NEXT BLOCK ASIA 2.0 introduces GURUS AWARDS to recognize and reward industry influencers In this February 15, 2014 photo, men’s 1,000-meter short track speed-skating gold medalist Viktor Ahn, of Russia, gestures while holding his medal during the medals ceremony at the Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia. Six-time Olympic gold medalist Ahn and three former NHL players are among 45 Russian athletes and two coaches who were banned from the Pyeongchang Olympics over doping concerns in a decision announced on Friday, February 9, 2018. (AP FILE PHOTO) As well as the 45 athletes, the ruling covers a luge coach and a skeleton coach.The IOC has refused to comment on individual Russian athletes but says it decided who to exclude using a newly obtained Moscow laboratory database with evidence of past doping offenses.It refused to invite some Russians even after their disqualifications from the 2014 Olympics were lifted by CAS last week.Stephen Hess, an international sports lawyer based in Colorado Springs, Colorado, said the decision was a victory for the IOC.“There is no absolute right to get an invitation from the IOC to come to the Olympics,” Hess said in a telephone interview. “That was within the IOC’s discretion, and they didn’t exercise it arbitrarily. If Russia had an Olympic team, CAS might have said: ‘IOC, the Russians can put them on their own team. You can’t keep them out.’ But Russian doesn’t have an Olympic team.”The IOC pointed to a CAS statement that declared the Russians were not necessarily innocent of doping, just that the evidence was insufficient to ban them. Also, the IOC said, “there were additional elements and/or evidence, which could not be considered” in last week’s CAS case “that raised suspicion about the integrity of these athletes.”US athletes praised the decision and the end to uncertainty around the participation of some Russian athletes.“That is great news,” said US women’s skeleton athlete Katie Uhlaender, who placed fourth in the Sochi Olympics — one spot behind bronze medalist Elena Nikitina, who was one of the 45 appealing her ban. U.S. bobsledder Nick Cunningham said he’s tried to not focus on the will-they-or-won’t-they drama surrounding the Russians.“It’s not going to change what happens to me in the next two weeks,” Cunningham said. “If dirty athletes are taken out, then clean athletes will prevail. That’s what I hope.” /kga PYEONGCHANG, South Korea — Sports’ highest court rejected appeals by all 45 Russian athletes plus two coaches who were banned from the Pyeongchang Olympics over doping concerns in a decision announced on Friday, less than nine hours before the opening ceremony.The International Olympic Committee (IOC) had refused to invite the group of Russians, saying it had evidence of alleged doping in Russian sports.FEATURED STORIESSPORTSWATCH: Drones light up sky in final leg of SEA Games torch runSPORTSLillard, Anthony lead Blazers over ThunderSPORTSMalditas save PH from shutoutAfter two days of hearings, the Court of Arbitration for Sport ruled that the IOC has the right to set its own standards for who is eligible.CAS Secretary General Matthieu Reeb, reading from a statement and declining to take questions, said the IOC process “could not be described as a sanction but rather as an eligibility decision.” The IOC’s vetting process was designed to exclude Russian athletes from the games if IOC officials were not sure they were clean, even if they had not been banned for doping.The IOC subsequently invited 168 Russians to participate as “Olympic Athletes from Russia,” competing in neutral uniforms under the Olympic flag in a decision designed to balance the rights of individual athletes with the need for a strong deterrent to doping.The Russian delegation in Pyeongchang declined requests for comment, with spokesman Konstantin Vybornov saying “that’s it — the story is over.”The ruling is a heavy blow to Russian medal chances.Among those excluded are six-time gold medalist Viktor Ahn, the short track speed-skater whose return to his native South Korea for the Olympics had been hotly anticipated by local fans.Also out are cross-country skiing gold medalist Alexander Legkov and skeleton gold medalist Alexander Tretiakov, as well as potential medal contenders in biathlon, luge, and bobsled.Three former NHL players — Sergei Plotnikov, Anton Belov and Valeri Nichushkin — also lost appeals, though it was widely considered unlikely they would have played even if they had been successful, since the Russian roster is already full.United States Anti-Doping Agency chief executive Travis Tygart said the decision was a “a small glimmer of hope in an otherwise dark and sordid affair.”“You hope justice has been served but how some of these athletes can keep dirty medals from Sochi but be excluded now is hard to reconcile,” Tygart said. “And why the IOC rushed the process on the Sochi medal decisions is unexplainable and a tragedy for clean athletes.”The ruling comes a day after the first Olympic competitions began and ends more than a week of uncertainty for two groups of athletes who lodged last-ditch cases to the CAS. Slow and steady hope for near-extinct Bangladesh tortoises LATEST STORIES Read Next Onyok Velasco see bright future for PH boxing in Olympics PLAY LIST 00:45Onyok Velasco see bright future for PH boxing in Olympics03:04Filipino athletes share their expectations for 2019 SEA Games01:37Russian envoy: Putin accepts Duterte’s invitation to visit PH01:29Police teams find crossbows, bows in HK university01:35Panelo