Two Controversies In Paris

Through the first few days of the Paris Olympics, two controversies have stood out.  One actually started before the Opening Ceremony, when the Canadian women's soccer team was caught using a drone to spy on New Zealand's practice before the two played each other in the first game of the tournament.  The other is in tennis, specifically regarding late withdrawals and replacing those players in the draw.

Let's start with Olympic soccer's very own Spygate.  The culprit was a Canadian staffer, who was immediately sent home, along with the assistant coach he reported to.  The Canadian head coach then announced that she was voluntarily withdrawing from coaching the New Zealand game to "take accountability."  The Canadian Olympic Committee promptly responded by revoking the Olympic accreditation of all three.  I put "take accountability" in quotes because the head coach clearly knew what was going on, as FIFA's investigation found.

As it turns out, this wasn't the first time Canada was caught cheating.  They were apparently doing it as far back as Tokyo, when they won the gold, if not longer.  The U.S. has known about it for a while, but didn't see any benefit in reporting the Canadians because of how closely the federations need to work together for the 2026 World Cup (among other events).  So, this didn't exactly come as a surprise to U.S. Soccer.

After its investigation of the incident, FIFA suspended the three staff members in question for one year.  They also docked Canada six points in the Olympic group standings (three for each of the two violations committed in Paris).  That penalty wasn't announced until after Canada beat New Zealand, which dropped their point total from 3 to -3, making it virtually impossible for the Canadians to advance to the knockout phase.  Or did it?

Canada's first game after the scandal was against France.  They clearly were not supposed to win.  They did, resetting their point total to 0.  Now, all they need to do is beat Colombia and they'll make the quarterfinals.  As improbable as it seemed after the penalty was announced, it's not that far-fetched at all anymore.  In fact, it would be a surprise if Canada doesn't beat Colombia.  Which really says a lot about their players, who clearly aren't at fault for any of this.

The Canadian Olympic Committee immediately appealed the six-point reduction, arguing that it was too harsh a sanction.  They're only playing three games, and had two wins' worth of points taken away, meaning the maximum they can finish with is 3.  It's also not the players' fault, yet they're the ones being penalized, which seems unfair. 

I understand the logic behind that argument.  It's the same one that college programs make when they get postseason bans for past infractions or actions by their coach.  However, my response is the same here as it is in those situations.  Don't blame the governing body (be it the NCAA, FIFA or the IOC) that issued the sanction.  Blame the person who put you in that situation to begin with.  No, it's not "fair" that you have to suffer because of someone else's wrongdoing.  But if that wrongdoing goes unpunished, how is that fair to everyone who was impacted by it?

In tennis, meanwhile, the controversy involves withdrawals, specifically withdrawals after the draw was made.  There were far too many, which is another issue entirely.  However, the method by which those players are replaced in the field is what's drawn criticism.  It should be noted here that the ITF and IOC run the Olympic tennis tournaments, not the ATP and WTA.  And their replacement method is necessarily different.

At an ATP or WTA tournament, if a player withdraws before their first match, they're replaced in the draw with a "lucky loser," the highest-ranked player who lost in the last round of qualifying.  This is actually fairly common at Grand Slams when there's an injury, etc.  However, at the Olympics, there's an entry deadline (which is later in tennis than most other sports), as well as an athlete quota for each sport that cannot be exceeded.  So, there's no room for lucky losers or alternates.  Instead, if someone withdraws, they can only be replaced by somebody who's already entered in the Olympics, which likely means a doubles specialist.

That's exactly what happened in the Olympic men's tournament.  Novak Djokovic's first round match was against Matthew Ebden, an Australian who hasn't played singles in so long that he doesn't even have a singles ranking.  It wasn't a great look, and everyone knew exactly what would happen.  I give Ebden credit, though.  He knew as well as anybody that he was overmatched.  Yet he went out there and took his beating against the No. 1 player in the world.  (Sidebar: how is Alcaraz not No. 1 when he's won the last two Grand Slams and Djokovic has only made one final this year?)

Olympic tennis has always been a bit of a different animal than the Grand Slams, and not only because you have overmatched doubles specialists or lower-ranked players (who qualify via continental events instead of by their ranking) getting their butts kicked in the first round.  There's always a good number of top players who opt out.  For various reasons.  (Frankly, I can't really blame anybody for not wanting to randomly play on clay a month before the US Open.)  Others prioritize the Olympics and wouldn't miss it.  It's that important to them. 

Then you also have singles players who never players deciding that they suddenly want to since that's another chance to win an Olympic medal.  To me, that's no different than the doubles players getting pressed into action in singles.  Neither Nadal nor Alcaraz ever plays doubles.  Yet suddenly they're a doubles team?  I mean, yeah, I guess it's kinda cool.  But it's also kinda ridiculous.

Getting back to the withdrawals, though.  I blame the players who withdraw for that.  Especially if they withdraw after the draw's already made.  Something happened in the two days between the draw being made and the tournament starting that you're no longer able to play?  I'm especially calling out the players who withdrew from singles, but are still playing doubles.  No!  If you withdraw from singles, you withdraw from the whole tournament!  (That's a rule I think should be implemented at Grand Slams, too.)  If the draw hasn't been made yet, that's one thing.  Then they're still able to replace you.  Once the draw's out, though, that's on you.

Brad Gilbert also called out the ATP for having a tournament in Croatia that ended on Saturday, the day after the Opening Ceremony.  Both finalists were entered in the Olympics and played their first-round matches on Sunday.  That's just dumb.  If you're entered in the Olympics (which start on Saturday), you shouldn't be allowed to play in a different tournament that ends on Saturday.  I've gotta say, he's got a point there!  That's a completely different problem, though.