olympics. Back in 1968, athletes took a stand against racism and police violence when runners Tommie Smith and John Carlos raised their fists during the Summer Olympics in Mexico.

https://twitter.com/pbeckham_/status/761656365680951297

Other athletes have gotten involved in this activism as well. Recently, Michael Jordan has spoken out against the shooting of Black Americans by police officers, saying: “I am saddened and frustrated by the divisive rhetoric and racial tensions that seem to be getting worse as of late. I know this country is better than that, and I can no longer stay silent.”

“No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in the Olympic areas” says a clause in the Olympic handbook. But even though it may not be articulated, big sporting events always involve politics in one way or another. It could be an important stage for BLM as well as other movements to highlight their issues during such a widely observed sporting event.

This year, it remains to be seen whether any athletes take action and show their political agenda, and how far they are willing to go.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Olympics in Rio Has Started and BLM Hopes to Make a Change appeared first on Law Street.

Sports, particularly the Olympic Games, have the potential to give us some awesome gifs. Remember McKayla Maroney’s not impressed face from four years ago?

Or this synchronized swimmer rising from the water in a particularly derptastic fashion?

Or Ashley Wagner’s “bullshit” gif from the most recent winter games?

Well unfortunately we won’t have access to as many awesome gif moments from this year’s Rio Olympic Games. Per the International Olympic Committee (IOC):

Internet and Mobile Platforms Notwithstanding any other applicable limitation included in these NARs, Olympic Material must not be broadcast on interactive services such as ‘news active’ or ‘sports active’ or any other related Video on Demand services, which would allow the viewer to make a viewing choice within a channel and to thereby view Olympic Material at times and programs other than when broadcast as part of a News Program as set out in Clause 1 above. Additionally, the use of Olympic Material transformed into graphic animated formats such as animated GIFs (i.e. GIFV), GFY, WebM, or short video formats such as Vines and others, is expressly prohibited.

Rules for people attending the games include:

Video or audio content taken from within Olympic venues … must only be for personal use and must not be uploaded or shared on any website, blog, social media page, photo or video-sharing sites, or other mobile application. Broadcasting images via live-streaming applications (e.g. Periscope, Meerkat) is prohibited inside Olympic venues.

This announcement shouldn’t really come as a surprise, given that the IOC hinted at strict prohibitions in May when it disclosed that only its rights holders could share Olympic content. NBC, and its international counterparts who also have the rights to Olympic footage have paid hefty prices for those rights, and the IOC understandably wants to protect them. However, it does appear that NBC is still going to be making its own gifs, so all is not lost.

But a lot of people are wondering if the prohibition on gifs will even be possible, or wise. While it’s one thing to ban media organizations from making gifs or short videos, it’s going to be a lot harder to prevent the internet as a whole from doing so. Remember that time that Beyonce wanted photos taken down from the internet?

So, all gif hope isn’t lost, but it’s doubtful we’ll have quite as many as in 2012 or 2014.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bad News: We Won’t Have Many Olympic Gifs appeared first on Law Street.

If you watched the 2016 Rio Summer Olympics’ opening ceremony last night, you probably noticed something very different about the traditional procession of athletes from each country. For the first time in history, ten athletes competing without a country walked out under the Olympic flag for the Refugee Olympic Team (ROT), drawing attention to the world’s refugee crisis. Here’s what you need to know:

Who Are They?

The ten athletes consist of five runners from South Sudan, two swimmers from Syria, two judokas from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and a marathon runner from Ethiopia. Their host countries include Kenya, Luxembourg, Brazil, Belgium, and Germany.

Each one of them was forced to flee their countries to avoid violence and persecution. One name you might recognize is Yusra Mardini, an 18-year-old swimmer from Syria. She gained worldwide notoriety after she was forced to swim more than three hours in the sea to get to Greece after the motor in a dinghy carrying 20 people suddenly stopped. Mardini, her sister, and two other swimmers jumped in the water and pushed the boat to shore, saving everyone’s lives.

For more biographies on each of the athletes click here.

Why is this important?

This is the first time ever a team comprised of refugees has been permitted to compete in an Olympics. After identifying 43 athletes that could potentially qualify for the history-making team, the IOC created a fund of $2 million to pay for athlete training.

Symbol of Hope

After fleeing their homelands due to violence and political strife, many of these athletes weren’t sure if their Olympic dreams would come true, but luckily they were able to find a new home and family while in Rio. In a statement on the Olympic website, International Olympic Committee President Thomas Bach said,

These refugees have no home, no team, no flag, no national anthem. We will offer them a home in the Olympic Village together with all the athletes of the word. The Olympic anthem will be played in their [honor] and the Olympic flag will lead them into the Olympic Stadium.

Bach also spoke of the global impact of ROT stating,

This will be a symbol of hope for all the refugees in our world, and will make the world better aware of the magnitude of this crisis. It is also a signal to the international community that refugees are our fellow human beings and are an enrichment to society. These refugee athletes will show the world that despite the unimaginable tragedies that they have faced, anyone can contribute to society through their talent, skills and strength of the human spirit.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 3 Things You Need To Know About the Olympics First Refugee Team appeared first on Law Street.

Hours before the opening ceremony of the Olympic games in Rio, the International Olympics Committee announced that 271 Russian athletes were cleared to compete after a doping scandal disqualified nearly one-third of the country’s team.

The committee denied 118 athletes that Russia hoped to send after a report from the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) last year revealed some of the team members’ involvement in a government-sanctioned doping system.

Russia’s depleted Olympic team heads for Rio De Janeiro amid doping scandal. https://t.co/dEOrdJFFLH pic.twitter.com/W6lWHa2YoZ

— ABC News (@ABC) July 28, 2016

271 may sound like a lot, but the Russian Federation sent 436 athletes to the London Games in 2012, and those lucky 271 make up only about 70 percent of the 389 athletes the country hoped to send.

For many Russians, this is a preferable alternative to a blanket ban on the whole team, but Russia isn’t completely in the clear. The scandal has raised doubts about Russia’s integrity and WADA found Russian athletics to have a “deeply rooted culture of cheating at all levels.”

Integrity of Olympics in tatters as two-thirds of Russians given all-clear to compete: https://t.co/Hit2s1zPou@Rio2016_en

— Ben Rumsby (@ben_rumsby) August 4, 2016

You can find a list of which Russian athletes are and are not allowed to compete in Rio here.

Samantha Reilly

Samantha Reilly is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. A New Jersey native, she is pursuing a B.A. in Journalism from the University of Maryland, College Park. Contact Samantha at SReilly@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 271 Russian Athletes Cleared for Rio appeared first on Law Street.

This week, NBC made the controversial decision not to air the opening ceremonies of the Rio Summer Olympics live. For many fans of the Olympics, this decision was a shock, letting down viewers who had hoped to see the spectacle in real time. As of now, the news network is planning on showing the ceremonies at 8 PM Eastern time, an hour after they actually begin in Rio, on the east coast. The Mountain and Pacific timezones of the U.S., however, could see even later coverage than that.

While it may make sense to air a ceremony from the other side of the planet at a delay, for the convenience of viewers, Rio is only an hour ahead of the east coast. Many disgruntled viewers are frustrated to have to watch the ceremonies behind schedule when it could be broadcast live relatively easily. Several people have expressed their opinions that, with today’s technology, we should watch historic moments like these in real time.

BREAKING: NBC still doesn’t understand how the internet works. https://t.co/5iFAHHVWhO

— Matt Haze (@MattHaze) July 12, 2016

Decision by @NBCOlympics not to broadcast Rio’s opening ceremony live ridiculous. Do they think it’s 1996?https://t.co/JfubCgZ09O

— Nancy Armour (@nrarmour) July 12, 2016

The reasoning NBC gave for this upsetting delay was stated by several executives in the company. NBC Sports Group Chairman Mark Lazarus had the following to say about the company’s decision to delay the ceremonies by an hour:

We are not going to stream the Opening Ceremonies live. Those will be curated and will air one hour after they occur, as will take place with us on NBC broadcast network as well. We think it’s important to give the context to the show. These Opening Ceremonies will be a celebration of Brazilian culture, of Rio, of the pageantry, of the excitement, of the flair that this beautiful nation has. We think it’s important that we’re able to put that in context for the viewer so that it’s not just a flash of color. So we will air that on a one-hour delay…

They will both [television and online] be on a simultaneous hour delay. That’s consistent with what we did in London [at the 2012 Summer Olympics] and what we did in Sochi [at the 2014 Winter Olympics]…

The question, I would say, is: If we were to air it live, and we were going to put commercials in the Games – because we are a public company and have duties to our shareholders – which parts would they like us to cut out?

The 2010 ceremonies for the Winter Games in Vancouver were the last opening ceremonies that were live streamed. However, the company hasn’t shown a live opening ceremonies during the summer Olympics since the 1996 games in Atlanta. While some people are enraged that they can’t watch along with the fans in the stands, NBC does have some pretty sound reasoning for delaying the coverage. It could be unfair to cut out bits and pieces of the ceremony for commercials–that could damage the cultural significance of the event or leave countries out of the coverage. There’s really no pleasing everybody in this situation, so the company made its own judgment call.

Fortunately, all other Olympic happenings should be streamed live throughout the games. So, for all you diehard Olympics fans out there, even if you won’t be seeing the opening festivities in Rio live, the rest of the games should be just the way you want them. Though, if we’re being totally honest, there are probably more pertinent concerns than the timeliness of NBC’s coverage when it comes to the Rio Olympics.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post NBC Refuses to Air Olympic Opening Ceremonies Live appeared first on Law Street.

The status of the wild jaguar is “near threatened” according to World Wildlife Fund. Still, one of them was shot dead after an Olympic torch ceremony in the town of Manaus in Brazil on Wednesday.

The torch ceremony took place at a zoo and featured a jaguar, which is the Brazilian Olympic team’s mascot. According to an army statement, the animal fled from its handlers right after the ceremony. Veterinarians tried to sedate it using tranquilizers, but the jaguar resisted and lunged at a soldier, who saw no other solution than shooting it.

An endangered jaguar was killed moments after being used in the Olympic Torch ceremony. https://t.co/IScjZDedhv pic.twitter.com/Z5oatwHluB

— The Dodo (@dodo) June 22, 2016

The zoo was right next to a military center where soldiers handled the animal. However, using the jaguar, known as Juma, in the Olympic ceremony was actually illegal, said IPAAM, the Amazon state government environmental authority that restricts the use of wild animals. No one had applied to use the jaguar and therefore no permit was issued. IPAAM will investigate the incident.

The official organizing committee for Rio 2016 posted an apology on its Portuguese Twitter account that said the organization was wrong to have displayed the torch next to a wild, chained animal, and vowed that it will not happen again.

Erramos ao permitir que a Tocha Olímpica,símbolo da paz e da união entre povos,fosse exibida ao lado de um animal selvagem acorrentado.(1/3)

— Rio 2016 (@Rio2016) June 21, 2016

That assurance comes a little late for animal rights groups across the world. PETA issued a statement criticizing the whole thing, saying:

Wild animals held captive and forced to do things that are frightening, sometimes painful, and always unnatural are ticking time bombs—captivity puts animal and human lives at risk.

What were they thinking? Jaguar fatally shot following Olympic torch ceremony in Brazil https://t.co/Urceo7qJjc #RIP pic.twitter.com/lQYeywzd9x

— PETA (@peta) June 22, 2016

Animal behavior scientist Joao Paulo Castro told the BBC:

It’s neither healthy nor advisable to subject an animal to such a situation, with lots of noise and people. Often, jaguars already are stressed by being kept in captivity; that’s only compounded when they’re exposed to hubbub.

Others have also reacted on social media, calling for justice for Juma.

Rest in Peace poor innocent one #Juma the Jaguar who was mercilessly shot dead after Brazil’s Olympic torch… https://t.co/y6B7RXJNrn

— Broken Paws (@Broken_Paws_Int) June 22, 2016

Justice for Juma the Jaguar https://t.co/sOASnQ0hJC pic.twitter.com/zbgbZ5LbDY

— Compassion 4 Animals (@AmyRoseKathryn) June 22, 2016

I have met this jaguar. It lunged at me, but for a cuddle only. Sad to hear this https://t.co/EEfH883nvb

— Bill Bailey (@BillBailey) June 22, 2016

Despite not having even started, the Rio Olympics is surrounded by bad news–with the outbreak of the Zika virus, reports of being bankrupt, a high crime rate, bad organizing, and the impeachment of Brazil’s President. Hopefully the games will get its act together by the official start on August 5.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Jaguar Killed While Fleeing Olympic Torch Ceremony in Brazil appeared first on Law Street.

