Manizha Talash, Yemisi Ogunleye, Imane Khelif, der feige Thomas Bach, Denis Oswald und die Frage: was ist (olympische) Propaganda?
Über die intransparente Disziplinarkommission des IOC, die Entscheidung des Kommissionschefs Denis Oswald, eine mutige Afghanin zu verwarnen, was wiederum zur Disqualifikation durch den Weltverband führte - und über andere Usancen unter dem Großen Olympischen Führer (GOF)
There will be a rough English translation in a few minutes. Please check again asap.
NEUILLY-SUR-SEINE. In wenigen Minuten tagt wieder die 142. IOC Session, nimmt neue Mitglieder auf und thematisiert vielleicht sogar, eher en passant, die Zukunftsfrage des IOC-Präsidenten, des Neunten und/oder eines Zehnten. Es geht dem Ende zu bei diesen Spielen, die meisten Hymnen auf Paris sind schon gesungen, und während sich Reporter und Feuilletonisten, die oft nicht so genau hinschauen, mit Superlativen und gefühlten Wahrheiten überschlagen, versuchen wir in diesem Theater etwas genauer zu beobachten. Gerade jetzt, wenn der Verstand Pause macht, zeichnen viele kleine Episoden ein differenzierteres Bild, als es Mainstream-Medien liefern.
English translation of the article
Dear IOC members, in case you're bored at the IOC Session right now, here's some more background - a very rough translation of the article I published in German half an hour ago.
Manizha Talash, Yemisi Ogunleye, Imane Khelif, the pathetically cowardly Thomas Bach, Denis Oswald and the question: what is (Olympic) propaganda?
About the IOC's non-transparent disciplinary commission, the decision of commission chair Denis Oswald to caution a courageous Afghan woman, which in turn led to her disqualification by the world federation - and about other practices under the Great Olympic Leader (GOF)
NEUILLY-SUR-SEINE. In a few minutes, the 142nd IOC Session will reconvene, admit new members and perhaps even address, rather en passant, the question of the future of the IOC President, the ninth and/or a tenth. These Games are coming to an end, most of the hymns to Paris have already been sung, and while reporters and feature writers, who often don't look too closely, are overflowing with superlatives and perceived truths, we are trying to observe a little more closely in this theatre.
Especially now, when the mind takes a break, many small episodes paint a more differentiated picture than that provided by the mainstream media.
For example, the behaviour of the IOC Sun King on Friday evening.
Wouldn't it have been the most natural thing in the world for Thomas Bach to turn up at Roland Garros for boxer Imane Khelif's final?
After all the discussions of recent weeks, after all the boundless hatred to which Khelif was subjected, after the targeted attacks from Russia, after the more than unfortunate, sometimes stupid statements by IOC propagandists and Thomas Bach himself on the gender issue?
Of course, it would have been the duty of Thomas Bach, who always claims that this so-called Olympic movement, his sect-like IOC, is only about one thing: the athletes.
In short: Thomas Bach has once again proven what a gigantic coward he is.
This is being written to you by a guy who has seen Bach run away from two German journalists several times, literally sprinting - these stories are unforgettable, because I was one of those journalists. Bach is a scaredy-cat who only conducts the debate from safe cover, flanked by his princely-paid praetorians and a gigantic propaganda blower, in other words under unequal conditions. There are plenty of examples of this throughout his entire career in sports politics.
So instead of turning up at the boxing final, flying the flag, performing the award ceremony and - that too! - risking the whistles this time and the photos of him and Khelif being used against him now and later in a debate that is guaranteed to go on for years, instead of risking it and showing backbone (or cojones), Bach turned up on the Place de la Concorde at the Breaking, which is only making a flying visit to the Olympics in Paris and is no longer there in Los Angeles.
You could see him laughing in the front row and enjoying the cameras - the benevolent Thomas of the IOC, the saviour of the movement.
And even that was only half the truth.
Let's take a closer look: Bach came straight from the men's football final at the Parc des Princes, where he sat next to FIFA's Sun King Gianni Infantilo, that puppet of a Saudi bone-saw monster. And while he put on his permanent smile and watched the performances, he must have realised that not everything was gold here either, what was being put on at enormous expense and sold to the world as the greatest show on earth.
At 8.27 pm, the World DanceSport Federation (WDSF) announced its decision to subsequently disqualify the Afghan Manizha Talash because she had performed in the afternoon with a scarf labelled "FREE AFGHAN WOMEN".
