Continued Doping from Poor IOC Distribution Management

As I sit here reading about another consecutive Olympic doping scandal involving Russia to hit the Olympics and International Olympic Committee (IOC), I’m reminded of my own life experiences in insurance. I’m not going to pretend to be an expert on the Olympics, international politics, nor drug-testing. However, even as a third-party observer of annual Olympic doping scandals, I can see this issue is not being suppressed. One of the same key countries, Russia, is again in the middle as it has been across many years. In fact, Russia is consistently ranked as the country with the most anti-doping rule violations (ADRVs). But let’s not just focus on Russia’s wrongs. The most recent Anti-Doping Rule Violations report published in December 2022 by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) shows that 109-117 countries annually between 2013 and 2019 had violations. In fact, while the Russian Federation accounted for the most 2019 ADRVs (167), Italy and India accounted for a significantly weighty 157 and 152, respectively. Annual violations resulting in penalties consistently float between 1,595 and 1,953 while sports involved maintain a range between 83 and 112. Disappointingly, none of these metrics demonstrate a downward trend.

Not all of these violations reach the level of the Olympics, but some do. Regardless, the IOC defines itself as “a truly global organisation” and “the guardian of the Olympic Games and the leader of the Olympic Movement” in its brand messaging. In other words, the preeminent leader in sports. So what should the IOC do with WADA’s continued reporting of the same level of doping? A lot hinges on better distribution management, some of which should be moved to a higher level than individual athletes. And the insurance industry offers some models of note.

What Is Distribution Management?

In insurance, distribution management refers to the practice of ensuring sales team organization, empowerment, ethical behavior, and legal compliance among other areas. Exercising activity, care, and enforcement in all of these arenas create successful sales organizations that conduct business for mutual good.

For insurance sales teams, two major categories exist–captive and independent. Captive sales teams feature agents who sell for one insurance company/carrier and can often be employees. Meanwhile, independent sales teams feature agents who have greater freedom and can sign many business contracts to sell for multiple insurers. This captive and independent split also occurs with insurance agencies (businesses as opposed to people). Your local State Farm and Allstate offices are captive agencies. Meanwhile, your local John Doe Insurance Agency can be an independent agency offering insurance for a lot of carriers while also having captive or independent agents that report directly to the agency.

The dynamic of an independent insurance agency with subagents is actually quite similar to the current IOC distribution management issue surrounding doping compliance. And the IOC would do well to learn from some of the tactics leveraged in insurance to maintain normal business operations.

IOC Distribution Management

Imagine an Olympics-participating country and its free will athletes as an independent insurance agency with a lot of agents. Motivated by sales commissions, either party–the agency or the agents–could conduct themselves with integrity or a lack thereof. The same holds true for countries and athletes, often motivated extrinsically by fame, fortune, and patriotism (and, perhaps, strongman-helmed, autocratic governments).

Across time, the IOC has punished doping athletes through actions like stripping Olympic medals. Yet, in key moments, the IOC shows a level of leniency and lack of accountability that continues to encourage undesirable behavior. The most recent incident involving Russian skater Kamila Valieva and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) continues that saga. Countries and athletes who want advantages through drugs will continue to pursue those advantages thanks to systemic CAS and IOC leniency which surely transcends to desires to not cause political waves. With responses like the one for Ms. Valieva, even those with prior suspensions can rightfully comment about hypocrisy or more. In fact, Sha’Carri Richardson commented about the Olympic backdrop for racism in drug testing ramifications. Clearly, weak responses aren’t the right way to decrease doping in sports nor the cascading double-standard commentary, including at the Olympic level.

In insurance, the last resort way to control ethics and legalities is known as a termination for cause. In short, the selling contract is ended immediately with the company. Depending on the violation, this may also result in a company reporting an offender–agency or agent–to the state’s Department of Insurance for further action (fines, insurance sales license suspension, insurance sales license termination, etc.). As an added layer, these kinds of actions could also result in the offender not receiving renewal sales commissions from the original company.

Taking away a person’s livelihood both earned and in the future? Ouch! Those are results that garner attention and steer people away from unscrupulous behavior. That’s why these actions are taken very seriously and pursued during especially provable and egregious offenses. Other offenses will result in corrective conversations and warnings. And good sales organizations will note those offenses in files for future reference should any other concerning actions happen. Most of the time, offenses for individuals or agencies happen once and are never witnessed again after corrective conversations. Word about the bite of severe actions spread among insurance sales distribution as an additional deterrent. But word about weakness in distribution management also spreads.

Therein lies the problem. While some actions against doping violators occur, erratic doping consequences on even the biggest of stages produces a sports climate in which, for some athletes, the chance of positive benefits for doping outweighs the chance of negative consequences. Countries and coaches experience the same. But perhaps countries and coaches are where the focus of adverse actions must now move.

Entering the Future

Part of the CAS response in the Kamila Valieva approval to skate in the 2022 Winter Olympics as planned involved concern for her mental health. At 15-years old, coaches and adults were likely involved in her doping violation, meaning Ms. Valieva was a victim. Of course, her mental health is important, especially in light of potentially being victimized. This dynamic emphasizes that IOC distribution management must improve in penalties against coaches and countries, the sports equivalent of insurance agencies. Insurance agencies are responsible for the behavior of their agents in addition to their own leadership; and they are also scrutinized and penalized in instances and patterns of unethical and illegal behavior. Similarly, this insurance model should be applied to sports ADRVs, adding a stronger layer of penalty to systemic patterns. Suspended countries and banned coaches would certainly be a more powerful deterrent than penalizing athletes alone. However, a weak implementation like allowing Russian athletes to compete for the Russian Olympic Committee (ROC) instead of Russia will, as demonstrated at the 2022 Olympics, simply not work.

Will the IOC, CAS, and WADA use insurance distribution management as a model for stronger and higher-level action? Time will tell. However, as we continue to witness damaging doping scandals and hemorrhaging Olympics viewership, these three entities would be well-served in a stronger response to their reputational crisis. With the 2022 Winter Olympics ending, the 2.5 year timer for improvements at the 2024 Summer Olympics starts now.