Mika Lehtimäki’s harassment case did not go to Suek’s investigation

Mika Lehtimäki the harassment has not yet progressed to an independent investigation. The Olympic Committee announced a week ago that Lehtimäki’s case will also be referred to an outside party.

On Tuesday, the Olympic Committee announced that it would refer the third suspected misconduct to an independent body for investigation.

The suspicion relates to the pre-Olympic preparation camp in Tokyo. A male employee of the Olympic Committee is accused of verbally harassing a female expert.

– The Olympic Committee has previously announced that it will take over the former Director of the Top Sports Unit, Mika Lehtimäki, and a former member of the Board of the Olympic Committee. Anni Goat River cases were investigated by an independent third party in a press release on Tuesday.

Later that evening, the Finnish Sports Ethics Center (Suek) announced that it was currently investigating two cases. Neither of them is related to Lehtimäki.

Iltalehti asked the CEO of the Olympic Committee From Mikko Salonen.

To which independent third party has the Lehtimäki case been referred? Why hasn’t it been taken to Suek to find out?

– With Suek yesterday [tiistaina] the meeting revealed that they are not the appropriate body to investigate this whole. We are now considering other options.

Secretary-General of Suek Teemu Japisson comments on why Suek is not an appropriate body to investigate Lehtimäki ‘s case.

– There are many different perspectives to be clarified in the Lehtimäki case as a whole. Suek’s strength is the investigation of serious ethical violations with respect to sports disciplinary regulations, Japisson reports.

“Not healthy”

Chairman of the Board of the Badminton Association Tytti Saarinen sees a problem if the board of the Olympic Committee commissions a report on its own actions.

The Badminton Federation sent a letter to the member associations of the Olympic Committee stressing that the mandate would be given by someone other than the board of the Olympic Committee.

– It is good administration that the mandate is given as if on a one-over-one basis. It is not healthy if the government orders a report on the activities, in which the government itself is the subject of the report, Saarinen states.

Lehtimäki’s case is distinguished from the latter two suspicions of harassment by the fact that the presidency appointed the former head of the top sports unit for a further term, even though only a very small district knew about the warning Lehtimäki received last autumn.

It included the presidium and CEO Salonen.

– I have suggested that an extra meeting of the association be requested. A meeting of the association could set up a preparatory body to run a report. It is the entity that its status and to whom that statement is reported.

– After that, the committee can bring a proposal to the association’s meeting, where you can take a position on whether the board enjoys trust, Saarinen says.

New regulations

Suek has not been able to independently initiate an investigation into suspected harassment prior to the Tokyo Olympics, for example.

The reason is that the suspected violation took place before the new disciplinary regulations came into force at the beginning of the year. Suek will therefore require a separate mandate for suspicions prior to 2022 before proceeding to conduct an investigation.

Is the Olympic Committee still investigating cases of harassment that have not been the subject of an external investigation?

– No, Salonen, the CEO of the Olympic Committee, answers.

He was the first to report on a letter from the Badminton Association Evening News.