Lappartient prepared to tell Trump IOC's autonomy must be respected
PARIS, March 13 (Reuters) - International Olympic Committee presidential candidate David Lappartient is prepared to sit down with Donald Trump in the Oval Office and tell the U.S. president the IOC's autonomy must be respected.
The Frenchman is president of the International Cycling Union (UCI) and French Olympic Committee while also being an IOC member and president of the organisation's Esports commission.
Lappartient, who is running to replace outgoing IOC chief Thomas Bach, believes his multiple roles are an advantage in next Thursday's vote although his critics have said he is spreading himself too thinly.
A political animal who has held multiple local representative mandates, the 51-year-old is no stranger to electoral jousting.
In 2017, he beat incumbent and odds-on favourite Brian Cookson to become UCI president, swinging the votes in the final stretch.
The IOC job is a huge task, which requires soft power and diplomacy amid a hot debate on the participation of transgender athletes after Trump issued an order to exclude transgender girls and women from female sport.
The order has triggered what is likely to be a long, complex clash with global sports authorities as the U.S. counts down to the 2028 LA Olympics.
Bach, however, said last week that Trump had been a long-time supporter and promoter of the LA Games, and that the IOC was confident of his continued support.
IOC AUTONOMY
"So I imagined the new president of the IOC, whoever he is, and I pictured myself in that position in the Oval Office, in a discussion with President Trump, and we have seen that sometimes those discussions don't go according to plan," Lappartient told Reuters in an interview on Thursday.
"When a country hosts the Games, it undertakes to respect the Olympic Charter, which sets out a number of principles, including that of autonomy.
"The message I would like to pass on (to Trump) is that our autonomy must be respected. But our decisions must not be taken from an ideological angle either."
Lappartient shares fellow candidate Sebastian Coe's view that the inclusion of transgender athletes should not prevail over fairness, but he said the decision should be made by the IOC rather than letting the international federations (IFs) rule on the matter as far as the Olympics are concerned.
"The idea is that the matter is settled before 2028," he said.
Lappartient is one of seven candidates to succeed Bach, four of which are international federation presidents.
Although no IF president has ever held the position, Lappartient is confident his versatility could be a deciding factor in the election.
SOFT POWER
"International Federations can sometimes be powerful and can also generate a certain amount of fear. But I have a second hat, which is that I am also president of the National Olympic Committee," the 51-year-old said.
"And all the (IOC) presidents, whether President Bach or President (Jacques) Rogge before him, were president of the German and Belgian NOCs (respectively).
"So my case is also that of an NOC president being a candidate. I'm also familiar with this important aspect of Olympism. I'd say that it's an advantage to be president of an NOC and president of an International Federation at the same time."
Lappartient, who vows to bring the Olympics to Africa for the first time having handed this year's cycling world championships to Rwanda, also hopes Russian and Belarusian athletes can make a full return to the Games once there is a peace treaty in the war with Ukraine.
"A country is not destined to be suspended indefinitely by the IOC. So yes, we will naturally have to raise this issue with the Russian NOC after the peace treaty to see how we can effectively get out of this situation," he explained.
Soft power will be key, as always with the IOC, the most influential sporting organisation in the world.
"You can't lead a revolution with IOC, it has to be about evolution," Lappartient said.
In next Thursday's election in Greece, he will be pitched against IOC vice-president Juan Antonio Samaranch, World Athletics chief Sebastian Coe, multiple Olympic swimming champion Kirsty Coventry, who is Zimbabwe's sports minister, and Prince Feisal Al Hussein of Jordan.