Former double-amputee Olympic sprinter Oscar Pistorius is a “broken man” and is unfit to testify at his sentencing for murder, according to the defense’s clinical psychologist. Today marks the last week of Pistorius’ highly publicized sentencing trial in South Africa, and a final sentence will be announced by Friday.

Dr. Jonathan Scholtz said Pistorius suffered from anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress syndrome, and putting him in jail would only worsen his mental state. Instead, Scholtz suggested that Pistorius be sentenced to community service or be hospitalized.

“Since the offence he has developed a serious psychiatric condition which has become worse over the past two years,” Scholtz said. He also argued that Pistorius did not pose a threat to society, and further incarceration “would not be psychologically or socially constructive.”

Here is a play-by-play of the hearing:

Oscar Pistorius is ‘broken’ and should be in hospital, sentencing hearing told https://t.co/p42Avg8KM4

— Guardian news (@guardiannews) June 13, 2016

In case you missed it, Pistorius was sentenced in 2013 for killing his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp on Valentine’s Day. He said he thought she was an intruder–shooting her through the bathroom door four times.

Since the incident, Pistorius has sold all of his firearms and is still traumatized by the sound of them, according to Scholtz. The prosecution didn’t buy it. Chief prosecutor Gerrie Nel suggested that Pistorius felt sorry for himself and had not shown true remorse. Nel also questioned Scholtz’s claim that Pistorius was unfit to testify, stating he was perfectly fine to do an interview recently with a local television station about the killing.

Pistorius received some harsh backlash on Twitter for being labeled as unfit to testify.

Dear @OscarPistorius me and most people I know have ‘not being rich anxiety disorder’. Please give us your money to help us overcome this

— Will Black (@WillBlackWriter) June 13, 2016

So murderers (Oscar Pistorius) and rapists (Brock Turner) shouldn’t go to jail bc it’ll impact them emotionally. When did jail become a spa?

— AL (@MissSchliez) June 13, 2016

Pistorius was charged with culpable homicide in October 2014, which carries a five year sentence and is similar to manslaughter in the United States. After serving a year in prison, he was released on house arrest. However, because of his athlete-celebrity status, he was unsurprisingly not treated the same as the rest of the prisoners. During his time in jail, he stayed  in a private cell in the hospital wing and he spent his time on house arrest kicking it at his uncle’s mansion. In December 2015, his conviction was changed to murder in the Supreme Court of Appeals, which decided that whoever was behind the door was irrelevant because Pistorius should have known that pulling the trigger would cause death.

The minimum sentence for murder in South Africa is 15 years, but a judge can pare it down depending on the circumstances. Prosecutors and Steenkamp’s family argued at the trial that Pistorius deliberately killed her after an argument, so they are working to ensure he receives the full 15 year punishment. However, Scholtz described Pistorius’s relationship with his girlfriend as “normal” and “loving” with “no signs of abuse or coercion.” Pistorius tried to overturn the upgraded murder charge earlier this year, but failed, which is why a new sentencing hearing was called this week.

Steenkamp was 29 when she was killed, an up-and-coming model, a law school graduate, and a budding reality TV star.

Pistorius, known as the “Blade Runner” for his carbon-fiber prosthetic legs, is known globally for being able to compete against able-bodied athletes, especially during the 2012 London Olympics. He has also competed in three Paralympics.

Judge Thokozile Masipa is presiding over the hearing—the same judge who originally convicted Pistorius.

Inez Nicholson

Inez is an editorial intern at Law Street from Raleigh, NC. She will be a junior at North Carolina State University and is studying political science and communication media. When she’s not in the newsroom, you can find her in the weight room. Contact Inez at INicholson@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Defense Psychologist Calls Oscar Pistorius A “Broken Man,” Unfit To Testify appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

North Korea Says Trump Is The Bomb

An op-ed in North Korea’s state sponsored DPRK Today had nothing but glowing praise for Republican nominee Donald Trump. It called him a “wise politician” and “far-sighted presidential candidate.” This may have a lot to do with Trump’s serious proposal to remove American troops from South Korea if the country does not pay defense costs. The paper encouraged South Korea to avoid paying costs so that the countries may unify in the future without Washington’s meddling. North Korea also urged Americans not to vote for Hillary Clinton and criticized her nuclear weapon policy.

When the US is being trolled by North Korea, you know that it is a rather odd election season. https://t.co/RAWfHsrEj7

— Charles Hawley (@charles_hawley) June 1, 2016

Was Jerry Brown’s Clinton Endorsement Genuine or Desperate?

Answer: genuinely desperate. California Governor Brown delivered a “lukewarm” letter supporting Hillary Clinton for president. He said she was the only one who could defeat Trump. Jerry also gave a sincere nod to Sanders, quoting his “1 percent” platform. All in all, the governor seems to be echoing the same sentiments as many voters: “Hillary is experienced and I am feeling the Bern but we can’t let Trump win.”

Jerry Brown’s endorsement of Hillary is based on a simple calculation: She’s going to win. https://t.co/GdlzV1cgoM

— Chris Cillizza (@TheFix) May 31, 2016

People have feelings about this Texas town selfie statue

America’s new favorite pastime has been immortalized with this “selfie statue.” The statue, located in Sugarland, Texas, cost a smooth $35,500. And many were left wondering if there was a better use for those funds like, IDK, making texting while driving illegal, as the town of Sugarland is apparently having problems making that a priority. In the meantime, people are hitting up the selfie statue for selfies at lunch.

THERE’S A SELFIE STATUE IN MY TOWN. pic.twitter.com/hEV0MLM04L

— ¯\( ˘͡ ˘̯)/¯ (@Gemrick) May 28, 2016

Meet David French, Bill Kristol’s Third Party Write In

His name has been floating around and rumors say he could be our chance for a third party candidate. David French was recently called upon by Bill Kristol to enter the 2016 race as an independent. Move over Trump, looks like we have another winner on the stage. That is if David French, a conservative lawyer and National Review columnist, decides to take on the challenge. Looks like he’ll be facing some tough questions, though:

But what would David French have done about the gorilla?

— daveweigel (@daveweigel) May 31, 2016

Soccer Drama…Again

What the flying f***? The U.S. Soccer Federation has asked the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to dismiss a complaint made by the National Women’s Soccer team over unfair wages. The Federation claims that the wage difference is based off of factors other than discrimination. Popularity and fandom play a role in how much soccer teams are paid. Which really shouldn’t make a difference because the women’s team plays just as much as the men’s, and have often won more.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 1, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Since the Olympic Games were first opened to women in 1900, female athletes have stunned the world with their athleticism and dedication. Like their male counterparts, they train for years–even decades–to achieve perfection in their sport, pushing their bodies to the breaking point in order to bring home a medal for their country. In 2012, Team USA was comprised of more women than men, prompting USA Today to call London 2012 “The Title IX Olympics.”

Yet although we appreciate and applaud our female athletes every four years during the Games, their road to the Opening Ceremony can be significantly rockier than that of their male team members. In fact, 2012 was the first year in which every country in the Olympic Games had female athletes participating–not because not enough female athletes had failed to qualify for the competition but because Saudi Arabia had historically banned female athletes from competing in the Games. After considerable international pressure, Saudi Arabia agreed to send Wodjan Ali Seraj Abdulrahim Shahrkhani for judo and Sarah Attar for the 800 meter race to the London 2012 Games–the first time in history the nation sent female athletes to the games. Qatar and Brunei’s female athletes at the London Games were also the first female members in the history of their Olympic participation, but in both of those countries, the policies restricting women in sports are significantly less harsh.

However the battle to include female Saudi athletes was hard fought. There was significant criticism when Saudi Arabia originally didn’t include any women–Human Rights Watch called for a ban on the entire Saudi delegation unless it included female athletes. Read on to take a look at the tough fight for gender equality in the Olympics.

The Attention on Gender Equality in the Olympics

History of Exclusion and Inclusion

Today we may take our female athletes for granted, as over 44 percent of the participants in the last summer games were women, but they can face a form of discrimination that their male peers rarely encounter. It has taken decades to open certain sports to women–consider that ski jumping in the Winter Olympics only became open to women during the Sochi 2014 Winter Games. It was not until 1991 that the Olympics officially opened all sports to both genders, but that declaration was undermined by the caveat that sports from the inaugural 1924 Games did not have to be open to female athletes. The rationale behind this ban on women’s participation is tied to the idea that women are at greater risk of physical harm when competing or that they do not have the same physical stamina as male athletes.

Equality?

Even when women are allowed to compete in their sport, there is no guarantee they will have the same privileges that male athletes receive. When the U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team filed their EOEC complaint regarding salary earlier this month, they threatened to boycott the Olympic Games unless they received comparable pay to their male counterparts. Under the 1978 Amateur Sports Act, the United States Olympic Committee and its National Governing Bodies are required to operate in a non-discriminatory fashion but not all nations have dedicated the same legal attention to gender parity.

However, no matter what a country’s domestic policy is on women in sports, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has seemingly gone the extra mile to ensure that women can compete at the Olympic level. The “universality clause” states that athletes who do not qualify for an event during the trials can still compete if they are considered critical to the national team “for reasons of equality.” It was under this clause that both female Saudi athletes were able to compete in London 2012.

Case Study: Saudi Arabia as a Last Holdout

Saudi Arabia has effectively placed a blanket ban on women’s sports, even though there is no law preventing women from participating in organized sports (just as there is no official law preventing women from driving). But in order for women to train, they must attend a gym with separate women’s facilities–and only a handful of gyms across the country possess a separate women’s building. Community centers and schools almost never offer women’s training spaces so most women wishing to exercise, let alone train for an organized sport, may have to travel outside of the country to do so. Girls attending government schools are prohibited from taking part in sports. There were discussions in 2014 about allowing physical education programs in public schools but that conversation has stalled and come to naught. Besides being a policy that prevents women from competing in athletics, it can be seen as an incredibly dangerous public health maneuver, considering that 34 percent of Saudi Arabian women are obese and Type 2 diabetes is prevalent throughout the Saudi population.

There is not necessarily a lack of interest in sports among women in Saudi Arabia. In July 2012, a group of citizens requested to organize a women’s sports tournament including volleyball, soccer, and basketball, promising that it would comply with a dress code and would not involve the mixing of genders, yet that request was denied by Saudi officials at the sports ministry. The ministry gave no reason for denying the request. Beyond preventing women from playing sports, the government also generally prevents them from attending sporting events as spectators.

The 2012 Competitors 

Wojdan Shaherkani, the 16-year old judo competitor from Mecca who came to the Games in 2012, lasted less than two minutes on the mat during her first bout at the London Games. Whereas virtually all competitors at the Olympic level have a black belt, Shaherkani had only a blue belt when she entered the Games, having only practiced the sport for two years. Shaherkani was granted no financial or media support from the Saudi delegation. Her match was broadcast on a handful of cable television channels in the Kingdom but was otherwise ignored.

Like Shaherkani, Sarah Attar failed to develop popularity or receive respect from the populace. Attar is from San Diego and holds dual Saudi and American citizenship. Attar is training for the Rio Games at training facility in California, where she is sponsored by Oiselle, a subsidiary of Nike that looks to promote women in sports, and runs without a hijab. She dons the hijab when she races as an Olympian out of respect for Saudi Arabia, a country she hopes to keep representing for the foreseeable future. She may be wearing the colors of Saudi Arabia when she races in the Olympic trials, but some of the population she represents either refuses to watch her run or has labeled her a “prostitute.” She is funded by an American company, not a Saudi one.

Conclusion

As we approach the Rio Games, female athletes around the world are competing in Olympic trials, hoping to represent their nations on the world stage.  Yet not all female athletes compete on the same footing as their male counterparts. Nations such as Qatar and Brunei still have relatively restrictive policies on women’s sports, but at least young girls are given the opportunity to compete and exercise within the borders of their homeland. Qatar is even striving to take more female athletes to the Games in Rio than they ever have before.

However Saudi Arabia still lags behind. Studies have shown that young women who play sports have higher self-esteem, are more likely to do well in school and graduate, and less likely to suffer from depression or have an unplanned pregnancy. Qatar and Brunei have set a positive example by integrating female athletes into their teams, and Saudi Arabia now has the opportunity to follow that example in Rio.

Resources

CNN: Olympic First as Saudi Arabia Names Two Women in London 2012 Team

Feminist Majority Foundation: Equality for Women in the Olympics

The Week: The Olympics’ Longstanding Gender Gap

GOOD: The Women’s National Soccer Team Threatens to Skip the Olympics 

The Huffington Post: As Rio 2016 Draws Closer, When Will Discrimination End For Sportswomen In Saudi Arabia?

