Fact or fiction? The press, gymnastics and pregnancy doping

Then I saw it - a story about the history of doping in The Observer.  Interesting reading.

Of course, cheating is as old as the hills.  It is, unfortunately, human nature for some people to try to gain easy advantage in any kind of competition.  That is why we have laws, rules, ethical guidelines.  People who cheat should face justice and shouldn't complain when they are found out.

But the story about pregnancy doping bothered me.  Hadn't that been found to be fictional?  The author began with Olga Kovalenko's allegations made in 1994 - but the rumours had started way back in 1991 with the documentary series More Than A Game.  The practice of pregnancy doping was discussed, and in response to a question about whether the Soviet Union gymnasts might have been involved, coach (and BBC TV commentator) Mitch Fenner responded, 'I would believe anything'.

Yes, it made me catch my breath, too.  At the time the papers - quality and tabloid press alike - had little good to say about the sport.  A high profile rumour was also circulating that the female gymnasts were fed drugs to delay puberty, including one case where an 'expert' (we never found out exactly who) had observed photographs of a gymnast where her physical development had actually receded, rather than progressed.  The words 'I would believe anything'summed up the attitude of many in the press at that time.  

Yet, as The Observer states, pregnancy doping amongst the all six of the 1968 Soviet Olympic gymnasts was confirmed in 1994 in a German language RTL documentary by someone who claimed to be Olga Kovalenko, a member of the team.  In the absence of an archive of medical records, as existed in Germany, first hand verbal testimony is the only evidence available.  Sports Illustrated and many other respected publications covered the story, which now seemed well founded. The rumour became accepted fact in the West. 

By 2004, however, the story was found to be bogus.  The facts were covered by Russian newspaper Kommersant, and made available in the West via a press release (see full wording at the bottom of this blog post).  The Olga Kovalenko in RTL's documentary was not the Olga Kovalenko who competed (under the name of Olga Karasyova) at the 1968 Olympics.  Kovalenko went to court in Moscow in 2004 to prove the fact - in a case against Russian sports monthly Speed Info - and was awarded a small sum in damages.  She said that she knew nothing about pregnancy doping.  What had been accepted as fact became fiction once again - but the respected publications who had originally covered the story didn't know or care about Kovalenko's legal action.  In the English language the real story - or the lack of a story - remained hidden from view.  The myth remained freely in circulation, and available for repetition by any hapless journalist who didn't bother to look any deeper.  This is how myths and conspiracy theories spread.

There are loose ends.  Why, for example, didn't Kovalenko take RTL to court about their original documentary?  Why did the coach comment?  A difficult question to answer without sight of the original documentary and the context in which words were said by one person or another.  It is impossible to know anything without access to the original players, who have all now moved on and are living their private lives.  Why on earth should anyone want to waste their energy on this non-story?

So I hope that by now it is perfectly clear - no public grounds exist for saying that pregnancy doping took place in the case of the 1968 Soviet Olympic gymnastics team.  The Observer journalist who included the story in his article last week has said to me that he finds the story 'confusing' and, indeed, it is.  Far too confusing to include as fact in an important article in one of the country's leading broadsheet papers.  Apparently the writer has asked a 'prominent Moscow journalist' to help with his investigations.  Isn't it rather late to investigate a story - AFTER it has been published?

There is no story.  I'm not the only one saying this - Le Monde sports journalist and athletics coach Pierre-Jean Vazel, who investigated this in 2013, has tweeted since publication of the Observer article that 'the pregnant Russian gymnast story was a blatant lie and manipulation'. 

I have written to the Observer's Readers' Editor asking for a correction, but so far the article hasn't changed, so it remains on the record and will no doubt contribute to the perpetuation of this false and unfounded story.  I am posting below some screenshots of the key parts of the feature and of the journalist's responses to my tweets about it, so that they remain on the record, too.  I am hoping that eventually some changes will be made, but to be honest I'm not that optimistic.  It seems to me that in this case, the Soviets are considered guilty until proven innocent.

If you know anything more, please post a comment.

Key extract from the Observer article of the 15th November - you can see more in the caption to the picture, above