International Gymnastics Federation head Morinari Watanabe and Olympic newcomer and multimillionaire Johan Eliasch, who heads the International Ski Federation, complete the list of candidates.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Why the Israel-Iran war could raise your taxes
If Rachel Reeves is to have any chance of making it to her autumn budget without U-turns or raising taxes, the improved economic forecasts of recent months need to come true. Missiles flying between Israel and Iran may destroy that hope. Things had been getting better for the Chancellor. Look at economic forecasts from the aftermath of Trump's 'liberation day', and there was a common theme when it came to Britain. Because of the nature of our economic relationship with America – as a massive exporter in services (we're their call centre) and with more or less balanced trade in goods – we would be shielded against the worst impacts of a trade slowdown. Global GDP growth would suffer, but the effects would not come to Britain. The real boon, if one was being positive, though was what effect these tariffs might have on inflation. While raising prices in the shops for American consumers, the view of the economic world was that for the UK they may in fact be disinflationary. That's because, as the consultancy firm Oxford Economics explained to their clients last month, dampening demand for commodities such as oil and gas would reduce the cost of products consumed in Britain. But all that was before the first Israeli missiles landed in Iran. A barrel of Brent crude now goes for over $70. On Monday it went for $65 – so there has been a 9 per cent in just five days. On Friday morning, it briefly spiked to nearly $80 in what was the sharpest price spike since Russia invaded Ukraine three years ago. Within hours of Reeves delivering what director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies Paul Johnson yesterday called an 'incomprehensible' spending review speech, economists were warning that tax rises in the autumn were becoming likely. Just a day later, a worse-than-expected GDP contraction turned likely into very likely. If oil prices continue climbing as the war escalates, tax rises could become certain. Some 20 billion barrels of oil pass through the Strait of Hormuz, or about 30 per cent of total global trade. So it's easy to see how if Tehran tried to attempt to close the Strait – as Iranian news reports it is considering – or even attacked a few tankers, the oil price would quickly head northwards again. Indeed the FT reported yesterday that the world's largest oil tanker company has stopped accepting new contracts to sail through the Strait. If oil prices do continue to rise – and some say disruption in the Strait could send the price over $100 a barrel – it would be mere days before Brits start paying the cost at the petrol forecourt. But oil supplies are crucial to much more than petrol and diesel and taken together, it's easy to see how the rate of inflation remains sticky or even begins to rise again. Given that the bond markets are keeping the cost of UK debt far higher than the Treasury has been used to – much more because of inflation worries and the after effects of money printing than is understood in Westminster – any signal that prices were rising again are not going to give them faith in Britain as a debtor. If that were to happen and gilt yields remain high, or even climb further, then Reeves could find herself in heaps of trouble. It surprises many City economists just how unequivocal the government has been about sticking to fiscal rules and indeed keeping Labour's manifesto promise not to 'raise taxes on working people' given how hard that is when Reeves only has £9.9 billion of headroom. Before her Spring Statement the chancellor talked of the economic challenges posed by a 'changing world'. Things in the middle east have a habit of spilling over and the world seems to be changing again. Could this once more be the excuse the chancellor has to reach for?
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Americans don't see Supreme Court as politically neutral, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds
WASHINGTON, June 15 (Reuters) - Americans are divided on major issues that the U.S. Supreme Court is due to rule on in the coming weeks, but most agree on one thing - neither Republicans nor Democrats see the nation's top judicial body as politically neutral, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll. Just 20% of respondents to the poll agreed that the Supreme Court is politically neutral while 58% disagreed and the rest either said they did not know or did not respond. Among people who described themselves as Democrats, only 10% agreed it was politically neutral and 74% disagreed, while among Republicans 29% agreed and 54% disagreed. The two-day poll, which closed on Thursday, was based on responses from 1,136 U.S. adults. