The (Unfair) Olympics: Staggering amount of 'incompetence' ruining Games | Opinion

BEIJING – The International Olympic Committee is correct in saying there are differences between the cases of Sha’Carri Richardson and Kamila Valieva.

Richardson is subject to an anti-doping program that is actually competent, designed and operated with the sole intention of keeping sport clean. Valieva is ... not.

“We did what we were required to do. What clean athletes, the federal government, (the World Anti-Doping Agency) and the IOC expects anti-doping agencies to do, which is follow the rules,” Travis Tygart, CEO of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, told USA TODAY Sports on Wednesday.

“They’re giving the benefit to an athlete whose anti-doping agency didn’t do that. What we’ve seen, time and time again over the last seven years, is that RUSADA (Russian Anti-Doping Agency) can’t be trusted to do the right thing and follow the rules.”

And the IOC and WADA are letting Russia get away with it. Again.

Richardson has suggested there is a double standard between her case, which caused her to miss the Tokyo Olympics, and that of Valieva, the Russian figure skating phenom who is competing at the Beijing Games despite a failed drug test.

Asked Wednesday about that, IOC spokesman Mark Adams dismissed the comparison.

“Richardson tested positive on the 19th of June, quite a way ahead of the Games. Her results came in early order for USADA to deal with the case on time, before the Games. Miss Richardson accepted a one-month period of ineligibility, which began on June the 28th,” Adams said. “So I would suggest that there isn’t a great deal of similarity between the two cases.”

Which is exactly the point.

TEXT ALERTS: Sign up for behind-the-scenes access from our reporters on the ground

OLYMPICS NEWSLETTER: All of our coverage straight to your inbox

MEDAL COUNT: How each country is performing at the Winter Games

Richardson tested positive for THC, a chemical in cannabis that studies have shown to have absolutely no performance-enhancing benefits. But with the Tokyo Olympics looming and Richardson a gold-medal favorite in the 100 meters, USADA expedited her case.

It confirmed her result, issued a ban and Richardson accepted and began serving it, all in a span of nine days.

Compare that with Valieva.

RUSADA is still required to send its samples to labs outside of the country; when you’ve had a state-sponsored doping program designed to rig the medal count, as Russia did ahead of the Sochi Olympics in 2014, people tend not to trust you.

But RUSADA did not flag Valieva’s results to the lab in Sweden. Nor, according to WADA, did RUSADA ask the lab to fast-track the results from Russian nationals, despite the 15-year-old and her teammates known by pretty much everyone to be favorites to sweep the podium.

“Just incompetence,” Tygart said.

RELATED: Amid Valieva controversy, Olympic figure skaters support idea of age restrictions

WADA doesn’t exactly come off as rocket scientists in this, either.

When Russia was found in 2019 to still be playing fast and loose with its testing data, it should have been kicked out of the Olympics entirely. But WADA didn’t want that, and the IOC really didn’t want that, so they got out of it by WADA graciously agreeing to oversee Russia’s anti-doping program.

Now, one would think that would mean WADA would know, down to the minute, when samples from Russia were coming in. That someone would have had a spreadsheet or a Google document tracking this, especially if they involved medal favorites.

Which, again, everyone knew Valieva was. For multiple golds, no less.

Yet WADA’s lab took its sweet time analyzing the samples, not alerting Russia for more than 10 days that Valieva had failed a drug test. She was banned, and then quickly unbanned after she appealed, and there the case sat.

Again, Richardson went from a positive test to a disqualifying ban in nine days. We’re at 54 days and counting on Valieva, and still no closer to knowing whether she’s going to keep the one gold medal she already has and the second she’s almost certain to win Thursday night.

Sure, there might be fallout to come. But that will be after the celebratory photos have been taken and Russia has milked the propaganda moment for all its worth.

“We’re having to compete against known dopers. That’s not fair, that’s not right,” Tygart said. “The answer is not to reduce the level of the programs of countries ... who comply. The answer is the Russias of the world have to step up their game. If they don’t live to the rules the rest of the world are living to, they shouldn’t be in the Games.”

But the IOC will never allow that to happen. The IOC and WADA play a sophisticated shell game, each one blaming the other so no one has to take responsibility and Russia can continue dodging accountability.

So yes, the cases of Richardson and Valieva are different. One was handled properly and the other, like everything else involving Russian doping the past seven years, was not.

Follow USA TODAY Sports columnist Nancy Armour on Twitter @nrarmour.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Kamila Valieva, Sha'Carri Richardson show differences in doping cases