Ethical, legal and well-being aspects of start bans at the Tokyo and Beijing Olympics as a result of testing for the disease caused by a virus SARS-CoV-2

Athlete’s preparation and participation at Olympic (OG) in Tokyo and Beijing were essentially conditioned by negative tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Instead of focusing on their competition preparation, coaches and athletes had to fear whether they were positive for SARS-CoV-2 or not, as the OG participation was conditioned by repeated negative test results for the SARS-CoV-2. We had observed with a huge sadness and disagreement that thousands of hours of preparation, work, and motivation were wasted in the case of some athletes. Moreover, for some this would be the last OG in their sporting career. The testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection essentially influenced the well-being of athletes and other team members and represented an additional source of pressure to the one already caused by postponing the 2020 OG in Tokyo. The article claims that the legally formalistic interpretation of the Olympic Charter and other documents gave the IOC broad possibilities for limiting starts at OG. The article utilizes so called “securitization theory” to emphasize that this (regrettably) occurred without an open discussion, which would evaluate whether such a ban was consistent with the OG Charter values and principles. The Olympic Charter does not explicitly define any condition for participation based on health reasons. The SARS-CoV-2 bans were imposed by the officials of the hosting country. Should the IOC broadly acknowledge this approach, sometimes labelled as ‘homo hygienicus’ way, athletes should be consequently tested for all infective diseases. Such an essential change in rules must be consensual and requires a thorough discussion by policymakers, scholars, and the general public.