SIR Craig Reedie has fought off criticism over his handling of the Russian doping scandal to be re-elected as president of the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) for a second consecutive three-year term.
The 75-year-old Scot was re-elected unopposed by Wada’s 38-strong foundation board in Glasgow, despite concerns expressed by a number of Olympic delegates over Wada’s call for a blanket ban on all Russian athletes competing at Rio 2016.
Reedie received the support of the International Olympic Committee early this month, but doubts were raised during this week’s annual gathering of the Association of National Olympic Committees (Anoc) in Doha.
Reedie and Wada have been accused of blighting the build-up to the Rio Games by their handling of the doping allegations, in particular, by favouring a stronger stance on Russia than the one ultimately adopted by the IOC.
Reedie had said last week: “It makes no sense to walk away now. The situation needs to be resolved and it will be resolved. I took this on expecting to serve two terms.
“Okay, nobody imagined we would be spending two years dealing with Russia, but that is where we are at.
“It might not look like it, but we are making real progress now. I am not walking away.”
Reedie may find himself at the centre of more controversy as he embarks on his second term with the difficult task of beginning to bring Russia in from the cold.
The second part of the Wada-sponsored report by Canadian legal expert Richard McLaren into alleged doping improprieties is set to be released next month, and is expected to provide further damning details of Russian cheating.
Anoc president Sheikh Ahmad Al-Fahad Al-Sabah, one of the most powerful administrators in world sport, told delegates that reform of the anti-doping system would be impossible without “a neutral chair” of Wada and suggested the agency should be moved from Montreal to Geneva, closer to the headquarters of most Olympic sports.
Reedie was also heavily criticised by Anoc delegates for the timing of the announcement that Wada was suspending the accreditation of Doha’s anti-doping laboratory, which came on the eve of the Anoc general assembly in the city.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here