Institute for Gulf Affairs: Killing Them Softly 

The World Post: Saudi Arabia’s Olympic Paradox: Insulting Women, Islam and “Prostitutes”

Running.Competitor.com: Q&A with Sarah Attar

The Gender Report: Women Making History in 2012 Olympics

The Guardian: Saudi Arabia’s Judoka Strikes Blow for Women’s Rights at Olympics

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Is Exclusion Still the Norm? Saudi Arabia and Women in the Olympic Games appeared first on Law Street.

Thirty-one athletes representing 12 countries and six sports may be barred from competing in Rio de Janeiro for this summer’s Olympic Games, due to a new round of testing conducted by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) on doping samples from the 2008 games in Beijing. The IOC has yet to release the names of the athletes, the countries they represent, or the events they compete in.

Tuesday’s announcement from the IOC was the result of using “the very latest scientific analysis methods” on 454 total samples of athletes who competed in Beijing and were poised to compete in Rio. The IOC saves samples for ten years after they’re initially procured for retesting as new methods for identifying banned substances are developed.

In a statement, IOC president Thomas Bach assured all clean athletes that justice will be served to those who cheat:

All these measures are a powerful strike against the cheats we do not allow to win. They show once again that dopers have no place to hide… By stopping so many doped athletes from participating in Rio we are showing once more our determination to protect the integrity of the Olympic competitions, including the Rio anti-doping laboratory, so that the Olympic magic can unfold in Rio de Janeiro.

The IOC also retested 250 samples from the 2012 London games. Results of those retests will be released shorty, the IOC said.

A report released in November by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) that found Russia complicit in a decades long, elaborate state-sponsored doping program, renewed efforts to clean up Olympic competition, long marred by doping scandals. (Read Law Street’s deep dive into that issue).

New details emerged last week, when Grigory Rodchenkov, director of Russia’s anti-doping laboratory, spoke with the New York Times about his country’s ornate doping schemes during the Winter Olympics in Sochi in 2014.

Belated punishment for Olympic athletes years after they won a medal is hardly new to Beijing. Following a retest of 100 samples from the 2004 Athens games, four athletes were stripped of their medals due to anabolic steroid use.

As the specters of the Zika virus and Brazil’s scandal-plagued government loom over the Rio games in August, Tuesday’s results and those soon to be released from the London games are sure to shake things up even further.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Retest of 2008 Beijing Olympic Samples Find 31 Guilty of Doping appeared first on Law Street.

Australian athletes will be generously provided with free anti-Zika virus condoms during the 2016 Olympics in Rio. As reported from previous Olympic games, the athletes will almost certainly use them. The Australian Pharmaceutical Company Starpharma teams up with the world’s second biggest condom maker Ansell in supplying the team with condoms treated with a gel that seems to give almost total protection against the virus, as well as other viruses including HIV and herpes.

The 2016 summer Olympics will, as most know, be held in Rio De Janeiro this year. Brazil has been the center of the outbreak of the Zika virus that causes microcephaly, a disease that causes babies to be born with abnormally small heads. The virus particularly affects pregnant women and is passed on via mosquitos, from a man to his sex partners, or from a woman to her child during pregnancy or when giving birth.

The large-scale outbreak of the virus in Brazil has prompted arguments from some that the Olympics Game should be cancelled:

"Zika virus means Brazil's 2016 Olympics should not proceed" https://t.co/PJvzEEnYz8

— TIME.com (@TIME) May 14, 2016

Starpharma’s spokesperson pointed to the increasing importance of protection against the Zika virus, which is now proven to be sexually transmitted. The Australian Olympic Committee said that blood testing of the athletes will not be necessary when they return to Australia, since there is a low risk of catching the virus as long as you follow precautions. The AOC have already sent out a total of 450,000 condoms for the Olympic Village.

On Friday May 13, the first US case of microcephaly due to locally transmitted Zika was reported in Puerto Rico. The United States Olympic Committee said in March that they would give the American athletes guidelines regarding the virus ahead of the games, but whether to attend or not would be up to the individual.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Anti-Zika Treated Condoms to be Handed out to Australian Olympic Team appeared first on Law Street.

The 2016 Summer Olympics will be hosted in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil, and it seems like hardly anyone is excited about them. The trouble is, those seats might be pretty empty. Only half of the tickets have been sold–and demand is so low that Brazil might be buying its own tickets (the government is considering purchasing tickets to distribute to public school students.) Those students might be well-advised to stay home during those days, however, to avoid the likely chaos of the Olympic Games. The deck is stacked against Brazil in more than a few ways–pollution, illness, poverty, and crime all swarm around the event in Rio.

Erik Heil, an Olympic sailor, went for a test-swim in the Rio waters during an Olympic test event last August. After his exposure to the water, he became infected with the flesh-eating disease MRSA and had to be hospitalized. The Associated Press performed a test of the water, and the results are astonishingly bad–the analysis found “human sewage at levels up to 1.7 million times what would be considered highly alarming in the U.S. or Europe.” Athletes might refuse to participate in the Olympic events if their health is at risk.

It doesn’t help that Brazil has a reputation for being the murder capital of the world. And while Rio isn’t the most dangerous city by a long shot, crimes on the beaches of Ipanema and Copacabana have been escalating in recent months, in anticipation of a tourism influx. Plus, the connection between large sporting events and spikes in crime was well documented during the World Cup in 2014, when muggings grew 60 percent.

After the Ebola scare of 2014, international travelers are extremely sensitive to the health risks involved in visiting a new country. As concern about the Zika virus grows, would-be spectators, especially women, are less inclined to put themselves at risk–Brazil is in a part of the world where the Aegyptus mosquito, the insect responsible for most Zika transmission, is prevalent. Olympic officials have announced that event spaces will be regularly inspected, so that there are no puddles of stagnant water in which mosquitos could reproduce.

Brazil is also experiencing its worst recession in 25 years, amidst political turmoil–the government is considering impeaching President Dilma Rousseff, and the country’s economy is expected to shrink around 3.5 percent this year. Considering that the government has spent over 39.1 billion reais (about 10.8 billion dollars) on building stadiums and extending their subway lines, the investment could be a massive failure. All of these problems could spell trouble for the Olympics, but with so much money invested, Olympic officials are arguing that the show must go on. You might even be able to get cheap tickets to your favorite event–perhaps the newly added Olympic golf?

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Brazil’s 2016 Olympics: Does Anyone Want to Go to Rio? appeared first on Law Street.

Abeba Aregawi is one of the world’s fastest women. She is the reigning world champion in the indoor 1500m, and competed in the 2012 London Olympics, the 2013 Moscow World Championships and the 2014 World Indoor Championships in Sopot. However, it is not her athletic accomplishments that have put her in the spotlight this month–it is her suspension from running after testing positive for a banned substance. Aregawi has stated that she did not take drugs and has asked for a separate sample to be taken and tested in order to clear her name.

But as we draw closer to the 2016 Rio Olympics, professional athletes are pushing themselves harder and harder in order to compete at the highest level of their sport–even if that means bending the rules on performance-enhancing drugs. Aregawi is only one of dozens of Olympic athletes who have been accused of using banned substances in the lead up to the summer games. Just this month, a senior Ethiopian official admitted that nine of the country’s elite runners have been placed under investigation for doping. Take a look at the current state of Olympic drug regulation and what it means for Rio 2016.

Changes to Doping Regulations

This month, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) announced a major shift in the oversight of doping for future Olympic games. The IOC has agreed to remove itself from the oversight commission and to instead hand authority over to a group of independent sports arbitrators. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) is forming a new committee of one to three doping “specialists” to oversee cases presented by athletes and officials who wish to contest charges of doping brought against them.

This transition is designed to make doping cases more equitable and independent, but the logistics involved in handing this responsibility off to a different organization are proving challenging for the IOC. The CAS is setting forth new guidelines which countries may not be able to adapt to with ease. As of now, the Brazilian anti-doping agency is not in line with CAS regulations.  If the agency can not reform its drug testing facilities by the end of the month, samples will have to be sent to facilities outside of Brazil for testing–a cumbersome task that will delay processing for athletes and could increase the risk of contamination or tampering with samples.

Banning Non-Compliant Countries

The World Anti-Doping Agency recently proposed banning Kenya from the coming Olympic games after Kenyan officials missed a deadline to implement new, stricter regulations. In the last three years alone, approximately forty Kenyan athletes have been banned from their respective sports because of doping. The threat of a ban has been looming over Kenya for months but recent talks have set April 5 as the definitive deadline to reform its doping policy if it wants to partake in the Rio Games. Lord Sebastian Coe, president of the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), has made it clear that he is comfortable cutting Kenya from the Olympic roster. Wilson Kipsang, president of the Professional Athletes Association of Kenya and a former marathon world record holder, said in a recent statement that:

If we are banned, Kenya will never be the same again.  This is a country which has made its name as an athletics giant. We have done well in the Olympic and world championships and therefore, we should not miss out complying with the doping directives…Since the formation of Adak [the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya], the agency has never been formalised and most importantly given powers to deal with doping. It also needs legislative will from government.

Although Kipsang claims that a ban would destroy Kenya’s athletic reputation, Russia was banned from world athletics in 2015 but its expulsion has been lifted in time for the country to send its best athletes to Rio this summer. A brief hiatus from Olympic competition would be a blow to Kenyan athletes who have been training to compete this year, but it would not necessarily be as strong a punishment as the IOC and the IAAF might think. If the ban only includes a single Olympics, national teams can make minimal adjustments to their training programs and then return to doping again in the future, once they are not being scrutinized so closely. Only a long-term ban may carry sufficient enough weight to dissuade athletes from doping at the Olympic level.

Bribery in the IAAF

Despite the IAAF’s efforts to reign in corruption, there are problems within the organization itself that have tarnished its credibility. A January report on the IAAF suggests that Russia was only able to sustain its doping practices thanks to widespread corruption embedded within the organization . Former IAAF president Lamine Diack has been accused of taking bribes from Russian athletes and of planning to blackmail marathon runner Liliya Shobukhova.

There are further accusations that the IAAF accepted bribes during the bidding process for hosting the 2017 World Championships. Papa Massata Diack, the son of former President Lamine Diack, has been accused of soliciting a five million dollar payment from Qatar in exchange for securing its bid. There is no evidence that he received this payment but the fact that he asked for it reveals potential the corruption within the bidding process. Unforunately, Papa Massata Diack is currently in Senegal and cannot be formally held accountable for his actions until he is extradited back to Europe.

These scandals within the IAAF have prompted major companies such as Nestle and Adidas to withdraw from their sponsorship deals, pulling millions of dollars of funding away from world athletic events. As sponsors jump ship, Lord Sebastian Coe is left in charge of an allegedly inefficient and corrupt organization that is gradually losing its control over the athletic industry it exists to regulate.

American Icons

The United States has a grand tradition of athleticism on the world stage. Michael Phelps, history’s most decorated Olympian, is currently trying to qualify for his fifth Olympics. Yet at the same time, we have a consistent tradition of doping among our elite athletes. In 2004, cyclist Tyler Hamilton lost his gold medal after it was discovered he had been blood doping–receiving blood transfusions to improve his abilities. In 2007, gold medalist Marion Jones admitted to doping and was stripped of her medals before serving six months in jail. Just last spring, the U.S. men’s sprint relay team was stripped of their medals after the IOC discovered team member Tyson Gay had been using a product containing a banned substance.

The most famous American doping scandal to date broke in 2013, when Lance Armstrong finally admitted to sustained use of performance enhancing drugs after a 2012 investigation that resulted in a lifetime ban from professional sports and the removal of his Tour de France titles. Yet instead of fading into anonymity, Armstrong’s doping–and more specifically, how he got away with it–has become a topic of fascination for reporters and filmmakers. Athletes who are caught doping don’t always fade from the public sphere, they simply shift from the heroic narrative of the champion to the notoriety of the rule breaker. As American athletes train for Rio, it is important to remember that Kenya and Russia are not the only countries where athletes have sustained a program of performance enhancing drugs during championship events.

Conclusion

Monitoring banned substance abuse within the Olympic games is a daunting task that involves coordination between dozens of governments, sports organizations, and individual athletes. The possibility of a false positive can never be ruled out until comprehensive testing is completed but long-term doping is not a myth. Recent overhaul of the doping regulations and efforts to be stricter on countries that violate them are a step in the right direction but this progress has been undermined by the scandals within the IAAF. The United Kingdom has stepped up to the plate, requiring its athletes to agree to never represent their country if they take drugs and proposing a life-long ban on athletic competition after even a single drug offense. Other countries have yet to institute such stringent anti-doping policies, which raises troubling questions about how much national teams care about sportsmanship and equality in international competition. The Rio Olympics have already been fraught with problems, from a failure to sell tickets to fears regarding the Zika virus. A failure to address and rectify doping scandals within the competition could both disrupt the logistics of Rio 2016 and permanently destroy the reputation of the Olympic Games as an institution.

