A Report on Reputation Management: The 2018 Russia Olympic Ban

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the 2018 Russia Olympic ban, examining the crisis and reputation management strategies employed in response to state-sponsored doping allegations. It explores the background of the scandal, detailing the evidence presented by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and the subsequent decisions made by the International Olympic Committee (IOC). The report investigates the reactions of various stakeholders, including Russian athletes, officials, and the public, as well as the responses from other countries. The methodology section outlines the qualitative and quantitative research methods used, including interviews and questionnaires. The findings highlight the IOC's decision-making process, the impact of the ban on athletes and the Russian Olympic Committee, and the financial implications. Overall, the report offers insights into the complexities of crisis management, reputation management, and the challenges of upholding integrity in international sports, providing a case study on how organizations respond to crises and manage their public image in the face of controversy and scandal.

Reputation Management 1
REPUTATION MANAGEMENT
Name
Institution
Course
Tutor
City/State
Date

Reputation Management 2
Russia ban from 2018 Winter Olympics
Introduction
Crisis is defined as an unexpected occurrence that disrupts and threatens organizations operations
and if not properly and timely managed, can lead to severe consequences. Crisis can also be
defined as a non-routine event that damages the reputation and the image of an organization.
Generally, a crisis leads to three possible threats to an organization (Lunawat 2016, p. 165). First,
a crisis can lead to financial loss through loss of market share, disruption of normal operations,
or/and loss of money through lawsuits concerning the crisis. Secondly, a crisis can lead to public
harm by causing injuries or death. A disaster can also destroy the organization's reputation and
image (Poppo & Schepker 2010). Typically, the three threats of crisis are inter-connected
because, public harm leads to financial and reputation loss, while reputation loss has financial
implications for the organization. There are various types of crisis which includes natural
disasters, workplace violence, technological turmoil, rumors, organization misdeeds, and terrorist
attacks.
Since a crisis is an event that can occur any anytime without warning, how an organization reacts
and handles a crisis after it has occurred is very crucial (Doorley and Garcia 2011, p. 310).
Reputation management is a process designed by an organization to lessen or if possible to
prevent the damages that a crisis can cause to the organization or the stakeholders. Reputation
management is more concerned with shaping public perception of an organization by influencing
the information they get after a crisis has occurred. An effective crisis management process
includes communicating to the public and the parties involved in a crisis (Humbach 2012, p. 97).
The first thing to do after a disaster is to address the public, the customers, and the stakeholders

Reputation Management 3
the extent of the damages caused by the crisis and what the organization is doing to manage the
crisis. This report evaluates and analysis a crisis where International Olympics Committee
banned Russia from competing in Winter Olympics due to doping allegations.
Background
The news about Russia ban from participating in the 2018 Winter Olympics came as a shock to
the athletes, the Russian Olympic Committee, and the world. The committee and the organizers
reached the decision after two Russian athletes tested positive for banned substances and more
than 160 athletes from Russian failed to prove that they were clean. In the sporting history,
Russia became the first nation to be banned from participating in the Olympics games due to
doping (Chau, Thomas, Clegg, & Leung 2012). The International Olympics Committee does not
tolerate doping because it is a serious offense which undermines the integrity of athletes as it is
viewed as cheating. The decision by the committee to ban Russia from the winter Olympics
meant that no official from the country would be allowed to attend the opening and closing
ceremonies, and no athlete would compete under the Russian flag. However, the ban on Russian
athletes was not actually a total ban because IOC said that individual Russian athletes could be
allowed to compete if they proved that they had not violated doping rules (Ivanova, Boghosian &
Rabin 2007, p.306). Additionally, the committee said that those athletes who passed the
screening process would be allowed to participate under the title, “Olympic Athletes from Russia
(OAR).” This means that no Russia flag or uniform will appear at the event.
International Olympics Committee president Thomas Bach referred Russia attempts to breach
the doping violations as "an unprecedented attack on the integrity of the Olympic Games and
sport." Regarding the move to ban Russian medalists to participate in the Olympics, many

