Schwazer case: that image damage and undervalued investigations

In recent days we have retraced some moments of the story of Schwazer’s supposed second positivity: the obscure institutional background, the many clues of a conspiracy, the controversial figure of the powerful president of world athletics, Baron Sebastian Coe. But there are other elements that must be recalled to understand the climate in which this machination was set in motion and its Italian sides, whether they were aware of it or not.

Let’s go back to 2016, a few months after the expiry of our walker’s first disqualification (the completely deserved one, as Alex confessed in the run-up to the London 2012 Games). Schwazer had been training for months with Donati, who had accepted him after having grilled him for weeks and having received from him a commitment to continuous private anti-doping tests (later carried out by the dozens). All of this literally took place on the street because a disqualified athlete, this is the norm, is prohibited from using federal facilities even for training. But there were those who took action to accuse the race walker of having broken this last rule during public tests: incredible but true, someone would have wanted to disqualify him again for this quibble, which is completely false. The international athletics federation and Nado, i.e. the anti-doping agency of our country, got underway. Fidal was also alerted and became agitated. The air was evidently that: to keep away the plague-stricken. But everything remained hidden and this aspect was “forgotten” when, at the end of June, Schwazer’s positivity was communicated. The big objective had in any case been achieved and therefore the first path was no longer needed, but it remains highly indicative of the implacable hostilities that acted against the boy.

Another curious case. Once positive was communicated, we are at the end of June 2016, Schwazer immediately appealed to the first section of the Coni anti-doping sports court. Answer: we are not competent, you must contact the TAS of Lausanne. Then (and meanwhile days and weeks go by) the ball passes to the Swiss body, which, examining the case, asks a first question: sorry, why didn’t you go to the anti-doping court in Italy? A nice ping pong on the skin of an athlete.

Finally, three questions, for which we would love to have feedback. The first: faced with the mountain of clues that were accumulating, could Nado Italia have mobilized to propose its own investigation?

The second: because the IOC, the International Olympic Committee, the supreme sporting institution that should control everything, has never lifted a finger in this affair which, however read, not only constituted a serious vulnerability for Olympism, but also a discredit for clear picture?

The third. At the end of March 2021, the Italian Parliament unanimously voted for a resolution which asked, in light of the order of the Gip of Bolzano Pelino, that the disqualification of our walker be cancelled. Wada’s response: “It’s just not talked about.” Is it right to simply collect it, in the light of all that had emerged, without proposing anything else, considering, among other things, that Italian taxpayers finance Wada itself in a considerable way?

Retreat behind one’s skills, act with blinkers, turn away invoking the so-called “autonomies” of this or that institution: in reality, no one on the upper floors wanted to get off their pedestal and try to really understand. Not to mention that the autonomies we were talking about are a total fiction: the sports justice system has enormous gaps, it lacks true impartiality. And this is true both in Italy and internationally. The results are what we’ve all seen on the Netflix series about the case.