Resources

BBC: Abeba Aregawi: World 1500m Champion Fails Drugs Test

BBC: Senegal ‘Won’t Extradite’ IAAF Bribery Suspect Papa Massata Diack’

ABC News: IOC to Remove Itself From Handling of Doping Cases in Rio

The Sidney Morning Herald: Rio Olympics 2016: Independent Body to Take over Judging of Doping Cases

The Telegraph: Kenya Edges Closer to Olympics Ban over Doping

The Telegraph: Wada Report on Doping: This Scandal is not Just a Russian Problem, it is an Issue Worldwide

The Guardian: Sebastian Coe: IAAF Could Ban Kenya from 2016 Olympics in Rio

The Guardian: IAAF in Crisis: a Complex Trail of Corruption that Led to the Very Top

The Washington Post: WADA’s New Report Cites ‘Embedded’ Culture of Corruption in IAAF

Sky Sports: Former IAAF President Lamine Diack Investigated in Doping Bribery Probe

Sky News: Qatar Athletics Bids Investigated For Bribery

The Richest: 10 Most Shocking Doping Scandals In Sports History

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post How to Get Away with Steroids: Doping on the Eve of Rio 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

As of 2015, each NFL team was worth at least $1.4 billion according to Forbes. Despite these massive valuations, three teams–the Oakland Raiders, St. Louis Rams, and San Diego Chargers–hoped to leave their current cities and move to Los Angeles. The reasoning behind the desire to move was a yearning for a new, higher revenue stadium to play in. Each team was eager to leave its current city because of the failure of the local government to fund similar sites. This has increasingly become an issue in the NFL, as with other major sports leagues. It has even made international events like the World Cup and Olympics less appealing to host cities.

Read on to find out more about the real cost of having a hometown team, why the public keeps giving in to team demands, and how this problem has spread around the globe.

The Cost

The cost to taxpayers to renovate or build new stadiums has been enormous, particularly when it comes to America’s most popular sport, professional football. Over the last 15 years, the NFL has received $12 billion in public funds. These funds are not isolated to a few teams either, 29 of the 31 stadiums in the NFL (the two New York teams play in the same stadium) have used public financing to build new arenas. Public support for pro sports teams comes in the form of tax breaks, loans, and grants offered primarily by a city or county and occasionally the state.

Despite this funding, most cities and voters have little, if anything, to show for it. In fact, some reports suggest that using subsidies to pay for stadiums can negatively affect metrics like poverty rates and median income levels. Robert Baade, a researcher of these stadiums and their economic consequences, disputes the clear connection between the two, but his own research suggests that new stadiums almost always fall short of delivering the promised economic uptick suggested when they are funded.

Even stadium-related costs for things like renovation go to projects such as luxury boxes or seat licenses, which are not typically accessible to the casual fan or those with less disposable income. These same fans also do not see any sort of break on the cost of tickets or concessions. In fact, the only group that really seems to make out well in all this is the owners. Not only do the owners get to keep most of the revenues from the stadium, minus a very modest rent, they also pay very little in upkeep costs.

The video below goes into detail about what goes into building these stadiums:

Pay… or Else

Since most economists agree that there are very little, if any, benefits to using public funds to build these stadiums, it may be worth considering why people agree to finance them at all. Sometimes, it may simply be because the public doesn’t know about the plans. In 2013 for example, the Atlanta Braves organization agreed to move the team out of the city and into Cobb County. The move was done in secrecy and all information about the deal was kept from the public because otherwise voters could have rejected the plan.

While the Braves left Atlanta to get funds from a nearby county, the city was already building a new stadium for its NFL team as well as a practice facility for a new MLS team. This move is also unfortunate because the original stadium, which was built for the Olympics and would become the Atlanta Braves’ home, was initially financed without any public money. Making matters worse, that stadium they are so desperate to move out of is not even 20 years old.

In the recent fight for the St. Louis Rams, the court voided a law requiring a public vote to approve stadium funding only to watch the Rams leave for Los Angles anyway. But when citizens actually do get the chance to vote on how their tax dollars are spent, sports teams have mastered an invaluable tactic to keep the money flowing. That tactic is the threat of relocation, or basically taking the hometown team hostage to see if the city and the taxpayers will pay up. Once again, the Rams are not the first to use this threat or to follow through with it. The Baltimore Ravens and Indianapolis Colts, two high-profile teams that have won Super Bowls in the last 10 years, both left the cities they originally played in when their demands for new stadiums were not met.

The following video gives a lighthearted look at how teams use the threat of relocating to get new stadiums:

Case Study: The St Louis (now Los Angeles) Rams

While the Rams are clearly not the only team to move or used the threat of relocation in an attempt to leverage a city for a better stadium deal, it is the most recent. The Rams originally moved from Los Angeles in 1995, lured to St. Louis with a $250 million stadium paid for exclusively with public funds. However, as the stadium aged, Rams owner Stan Kroenke, the 63rd richest person in the United States, worth $7.6 billion, exercised an opt-out clause that let him flee St. Louis for Los Angeles and its much bigger media market.

This decision came even after St. Louis agreed to offer the Rams an additional $158 million while the new site in Inglewood, California offers no public funds at all. This may seem foolish, but as the owner of the new site–which includes amenities beyond just a football stadium–and landlord for whichever other teams play in Los Angeles, Kroenke is likely to make back his initial investment and more. Although Kroenke ultimately opted for a venue that does not utilize public funds, the Rams managed to get a remarkable offer from St. Louis. In the negotiation process, the owner, and to an extent the local government, utilized many of the classic leveraging techniques such as removing the influence of voters, threatening relocation, and ultimately following through on a threat to move.

A Global Epidemic

While NFL stadiums are the biggest and most public culprits of the stadium financing problem, there are a number of high profile examples around the globe. These often come in the form of stadiums built for the World Cup and the Olympics.

After less than two years, many of the sites for the Men’s World Cup in Brazil sit idle, barely being used. Some of the stadiums are only now being finished while others are put up for sale so that the government can make back some of its investment–an estimated $3 billion spent on building and refurbishing the facilities. Brazil is also scheduled to host the Summer Olympics in 2016, a move that comes with similar problems but on an even grander scale.

The abandonment of Olympic stadiums has also become a major issue for host countries. Facilities in places like Beijing, Seoul, Athens, and Montreal sit abandoned or are rarely used just years after costing the cities that built them hundreds of millions of dollars. This is especially disconcerting because it comes with the additional cost of hosting the Olympics. In what makes the NFL’s demands look like pocket change, the cost of the Olympics has averaged $3.6 billion from 1968 to 2010 and $16.2 billion after that. As bad as these costs are, the fact that they have an average cost overrun of 167 percent is even more concerning.

In fact, due to the ever-rising costs of holding the Olympics, many cities now are hesitant to host future events. In the run-up to the selection of the site for the 2022 Winter Olympics; Poland, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, and the Ukraine withdrew their bids when polls showed it would have been incredibly unpopular. Boston similarly followed suit when it withdrew its bid to host the Summer 2024 Games. Ironically, one of the best examples of a city actually repurposing one of its old Olympic stadiums comes from Atlanta where the recently abandoned Turner Field Baseball stadium was created by repurposing the 1996 Olympic Stadium. The accompanying video gives a chilling look at a number of stadiums used for the Olympics and then just abandoned:

Conclusion

Professional sports teams, like any business, are always seeking to maximize their profits and it is unrealistic to expect them to do otherwise. Even though the public usually pays a large portion of the cost for a new stadium, they rarely pay all of it. Instead, that cost is usually spread out between the owner–in the case of the NFL, all the owners by using something known as the G4 Fund. Sports leagues are not the only corporations utilizing these tax breaks and deals offered by local governments. Many companies take advantage of these opportunities and there is often less of an outcry when cities, counties, or states offer huge tax breaks to lure other organizations. While these teams and businesses may have a lot of bargaining power, the decisions to use public funds remain up to local governments, and in some cases, voters.

However, while there is certainly enough blame to spread around, only the owners of these teams or their partners tend to benefit from them. This is particularly true for NFL owners, as they not only benefit from stadiums but media deals as well. Until recently, the NFL was also considered a non-profit organization, giving it even more tax breaks.  All the public has to show for this is more debt, empty stadiums, and the knowledge that the next threat of a move could happen at any time. The situation is increasingly frustrating and begs the question: what can be done?

Unfortunately, there may not be much that cities can do. In his recent budget proposal, President Obama included a plan to end tax-free bonds for teams, but that has a long way to go before it becomes law. Other suggestions have included anti-trust lawsuits, but these too gained little traction. The ultimate problem is that there are more cities than teams, meaning the teams will always have leverage of some kind and cities are often interested in getting a new team.  The real lesson in all this is while we root for our favorite hometown teams we should remember those teams will likely only remain in our hometowns if the price is right.

Resources

Forbes: The Business of Football

City Lab: The Never-Ending Stadium Boondoggle

The Huffington Post: “Taxpayers Have Spent A ‘Staggering’ Amount of Money On NFL Stadiums

Buffalo Rising: New Stadium Prospectus: Finance-Truth, Misconceptions, and Consequences

The Wire: Voters Don’t Want to Pay for Sports Stadiums Anymore

Curbed: How Atlanta’s Stadium-Building Madness is Nothing New

WBUR: Nearly 20 Years Later, The Legacy Of Atlanta’s Olympic Venues Is Still being Written

The New York Times: In Losing the Rams, St. Louis Wins

St. Louis Business Journal: Kroenke (Stan and Ann) are some of America’s richest

The New York Times: World Cup Stadiums Leave a Troubled Legacy in Brazil

The Wire: Turner Field Is the Latest In a Long Line of Abandoned Olympic Stadiums

Business Insider: The cost of hosting the Olympics is getting out of control

Slate: How to Stop the Stadium Wars

The Atlantic: How the NFL Fleeces Taxpayers

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Stadium Deals: The High Price of Your Home Team appeared first on Law Street.

At this year’s X Games in Aspen, Colorado, 13-year-old Estonian skier Kelly Sildaru took home the gold in the women’s ski slopestyle event, garnering praise from her fellow athletes and attracting attention from corporate sponsors. Sildaru has been offered a sponsorship from ROXY as a reward for her athleticism, becoming one in a long line of exceptional athletes who  have committed to sponsorship deals at a young age.

Sponsorship is defined by the IEG Sponsorship Conference as “cash and/or in-kind fee paid to a property  in return for access to the exploitable commercial potential associated with that property.” Sponsorship costs can include equipment, travel fees, training fees, and a host of other expenses that an athlete would not be able to cover on their own dime. Once an athlete accepts sponsorship from a company, they often effectively agree to promote the company: wearing the company’s logo, using that company’s products and promoting that company among their peers. By sponsoring the athlete, the company will profit within the elite circles of a given sport but if they want to advertise their brand to the general public, they will ask their athlete to commit to a celebrity endorsement–print, radio, or television advertisements for the company’s products.

Some companies, such as Contour HD, require their sponsored athletes to endorse their products in interviews and on social media while others pay their athletes for endorsements in addition to their sponsorship contract. In many American high school and college level athletics programs, athletes are prohibited from striking endorsement deals (which has often been cited as an unfair practice) but in the less traditional world of winter sports, athletes as young as Sildaru may strike sponsorship deals without any penalty.

Sponsoring athletes in extreme sports was once considered risky, as it did not connect with a large enough consumer base, but as these sports become more popular, the sponsorship deals surrounding them become more attractive. The X Games 2016 were sponsored by AT&T, Coors Light, Intel, LifeProof, America’s Navy, GoPro, Harley-Davidson, Jeep, Monster Energy, Oakley, Polaris, Skype, and Xbox. Several of these companies hosted welcoming events and their logos were prominent throughout the competition, cropping up on jackets, helmets, snowmobiles and tents. During the broadcast of the X Games, commentators were not obligated to “endorse” any of the sponsors but they were required to mention the names of the sponsors at the opening of the broadcast.

Most athletes rely on sponsorship as a primary source of income and actively court endorsement opportunities. The idea of competing in a sporting event for the sheer joy and thrill still exists for many athletes, but it is complicated by the pressure placed on athletes to attract sponsors. Winning a gold medal results in a sense of pride and the respect of fellow athletes, but it also is a surefire path to a sponsorship deal. Chris Tierney, father of X Games snowboarder Meghan Tierney, stated in a recent interview that

In my eyes, from a marketing standpoint, most snowboarders would say that the Olympics and the X Games go hand in hand.