Reputation Management 4
athletes felt that they were unfairly denied an opportunity to participate in the sports and they had
planned to boycott the Olympics even before the decision was made. However, Bach said that
Olympic boycott had never achieved anything and furthermore, the clean athletes were allowed
to participate. The president said that the reason to enable clean athletes to compete was to show
that there were still clean athletes in Russia. Russia’s decision to cheat in international sports
started in 2010 when they performed below the expectations by scoping only a total of 15 medals
during the Vancouver Winter Olympics. This was a big blow to the nation since they were
preparing to host the 2014 Olympics in Sochi. From this incidence, the Russian Olympics
Committee decided to come up with ways of winning back their glory and it worked perfectly
well for them. The committee drafted state-sponsored ways of ensuring the athletes shine in the
Olympics such as cover-up operations and swiping urine samples to beat the doping rules
(Emrich & Pierdzioch, 2013, p.115).
The controversy and uncertainty surrounding Russia ban from 2018 Winter Olympics traces its
history back in 2015 when the World Ant-Doping Agency released a report with enough
evidence showing that Russian athletes received state-sponsored systems from their country
which gave them an advantage in the international sports. The report showed that Russia victory
in athletics was not genuine because most of the athletics were under the influence of the illegal
substances. The agency revealed more evidence during the 2014 Sochi Olympics where more
than 1000 athletes participating in various sports had manipulated their doping results by swiping
their urine samples. The OIC felt that Russia has been hijacking international sports competitions
and competitors, coaches and fans have been deceived by Russians ("Russia duped world on
doping 2015). During the Sochi Winter Olympics in 2014 where the country won a total of 33
medals, 13 of them gold, investigations revealed that the urine samples of 12 athletes were

Reputation Management 5
tampered with. Besides, the samples of 15 medalists in London Olympics where Russia scooped
72 medals were also tampered with. The investigations by the agency revealed that the scheme
involved the FSB intelligence service, the Russian Ministry of sports, and ironically, the
country’s anti-doping agency. The news about how Russians had their urine samples sneaked out
of the labs shocked the world through a whistleblower. The report showed how Russian secret
agencies disguised as sewer agencies uncovered how urine samples were swiped with clean
samples. All this evidence gave the OIC enough reason for banning Russia from participating in
the Winter Olympics. Due to doping allegations, a total of 41 medals including 10 Gold, 21
Silver, and 10 Bronze were revoked.
Reactions about Russia ban from Olympics
The decision to ban Russian athletes from the Winter Olympics held in South Korea in February
this year revoked different responses from Russians and other athletes from other countries. The
president and other state officials stated that the ban was humiliating because although 169
athletes were allowed to participate in the competition, they were not to do so under the Russian
flag. Immediately after IOC announced publicly their decision to ban Russia from participating
in the sports, the president announced through his spokesman that the individual athletes who
were deemed clean could join in the competition under Olympic Athlete from Russia. The
Minister of Foreign affairs in Russia mentioned that United States used their influence within
OIC to ban Russian athletes from the Olympics since they feared honest competitions (Shadgan
2012, p.64). The doping investigator on behalf of World Anti-Doping Agency Jack Robertson
also criticized the decision to ban Russia from participating in the event citing that the move was
“a non-punitive punishment meant to save face while protecting the [IOC’s] and Russia’s
commercial and political interests" Some Russians said that they were being punished for

Reputation Management 6
something that everybody is doing and getting away with it, while others saw the allegations as
anti-Russia plot by the United States (Coombs 2017). The athletes had arranged to boycott the
Olympics altogether because they felt that the ban was more political based than sports. The
media in Russia also criticized the decision by IOC president Thomas Bach to exclude Russia
from the Olympics. Match TV in Russia said that Americans influenced the committee to make
the decision saying that it was unfair to punish the Russians alone since violations are
everywhere and athletes from all countries practice doping.
Despite the Russian athletes participating under the designation of Olympic Athletes from
Russia, many fans from Russia attended the event chanting ‘Russia’ in unison and wearing
Russian colors to show their defiance against the ban. The Russian trolls also used Twitter
hashtag #NoRussiaNoGames after IOC announced that Russia was banned from 2018 Winter
Olympics (L’Etang and Hopwood 2011, p. 9). The campaign received a lot of promotions from
many Russians who repeatedly reposted tweets from each other.
Methodology
Both qualitative research and qualitative research methods were used in this report. The
qualitative study aims to answer the question why and how a decision was made by gathering in-
depth information about behaviors of the parties involved. On the other hand, quantitative
research is used to quantify a problem using numerical data. By using the two research methods,
this report examined the available information surrounding the OIC decision to ban Russia from
2018 Winter Olympics and what made the committee to reach such a conclusion. Interviews
were conducted with some of the Russian athletes, Russian committee members, and some OIC
members. Questionnaires were also used in this study whereby respondents were supposed to