As Breaking is hardly followed by the media, this detail initially went unnoticed on Friday evening and was only publicised many hours later, with the first major reports and stories about Talash's disqualification only appearing on Saturday morning (local time). By then, however, there was almost exclusively talk of the world federation's decision.
"FREE AFGHAN WOMEN", you guessed it, is seen as political propaganda in these Olympic circles.
Surely you wouldn't be so naive as to believe that such a disqualification was made without the knowledge and/or active involvement of the IOC, would you?
Of course, this was not a decision that an insignificant guest Olympic federation like the WDSF would make without the IOC. Especially as it involved an athlete from the Refugee Olympic Team, which was supported by the IOC with a huge propaganda machine and money from Qatar (Olympic Refuge Foundation).
I spoke to Denis Oswald on the phone this afternoon, shortly before the start of the last part of the IOC session. Why?
The so-called Disciplinary Commission of the IOC is not one of the commissions whose composition Thomas Bach and the IOC administration decide every year as they see fit. There are also the so-called Delegate Members, and the Swiss Denis Oswald has been the Permanent Chair of the Disciplinary Commission for what feels like a century. This commission, its composition (appointed by the IOC President) and its decisions are also totally non-transparent, like almost everything under Thomas Bach.
If you go to the IOC website, for example, and look at the alleged documentation of disciplinary decisions, which is not easy, you will find almost nothing - only a few documents from the years 2006 to 2009, as a complete Olympiad, before Bach took over the IOC and turned it into a monolith. Did I already say that most Olympic world federations are more transparent, well, than the IOC and sometimes document such decisions excellently - and incidentally many also publish the minutes of their board meetings, so quite different from the IOC, did I already say that? Certainly.
It cannot be emphasised often enough.
It may be that Denis Oswald is now in trouble with the IOC Grand Leader. As you know, journalists are not allowed to enter the Olympic Family Hotel (OFH), and it is only officially permitted to speak to IOC members if an official request has been made to the Propaganda Department and an appointment has been made for observers to follow everything.
So it was Denis Oswald who, as head of the Disciplinary Commission, made the decision to caution Manizha Talash all by himself.
Of course, Oswald, a member of the IOC Executive Board, decided "absolutely independently" of the IOC, as he told me in all seriousness. The other members of his dubious commission, whose names I asked for in vain, didn't even have to be bothered with the Talash case.
"It was only about a warning," said Oswald, "I could decide that on my own."
When I asked him whether he didn't feel uncomfortable issuing a warning to a woman who had finally signed her own death warrant with this protest in Paris and would inevitably be murdered by the Taliban if they ever got hold of her, Oswald simply said:
"It was a political expression on the field of play."
The rules, of course, there's nothing you can do. As much as one would show mercy ... or something like that. Oswald is just another one of those Swiss lawyers, of whom there are too many in the Olympic sector, and who dismember the system beyond recognition and bend everything with legal dodges until it fits.
"FREE AFGHAN WOMEN".
That's clear. Something like that must be banned.
And it's also clear that it's in the Olympic Charter. That's how it was communicated to the Olympic participants. Two samples each from the Olympic Charter (Rule 50 and associated by-laws) and the material from the Athletes' Commission for Paris 2024:
The Charter states:
No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas.
The by-laws explain:
Any violation of this Bye-law 1 and the guidelines adopted hereunder may result in disqualification of the person or delegation concerned, or withdrawal of the accreditation of the person or delegation concerned, without prejudice to further measures and sanctions which may be pronounced by the IOC Executive Board or Session.
Unfortunately, I didn't have time to ask Oswald whether he spoke to Manizha Talash personally, i.e. whether she was heard and whether the rules were followed that Talash had an experienced person with her for support during such a conversation. In the fully transparent IOC, such details should actually be made public, as is also stated in the material that the Olympic athletes received. But okay, the reality is always different, as I mentioned at the beginning.
Incidentally, according to Oswald, the subsequent disqualification by the world federation was a matter for the WDSF, which acts completely independently of, you know, the IOC. He assumes that Thomas Bach was of course informed of his (Oswald's) decision immediately. (Which I find funny, because I think that Oswald informed Bach himself or rather even acted in close dialogue with Bach - but what do I know about how things work in the totally independent IOC).
But sometimes decisions are made differently. Do you remember the 2022 Winter Games in Beijing (which I personally boycotted due to the risk of propaganda) and the Ukrainian skeleton athlete Vladyslav Heraskevych?