The X Games pride themselves on celebrating bright, young talents in the extreme winter sports world–but over time, the competition has become less about the sport and more about the sponsorship. The Olympics have been dominated for years by their McDonald’s and Coca-Cola sponsorship and the X Games may be taking the same path. Sponsorship is a major boon for any athlete hoping to carve out a long-term career in their sport but it also shifts the ultimate goal of the Games from athletic excellence to financial solvency.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The Real Competition in Aspen: Sponsorship Deals at the X Games appeared first on Law Street.

Beijing currently resembles a scene that could be from an apocalyptic horror movie: sidewalks deserted, citizens wearing masks, and an impenetrable layer of gray smoke flowing through street corners. Beijing recently announced its first “red alert” for smog, which led to the closure of schools and construction sites and a restriction on the number of cars on the road.

Since Beijing issued its red alert, Shanghai has issued a “yellow alert” and has taken to curbing factory work and suspending outdoor activities at schools. Elderly, young, and sick citizens are asked to stay indoors while the smog alert is in effect–but smog can take days or weeks to clear, leaving these residents essentially trapped in their homes. China’s smog problem has been growing for years but it is reaching a critical level wherein smog actually interferes with the daily behaviors of Chinese citizens. Read on for a look at how the smog problem developed and what the red alert signifies for the future.

The Meaning of the Red Alert

Although the Chinese government never instituted the red alert before this year, Beijing has had higher levels of pollution in the past. Beijing has reached the next-highest level, orange alert, several times but always stopped there. It has been speculated that the government decided to issue the red alert as a nod to public sentiment regarding the smog problem. According to the South China Morning Post,

A red alert marked official acknowledgment of the public perception that previous bouts of bad air had been played down. Some state media tried to put a positive spin on the development, with China Daily editorialising that ‘with the first such red alert, the capital has set a good example in this respect.’ But others took a darker view. China.com.cn, a news portal run by the State Council Information Office, said smog had damaged the government’s image, and Xinhua contrasted photographs of the city on pollution-free days and the depths of the alert.

Smog interferes with the image of a modern, progressive China. Pollution impacts not only the environment and the healthcare of the Chinese population, it also leads to a decline in economic growth. Smog limits the number of days workers can leave their homes and causes health problems for those who do work in urban centers. Toxic air means that life expectancy is an estimated five years shorter for a person living in Northern China than a person living in Southern China.  In addition, China’s brain drain–a phenomenon where educated professionals emigrate to other nations rather than working in their country of origin–has been largely linked to pollution. Educated young workers want to start families in countries where the air is better. Chinese youth have an altogether different concept of outdoors than their parents do. In an interview with the New York Times, a cafe manager named Kan Tingting said that

What bothers me the most is that my child may have a very negative view of nature. She loves nature much less than she would in a normal environment. I don’t want her to grow up thinking nature is ugly.

In a country where “smog days” are akin to snow days in the United States, many children are growing up thinking of smog as a part of their daily life rather than an environmental hazard.

 Smog in the Cities

China’s air pollution comes largely from the use of coal in its major industrial cities. China’s economic boom has generated massive economic growth, but that led to a parallel spike in airborne pollutants. Coal pollution is compounded with car emissions to create a toxic atmosphere, only exacerbated by dust storms and construction dust that floats in the air of most urban centers. Beijing recognized the sources of its pollution and has striven to use coal substitutes and limit the use of cars, but those solutions have yet to create lasting change in the smog levels.

Yang Weimin, Deputy Chair of the Central Leading Group on Finance and Economic Affairs, stated earlier this week that China will need to build ten new mega-cities to offset the pollution and traffic pressures of Beijing. Mainland China has six mega-cities (Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Tianjin and Chongqing) and the Chinese government has recognized the need for shifting growth to other areas of the country. However, building these cities is a twofold challenge. First, it will be difficult to convince people to relocate to new cities without stable job prospects so the government will need to convince major companies to set up headquarters in this new set of mega-cities, but at the same time, they will need to retain the job sector in the existing cities. Second, building new cities requires a great deal of construction, which creates hazardous dust and only contributes to negative air quality in the short term.

Cleaning Up Before 2022

China will host the Winter Olympic Games in 2022 and officials have already stated that they plan to welcome athletes from around the world to a city with healthy air. The Beijing Olympics of 2008 were an unforgettable marvel that China hopes to match with the Winter Games, but air pollution has made athletes and coaches worry about the safety of competing there. When China made its bid for the 2008 Games, it promised to cut down on pollution in Beijing, and was largely successful in meeting its goal–during the Olympics, Beijing air quality was the best it had been in a decade. Beijing is clearly capable of reducing smog in the short-term, but the return of smog in the wake of the 2008 Games has left many pessimistic about the probability of long-term smog reduction. Although organizers of the Olympics have stated that they are treating the smog as a serious threat and plan to mitigate before athletes arrive, they have not outlined a precise plan for what they will do to reduce smog.

Profiting off of China’s Plight

This week, a Canadian company made headlines for charging up to $28 for bottles of “clean air” on the Chinese market. Vitality Air, which bottles air from Banff and Lake Louise, has seen a massive spike in sales in China over the past two months. Vitality Air began almost as a joke–co-founder Moses Lam listed a Ziploc bag of air on Ebay to see how much he could get from it, and then ran with the idea of “selling air”. Vitality Air prides itself on being hand-bottled and is supposed to be used to fight hangovers, lethargy and now, pollution.  Bottled air may seem to be a ridiculous concept but according to the Times of India:

Vitality Air is not the only business cashing in on China’s pollution problem – a restaurant in in Zhangjiagang city recently started charging patrons for fresh air, after owners bought air filtration machines for the establishment and added a surcharge to people’s bills for the operation costs.

Selling air like it is any other commodity may be a fad sparked by the introduction of the red alert, but it raises interesting questions about the future of commodities in China. What products are Chinese citizens willing to buy in order to feel safe, and does that make them a target for companies that seek to profit off of their distress? Will foreign countries take advantage of China’s environmental weaknesses to sell them unexpected products or will they commit valuable technology to solving the pollution problem?

 Conclusion

As the world celebrates the major climate agreement made in Paris this week, managing pollution and reducing smog seems like a more manageable task. Yet in China, the damage may be irreversible and a new generation may grow up without access to clean air. It is tempting to accept China’s air pollution as a problem too monolithic to tackle but considering the impressive reduction in smog that the country enacted before the Olympics of 2008, mitigating smog is possible. It will require political action and firm commitments to reach the government’s goal of reducing smog by 2022. China’s leading officials need to seek immediate, effective changes before the red alert becomes a commonplace event in Beijing.

Resources

CNN: Smog in China Closes Schools and Construction Sites, Cuts Traffic in Beijing

The Guardian: Smog Envelops Beijing: Before and After Pictures as City Goes on Red Alert

New York Times: Smog So Thick, Beijing Comes to a Standstill

South China Morning Post: China Needs to Build 10 More Megacities to Ease Pollution and Traffic Pressure on Beijing, Top Planner Says

South China Morning Post: Winds of Change: After Years of Denial, China’s Politicians Have Finally Woken up to Nation’s Concerns Over Hazardous Air Pollution

USA Today: Punchlines: China’s Smog Days Beat Snow Days

ABC News: Hazardous Smog Blankets Shanghai, China Pledges to Clean up by 2022 Winter Olympics

Times of India: Canadian Company Sells Bottled Fresh Mountain Air in China as Smog Levels Worsen

CNN: Canadian Start-up Sells Bottled Air to China, Says Sales Booming

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Red Alert in Beijing: Smog’s Debilitating Impacts appeared first on Law Street.

On November 13, the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), the governing body for international athletics events (track and field, marathons, etc.) announced it was provisionally banning the Russian Federation from international events, effective immediately. The ban will prevent Russian athletes from competing in any competitions, including the 2016 Rio Olympics, stops Russia from hosting any IAAF-sanctioned events, and calls for lifetime bans for five athletes and five coaches.

Russia has been given the opportunity to prove that its athletics programs and drug-testing procedures have been reformed in order to have the ban removed in time for the 2016 Olympics. However, the scandal continues to cast a long shadow over international athletics, calling into question the results of prior competitions (such as the 2012 London Olympics) and raises suspicions of other countries’ athletics programs. Read on to see the allegations against the Russian Federation, the concern of institutionalized doping programs in other countries, and where Russia and athletics as an international endeavor can go from here.

The Secrets of Doping and the WADA Independent Commission Report

In December 2014, the German television channel ARD released a documentary featuring journalist Hajo Seppelt titled “Top-Secret Doping: How Russia Makes its Winners.” The documentary alleged collusion between the Russian Anti-Doping Agency, the Russian Athletics Federation, and the Russian national laboratory. Most troubling is that all of these organizations are funded by the federal government, suggesting their awareness of the cheating, which caused the documentary to declare the cheating “state-sponsored.” The documentary was based around allegations from Russian whistleblowers Vitaly Stepanov, a former Russian Doping Control Officer, and Yuliya Stepanova, a world-class 800-meter runner. The hour-long documentary provided the names of several athletes, coaches, other officials, and a doctor who used or provided banned substances.

The documentary provided the spark for what turned into a media firestorm and a debate about doping in international swimming was inadvertently started. Sports officials the world over began reconsidering their punishments and procedures to deal with doping in their own sports. Athletes accused in the documentary had to worry about potentially forfeiting medals and other prizes. As would be expected, Russian officials decried the film and whistleblowers, calling into question the legality of their recordings.

The documentary rocked the athletics world and triggered an independent investigation from the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). The agency established an independent commission with the mandate to investigate “serious allegations of doping practices, corrupt practices in doping sample collection and results management, corruption and related ineffective administration of anti-doping processes.”

On November 9, the independent commission (IC) released its final report concluding:

The IC has identified systemic failures within the IAAF and Russia that prevent or diminish the possibility of an effective anti-doping program, to the extent that neither ARAF, RUSADA, nor the Russian Federation can be considered Code-compliant… the IC has recommended that the IAAF suspend ARAF.

The report found that Russian athletics had a “deeply rooted culture of cheating,” exploited athletes for financial gain, confirmed the widespread use of banned substances by actively competing Russian athletes, confirmed the involvement of coaches, doctors, and laboratory personnel, and found evidence of corruption and bribery in the IAAF.

Finally, the report concludes that it would be naive to assume that athletics is the only Russian sport affected by the state-sponsored doping program. The commission offered no conclusive opinion on other sports in Russia but stated that while no written evidence currently implicates the Russian government, such an extensive cheating program would not have been possible without some level of government approval.

On November 13, the IAAF announced it had voted 22-1 in favor of suspending Russian athletics from international events. Russia’s IAAF council member was allowed to participate in the vote.

Additional Allegations

Currently, the allegations against specific athletes are unproven. Two of the five athletes facing lifetime bans have said they will pursue legal action. Specific allegations against Russia’s anti-doping agency (RUSADA) and All-Russia Athletic Federation (ARAF) include the tampering or destruction of at least 1,400 test samples, giving advance notice to athletes before drug tests, and intentionally scheduling tests immediately before athletes began doping regiments. Russian athletes are currently banned from competition and the country is no longer eligible to host the scheduled 2016 World Race Walking Cup or the 2016 World Junior Championships, both of which were to be held in Russia.

The independent commission’s report also criticized the way drug testing was handled leading up to and during the 2012 London Olympics, alleging that testing failures sabotaged those games. Russia came in second in the medal count behind the United States in 2012. This has also started whispers that the United States and other large countries ought to be investigated regarding athletic doping.

Midway through 2015, ARD, the German television channel, released a follow-up documentary titled “The Secrets of Doping: The Shadowy World of Athletics.” Both ARD and The Sunday Times acquired access to the test results of 5,000 athletes between 2001 and 2012. In addition to providing evidence that further implicates Russia, the documentary turned its attention to Kenya. In the last three years, 33 Kenyan athletes have failed drug tests, some escaping penalties and still managing to compete when they should be facing bans. WADA has suggested that Kenya could soon face a four-year ban for the myriad of problems with its drug-testing program.