Reputation Management 7
answer a few questions concerning the ban (Kaye 2012, p. 8). To conduct interview with the
mentioned parties, consent was obtained from the relevant authorities who were contacted
through a phone call. Random sampling methods were used in the study to get more accurate
results. The list of the Russian athletes was obtained from the organizers of the competition. The
athletes were then contacted and asked if they were willing to participate in the exercise of which
most of them gave positive feedback.
Findings
Based on the findings from the research, IOC decided to prevent Russia from the 2018 Winter
Olympics following the evidence that they had from the previous competitions (Desheemaeker
2012). Given that Russian athletics were involved in breaking doping rules several times
including Rio Games, London Olympics, and Sochi Olympics, there was enough proof that
Russia was not observing the competition rules. Although Russians explained that the ban was
not fair enough and there was not enough evidence that athletes were using the illicit substances
to win the competitions, there was nothing that could be done to reverse the decision by the
committee (Anthonissen 2008, p. 84).
Doping is a practice that has been practiced by athletes from many countries to cheat in Olympic
competition. OIC is so much against this act and any athlete who is caught doping is banned
from participating in the games in future unless they prove their innocence. The president of
IOC said that banning Russia from the Olympics was a way of stopping athletes from stealing
victory of those who deserve it. He said that although those who did not pass the screening test
were not allowed to participate in the event, the ones deemed clean can still compete even if not
under the Russian flag. Banning Russia from the Olympics affected many groups of people

Reputation Management 8
including the athletes, the Olympics committee in Russia, the locals in South Korea where the
games were held. More than eleven Russian athletes were banned from participating in the sports
for life including cross-country skier Natalia Matveeva, Luge competitor Albert Demchenko, and
ice hockey player Anna Shchukina.
The ban on these medalists implies that their career was at risk because unless Court of
Arbitration clears them for Sports CAS, they cannot participate in any sport in the world. Apart
from those who were banned for life, other 46 athletes were also banned from taking part in the
2018 Winter Olympics and they filed for appeal from CAS. Vitaly Mutko, the Russian Prime
Minister also could be banned from the Olympics following the doping allegations by Russian
athletes and he had to step aside to allow for investigations. The ban also had a financial effect
on the Russian government whereby the Olympics Committee in the country was ordered by
IOC to pay $ 15 million as investigations cost and also for the establishment of Independent
Testing Authority.
Banning Russian athletes from the games was humiliating to the country as it showed that the
athletes cheated the world about their victory (Reid & Austin 2012). It showed that they did not
win fairly even in the previous games where they had shined in the Sochi Olympics in 2014.
Russian athletes being accused of doping and being banned from the competitions is a shame to
the government of Russia because evidence showed that the ministry of sport and the anti-doping
agency in Russia were involved in the dirty scheme (Shadgan 2012, p.34). For the people of
South Korea especially who run business where the games were held, the Olympics meant
nothing to them with the absence of Russia. Usually, the event was expected to include
approximately 232 Russians but since most of them were banned following the doping
violations, it meant that only a few attended. People who have restaurants and merchant shops

Reputation Management 9
knew that the period between February and March they were going to make money but this did
not happen. Generally, the absence of Russia in the Winter Olympics affected many people
either directly or indirectly.
Recommendations
The ban was not only humiliating to the Russian athlete team, but also to the country’s president
Vladimir Putin termed the prohibition by IOC as a direct punch in the stomach. However, his
reaction was wise and composed because he said that athletes who were cleared to compete
under Olympic Athletes from Russia were free to attend. The Russia ban is one of the crises that
received a lot of media attention because it exposed the country’s lack of integrity in sports. The
world’s reactions following the ban ranged from shock, anger, and outrage. Athletes from other
nations were angry that Russia’s thirst to table more medals had made them use illegal methods
of winning the competitions for so many years.
The ban changed the history of athletic sports because it served as a lesson to other countries and
athletes who could be practicing doping according to Claeys and Cauberghe (2015). From the
president’s response after receiving the bad news, it is evidence that he wanted to protect his
athletes and the country from further damage. A crisis destroys the reputation of the involved
party if not handled wisely. The president responded immediately through his spokesman
concerning the ban and he talked about the innocence of his athletes relating to the doping
allegations (Oliver 2010, p.24). He explains that IOC decided to ban the athletes although they
lacked enough evidence concerning the issue. He denied the rumors that were there about the
plan by the athletes to boycott the Olympics. As a leader, the best way to handle a crisis is to

