This could pose a major challenge to the Islamic Republic as it has a standing order that no Iranian athlete may compete against an Israeli.
On the other hand, the new rule is oddly worded and could make it impossible ever to “prove” that a refusal to compete is political.
The FILA announcement did not mention either Iran or Israel. But it left no doubt that the new ruling was aimed at Iran. The announcement of the rule change began with the phrase: “Further to the events that took place in Istanbul during the World ChampionshipsÖ.” At the World Championships last September, the Iranian Greco-Roman wrestler D. Rezai drew an Israeli opponent for his first match and did not appear.
The FILA rule change dated February 22 may not be as draconian as it first appears since it puts the onus on physicians from FILA to prove the wrestler abandoned the match for political and not medical reasons.
The new rule was signed by Raphael Marinetti, president of FILA, which stands for Federation Internationale des Luttes Associees or the International Federation of Associated Wrestling Styles.
In the past, Iran has commonly said that a wrestler did not appear because he had a stomach ailment or some other medical problem.
The new rule change has two parts. The first paragraph says: “After the weigh-in, if a wrestler, without medical advice signed by two FILA doctors, does not present himself to his opponent when his name is called is disqualified and not placed [ranked]. His opponent will win the match.”
The second paragraph states: “If the FILA doctors can prove that a wrestler simulates an injury for political reasons so he doesn’t have to wrestle with his opponent, all the wrestler’s team of the concerned style will be eliminated and their opponents will win the match.”
“Concerned style” means that if an Iranian Greco-Roman wrestler refuses to face an Israeli, the Iranian wrestlers in all seven Greco-Roman weight divisions will be expelled from the competition, but the seven Iranian freestyle wrestlers would be allowed to continue. FILA did not say why it was limiting to the expulsions to one style and not the entire national team.
But the wording of the new rule puts the burden of proving that a wrestler’s refusal to compete is political and not medical on FILA’s doctors. FILA did not explain how a physician is supposed to be able to prove that a stomachache is being falsified and being falsified expressly for political reasons. This wording would appear to give the Islamic Republic considerable wiggle room to argue that its team not be expelled because the doctors did not prove an illness was political.
International sports federations have a standard rule forbidding athletes to refuse to compete for political, racial or religious reasons. But those rules have been uniformly ignored to date. Dozens of Iranian athletes have refused to compete against Israelis since the revolution, but Iran has never been disciplined. The sports federations have just shrugged their shoulders and accepted the Islamic Republic’s contention that the Iranian athlete was ill or injured.
The new FILA rule may indicate a change of heart—or, given the wording, it may just be fluff.
European, North American and Israeli sports officials have reportedly been pressing the international federations to crack down on Iran. The past reluctance to act has been based on the fact that everyone understands that the Iranian rule on not facing Israelis is a state rule forced on the athletes.
The sporting rule against refusing to compete was aimed at individual athletes and their biases, such as whites who would not face blacks. The problem with the rule in Iran’s case is that it punishes athletes who do not necessarily agree with the Iranian ban on competing against Israelis.
The global attitude toward Iran has toughened dramatically since last fall because of three developments in October and November: 1) the US arrest of an Iranian-American accused of plotting with the Qods Force to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington; 2) the report of the UN human rights rapporteur for Iran outlining specific human rights violations; and 3) the IAEA report detailing indicators that the Islamic Republic has a military nuclear program. These hit Iran in three areas—terrorism, human rights violations and nuclear proliferation.
The Islamic Republic’s global support plummeted after that triple blow. In the annual UN vote on the resolution condemning Iran’s human rights performance, only 30 member states out of 193 backed Iran. In the previous decade, Iran had from 45 to 55 supporters in each and every year.
Even worse, in the vote condemning the assassination plot, a mere eight states stood with Iran—North Korea, Zimbabwe, Armenia and the five Latin American critics of the United States: Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia and Ecuador. Even Syria did not stand with Iran on that vote.
