Steven van de Velde’s partner, the Dutch Olympian, has been given permission to compete in beach volleyball at the Paris Games although raping a 12-year-old British girlHe has described him as “like a second father to me.”
With such intense attention on Van de Velde that He has been banned from speaking to reporters. Here in Paris, Matthew Immers, the other half of the Dutch pair, has mounted a staunch defence of his teammate.
“I feel comfortable with him, we take good care of each other,” she said. “I’m 23, he’s 29. He’s also kind of a second father to me, who supports me. Now we’re going to the Games and it’s become a big deal. But everything else is the same.”
The appearance in Paris of Van de Velde, who in March 2016 admitted three charges of rape against a girl he had met on Facebook, has sparked fierce controversy. He had travelled from the Netherlands to the UK in August 2014, when he was 19, to meet his victim. Although the judge who sentenced him to four years in prison had told him his Olympic ambitions were a “shattered dream”, he and Immers have since emerged as medal contenders at these Games as the world’s No 11 team.
But despite victims’ advocacy groups reacting with horror to the selection of a convicted child rapist for sport’s biggest spectacle, the Dutch delegation insisted on his right to take part. “It’s a disgrace that people talk about him like that,” Immers said. “I know the Steven of today and I’m glad about that. He’s a very good teammate. He’s good company on and off the pitch, and that’s the most important thing for me.”
Pieter van den Hoogenband, the Olympic champion swimmer who now serves as the Dutch chef de mission in Paris, also expressed bewilderment at the strength of the reaction. “He has been active in international sports, in the world of beach volleyball, for a long time,” he said. “He has played in World Cups, European Championships, but then you see that things are different around the Games. Things are exaggerated.”
The Dutch team, which expects Van de Velde to be the center of global attention once its competition begins on Sunday in a purpose-built stadium next to the Eiffel Tower, has barred him from interviews and relocated him away from the Olympic village. But a blackout could prove difficult to enforce and expose the International Olympic Committee, as the event’s organizer, to accusations that it was protecting a rapist. An IOC spokesman said it had no role in Van de Velde’s appointment and that there was “an additional special safeguard in place.”
The Dutch Olympic Committee and the Dutch Volleyball Federation support Van de Velde’s participation, saying he has met all the qualification requirements and completed a closely monitored rehabilitation process. “We don’t have blinders on and we don’t close our eyes,” said Van den Hoogenband, who stressed that “there is no question” of leaving the athlete. “But he is a member of the team and deserves our support. He has reacted well and sensibly. We have to help him so that he can perform at his best.”
The Dutch decision has drawn unequivocal condemnation elsewhere. Mhairi Maclennan, co-founder of Kyniska Advocacy, which works for the protection and respect of women in sport, said: “For a convicted rapist to represent his country on a world stage not only goes completely against Olympic ideals and commitments, but shatters the IOC’s vision of building a ‘better world through sport’.”
Joanna Maranhao, coordinator of the Athletes Network for Safer Sport, said: “Athletes competing at the Olympic Games are often perceived as heroes and role models; Van de Velde should not be given this honour.”
Immers’ comments also come after rival nations insisted they would not select athletes with criminal convictions due to existing selection policies, the determination of which is left to each National Olympic Committee.
“If an athlete or staff member had that belief, they would not be allowed to be a member of our team,” said Anna Meares, the former Olympic gold medal-winning cyclist who is now head of Team Australia, adding that she would not comment specifically on another team’s selection criteria and processes. “We have strict safeguarding policies within our team.”