suggests discounted SEA Games tickets for students02:49Robredo: True leaders perform well despite having ‘uninspiring’ boss02:42PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games01:44Philippines marks anniversary of massacre with calls for justice01:19Fire erupts in Barangay Tatalon in Quezon City John Lloyd Cruz a dashing guest at Vhong Navarro’s wedding Globe Business launches leading cloud-enabled and hardware-agnostic conferencing platform in PH Golden State forward Draymond Green fined $50,000 AFP official booed out of forum “The CAS panel found that the applicants did not demonstrate that the manner in which the two special commissions — the Invitation Review Panel and the Olympic Athlete from Russia Implementation Group — independently evaluated the applicants was carried out in a discriminatory, arbitrary or unfair manner. The Panel also concluded that there was no evidence the (commissions) improperly exercised their discretion.”The IOC and the World Anti-Doping Agency welcomed the decision. The IOC issued a statement saying the decision “supports the fight against doping and brings clarity for all athletes.”WADA president Craig Reedie described it as “absolutely correct.”“I am delighted at the decision and the way they expressed it,” Reedie told the Associated Press in a telephone interview. “They have quite clearly understood that there was systemic manipulation of the anti-doping process.“It means the games can proceed. Athletes can get their heads down and go. This particular issue is now behind us.”ADVERTISEMENT MOST READ View comments Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. 2 ‘newbie’ drug pushers fall in Lucena sting Brace for potentially devastating typhoon approaching PH – NDRRMC Typhoon Kammuri accelerates, gains strength en route to PH ADVERTISEMENT
“It’s time to reach out”Kamal NathKAMAL NATH UNION MINISTER FOR COMMERCE & INDUSTRYGlobalisation means different things to different people. It means different things to different professions. It means different things to different countries. There are two distinct views on what globalisation means-to the farmer in Burkina Faso and the farmer,”It’s time to reach out”Kamal NathKAMAL NATH UNION MINISTER FOR COMMERCE & INDUSTRYGlobalisation means different things to different people. It means different things to different professions. It means different things to different countries. There are two distinct views on what globalisation means-to the farmer in Burkina Faso and the farmer in the United States. Nevertheless, globalisation does have a common message: geography is history.When we embarked on globalisation, the challenge before us was: what is the model we follow? And the lesson we learnt was that there is no model for India. We had to globalise. And when we talk about our economic reforms, we, in other words, talk of globalisation, we discuss how we are going to engage with the global economy. Today we have seen the mass of economic activity shifting from the Atlantic Ocean to the Indian Ocean. People talk about outsourcing and loss of jobs. It is not outsourcing that led to loss of jobs, it was technology. The new global social architecture is driven by globalisation and technology. At the heart of globalisation lies global competitiveness. If India hadn’t been engaged with the global economy, we would have never reached the competitive levels we have reached today. It’s this great change which took place in a calibrated manner.LET’S ENSURE GLOBALISATION REACHES THE 300 MILLION PEOPLE WHO LIVE ON LESS THAN A DOLLAR PER DAY. But does globalisation affect the lives of 300 million people who live on less than one dollar a day? What do we tell the thousands of villagers who have never ever heard the ring of a landline telephone when we talk about six million new cell phone connections a day? To them, to our villagers, globalisation is still an abstract concept. If I go to my district, I cannot talk of globalisation to people. Their worry is about getting their children into school, about health care and power. And in a democracy, as you know, you will be sent packing home if you are going to talk a language which people do not relate to. So that is the challenge before us today.Take the controversy on SEZs and the political furore in some parts of the country. SEZs are simply an industrial cluster with an infrastructure meant for exports. You don’t require experts to tell you that land has to be there for industry. But when you want to acquire land, it has to be in a fair, equitable, all-inclusive manner, Today 10 people depend on one hectare of land. Unless their subsistence needs of income and livelihood are addressed there would be no equity and no sustainability in globalisation.advertisementAnd that is the biggest challenge of globalisation today. And here we have now voices, voices emerging. The greatest champions of globalisation-particularly the US-are now talking about guarding themselves against this rampant globalisation. India, on the other hand, is now engaging with the world saying we need to globalise. India has to globalise. It is not only that the world’s perception about India has changed. Our own perception about ourselves is changing. We no more talk about better lives for our children and grand children. We talk of better life in our own lifetime. That is the new-found confidence which globalisation has brought about in India. And we need to ensure that this process of globalisation reaches out.”Is it sustainable?”Clyde PrestowizCLYDE PRESTOWIZ PRESIDENT, ECONOMIC