Russian Response to the Suspension

Key figures on the Russian side have sent mixed messages since the WADA released its report and IAAF handed down its ban. While most Russian officials have pledged to cooperate with IAAF and WADA to ensure the program is reinstated in time for the Olympics, several have criticized the report and its findings. The director of the Russian anti-doping Agency denounced the report. According to current officials, the management of the ARAF was changed in the spring of 2015, meaning the current heads of the federation aren’t responsible for the faults found in the report. However, it should be noted that according to the second ARD documentary, ARAF has a history of keeping removed coaches and doctors around to provide athletes with performance-enhancing drugs while not officially being a part of ARAF.

What’s Next?

While the threat of suspension looms large for countries like Kenya, a full ban on international athletics competition is the reality for Russia. WADA has removed their endorsement of the Moscow lab that was identified as being the primary culprit for sample tampering. From top to bottom, the process of preventing doping in Russian athletics will receive oversight from WADA personnel. Additionally, an IAAF team will begin work next year to see if Russia can be readmitted to the international community of athletics. At least two of the five athletes facing lifetime bans are planning to appeal.

The IAAF has also faced some criticism for its investigation. The question has been raised of how much geopolitical issues may play in major sporting federations like the IAAF and FIFA, which has been going through its own highly-publicized scandal. Former IAAF officials have also been implicated in the WADA report though details have yet to be released due to the nature of the legal proceedings.

Based on the data on athlete drug tests from 2001-2012 acquired by ARD and the Sunday Times, an estimated one-third of medals in endurance events were won by athletes with suspicious test results. One in seven of those athletes named have tests that suggest doping or some other abnormality. Ten medals from the London games were won by athletes with suspicious results. From 2001-2012, 80 percent of Russia’s medals have been won by athletes with suspicious test results and 18 of Kenya’s medals were given to athletes with suspicious test results.

Conclusion

The world of international athletics is facing a full-blown crisis rivaling that of FIFA’s. The disturbing trend of suspicious tests from Russian and Kenyan athletes appears to be just the tip of the iceberg. Most alarming is the evidence of state-sponsorship of doping in the case of Russia. While Russia is working to become compliant with standards set by WADA and the IAAF in time for the 2016 summer Olympics, it is entirely possible that one of the foremost powers in global athletics may not send a team to Rio. Meanwhile, the IAAF has its own problems that it must sort through in order to secure the integrity of a sport that has been much maligned in the past year. There has always been suspicion of drugs and cheating in athletics, but the WADA report and ARD documentaries put hard evidence in the spotlight.

Resources

Primary

WADA: The Independent Commission Report #1 Final Report

IAAF: Provisionally Suspends Russian Member Federation ARAF

Additional

BBC: Athletics Doping: Russia Provisionally Suspended by IAAF

BBC: Athletics Doping Scandal: Russian Runners say they are Innocent

BBC: Athletics doping: Wada Commission Wants Russia Ban

BBC: Leaked IAAF Doping files: Wada ‘Very Alarmed’ by Allegations

BBC: Lord Coe Role in Eugene 2021 Worlds Decision Questioned

al Jazeera: Two Kenyans Suspended for Doping at World Championships

al Jazeera: Russia Reacts After ‘Systematic Doping’ Accusations

CNN: Russia Could be Banned from 2016 Olympics after Doping Report

The Guardian: Russian Athletics Chief ‘Prepared to Resign’ as Olympic Ban Risk Grows

The Guardian: IAAF Confirms Investigation into Allegations of Kenya Doping Cover-up

Hajo Seppelt/ARD: The Secrets of Doping: how Russia Makes its Winners

Hajo Seppelt/ARD: The Secrets of Doping: the Shadowy World of Athletics

RT: Russia’s IAAF Expulsion about Geopolitics and Prelude to War – Not Doping – Tony Gosling on RT

Samuel Whitesell

Samuel Whitesell is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill having studied History and Peace, War, and Defense. His interests cover international policy, diplomacy, and politics, along with some entertainment/sports. He also writes fiction on the side. Contact Samuel at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post State-Sponsored Doping in International Athletics appeared first on Law Street.

The case of Oscar Pistorius, the world-famous South African Olympic and Paralympic athlete, has been highly contentious since its beginning. On Valentine’s Day 2013, Pistorius shot his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, in his home, through a locked bathroom door. His defense team claimed he thought she was an intruder and was trying to defend himself. What followed was a flurry of speculation over whether or not the fatal shooting was an accident or intentional; the case was only made even more public by Pistorius’s star status. In 2014, Pistorius was found guilty of culpable homicide–essentially manslaughter. But the prosecutors argued that a culpable homicide verdict didn’t go far enough, and an appeals court just overturned that decision to instead find Pistorius guilty of murder. Now, the sprinter is most likely headed back to prison, and the case may be headed further down the line to South Africa’s Constitutional Court.

The appeal that landed Pistorius back in prison is as seemingly complicated as the case itself. The appeals court that overturned the culpable homicide charge and instead found Pistorius guilty of murder didn’t have an issue with the lower court’s interpretation of the facts of the case, but rather its interpretation of the law. Whether or not Pistorius was guilty or not rested on a concept in the South African justice system called dolus eventualis. It’s defined as “awareness of the likely outcome of an action”–essentially, did Pistorius know what was going to happen when he shot into that bathroom door.

The original court judgment ruled that because he didn’t know that it was Steenkamp behind the door, dolus eventualis didn’t apply. But Judge Eric Leach, of South Africa’s Supreme Court of Appeal, ruled that that judgment was a misinterpretation of the legal principle. According to Leach, it didn’t matter if Pistorius knew that it was Steenkamp behind that door, it matters that he knew someone was behind that door, and firing into would likely result in the death of that person. According to CNN:

It was ‘common sense’ that Pistorius must have known he was carrying out a potentially lethal act that ‘gambled with life’ when he fired his gun through the closed toilet door, [Leach] said.

Now, Pistorius’s team may take the case to the next level for one final appeal in front of the highest court in South Africa–the Constitutional Court. In the meantime, he’s expected to remain under the house arrest he was released to this fall while he waits for a new sentencing hearing. Given that the minimum sentence in South Africa for murder is fifteen years, he could be going back to prison for a very long time.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Oscar Pistorius Found Guilty of Murder by South African Appeals Court appeared first on Law Street.

Oscar Pistorius, the South African Olympian and double-amputee known as “Blade Runner,” was released from prison last week. In October of 2014 he was found guilty of killing his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, and sentenced to five years in prison. Pistorius was charged with culpable homicide as opposed to manslaughter, a crime which would have merited more jail time.

Pause for a reminder: Pistorius claimed that the day he “accidentally” killed Steenkamp, he mistook her for an intruder. Pistorius killed Steenkamp on Valentine’s Day. Steenkamp was set to give a speech on domestic abuse the day she was killed.

Needless to say, many South Africans (including Steenkamp’s family) do not believe that the athlete mistakenly shot his model/reality star girlfriend. They believe the killing was intentional, and that Pistorius got caught up in his own lies.

Elements of Pistorius’ testimony did not add up with forensic analysts’ findings. According to BBC:

A forensic analyst contradicted Mr Pistorius’ claim that he was wearing his artificial legs when he tried to break open the toilet door with a cricket bat after realising Ms Steenkamp was inside. Police Colonel Johannes Vermeulen said the angle and location of the marks on the door suggested Mr Pistorius was on his stumps.

If Pistorius lied about not having his prosthetics on, what else did he lie about? Why did he shoot his firearm multiple times if he thought the noises he heard were just an intruder?

Thankfully, Pistorius will not have access to firearms while on house arrest in (ahem) his uncle’s tricked-out mansion. He is also required to attend regular counseling sessions, so long as he is “doing time”–which, as of now, means four more years.

To the American mind, it seems crazy that a man found guilty of being involved in the death of his girlfriend could possibly receive such a lenient sentence. However, under South African law, “an offender sentenced to five years or less in jail can be released to correctional supervision after serving one-sixth of the term—in Pistorius’ case 10 months.” Indeed, Pistorius has served a bit more than one-sixth of his sentence, so it should not come as a shock that he has been released from Kgosi Mampuru II jail in Pretoria, where he was being held.

What should come as a shock is that Pistorius was held in the hospital section of the jail, rather than in the cells with the other 7,000 inmates who are not celebrities or well-known athletes. As past Law Street articles have stated, it is problematic when a celebrity uses his or her status to acquire special treatment while incarcerated. Yes, it is true that Pistorius would have needed additional medical support as an imprisoned double-amputee in jail. However, he received preferential treatment as a celebrity athlete, which unjustly separated him from the rest of the prison community.

Additionally, Pistorius was released a full day earlier than what was announced by the State Department, in order to avoid a media firestorm. Surely no other prisoner would have been afforded the luxury of a 24-hour head-start after their release was already announced. It’s time for South Africa to re-assess its court procedures when dealing with high-profile suspects and prisoners. (Heck, it should also consider overturning the 1969 law that abolished trial by jury.) But hey, some countries have to walk before they can run like a convicted Olympian.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Oscar Pistorius Leaves Prison to Chill at Uncle’s House in South Africa appeared first on Law Street.

The pageantry and anticipation surrounding the Olympic Games has subsided recently. The mismanagement by certain host countries (Greece and Russia among others) has had a sobering effect on future host-candidates. In other words, countries are still down to party at your place, they just don’t welcome you coming over and ruining their expensive city.

And no city makes headlines for being unwelcoming quite like Boston. Last Thursday, America’s bid city held its first community meeting on the 2024 Olympics at Suffolk Law School. The organization No Boston Olympics–a grassroots coalition that has seemingly summoned the hospitality of Louise Day Hicks–was a vocal participant at the meeting. Essentially, No Boston Olympics feels the cost of hosting the 2024 Games would financially cripple the city, and everyone within the blast radius would foot the bill via taxes. The group makes a strong point: spending lots of money often sucks. But like other groups of contrarian fiscal hawks (see: Tea Party), they don’t see the entire picture.

The truth is, the success of the Olympic Games usually depends on who’s hosting. Greece, a country whose debt is becoming as famous as its Baklava, has not rebounded from hosting the 2004 Olympic Games.  Russia, which is having difficulty financing its own imperialistic urges, is now also struggling to pay off the 2014 Sochi Olympic Games.

On the flip side, the 2008 Summer Olympics turned a profit in Beijing. The 2012 Games in London, which were not cheap, could generate up to £40 billion in economic growth for England by 2020. Are those examples too foreign for you? The good ol’ US of A turned a profit after the ’96 games in Atlanta. As we did for the ’84 games in Los Angeles and then again for the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics in 2002.  Don’t we have faith that an Olympics in Boston would follow the lead of England or prior American Olympics rather than those games in Greece and Russia?

Here are a couple of reasons why Boston could be a good spot. The CEO of the 2002 Salt Lake games–Mitt Romney–lives in the area, and Boston is where his venture capital firm is headquartered. Not only is he local, but he also could have some free time on his hands! This is not a joke. Speaking of saviors for winter sports, do you know who else calls greater Boston home? Bob Kraft, the Patriots owner who privately financed his new stadium and turned a moribund afterthought into a four-time Super Bowl winning machine. He’s also been fingered as an adviser for the 2024 bid. Another big name is Red Sox owner John Henry, who was one of the few people who made millions during the 2008 recession and has already approved of Olympic use for Fenway Park.

This really isn’t a coincidence. There are many people in Boston who manage money well and who know the business of sports. It’s also densely populated, connected by a major subway system, and has vacant college housing during the summer. You get the point. Now let’s hear some counter-points courtesy of Boston.com’s coverage of the committee meeting.

1. “Members of Boston Homeless Solidarity Committee questioned why  . . . a cure for AIDS couldn’t get the resources and attention that an Olympic bid might.” (You can host the Olympics when you cure AIDS. Deal, fat cats?)
2. “At one point during Mandredi and Blauwet’s presentation, they showed a rendering of the proposed beach volleyball stadium on Boston Common. That idea drew hissing.” (Boston Common is for ice skating and for smoking pot in between Emerson classes. Not beach volleyball.  GAWT IT? If Boston wins the bid, don’t be surprised if there’s a spinoff protest for this particular issue. #NAWTOWAHCAWMIN)

Being frugal about local resources is understandable. People want the T (subway) fixed. People want better infrastructure. And people want these things completed quickly, without being too expensive. Well you know what could potentially make that happen? The Olympics. This isn’t that novel of an idea. If the International Olympic Committee and the United States are pushing for a smooth, seamless Olympics, you’ll probably get outside funding to fix some of your local problems. Romney got $3 million from the federal government specifically to help extend Salt Lake City’s light rail for its Olympics. In fact, for the last three American Olympics the federal government has spent $1.4 billion to improve the host cities’ transportation and infrastructure, a figure that will increase considering the government knows how inflation works. This money comes in addition to the millions that these cities receive from outside investors and through corporate sponsorship.

