Park Tae-hwan postpones meeting with nat’l Olympic body over Rio ban

In this file photo taken on April 26, 2016, Park Tae-hwan checks his time during the Olympic team trials in Gwangju. (Yonhap)

SEOUL (Yonhap) — South Korean swimmer Park Tae-hwan on Wednesday postponed a meeting with the national Olympic body over his Summer Games ban.

An official with the Korean Olympic Committee (KOC) said Park’s camp asked to put off the meeting indefinitely. The official didn’t disclose any specific reason from the swimmer and only said Park’s side would get back to the KOC later to reschedule the talks.

Park and his representatives were scheduled to meet with the KOC’s Secretary-General Cho Young-ho at 10 a.m. Wednesday at the KOC’s Seoul headquarters. Just before 10 a.m., the KOC said Park asked the meeting to be moved to 2 p.m. Then a few minutes past noon the KOC announced the meeting had been called off.

The two sides were to discuss a KOC rule blocking Park, the 2008 Olympic champ in the 400m freestyle, from competing at this year’s Rio de Janeiro Summer Games, based on his recent doping suspension.

The KOC bans athletes who’ve served doping suspensions from representing the country for three years, starting on the day that their suspensions end. Park’s 18-month doping ban began retroactively in September 2014 and ended in March this year.

On April 26, Park filed his appeal against the KOC rule at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), the highest sports tribunal. He later asked the procedure to be put on hold so he could speak to the KOC before taking further legal steps.

The KOC, on the other hand, has maintained that it won’t make special exceptions for any particular athlete. It has also claimed that Park’s case can’t be subject to CAS arbitration, citing the lack of a key element required for such proceedings.

According to the KOC’s rule, any sports-related disputes arising within the KOC must be resolved by “any specific conciliation, mediation or arbitration body established by the KOC under separate regulations.”

In this file photo taken on May 2, 2016, Park Tae-hwan goes down on his knees pleading for reinstatement for the 2016 Rio de Janeiro Summer Olympics at a press conference in Incheon. (Yonhap)

And those who wish to appeal any final decision by that arbitration body may do so at the CAS within 21 days of the receipt of the decision.

The KOC has pointed out it hasn’t reached a “final decision” on Park’s status and therefore the swimmer can’t take his case to the CAS.

Park’s camp believes otherwise. On April 7, under growing pressure to reinstate the country’s greatest swimmer, the KOC announced that it wouldn’t make any special exception for any particular athlete. Park’s camp regards that declaration as “a decision rendered by a federation, association or sports-related body,” as is required by the CAS to file for an arbitration appeal.

There may be dissenting voices within the KOC, especially at the top. Last Tuesday, KOC President Kim Jung-haeng said it would be “great if Park Tae-hwan could go to the Olympics.”

Kim did qualify his words by saying he was merely giving a personal opinion as a former athlete himself. Kim also said his remarks alone wouldn’t lead to any quick, drastic shift in the KOC’s stance over the situation.

Despite his Rio ban, Park chose to compete at the final Olympic trials last month and won the 100m, 200m, 400m and 1,500m freestyle races. He also met the Olympic “A” standards set by FINA, the international swimming governing body, in all four, and his accomplishments put further pressure on the KOC to reinstate Park.

Critics of the controversial rule say the KOC is unfairly punishing the swimmer twice for the same offense, and the principle of double punishment runs counter to international standards.

In 2011, the CAS handed down a decision against the International Olympic Committee’s “Osaka Rule,” which barred athletes who had served a doping suspension for at least half a year from competing in the following Olympics. The CAS said the Osaka Rule, adopted in 2008, was “a violation of the IOC’s own statute and is therefore invalid and unenforceable.”