When the horrors inflicted on Bucha’s residents emerged last week, the Russian grandmaster – and serial Vladimir Putin apologist – Sergey Karjakin was asked for his response. “Have you seen the pictures, Sergey?” the questioner probed on social media. “The senseless killings of innocent people. Men, women and children. Tortured by the Russian army. Bound hands behind their backs, and shot in the back of the head. Have you seen it, Sergey?”
Karjakin, who represented Ukraine until 2009 before transferring his allegiance to Russia, had indeed seen the images. And his reply was chilling. “I wanted to say it was a good fake,” he said. “But no. It was a bad fake.”
Even before this latest incident, Russia’s Lord Haw‑Haw had been given a six-month ban for his bombastic support of the invasion of Ukraine, which breached chess’s code of ethics. Now, having slipped further beyond the pale, further beyond redemption, he faces ostracism.
Few will shed any tears at that – or at Russia’s teams being banned from most international events, including the Winter Paralympics and World Cup playoffs. Why, after all, should it be allowed to glory in its sporting achievements when thousands of innocents have been slaughtered and millions have fled?
But not everything is as clear cut. Last week it emerged that Wimbledon was ready to ban the world No 2 Daniil Medvedev over fears that his victory “could boost the Putin regime”. Previously the sports minister Nigel Huddleston had also suggested Medvedev and other Russians would have to give assurances they are not supporters of Putin to play.
But if you are a classical liberal, this demand might also make you a little queasy. Why, after all, should the sins of a country’s dictator lead to a sports star being punished? It feels like a violation of the laws of natural justice, especially when that player deliberately stays out of politics.
I was making this point to a chess insider when he interjected. Sport is torn down the middle on this, he said. But when you talk about natural justice, start by thinking about it from Ukraine’s side.
Why, he asked, should any Ukrainian – who is very likely to have been personally affected by the war, with perhaps family or friends dying – be asked, potentially, to play someone from Russia when their country remains under attack? Even if you strip the personal and emotive arguments from the debate, there is also a practical question: how ready will Ukrainian athletes be for competition when so many have had to flee or fight?
Some Ukrainians have also indicated they do not want to face Russians, at least in chess. So if you let the Russians play, he argued, you are in effect cancelling the Ukrainians.
My acquaintance knows Russian players. Many of them do not support the war. But, he pointed out, they have all financially benefited from the Russian regime over the years, and so their sporting victories are nevertheless tied to Putin.
He made a final point: we are not squeamish about implementing economic sanctions on Russia, many of which will unfairly affect ordinary citizens. So why should rich sports stars be an exception?
It amounted to a persuasive case but I remain unconvinced that Medvedev should have to sign a document distancing himself from Putin to play at Wimbledon. Not only would that be a completely empty gesture – anyone could sign but not mean it – but conversely it could also put his family in harm’s way. Especially when there are new laws in Russia about public dissent and the enemy within, and some politicians are openly making jokes about spring cleaning, using a Russian play on words of “to clean” a house and to send political opponents to prison.
Where, ultimately, might all this lead? With Chinese athletes being told they must speak out against the mistreatment of the Uyghurs before competing in the Birmingham Diamond League? Many athletes from countries with dictatorships already have to walk a dangerous tightrope. Is it really fair to introduce the equivalent of a force 10 gale while they do so? If we want to target Putin’s allies, surely it would be better to focus on those Russians in senior positions on sports federations first?
As things stand, sport remains torn. Athletics, rowing and badminton have implemented bans on participants from Russia and Belarus at major events. Others, including tennis and chess, have allowed them to play under a neutral flag.
Inevitably high-powered lawyers are involved, with the Russians maintaining that a blanket ban is unjustified.
But Professor Jack Anderson, a former arbitrator at the court of arbitration for sport (Cas), says that sports bodies have legitimate legal reasons to uphold the ban.
“It can vary from sports but the general principle – and Cas has said this in the context of the Olympics, Russia and doping – is that, just because an athlete is eligible to compete at an event, it doesn’t automatically mean they will be invited,” he says. “There are also safety and operational reasons in the sense that, if Russian athletes compete, others will boycott.
“As with many of these things it will be decided on a case-by-case basis. But my first reaction when I hear that Cas is deciding something in this area is that maybe the only court that should be looking at Russia and Ukraine at the minute is the international criminal court.”
As Anderson also points out, the pity of not being able to play at a sports event is nothing compared with the pity of war. While sports operate in a bubble, this bubble must be burst by the reality of what is happening in Ukraine.