I realize many in Boston still suffer from a Big Dig hangover. That mega-engineering project spiraled out of control and the debt won’t be paid until 2038. But one bad investment–and its badness is debatable–shouldn’t stop the city from taking some financial risks in the future. The list of potential hosts is getting smaller, which means the IOC will soon be forced to scale down the costs involved in hosting the Olympics, which means the possibility of profit could be even greater. So while this may not be an obvious opportunity for Boston, maybe we should fully evaluate the idea[r] before calling in the militia. I mean, who doesn’t love a pahty, kid?

Andrew Blancato

The post Boston Olympics Backlash Filled With Cowardice and Stupidity appeared first on Law Street.

There were a lot of big news stories this year, from the Olympics in early 2014 to the ongoing Sony hack. Read on to learn about the top 15 news stories of 2014.

1. The Winter Olympics: $how Me the $ochi

Image courtesy of Atos via Flickr

The 2014 Olympics were hosted in Sochi, Russia, this winter, and the entire event was marked by controversy after controversy. The Russians were chosen to host the Olympics because of an impressive, expensive bid to the International Olympic Committee (IOC). However, the chaos of the 2014 Games left many wondering whether or not cash should be the deciding factor in the selection process.

2. Malaysian Airplane Crash: Who’s Liable?

Image courtesy of abdallahh via Flickr

In March, the world watched as a Malaysian Airlines flight disappeared, and many families were left devastated. It was a horrifying tragedy, but many were wondering who was to blame for the catastrophe, or more appropriately, who was liable? Given that much is still unknown about the crash, the legal questions are far from being answered.

3. Punishing Donald Sterling Is About to Get a Lot Harder

Image courtesy of Michael via Flickr

Clippers owner Donald Sterling came under fire after an audio recording of him making racist statements came to light. NBA Commissioner Adam Silver levied a notable punishment against Donald Sterling. However, given the unprecedented level of punishment, there were significant legal concerns.

4. An Open Letter to Shailene Woodley: What Every Not-a-Feminist Needs to Hear 

Image courtesy of Red Carpet Report on Mingle Media Tv

One of the most talked about stars of 2014 was Shailene Woodley–she starred in films such as Divergent and The Fault in Our Stars. However, she also made headlines for a less flattering reason–for saying that she wasn’t a feminist. Unfortunately, she had the definition of feminism wrong.

Answer Emma Watson’s Call for Gender Equality

Image courtesy of EyesonFire89 via Flickr

However, another movie starlet, Emma Watson of Harry Potter fame, gave an amazing speech this year about the importance of feminism and equality. Unlike Woodley, her definition of feminism was spot-on, and she made a great appeal.

5. SCOTUS Steps Up Amid Execution Controversy

Image courtesy of [Ken Piorkowski via Flickr]

6. Trigger Warnings Creep Off the Web and Into the Classroom

Image courtesy of OpenClips via Pixabay

Trigger warnings are a common sight on websites, in order to alert readers to content they may find troubling. However, trigger warnings started to make their way off the internet and possibly onto college syllabi. That change has led to concerns that trigger warnings may end up creating optional content in college courses.

7. The Dark Side of the World Cup: Corruption, Bribery, and Civil Unrest

Image courtesy of Amil Delic via Flickr

This summer, the world watched as the 2014 World Cup took place in Brazil. But, much like the 2014 Olympic Games, the World Cup had problems with corruption, lack of organization, and bribing scandals. Not only was the World Cup an interesting look into the the politics of Brazil, but it says a lot about what may happen at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.

Oh, and that guy who bit another player: The People vs. Luis Suarez

Image courtesy of [George via Flickr]

8. The Senate Torture Report: Government Infighting Over Release

Image courtesy of Justin Norman via Flickr

The Senate torture report was finally released a few weeks ago, but there was a lot of infighting prior to the release. Major players included the U.S. Senate, particularly the Senate Intelligence Committee, the CIA, and the White House.

9. We Should All be Upset About What’s Going on in Ferguson: Here’s Why

Image courtesy of Elvert Barnes via Flickr

In early August, a young man named Michael Brown was killed in Ferguson, Missouri, by Officer Darren Wilson. The following weeks led to protests over a few different topics, including police militarization, racial profiling, and First Amendment issues.

10. Ebola and America’s Fears

Image courtesy of CDC Global via Flickr

This year, Ebola has killed thousands in Western Africa, particularly in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea. Globalization and international travel led to a case making it to the United States, sparking fear around the nation.

11. Strikes Against ISIS in Syria: Shaky Ground for Obama Administration

Image courtesy of Official US Navy Page via Flickr

The U.S. has been waging war against ISIS since it emerged in Syria and Iraq. Early this fall, the U.S. and some Middle Eastern allies bombed ISIS. Like any international action, the U.S. needed to be able to legally justify their actions, but that may be easier said than done.

12. The Washington Redskins: What’s Next in the Name Debate?

Image courtesy of Keith Allison via Flickr

The Washington D.C. NFL team is called the “Redskins,” a name that has received ire for its offensive origin. Journalists have begun to refer to the team by almost any other name, and this summer the US Patent office cancelled the team’s trademark. Whether or not the name will ever be changed remains to be seen.

13. The CIA: How to Get Away With Torture

Image courtesy of takomabibelot via Flickr

That Senate Intelligence torture report was finally released, and it was a disturbing revelation into the practices of the CIA. However, despite the fact that torture is illegal internationally, it’s doubtful that the U.S. will ever see any legal ramifications.

14. Australian Hostage Situation Ends: A Community Stands Together

Image courtesy of Corey Leopold via Flickr

Earlier this month, there was a horrifying hostage situation in Sydney, Australia. But the aftermath was heartening, as Australians banded together to show the world that the actions of one mad man does not justify discrimination on a wide scale.

Australians School the World on How To Not Be Racist

Image courtesy of Chris Beckett via Flickr

Here’s a further look into the amazing Australian compassion after the Sydney hostage situation. The hashtag #IllRideWithYou was created, in order to provide support for the Australian Muslim community. Citizens of Sydney offered company to Australian Muslims who needed to travel on public transportation without fear of discrimination.

15. Disturbing New Developments in the Continuing Sony Hacking Scandal

Image courtesy of The City Project via Flickr

One of the biggest stories of the end of 2014 was the Sony Hacking scandal, when a hacking group called the Guardians of Peace (GOP) made its way into Sony’s computer system. The story escalated quickly, as the hacking group demanded that a movie called The Interview not be released, or drastic action would be taken.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Top 15 Top News Stories of 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

Russia’s treatment of its gay citizens has long been very unforgiving. The country often systematically discriminates against LGBT citizens, has rashes of hate crimes, and has been decried by much of the international community for the human rights abuses against the LGBT community. Read on to learn about the recent history of LGBT abuse in Russia, current issues, and what the future may hold.

Recent History of LGBT Rights in Russia

Russia is extremely socially conservative when it comes to LGBT rights. The influence of the Eastern Orthodox Church plays a large part in this, as it consistently stands very strongly against homosexuality.

On June 30, 2013, the upper house of Russia’s parliament passed a bill banning propaganda involving non-traditional sexual activity from being given to minors. The law defines propaganda as:

distribution of information that is aimed at the formation among minors of nontraditional sexual attitudes, attractiveness of nontraditional sexual relations, misperceptions of the social equivalence of traditional and nontraditional sexual relations, or enforcing information about nontraditional sexual relations that evokes interest to such relations . . . .

The law sets the penalty for individuals distributing propaganda at 4,000-5,000 rubles ($120-$150). The penalty for groups, such as NGOs or corporations, is up to 1 million rubles ($30,000). There are also harsh penalties for non-Russian citizens who break the laws. Foreigners can be sentenced to 15 days in prison, and possibly even deported from the country.

Around the same time, a much broader blasphemy law came into effect in Russia, which allows for prison sentences of up to three years for those who attend protests that infringe on Russian citizens’ religious feelings.

Courtesy of AmnestyUK.

HBO just released a documentary entitled “Hunted: The War Against Gays in Russia.” The striking documentary chronicles attacks against LGBT individuals by vigilante groups in Russia, and the consistent indifference of the authorities to the issue. The film depicts the nightmare that LGBT people in Russia face on a daily basis.

Case Study: 2014 Olympic Games

Russia’s approach toward gay rights became a strong topic of contention during last year’s Olympic Games. Yelena Kostychenko, an independent newspaper journalist, said that “this law has brought fascism to my country.” International human rights groups have indicted this law as “the worst human rights climate in the post-Soviet era.” The International Olympic Committee (IOC) heard from various sponsors expressing their concern over the new law. On SumOfUs.org there is a petition signed by 35,000 people asking for Coco-Cola to speak publicly against this law. Forbes even reported that “the safety and dignity of Russians, athletes and fans is in doubt as long as Russia’s anti-gay laws are intact.” In addition to the many activist groups, athletes, and general public against Russia’s anti-gay propaganda law, the “Open Games” has been created. Viktor Romanov’s gay-friendly Olympics in Moscow happened three days after the Sochi Winter Olympics for athletes of any orientation. Romanov has said he isn’t afraid and has taken this law and turned it into an outlet for acceptance.

Others believe that while this law may affect people’s perception of Russia, it should not affect the way athletes viewed the Olympics as an objective, unbiased event that draws on nothing except the skills of the various competitors. Alex Ovechkin stated, “I’m a hockey player and I’m not [into] politics.” Johnny Weir, who is an openly gay retired athlete was an analyst with NBC in Russia. He stated that he will not risk jail time by making a political statement. He, like Ovechkin, mentioned that he was not a politician and would respect Russia’s law. Russian athlete Ilya Kovalchuk agrees with the anti-gay propaganda law and said, “I’m Russian and we all have to respect that. It’s personal and, like I said, it’s a free world, but that’s our line. That’s our country, so everybody has to respect that.”

These athletes may or may not agree with the law, however they understood the importance of respecting Russian ideals. More than 70 human rights organizations showed support over Russia’s anti-gay propaganda law after the first week of publication, and hailed the country as guarding “genuine and universally recognized human rights” issues. Jack Hanick of Fox News supported Russia’s traditional values and banning of anything that diverts from this. The new propaganda law might have left a bad taste in certain people’s mouths, however it did not affect the competition or the actual games.

---

Conclusion

Despite the fact that Russia’s anti-gay laws didn’t end up having much effect on the 2014 Olympic Games, the conversation is far from over. Russia continues to sit by while the international community observes its many human rights violations happening on its soil. The way in which Russia moves forward on this issue could have a huge impact on its reputation within the international community.

---

Resources

The New York Times: ‘Open Games’ in Moscow to Test an Antigay Law

Forbes: Gay Rights Protesters Target Sochi Olympic Sponsors Coke, McDonald’s and Samsung

CNN: Russia’s Anti-Gay Law Could Hit Olympic Sponsors

Rawstory: Russia Passes Anti-’Gay Propaganda’ Bill

RYOT: Putin Says He Wants Gay Athletes to ‘Feel Comfortable’ at Sochi Olympics

CNN: Yelena Isinbayeva Defends Russia’s Anti-Gay Propaganda Law

Washington Post: Alex Ovechkin on Russia’s Anti-Gay Laws: ‘I Just Support Everybody’

Life Site: Human Rights Groups Support Russia’s Law to Protect Children From Homosexual Propaganda

Equality Matters: Longtime Fox News Producer Testified in Support of Russia’s Anti-Gay Laws

SB Nation: Ilya Kovalchuk Supports Russia’s Anti-Gay Laws; U.S., Canadian Players Disagree

Advocate: Six U.S. Organizations Voice Support of Russia’s Antigay Law

Russia Beyond the Headlines: New Law Protecting Religious Feelings Divides Russians

Moscow Times: Putin Signs ‘Blasphemy’ and ‘Gay Propaganda’ Bills

Equality Matters: REPORT: Fox News Ignores Russia’s Anti-Gay Crackdown, Winter Olympics Controversy

Guardian: Russia Passes Law Banning Gay ‘Propaganda’

Policy Mic: Russia’s Anti-Gay Law, Spelled Out in Plain English

Law Street Media Staff

Law Street Media Staff posts are written by the team at Fastcase and Law Street Media

The post Russia’s Anti-Gay Laws: The Discrimination Continues appeared first on Law Street.

The strange, long, and twisted tale that was the death of Reeva Steenkamp, girlfriend of Olympic athlete Oscar Pistorius, has started to reach its close. Pistorius was found guilty of culpable homicide in the Steenkamp case.

Oscar Pistorius is a South American athlete who made history by being the first double amputee in the Olympic Games, and has an incredibly impressive Paralympics resume.