STRATEGY INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON D.C.Let me give you a personal example about doing business in a flat world. Last weekend my son who is a software developer asked me if I would co-invest in a snow removing business? He explained that the company had all the equipment and contracts and a monopoly. I asked why invest in a snow removing business? After all he studied computer science. He said, “Don’t you get it? The snow is here and they can’t move it to India, it can’t be outsourced.” Another time I had to be taken to a hospital as they thought I was having a stroke. It was about three in the morning and they did a brain scan. There were two interesting facts: I had a brain and that the scan was being read online in Bangalore. My radiologist had been outsourced.So, this is doing business in the so-called flat world. But, it raises obvious questions about where is all this going. If the radiologists are all going to be in Bangalore and the software is all going to be done in Bangalore and the manufacturing is all going to be done in China, where is this going? It is a fascinating question. Countries are doing studies, benchmarking against others on competitiveness and finding new technologies. And they have got prime ministerlevel committees and cabinet committees and all their business communities are focusing on what they are going to do to compete in the future, because they are scared to death of the challenge being posed by India, by China, by the rest of the developing world and the question is, you know: what are we going to do?advertisementCompetitiveness is important but we need to be just as concerned about access to markets. And, in fact, the world is much less flat than we have been admitting. I also want to turn to something that I think is, in a way, much more significant and much more dangerous. As we look at the tremendous benefits that globalisation is generating right now today, think about how sustainable the current situation is. Will the Americans be able to indefinitely consume more than they produce? Will the Chinese, the Japanese and the OPEC indefinitely buy the American treasury bonds to finance their exports to the US? Will the dollar remain the world’s currency? Will oil be priced in dollars in ten years? Will semiconductors be sold in dollars in ten years? Is this sustainable? Nobody knows the answer to this but that it is something that those of us who are benefiting from and promoting globalisation, should be addressing.DiscussionQ. You spoke about inclusive growth, particularly for the rural farm workers. At the same time, the developed world, specially the US is unlikely to cut subsidies. How does this balance out? Nath: When I was talking about structural flaws, one of the greatest structural flaws in the world trade is agriculture and the flaw in agriculture is huge subsidies given by the European Union and the United States amounting to almost $1 billion per day. Just the US has subsidies of $75 billion to agriculture. Take cotton. We import about $500 mn of cotton and convert to yarn and garments and sell it to the US. But there is also subsidised wheat, rice, meat, soya etc. Unless the issue of subsidies is resolved the impasse will continue. Without this it won’t be trade or trade flow but subsidies flow. The competition is not the US farmer but the US Treasury.Q. The unstoppable consumption by the US citizens is also putting a huge load on the sustainability of the planet. They won’t sign Kyoto protocol but want others to curb energy consumption. How will this play out in the long run? Prestowitz: I think it is an even more daunting and challenging issue. The US accounts for about five percent of global population and 30-33 percent of global consumption. So, you can justly criticise the profligacy and the hypocrisy of the US. But you are still left with the problem as nobody tells the US anything as everybody wants to sell to the Americans. I think we need a global solution because if the rest of the world did nothing there will be a global financial crisis.advertisementQ. It is profitable for the US to produce less and import from the outside world. That enables them to free resources for technology driven growth. How will consumption reduce if they remain net consumers? Prestowitz: Any economy needs consumers and producers. You can’t have an economy where there is no consumption, no production. The difficulty I see in the world economy today is that there is a kind of lack of consumers. In the US, there are no savings; we are financing our consumption by importing foreign capital. So, effectively Americans are mortgaging their future or the future of their children. The way the US is borrowing today, if it was an individual it would have been bankrupt. Ditto if it was a corporate. What would happen if East Asian countries do not politically support the United States? Suppose they manage their currency. It may so happen that the dollar would get devalued. What will happen? Will there be imbalance in the world? Paul Walker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve recently predicted a 75 percent chance of a global financial crisis within the next four years. I believe that the dollar will devalue between 50 and 70 percent on a traded basis, sometime within the next 5-7 years. China as you know is putting together an investment fund in order to begin investing its reserves in something other than the US treasury bills. And all of that suggests to me an eventual move away from the dollar.