Reputation Management 10
respond immediately and state the truth to avoid further damage by the media and by the people
who spread false allegations.
Apart from the president's reaction, there were other points of interests from different groups
including government officials and the athletes. The athletes felt wasted by the ban after years of
practice only to miss a chance to participate in the event at the last minute. They were angered by
the decision and felt that the punishment was political since they were not the only ones
practicing doping. However, this reaction by the athletes was not satisfactory since there was
clear evidence from the evidence presented to the committee by the whistleblower who
uncovered the scheme that they were guilty of the doping violations. The most appropriate way
they could have responded to this issue was to let the president and the relevant government
bodies handle the problem and communicate to the world that not all the athletes from Russia
were breaking the rules. For Russia, the damage is already done but it is not too late to prove to
the whole world that they can still win the Olympic competitions with or without doping.
Therefore, the best thing to do is to face the consequences and start preparing for the next
competitions since the ban has already been lifted after the court ordered IOC to do so (James
2012, p.61).
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is evident from the case of Russian ban that a crisis can occur anytime. No one
expected IOC to decide on banning the athletes from the Olympics since there were such
allegations before and nothing like that had happened. Sometimes, it is hard for an organization
to predict when a crisis can happen and so it is advisable to be prepared all the time. A crisis
destroys the reputation of an organization which can take so many years to restore. The world

Reputation Management 11
has lost trust in Russia about their integrity in sports. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the
president of Russian, the athletes, and the sports ministry to win back the trust and restore their
glory.
List of References
Anthonissen, P. 2008. Crisis communication. London: Kogan Page.
Chau, V., Thomas, H., Clegg, S., & Leung, A. 2012. Managing Performance in Global Crisis.
British Journal of Management, 23, S1-S5. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2012.00825.x
Claeys, A., & Cauberghe, V. 2015. The role of a favorable pre-crisis reputation in protecting
organizations during crises. Public Relations Review, 41(1), 64-71. doi:
10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.10.013
Coombs, W.T 2017. ‘Protecting Organization Reputations During a Crisis: The Development
and application of Situational Crisis Communication Theory’, Corporate Reputation Review,
10(3), pp. 163-176.
Descheemaeker, E. 2012. Protecting Reputation: Defamation and Negligence. SSRN Electronic
Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2002680
Doorley, J & Garcia, HF 2011, Reputation management, The Key to Successful Public Relations
and Corporate Communication, 2nd edn, Routledge, New York.
Emrich, E., & Pierdzioch, C. 2013. Joining the international fight against doping. Applied
Economics Letters, 20(15), 1379-1382. doi: 10.1080/13504851.2013.812778

Reputation Management 12
Humbach, J. 2012. Privacy Rights: The Virtue of Protecting a False Reputation. SSRN
Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2071227
Ivanova, V., Boghosian, T., & Rabin, O. 2007. The WADA Proficiency Testing Program as an
integral part of the fight against doping in sport. Accreditation and Quality Assurance, 12(9),
491-493. doi: 10.1007/s00769-007-0283-4
James, T. 2012. Keeping the Olympics moving [Olympics logistics]. Engineering & Technology,
7(7), p.28.
L’Etang, J. and Hopwood, M. 2011. Sports public relations. Public Relations Review, 34(2),
pp.87-89.
Lunawat, R. 2016. Reputation effects of information sharing. Journal Of Economic Behavior &
Organization, 131, 75-91. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2016.08.006
Oliver, S. (2010). Public relations strategy. London: Kogan Page/CIPR.
Kaye, M. (2012). Beyond Punishment: Doping, Deterrence, and Moral Disengagement. Journal
of Sports Medicine & Doping Studies, 02(06).
Poppo, L., & Schepker, D. 2010. Repairing Public Trust in Organizations. Corporate Reputation
Review, 13(2), 124-141. doi: 10.1057/crr.2010.12
Reid, H., & Austin, M. 2012. The Olympics and philosophy. Lexington: University Press of
Kentucky.
Russia duped world on doping. 2015. New Scientist, 228(3047), 7. doi: 10.1016/s0262-
4079(15)31581-5

Reputation Management 13
Shadgan, B. 2012. From Olympics to Optics. SPIE Professional. doi: 10.1117/2.4201201.13