Back then, a few days before the Russians invaded Ukraine, Heraskevych held a piece of paper in the national colours of blue and yellow with the words "No War in Ukraine" in front of the cameras.
Strictly speaking, this was just as much a violation of Rule 50 of the Charter as Talash is now accused of. But Heraskevych was not penalised.
Vladyslav Heraskevych told me this again briefly earlier:
"I met someone from the IOC who asked me what I meant. I told him that I didn't want a war and that I didn't want to see my people murdered and enslaved by Russia. He said: okay, I understand. I don't have to fear any consequences."
That was then. Different today. That's how it is in the IOC under the strict Sun King.
Heraskevych, whom I caught at a children's sports day, told me something else:
"Don't even try to find any logic or consistency in the actions of the IOC. There simply isn't any. And let's look at this case of Manizha Talash: Is there a better place in the world to make a statement in support of women in Afghanistan than these supposed gender parity games in Paris?"
Of course not.
"The IOC is simply afraid to take responsibility for a firm position when it comes to specific cases," says Heraskevych.
That's what we're experiencing right now, whether in the boxing ring or in breaking. In health-threatening swimming in the Seine. And with many other topics in Paris.
The IOC has been promoting Paris 2024 for ages as the "first Olympic Games with gender parity" and has invented the hashtag #GenderEqualOlympics.
And the profile page of the IOC website for Manizha Talash now reads: DSQ. Disqualified.
Only the IOC is allowed to run propaganda. or, more recently, Saudi Arabia.
When athletes stand up for human rights, they are penalised and should be banned.
Regular readers in this theatre know that I often use the term propaganda and even like to use it - especially when it comes to the mendacious communication of the IOC and other Olympic ideologues (as can now be observed again with the German Olympic bid). What is always meant is the distortion of facts, the omission of facts, the lying, the targeted manipulation and influencing of opinions. Look up the definitions for yourselves.
What is propaganda?
What Manizha Talash did is certainly not.
And neither is the song that Olympic shot put champion Yemisi Ogunleye performed at her press conference at the Stade de France last night.
However, if Yemisi Ogunleye had sung in the Stade de France, she might have been disqualified for religious propaganda. Anything is possible. There are those strict IOC rule-makers like the oldie Denis Oswald and of course the infallible supremo Thomas Bach.
There is much more to say about this. Stay tuned.
Stay curious and please subscribe - so that there will continue to be Olympic educational journalism here in the future.
Zum Beispiel das Verhalten des IOC-Sonnenkönigs am Freitagabend.
Wäre es nicht das Selbstverständlichste der Welt gewesen, dass Thomas Bach in Roland Garros auftaucht zum Finale der Boxerin Imane Khelif?
Nach all den Diskussionen der vergangenen Wochen, nach all dem grenzenlosen Hass, dem Khelif ausgesetzt war, nach den aus Russland gesteuerten gezielten Attacken, nach den mehr als unglücklichen, mitunter dummen Stellungnahmen von IOC-Propagandisten und Thomas Bach selbst zur Gender-Thematik?
Natürlich wäre es die Pflicht von Thomas Bach gewesen, der doch stets beteuert, in dieser sogenannten olympischen Bewegung, in seinem sektenartigen IOC ginge es nur um eines: um die Sportler.
Kurzum: Einmal mehr hat Thomas Bach bewiesen, was für ein gigantischer Feigling er ist. Das schreibt Ihnen ein Typ, der mehrfach erlebt hat, wie Bach vor zwei deutschen Journalisten weggelaufen ist, regelrecht gesprintet - unvergessen diese Geschichten, denn einer dieser Journalisten war ich. Bach ist ein Angsthase, der die Auseinandersetzung nur aus sicherer Deckung, flankiert von seinen fürstlich bezahlten Prätorianern und einem gigantischen Propagandagebläse führt, unter ungleichen Voraussetzungen also. Beispiele dafür gibt es zuhauf, sie durchziehen seine gesamte sportpolitische Karriere.
Statt also beim Box-Finale aufzutauchen, Flagge zu zeigen, die Siegerehrung vorzunehmen und - auch das! - zu riskieren, dass es diesmal Pfiffe gibt und die Fotos mit ihm und Khelif jetzt und später, in einer garantiert Jahre anhaltenden Debatte gegen ihn verwendet werden, statt das zu riskieren und Rückgrat zu zeigen (oder cojones), tauchte Bach auf dem Place de la Concorde beim Breaking auf, das in Paris nur eine olympische Stipvisite gibt und in Los Angeles schon nicht mehr dabei ist. Man sah ihn in der ersten Reihe lachen und die Kameras genießen - der gütige Thomas vom IOC, der Retter der Bewegung.