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. The court has issued major rulings in recent years including in cases rolling back abortion rights, expanding gun rights, recognizing presidential immunity from prosecution for official acts, rejecting race-conscious collegiate admissions and curbing the power of federal agencies. Its 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Republican President Donald Trump in his first term in office. In the Reuters/Ipsos poll, 44% of respondents expressed a favorable view of the court, including 67% of Republicans and 26% of Democrats. The Supreme Court's popularity has declined since its June 2022 decision to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that had legalized abortion nationwide. Some 57% of respondents in a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted at the end of 2021 expressed a favorable opinion of the court. By the end of June 2022, that figure had fallen to 43%. The justices are expected to issue rulings in major cases in the coming weeks as they near the end of their current term that began in October. Among these cases are one on the legality of Tennessee's Republican-backed law banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors and one involving Trump's executive order restricting automatic birthright citizenship, part of his hardline approach to immigration. Some 53% of respondents in the Reuters/Ipsos poll said they supported "laws that prevent transgender children under the age of 18 from getting medical treatment related to gender identity and gender transitioning." Another 28% opposed such laws and the rest were unsure or did not answer the question. Among Republicans, support for such laws was at 57% and opposition at 28%, while among Democrats support was at 23% and opposition at 54%. The Tennessee law prohibits medical treatments such as puberty blockers and hormones for transgender minors. During December 4 arguments in the case, the court's conservative justices signaled their willingness to uphold the law. The eventual ruling could affect other state laws targeting transgender people. After Trump signed his birthright citizenship directive in January, 22 states as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants sued, arguing that it was a violation of citizenship language in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. In the Reuters/Ipsos poll, only 24% of all respondents supported ending birthright citizenship and 52% opposed it. Among Democrats, 5% supported ending it, with 84% opposed. Among Republicans, 43% supported ending it, with 24% opposed. The rest said they were unsure or did not respond to the question. The court also by the end of this month is expected to issue a ruling on the legality of a Texas law that requires people to verify the age online before accessing pornographic websites. The Reuters/Ipsos poll found strong support for such laws. Among all respondents, 70% were in support and 14% opposed. Among Democrats, 65% supported and 18% opposed, while among Republicans 80% supported and 7% opposed. During January 15 arguments in the case, the justices seemed to agree that states can try to keep adult material from minors but also voiced concern over burdens imposed on adults to view constitutionally protected material.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
What the army parade says about America
So the celebration of the 250th anniversary of the US Army will not be a day that will live infamy. Nor will it be one many Americans will recall with pleasure, in part because it coincided with the birthday of President Trump, a man who generates some sort of veneration from his MAGA supporters and a reaction known as TDS, Trump Derangement Syndrome, from others. No vaccination is known that will prevent the onset of either disease, leaving those immune to both looking for a candidate. The President's decision to order out this parade enabled him to join the rather exclusive club of Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un, men he says he 'respects', 'likes' and calls 'a great leader', respectively. His initiation fee to become a member of this club comes to up to $45 million, with $16 million to be used to repair streets damaged by tanks. But, hey, it's a business expense, and so is charged off to the taxpayers. The significance of the event tells us a great deal about what is going on in America today. It has changed. This was not the first show of military hardware at parades in the nation's capital. It was not unusual for the military to be featured at Presidential inaugurations, and the parade ordered by President H.W. Bush in 1991 to celebrate the success of the war to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait drew no protests, Arizona State University history professor Brooks Simpson told CBS News. Those days are gone, probably forever. But plus ça change, as they say. Some 34 years ago the New York Times's Anthony Lewis was not pleased by George H.W. Bush's decision to celebrate the success in driving Hussein from Kuwait, '… A celebratory parade would be inappropriate. Fireworks while Kurdish babies die?' Today's mainstream media are largely disapproving. The New York Times finds the event particularly inappropriate at a time when the President has taken charge of California's national guard, without the approval of Gavin Newsom, its governor and a leading candidate for the approbation of those Democrats who will nominate the party's candidate for the presidency in 2028. The differences between the American event and those in China, Russia and North Korea are more profound than the similarities. Whereas Trump faced a nationwide protest by millions of Americans free to make their voices heard, neither Xi, nor Putin, nor Kim were troubled by protesters, that being an occupation with lethal results in those countries. And the marchers were dissimilar in a way that speaks volumes about the difference between America and despotic regimes. The soldiers marching in Washington were volunteers, those participating in parades in China, Russia and North Korea are largely conscripts, with Russia's treatment of its soldiers made clear every day in Ukraine. The Americans interviewed on television, and some that I know, expressed pride in participating in the celebration of the 250th anniversary of the US Army that has kept us free after removing the British yoke in what we call our War for Independence.
