Paula Radcliffe shouldn’t have wished the Olympic rapist luck – but I’m not surprised she did

Do you really support
independent journalism

Our mission is to provide unbiased, fact-based reporting that holds the powerful to account and exposes the truth.

Whether it’s $5 or $50, every contribution counts.

Support us in practicing journalism without an agenda.

Find out more

Ön Wednesday, 2015 world marathon champion Paula Radcliffe was being interviewed on LBC when she was asked whether Steven Van de Velde should be allowed to compete in the Olympics despite his rape conviction. The Dutch volleyball player, now 29, was sentenced to four years in prison in 2016 for three counts of rape of a 12-year-old British girl. Van de Velde met the victim on Facebook and travelled to the UK to meet her at an address in Milton Keynes.

This month he will compete for his country in the Olympic Games. The Dutch Olympic Committee (NOC) said his return would take place “after a special treatment program.” The statement added: “Van de Velde has fully complied with all requirements and adhered to all strict risk assessment thresholds, controls and due diligence. Experts have stated that there is no risk of relapse.”

“Van de Velde has always acted transparently in this case, which he describes as the biggest misstep of his life. He deeply regrets the consequences of his actions for those involved.”

When asked about this, Radcliffe replied that it was “harsh to punish him twice” and added that she wished him “good luck” before drawing comparisons to athletes who use doping substances and are given a second chance. The comments sparked outrage and the 50-year-old has since apologized, writing on X/Twitter: “I am ashamed that my words portrayed me so inaccurately. It was a mistake not to call this out clearly from the start.”

She added: “When I tried to explain how the athlete in question was even allowed to take part in the Olympic Games, I was thinking about the legal aspects and regulations, although I also wanted to highlight the danger of allowing an athlete convicted of such a crime to return.” Radcliffe went on to say that she “certainly should not have wished him luck and really had no explanation as to why (she) said that.”

It’s a noble apology – a sincere one that we rarely see in similar cases. But Radcliffe’s initial comments, and the fact that this was her default response, highlight a serious problem in the way society has normalized sexual assault. Consider the legal aspects of it all – fewer than three in 100 reported rapes resulted in a charge last year – and the fact that the Victims’ Commissioner said in 2020 that we were witnessing a “decriminalization of rape,” it’s not hard to see where Radcliffe’s remarks came from.

We live in a world where rape is simply not taken seriously. Neither by lawmakers (why else would nearly 70 percent of victims drop out of the investigation process halfway through?) nor by the general public. This is not just the case in the UK, of course – there are a whole host of men in the public eye who have been accused of sexual harassment and whose careers have flourished. If that seems excessive to you, remember that Donald Trump literally run for president although he was found guilty in civil court in 1996 of sexual abuse against advice columnist E. Jean Carroll.

It’s hard to say how the situation will improve from here: as women’s rights activist Dr Charlotte Proudman pointed out, if rapists can do something as high-profile and important as competing in the Olympics – and our default reaction is to defend their ability to do so – how can we take rape seriously as a crime? And more importantly, what message does this send to the survivors whose lives will be forever changed by the trauma of what was inflicted on them? Do their lives even matter?

Honestly, at the moment it doesn’t seem like that’s the case. We can only hope that changes soon.