'Isinbayeva anti-gay? No, just lining up a political career'

I interviewed Yelena Isinbayeva as one of my first assignments as an intern for Eurosport back in 2005, and – once the giddiness subsided – found her a bubbly, polite young woman who was happy to give interviews in a language she was still in the process of learning.

My positive feelings towards continued for many years. That was until Thursday afternoon, when what can only be described as an ill-advised ‘rant’ against Emma Green-Tregaro’s’s open support of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Russians caused mini-shockwaves west of the Caucasus, where – until now – Isibayeva’s image as the poster girl of women’s athletics took a heavy blow from which she may not recover.

Isinbayeva has now tried to distance herself from her original comments, claiming to have been "misunderstood", and blaming the fact that, "English is not my first language."

Isinbayeva is an intelligent, educated woman, as outspoken 1500m medallist Nick Symmonds pointed out in his rebuttal to her criticism of those opposing Russia’s recent legislative regression on so-called ‘promotion’ of gay values.

Context is important. Russia’s newly-passed law outlawing public declarations of homosexuality is in direct contravention of the IOC’s clearly defined policy of inclusivity.

LGBT Russians have hardly been bashing down the Kremlin to demand promotion of homosexuality in schools, yet that is the argument proposed by the scaremongers among the social conservatives who are behind the law. That's despite there being no evidence to suggest that Gay Pride marches or an openly-lesbian TV presenter could provoke a social meltdown across the country.

Indeed, gays and lesbians are harassed, beaten and sometimes killed for expressing their sexuality in Russia. Pride marches are attacked by far-right skinheads, while police look on before arresting the victims on public order charges. It is clear to anyone with a conscience that Russia’s lawmakers should be seeking to protect, not further marginalise, minorities, whether sexual or ethnic.

This level of violence and state inaction extends to political opponents of Vladimir Putin’s ruling Free Russia party, and even those whose business interests threaten the State and its cronies.

The passing of this legislation has led many to propose boycotts of the Winter Games in Sochi. Such boycotts are arguably a step too far – major sporting events are regularly hosted on less enlightened shores in the Middle East, Asia and Africa – while China was allowed to host the 2008 Olympics, and their human rights record would make even the hardiest Soviet blush.

Yet while a boycott would be inappropriate, athletes should be allowed, encouraged even, to support minority issues if a host nation directly contravenes the Olympic spirit.

At the same time, however, defending freedom of speech means we should allow individuals to express their social and political views, and so any demands that Isinbayeva be punished by the IOC would be as Draconian as Russia’s own war on protest and activism.

It could be argued that events managed by the IOC, IAAF, FIFA and other sporting organisations should insist – as a stipulation of hosting one of their events – that their rules must be followed within boundaries of the competition. For example, the strict WADA code on doping might impinge on a host nation’s own legal framework, and the invasive nature of the drug test may contravene a state’s interpretation of personal liberty. So why not extend this for the support of minorities too?

Isinbayeva's retraction on Friday acknowledged the anti-discrimination language in the Olympic charter, saying that all she had wanted to do was complain about non-Russian athletes criticising Russian laws.

"What I wanted to say was that in her statement.

But this is all irrelevant to Isinbayeva, and merely serves to cloud the real reasons behind her initial statement. It's irrelevant because, despite having backtracked on her decision to retire earlier this season, the Russian’s long-term earning potential in track and field peaked a long time ago, when she was breaking her own world records one centimetre at a time to recoup lucrative bonus prize money at the regular IAAF events.

Isinbayeva sees her future career in Russia, and probably in politics, where she has close links to Putin’s gang of ex-KGB spooks and nouveau-riche oligarchs.

Don’t for one minute pretend Putin does not control everything that passes in law. After the farce that was the last ‘free and fair’ election, he is acutely aware that the next poll will need to retain something resembling credibility. To do so, he needs to shore up his support in the heartlands, where his links to the old regime are appreciated, and where his willingness to shamelessly and cynically promote the Orthodox Church is lauded, as we saw in the shambolic fall-out to the Pussy Riot affair.

Those heartlands extend to the more restive regions of the south west, where a different political and religious ideology shares the homophobic values of the heartlands.

Putin’s rejection of Western values on sexuality is a calculated risk. His own power is cemented at the expense of Russia’s relationship with the West, which has taken enough blows for different reasons of cold-war era gamesmanship recently. And there are other more willing allies in the unreconstructed east, not to mention the hedging of bets on the likes of Syria’s Assad retaining power.

Similarly, albeit less dramatically, Isinbayeva appears to have realised that her own reliance on the IAAF and IOC dollar has become limited by the passing of time and its impact on success. Even if she does return to competition after her upcoming break, she is unlikely to be earning the extra greenbacks because she is unlikely to be breaking world records in competitive conditions. That this puritanical rant in support of “normal” folk will isolate her from the rest of Europe and the New World is of little concern to her; now is time to shore up support, and affirm a stance alongside the hetero-normative standard of Putin’s rabble-rousing, chest-baring masculinity.

Isinbayeva laughably tried to claim she opposed Swedish jumper Green-Tregaro’s decision to wear rainbow nail-polish because it was a “political” statement. It wasn’t for Green-Tregaro, who is Swedish and thus has no political truck in Russia. It was a humanitarian statement, and by virtue of referring to it in such overwhelmingly negative terms, Isinbayeva politicised it.

Isinbayeva could easily have passed no comment, said that she was here to talk sport, not social or political issues. But she passed comment, and clearly positioned herself at the right-hand side of Putin and his regime.

By the time she is ready for government Russia’s political landscape may have seismically shifted, or it could have regressed further, no doubt at the expense of its economy. That’s a risk she has taken, and good luck to her.

But it is clear that, while remaining a national hero, her status as a global darling will have taken a massive knock. Athletics is not football. There is no homophonic chanting from the stands, and plenty of openly gay and lesbian athletes have competed and won at Games.

It may be difficult for Isinbayeva to compete outside of Russia in the future, with invites drying up and commercial opportunities limited. One assumes a crowd reaction in London, Paris, Berlin or Stockholm would be muted to say the least, if not outright hostile. Well, there’s always Qatar.

Could she handle the loss of adulation? Someone like Justin Gatlin plays up to the role of pantomime villain. But as a golden girl who has been the darling of the fans for so long , Isinbayeva may not take so well to the jeers.