The dispute over Ines Geipel – The meaning of a relentless feud

Ines Geipel gives a speech in front of a dark audience in Leipzig, 2023.

The writer and former GDR competitive athlete Ines Geipel causes discussions. (picture alliance / dpa / Hendrik Schmidt)

Ines Geipel, ex-GDR competitive athlete and the former GDR track and field athlete and cross-country skiing coach Henner Misersky were once united in the fight to come to terms with the doping past in GDR sport. As chairman of the DOH doping victim support association, Geipel campaigned for years for better care for East German doping victims. In 2018 she handed over the presidency to sports lawyer Michael Lehner.

During this time, the former companions became bitter opponents and fought for almost three and a half years. Also in court. What was it about?

Seven statements by Misersky about Geipel were negotiated, which he had sued for an injunction. Misersky had commented critically on publications and information in connection with Geipel’s sporting achievements and on her alleged victim biography. Misersky accuses Geipel of misrepresenting himself as a doping victim.

Misersky won the second-instance trial

But the argument about the concept of victim goes beyond Geipel’s person and about the question: Were those victims of the GDR doping system who were no longer minors and who knew that they were receiving performance-enhancing drugs? How much enlightenment had there been?

Geipel has been criticized from various quarters for exaggerating the scandal, especially for arguing that the number of cases is too high. The question at stake here is: Are those who were victims of doping in the GDR also always doping victims?

Misersky won the legal dispute between Geipel and Misersky in the second instance in October 2021. The court allowed the 82-year-old to continue making the seven disputed statements. However, the court did not examine the content of the statements, but granted Misersky them as permissible expressions of opinion.

“Many have now noticed that they were wrong and that what Ms. Geipel claimed to be does not correspond to the facts and you simply have to take note of that,” said Viola von Cramon, long-time Green sports politician and member of the European Parliament on Dlf -Sports talk.

Viola by Cramon-Taubadel, for the Greens in the EU Parliament

Viola von Cramon-Taubadel, for the Greens in the EU Parliament (picture alliance / Geisler-Fotopress / Christoph Hardt)

Honest processing required

The criticisms of Geipel are that she was not a minor at the time of the GDR state doping and was not forced to dope. It was actually time to do an honest review of Ines Geipel and make it clear that she was not a victim of the system, demanded von Cramon. She was able to sharpen her profile from the attention to her person.

The ARD journalist André Keil contradicted this in the Dlf sports talk: “Where is there a statement by Ines Geipel that she was underage doped?” With reference to reporting in general, Keil demanded that the facts be checked properly. A recently broadcast MDR film (MDR documentary “Doping and Sealing – The Difficult Legacy of GDR Sports) may not state Misersky’s legally endorsed opinions as facts. Likewise, attributions such as “world class sprinter” should not be accepted unchecked in talk shows. Journalism does not look good on these points. There are now so many points in the world that Ines Geipel can hardly repair.
The ARD sports journalist André Keil

The ARD sports journalist André Keil defended Ines Geipel in the Dlf sports talk. (dpa / picture alliance / Gregor Fischer)

Second Doping Victim Assistance Act thanks to DOH

In 2018, Misersky resigned from the Doping Victims Assistance (DOH) due to irreconcilable differences with the then chairwoman Geipel. “It is important that appropriate solutions are found for the victims of abuse and doping,” demanded von Cramon on Dlf.

After 2016, the situation for doping victims in the GDR improved enormously. The Green politician referred to that Second Doping Victim Assistance Actwhich created the legal basis in July 2016 for East German doping victims who meet the eligibility requirements but had not received any payment from the first fund to still be able to receive 10,500 euros as a one-off aid.

For the most part, the doping victim support was involved, whose comrades-in-arms were Geipel and Misersky. In the meantime, the group has split, and several other members died last year. According to Viola von Cramon, the fact that there was a break apparently had something to do with Ines Geipel, as she said on DLF.

The argument about the interpretation of this dispute is also being conducted on the media level. The FAZ sees the danger that the history of the GDR doping system will be renegotiated in the person of Ines Geipel. The re-questioning of knowledge already gained, including the question of coercion in the system, is also supported by doubts about Geipel’s personal history.

Is Geipel the target of a campaign?

Der Spiegel, in turn, titled its most recent text “Ines Geipel and the difficult handling of truth” and describes two FAZ editors as Geipel’s helpers against Misersky. The sound is also rough on the plane. Also in an earlier one Spiegel story from the year 2022 the publicist and former GDR competitive athlete does not come off well. Geipel sees all this as part of a long-running campaign against himself.
The dispute recently picked up speed because Ines Geipel on 02/24/23 in Leipzig for her literary achievement received the Erich Loest Prize and because of the latest MDR documentation. Henner Misersky and EX-GDR track cyclist Uwe Trömer had their say. The 45-minute film is very controversial because it only depicts Misersky and Trömer. Ines Geipel was asked for a general interview, which she declined, but she was not specifically asked again about the individual allegations that were made.

ttn-9