Und selbst das war nur die halbe Wahrheit. Das mag für die sportpolitisch ungebildeten und desinteressierten Olympiaschwärmer reichen, die ihre Hausaufgaben machen. Aber schauen wir genauer hin: Bach kam direkt vom Fußball-Finale der Männer im Parc des Princes, wo er neben dem FIFA-Sonnenkönig Gianni Infantilo saß, dieser Marionette eines saudischen Knochensägen-Monsters. Und während er also sein Dauerlächeln aufsetzte und die Darbietungen verfolgte, muss er darüber Bescheid gewusst haben, dass auch hier nicht alles Gold war, was da mit gewaltigem Aufwand betrieben und der Welt als größte Show auf Erden verkauft wurde.
Um 20.27 Uhr kommunizierte die World DanceSport Federation (WDSF) die Entscheidung, die Afghanin Manizha Talash nachträglich zu disqualifizieren, weil sie am Nachmittag mit einem Tuch mit der Aufschrift "FREE AFGHAN WOMEN" aufgetreten war.
Da Breaking medial kaum verfolgt wird, ging dieses Detail am Freitagabend zunächst unter und wurde erst viele Stunden später medial vermarktet, die ersten größeren Meldungen und Stories zur Disqualifizierung von Talash gab es erst am Samstagmorgen (Ortszeit). Da aber war fast ausschließlich nur von der Entscheidung des Weltverbands die Rede.
"FREE AFGHAN WOMEN", Sie ahnen es, wird in diesen olympischen Kreisen als politische Propaganda bewertet.
Sie werden gewiss nicht so naiv sein und glauben, eine solche Disqualifikation sei ohne Wissen und/oder aktive Mitwirkung des IOC erfolgt, oder?
Natürlich war das keine Entscheidung, die ein bedeutungsloser Olympia-Gastverband wie die WDSF ohne das IOC fällen würde. Zumal es eine Sportlerin aus dem vom IOC mit einer gewaltigen Propaganda-Maschinerie und dem Geld aus Katar (Olympic Refuge Foundation) begleiteten Refugee Olympic Team handelte.
Ich habe heute Nachmittag, kurz vor Beginn des letzten Teils der IOC-Session mit Denis Oswald telefoniert. Warum?
Die sogenannte Disziplinarkommission des IOC zählt nicht zu jenen Kommissionen, über deren Zusammensetzung Thomas Bach und die IOC-Administration alljährlich nach Gutdünken entscheiden. Es gibt da noch die sogenannten Delegate Members, und unter denen taucht der Schweizer Denis Oswald seit einem gefühlten Jahrhundert als Permanent Chair of Disciplinary Commission auf. Auch diese Kommission, ihre Zusammensetzung (vom IOC-Präsidenten benannt) und ihre Entscheidungen sind total intransparent, wie fast alles unter Thomas Bach.
Wenn man sich auf der IOC-Webseite beispielsweise zur angeblichen Dokumentation von Disziplinar-Entscheidungen durchkämpft, was nicht einfach ist, dann findet man dort fast gar nichts - nur einige Dokumente aus den Jahren 2006 bis 2009, als eine komplette Olympiade, bevor Bach das IOC übernahm und in einen Monolithen verwandelte. Sagte ich schon, dass die meisten olympischen Weltverbände transparenter, nun ja, als das IOC agieren und teilweise derlei Entscheidungen hervorragend dokumentieren - und übrigens viele auch die Protokolle ihrer Vorstandssitzungen veröffentlichen, also ganz anders als das IOC, sagte ich das schon? Bestimmt.
Man kann es nicht oft genug betonen.
Es mag sein, dass Denis Oswald jetzt Ärger bekommt mit dem Großen IOC-Führer. Denn Sie wissen ja, zum einen ist Journalisten der Zugang zum Olympic Family Hotel (OFH) verboten, zum anderen ist es offiziell nur erlaubt, mit IOC-Mitgliedern zu sprechen, wenn zuvor offiziell in der Propaganda-Abteilung angefragt und ein Termin vereinbart wurde, bei dem dann Beobachter alles verfolgen.
Es war also Denis Oswald, der als Chef der Disciplinary Commission ganz allein die Entscheidung getroffen hat/oder haben will, Manizha Talash zu verwarnen.
