News about disappeared Belarusian sports dissident provoke uncomfortable questions to the IOC

The German broadcaster Deutsche Welle’s recent investigation into the possible abduction of Belarusian sports activist Anatol Kotau leads to serious questions about the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) decision to normalise its relations to the National Olympic Committee (NOC) of the Republic Belarus, resuming payments to the NOC and removing its restrictions on Belarusian participation in international competitions, even as the country continues to openly repress athletes in exile and at home.

Once Secretary General of the Belarusian NOC, then led by the country’s president Alexander Lukashenko, Kotau joined the athletes and sports officials protesting the fraudulent presidential election in 2020. Like many other dissidents, Kotau fled to Warsaw, where he became head of international relations at the Belarusian Sport Solidarity Foundation (BSSF). In that role, he spoke at Play the Game 2024 in Trondheim.

In August 2025, Kotau suddenly disappeared during an undisclosed mission to Türkiye. The Deutsche Welle investigation reveals striking details that support a theory that Kotau may have been abducted in an operation involving the Russian and Belarusian intelligence services: FSB and KGB, respectively.

His situation today remains unknown, leaving his family in despair. The Belarusian regime has sentenced him in absentia to 12 years in prison, as it has done to other members of BSSF. Therefore, it is possible that he is now detained somewhere in Belarus or an allied country.

In 2020, the IOC stopped payments to the Belarusian NOC and excluded top officials from its activities, stating that “the current leadership has not […] protected the Belarusian athletes from political discrimination […] This is contrary to the fundamental principles of the Olympic Charter, and therefore seriously affects the reputation of the Olympic Movement”.

After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, Belarusian athletes faced sanctions on par with their Russian counterparts because of the country’s complicity in the aggression.

But recently, on 7 May 2026, the IOC lifted its recommendation to restrict Belarusian athletes and teams, issuing a statement that “the NOC of Belarus is in good standing and complies with the Olympic Charter”.

This complete turnaround in the IOC’s relations with Belarus came despite the continued open persecution of dissident athletes and fact that the country’s NOC is still in the hands of the Lukashenko family, now led by the strongman’s son, Viktor.

IOC President Kirsty Coventry topped the official statement claiming that Belarus had “always been in good standing”, according to the news website Inside the Games.

It is tempting to ask whether the IOC and its president have lost their institutional memory, or if they are trying to manipulate public opinion as part of a process leading to Russia’s full reinstatement in the Olympic Movement.

However, the situation of Anatol Kotau and many other exiled, convicted, beaten, dismissed, and otherwise oppressed Belarusian athletes and sports officials calls for more direct questions:

In its talks with the Belarusian NOC,

• did the IOC raise the disappearance of Anatol Kotau, a former NOC top executive and trusted partner of the Olympic Movement, and seek information about his fate?

• did the IOC ask Belarusian NOC president Viktor Lukashenko to urge his father to lift sanctions and punitive measures against athletes and officials who remain oppressed?

• did the IOC take any other steps to ensure that what it once labeled “political discrimination” will come to an end in Belarus?

• did the IOC question the real autonomy of the Belarusian NOC in light of its close ties to the oppressive regime?

Or will the IOC do so without hesitation?

If the answers are negative, an even more serious question follows: did the IOC, in its eagerness to include Belarus as a step towards getting Russia back on the Olympic stage, betray the Belarusian athletes?