A convicted child rapist is competing – it is one of most shameful episodes in Olympic history

Steven van de Velde should be nowhere near Paris Games – the principle of rehabilitation does not cover being feted as an Olympian

The sunlight bathing the Eiffel Tower felt an incongruous backdrop to one of the bleakest Olympic stories ever told. Beach volleyball under a pristine sky, at the foot of the great soaring symbol of Paris: what was not to love? The boos from the crowd, sporadic at first but then insistent, soon told you. For there in his vivid orange strip was Steven van de Velde, a Dutch player defined by less by his top-10 world ranking than by his status as a convicted child rapist.
It beggared belief, frankly, that this moment had come to pass. Eight years earlier, a judge in Aylesbury, sentencing him to four years in prison for raping a 12-year-old girl he had travelled from Amsterdam to Milton Keynes to meet, had told him: “You were training as a potential Olympian. Your hopes of representing your country now lie as a shattered dream.” And yet here he was, chosen by the Netherlands to uphold their honour on the loftiest stage of all.
The message endlessly repeated by the Dutch delegation is that Van de Velde is a changed man. Aged 19 when he committed the rape, he is now 29, having completed what his nation’s Olympic Committee describe as a “closely-supervised path of rehabilitation”. He is married to Kim, a German international in beach volleyball, and the couple have a two-year-old son. Such are the principles of restorative justice, the Dutch argue, where even an offender whose crime triggers profound revulsion is allowed to rebuild his life and be reintegrated into the community.
There is a world of difference, though, between rejoining society and being feted as an Olympian. Article seven of the Athletes’ Declaration that all competitors in Paris must sign is unambiguous: “Act as a role model.” A free man he may be, but “role model” is one label that Van de Velde has irrevocably forfeited.
Van de Velde and his playing partner, Matthew Immers, ended up losing their opening round-robin match to Italy. The result, though, was a mere prelude to some extraordinarily tense scenes in the post-match interview area. Van de Velde was hastened off the premises by three security guards ordered to shield him from scrutiny. As such, it fell to Immers and John van Vliet, the Dutch press attache, to try to justify why a convicted rapist was being kept from answering legitimate questions.
The spectacle was more painful than anyone could have predicted. “The optics of this don’t look good” was among the comments made to a besieged Van Vliet. “We are protecting a convicted child rapist, yes,” he replied. “To do his sport as best as possible, at a tournament he qualified for.” It would be difficult to script a more astounding statement in the context of an Olympic Games. Here is an event that has indulged all manner of undesirables, from dictators to drug cheats. But seldom has the involvement of someone with an unsavoury past been excused in such stark terms.
Ultimately, the fault did not rest with the put-upon press man. For eight minutes Van Vliet was left to defend the indefensible. Why, when all athletes were mandated to walk through mixed zones after the events, did Van de Velde have a free pass to swerve the inquisition? Van Vliet struggled to provide an answer, saying only that a “different situation has been created for Steven”. But by whom? The Dutch, or the International Olympic Committee?
Van Vliet confirmed that the arrangements had been explained to the IOC. But the global governing body have made every effort to divorce themselves from the scandal. Mark Adams, the IOC’s spokesman, sounded irritated at being asked about it, saying: “I’ve already expressed our view. It’s clearly the Dutch NOC who make the original choice. They have given a long statement about what extra safeguarding measures are in place. Not to excuse it in any way, but this took place 10 years ago, and I think we have to allow for the possibility of rehabilitation.”
It is an inadequate response, given the molten fury Van de Velde’s inclusion has provoked. Not only has he been lionised by the Dutch through his Olympic selection, he has received dispensations denied to any other participant. Quite apart from skipping obligatory media duties, he has been permitted to stay away from the athletes’ village. Van Vliet confirmed he was still allowed to attend the team compound for meetings.
The difference in cultural sensitivities is striking. Where Van de Velde’s elevation to the Olympic stage has drawn astonishment in Britain, the United States and Australia, the prevailing reaction in the Netherlands is one of bewilderment at all the fuss. Immers, 23, who has likened his pairing with Van de Velde to playing alongside a “second father”, stressed repeatedly that he was “disappointed” at the magnitude the story had assumed. But did this dismay extend to his partner’s crime? “No, not at all,” he said. “I don’t want to talk about those actions at this point, and all the big attention. I’ve known the guy for four years now, we’ve played every tournament, and right now they make a really big discussion of it.”
It is a discussion that refuses to relent, due to the spinelessness of the authorities who created this situation. Van de Velde’s history is such that he should have been nowhere near these Games. In the end, he not only took centre stage, but found himself exempt from cross-examination. It all added up to the grisliest day of shame.