But on the morning of February 14, 2013, that all changed. Pistorius shot and killed his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp through the locked bathroom door. She was a South African model, and the pair had been dating for three months. Pistorius admitted from the beginning that he had shot her, but claimed that he had thought that she was an intruder.

The facts that came out during the subsequent trial were dark. In addition to the being put on trial for killing Steenkamp, Pistorius also faced two charges for illegal handling of his firearms, and a fourth charge for illegal possession of some of the ammunition that was found in his home after Steenkamp was killed.

During the trial, a break was taken so that Pistorius could be evaluated by doctors and receive a psychiatric evaluation. He has been diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder, which was used by the defense to explain his concern about an intruder in his home on the morning of February 14. Merryll Vorster, a forensic psychiatrist who testified during the trial, explained that Pistorious’ anxiety disorder was most likely why he always slept with a firearm under his pillow. Vorster also explained that Pistorius did not have his prosthetics on when he shot at the door, indicating that a fight mechanism may have been ignited in Pistorious — he literally could not flee.

Judge Thokozile Matilda Masipa stated on Thursday that Pistorius was not going to be found guilty of murder, but left the other charges for Friday.

The culpable homicide verdict, announced Friday, translated into American justice system terms, essentially means that he was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter. He acted negligently when he shot four shots through his closed door without knowing who or what was on the other side. He won’t actually be sentenced until next month, and what his sentence will actually end up being has a huge range. He could serve up to fifteen years in prison, or a sentence that is significantly shorter. Judge Masipa has received significant criticism for her ruling.

Given that no one will really ever know what happened in Pistorius’ house that fated Valentine’s Day morning, the verdict is understandable. Yet there is still a lot of backlash from those who believe it’s not quite enough. And Pistorious’ actions after receiving the verdict don’t do too much to help him. He has said that he’s going to write a book to tell his side of the story, and the South African Olympic Committee has said he is free to run again once he finishes his sentence.

However, the good thing about these much-watched celebrity trials is that occasionally they are high-profile enough to create a national conversation. As Steenkamp’s father put it:

This case in a very strange way has opened a window into people’s lives in South Africa, the way they feel they need to defend themselves with extreme force. People need to think about this.

The story was disturbing, the trial concerning, and the death of Steenkamp incredibly tragic. Yet trials like this do have the opportunity to say something for a nation; hopefully South Africa is listening.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Pistorius Verdict Opens Dialogue About Defense, But is South Africa Listening? appeared first on Law Street.

Last month, the NBA came very close to having at least one playoff game boycotted by players due to the incendiary remarks made by former Clippers owner, Donald Sterling. Last week, rumors swirled that FIFA would be forced to cancel the World Cup due to the number of protests in Brazil. Both the NBA Finals and the start of the World Cup proceeded as planned however, and while their respective controversies remain newsworthy, these incidents joined the long history of near-cancellations not becoming tangibly disruptive. Will this ever change?

Since the beginning of the twentieth century, few major sporting events have been cancelled due to social unrest. The largest instigator of cancellations excluding work stoppages comes in the form of war. The 1916 Summer Olympics were cancelled due to the outbreak of World War I. In 1940 and 1944, both the Summer and Winter Olympics were cancelled due to World War II. FIFA also cancelled two World Cups due to World War II, while the International Ice Hockey Federation World Championships were also cancelled between 1939 and 1947.

Although world wars have ended, cooler heads have not necessarily prevailed. Public backlash, much like sports popularity, seems to grow dramatically in the age of twenty-four hour news coverage.  In 2008 the Dakar Road Rally was cancelled following the heavily reported murder of four French tourists in Muaritania over Christmas vacation. Al Qaeda later claimed responsibility and followed with more publicly reported threats, ultimately forcing the Amaury Sport Organization to save face and cancel the event.

Good guys have also used new technology to cancel sporting events. In 2012, the New York City Marathon was cancelled after public criticism following the decision to host the event during Hurricane Sandy recovery. Many New Yorkers took to Twitter and Facebook to spread the message by creating hash tags and Facebook groups calling for cancellation.

A year earlier, the Middle East played host to several national uprisings during the Arab Spring.  Related pressure from the movement, which was largely incited by social media,  led organizers of the Bahrain Grand Prix to cancel the event in 2011. In 2012 the race was almost cancelled again amid continued protest.

Tweeting, Facebooking, and YouTubing protests have galvanized followers into action much like aligned sports fans have used it to organize at their favorite bars to watch games. As these conventions grow more pervasive, it’s possible that protests through social media will gain more followers, and gain them earlier.  Following reports of corruption and poor working conditions, there are already at least four Facebook groups (like this one), a Twitter handle, and a host of YouTube videos calling for a boycott of the 2022 World Cup in Qatar. FIFA may dismiss these efforts as a bunch of pissed off young people trying to ruffle feathers. And they may be right. But that’s also why they should be scared.

—

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured image courtesy of [Agencia Brazil via Wikipedia].

Andrew Blancato

The post Sports History Repeats Itself as the World Cup Goes On Despite Social Unrest appeared first on Law Street.

I love the Olympics. I always have. Summer or winter, it doesn’t matter. I will dutifully watch hours of Olympic coverage, get weirdly into obscure sports (curling!!!!!!) and stay up until ridiculous hours to watch my favorite games. That being said, the Olympics aren’t just all about fun. Over the years, the games have served, often unwillingly, as a backdrop for powerful political statements. For example, the American 1980 Summer Games boycott and resulting Soviet Union 1984 Summer Games boycott were both obviously politically motivated. Individual athletes can also turn the Olympics political — the 1968 Olympic Games Black Power salute by Tommie Smith and John Carlos made headlines and eventually got the two spectacular athletes banned from that year’s Olympic games.

Controversies in the Olympics are common, but this year’s games in Sochi seem particularly fraught. Here are the five most important political and social reasons to care.

5. Stray Dogs

Sochi is home to a lot of stray dogs. Nice, stray dogs, like peoples’ abandoned pets, or the offspring of those pets. According to passersby, most of the dogs seem quite friendly.  But I guess it looks bad to just have stray dogs wandering the Olympic grounds, so the Russian government paid a firm to have them rounded up and killed. The firm hired to do so called the dogs “biological trash.” This move sparked international outrage, people are now trying to adopt these dogs, and a Russian billionaire and big time Putin supporter is actually donating a ton of money to save the dogs.

Now I have…conflicting thoughts on the issue. Don’t get me wrong, I was incredibly outraged by the attempt to kill the dogs. I love dogs — they’re hands down my favorite animal, and come on, how can you resist a face like this?

I’m horrified that they would try to kill the dogs, and I would love for those dogs to be saved, but there is something amazing about the global reaction to Russia’s attempt to kill the stray dogs. This Guardian piece sums it up well, but case in point is that people do seem to care more about dogs than humans. There have been numerous stories of human rights abuses, yet this Sochi-stray-dogs story has made tons of headlines. I love the dogs too, and it breaks my heart that any would be killed, but it’s concerning that people are so focused on this issue. My best guess is that it’s easier to take a stand against animal abuse than more contentious political issues, such as…

4. The Ukraine Conflict 

While the Olympics happen, everyone is kind of tacitly ignoring the fact that there’s a major civil conflict going on essentially next door in the Ukraine. For all intents and purposes, Russia’s next step in the conflict has been on “hold” — most pundits are speculating that they will wait until the games are over to make a big move. So far, the entire conflict has been thoroughly messy though, and not just in the Ukraine. It’s become an almost miniature proxy war between the US and the EU and Russia. And believe me, both sides have the potential to play dirty. Russia is the most likely culprit to have leaked an incredibly embarrassing voicemail from a US diplomat dissing the EU. It seems like as soon as these Olympics end, things will start getting global in the Ukraine.

I think it actually says a lot about the symbolic power of the Olympic games (especially games set in Sochi) that Russia, the United States, and others, are willing to put some political maneuvers on hold.

3. Irina Rodnina 

Irina Rodnina was a prolific figure skater when she was younger, and now she is a Russian political figure. As one of the country’s most recognizable winter athletes, she was a seemingly natural choice to light the torch. But after Rodnina’s name was announced, it came to light that she had retweeted this disgustingly racist and obviously doctored photo this fall (as seen below in journalist Terry Moran’s tweet).
https://twitter.com/TerryMoran/statuses/431870114258878464

Rodnina wouldn’t even apologize at first. She just said that “Freedom of speech is freedom.” More recently, she claimed that she was hacked, although she had never said so in the past. But even after the tweet was discovered, Russia made no effort to get her to apologize or remove her from the torchbearer’s post.

2. The Economy

As much as I love the Olympics, this is a point that I will make every time the Games occur in a non-major city (and sometimes even when they do occur in a big city). Before any Olympic games, the infrastructure gets ridiculously built up, and often after the Olympics end, the new buildings, hotels, and stadiums are abandoned. Here is an incredibly creepy collection of pictures from abandoned Olympic villages.

The Olympics provide a big economic boost, but after that, nothing. That’s a facet of every Olympic games. But the Sochi games have taken extravagance to a whole new level, and in a medium-size city like Sochi (52nd largest in Russia), things had to be built completely from scratch. Supposedly protected natural habitats of animals were destroyed, and an entire village had to be relocated. Like I said, I love the Olympics, but the pragmatist in me wonders if the cost is worth it, and I have never wondered about that more so than during the Sochi games.

1. Gay Rights

This shouldn’t come as a surprise, but obviously Russia’s attack on gay rights is the biggest political story of these Olympics. As has been demonstrated over the last few months, being gay in Russia is incredibly difficult and oppressive. We’ve heard these stories for a long time, but the international spotlight on Russia this winter has given them a particularly haunting voice. President Obama and Vice President Biden, French President Hollande, and Canadian Prime Minister Harper, among others, have all declined to attend. In general, the Olympic games in Sochi have shed light on the human rights violations that occur there, and led to international pressure, but so far there’s been no real tangible signs of change. If the international community, the United States included, is serious about helping the very real problems of the LGBT community in Russia, the pressure on the country needs to increase substantially. Otherwise, the issue will be forgotten, as so many international causes have, and that’s just not acceptable.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [U.S. Army via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Top 5 Reasons to Care About the Sochi Olympics appeared first on Law Street.

By now you’ve probably heard about the bigots, dog killers, and unfinished hotels in the Russian Olympic city of Sochi. The Games have just begun and yet problems with hosting the Olympics have been reported for several months. Most folks here in the good ol’ U S of A are probably asking themselves, “Why would the International Olympic Committee (IOC) select such a functional, idyllic location for the 2014 Winter Games?” Well, the answer is more complicated than you think! Just kidding, it’s mostly about money.

In 2007, the IOC descended upon Guatemala to determine which city would be awarded the 2014 Winter Olympics. The winner (if you want to call it that, since most people believe it’s  a drain on the economy) would have to indicate that their city could handle the financial impact, security measures, and transportation demands that come with hosting the Olympics. (Read the IOC Commission Report here.) But to even woo the IOC to your city, a country must spend millions.

The IOC narrowed its 2014 finalists to Salzburg, Austria; Pyeongchang, South Korea; and Sochi, Russia. During the bidding stage, Salzburg and Pyeongchang were both found to be more accommodating than Sochi, but Sochi’s bidding budget of $27.5 million easily eclipsed those of Salzburg and Pyeonghang ($7.8 million and $21 million, respectively). Russia’s bid team hit its crescendo when a full-size skating rink was flown into Guatemala — in the world’s largest airplane — to wow the IOC judges. In addition to the bid budget, the Russian Federation guaranteed any “eventual shortfall would be covered by the Federal government.” Considering the Olympics are usually over budget, and Russia’s GDP is much greater than that of South Korea or Austria, this was no small promise. This guarantee, coupled with Russia’s bidding blitz, cemented Sochi as the host of the 2014 Winter Olympic Games.

But considering the Olympics have gotten off to a rough start in Sochi, will the IOC change its valuation system?  After all, tales of Sochi’s spending have traveled the globe; the Games have cost Russia roughly $51 billion. Other countries have also voiced their criticism over the current system of bidding.  Austrian officials say their country has effectively been phased out of future bids due to the country’s  concentrated yet relatively low level of wealth.  But the IOC is unlikely to change. IOC President Thomas Bach has stood by the Sochi Games and the IOC’s choice.  He’s also standing by Rio De Janeiro as the selection for the 2016 summer games, despite the myriad of issues facing those Olympics. The games will go on, and the money will continue to flow.

—

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured image courtesy of [Atos via Flickr]

Andrew Blancato

The post $how Me the $ochi appeared first on Law Street.