Olympic Negotiations
Background: Summer 2016 saw the Olympics games hosted by the city of Rio de Janeiro. While there were many athletes that made the news for their accomplishments in the various competitions, one athlete in particular, Ryan Lochte, achieved a level of fame or infamy for his extracurricular activities. He had claimed that he had been robbed at gunpoint by local police officers when the truth was far different.
Issue: Shortly after Ryan's original story was subjected to increased scrutiny, but before the Brazilian police could question him further, he arrived back in the United States on August 16, 2016. On August 17, 2017 a Brazilian judge issued an order to seize Lochte's passport as well as the passport of James Feigen. Although Lochte had departed, Feigen was still in Rio de Janeiro. Additionally, the other U.S. swimmers, Gunnar Bentz and Jack Conger were also still in Rio as of August 17, 2017.
The Brazilian authorities abruptly ceased cooperation with existing U.S. liaison officers that were originally assigned to investigate the robbery. Although it was the U.S. Olympic Committee that had drawn a great deal of their ire, it was clear that the Brazilian authorities were less than pleased with the U.S. Government.
Our team was called in to discuss the matter with Brazilian authorities in order to help bring this matter to a resolution. Through our network of contacts we were able to secure a meeting with a very high level Brazilian police official.
Insight: Taking a step back, our team analyzed the chain of events. We developed a working hypothesis of why the Brazilians were so invested and angry at this incident. Simply put, the Brazilians believed Lochte. Lochte's story was plausible and Brazil and the world was ready to believe it. If Lochte had offered the same story about police robbing him at gunpoint in Japan, it would have initially been met with far higher degrees of skepticism.
Brazil on the other hand was struggling with an economic downturn and crime rates that were already very high. Corruption is an ongoing and a known systematic problem. So the Brazilian authorities upon hearing his story, were not only inclined to believe him but they mobilized a great deal of resources to catch those responsible.
Compounding things was the fact that prior to this incident, no real negative items surfaced against the host city. Brazil had faced heavy scrutiny in the months leading up to the games and by all accounts had proven their doubters wrong. Until of course, this incident. The international and local press assumed the story was true. Even locals felt ashamed.
This was the backdrop we faced going into our discussions. Our team knew that we had to thread the needle very carefully. We had to protect the interests of the U.S. Government and our U.S. citizens while at the same time acknowledging that the Brazilians had a right to be angry.
Strategy: Our expectations of a frosty reception were met. Our contact, who normally enjoyed every opportunity to practice his fluent English, would only speak in Portuguese. So in Portuguese, over the course of 6 hours our team discussed the situation with our contact.
Keeping our insight regarding the Brazilian anger at the situation in the forefront of our mind, we decided that we needed to re-frame the discussion. We provided the following thought: currently the media narrative had shifted to uncovering the extent to which Lochte and his associates misrepresented what happened. However, if the response from Brazil was too heavy handed, the narrative could shift again to that of David v. Goliath. That would not serve anyone's interests.
We knew our thought had resonated with our contact because we were then informed that there was real anger in the Brazilian judiciary. (Note: In Brazil the judiciary can conduct independent investigations and has considerable autonomy and power). Our contact in essence was sharing with us that even his hands were tied, but that he didn't disagree with our assessment.
Our recommendation was to share with the Brazilian authorities that sometimes the best punishments are those administered by the court of public opinion. These athletes already stood to lose a great deal as is. If Brazil pursued a heavy-handed, albeit legally justified, course of action; it could have unintended consequences.
At the conclusion of the meeting we were informed that certain things might be out of his hands but that he would synthesize what we had discussed for his higher ups.
Later that evening, Gunnar Bentz and Jack Conger were pulled off a plane trying to depart from Rio even though they had not originally been subjected to the court order.
While this seemed like a setback, our team's analysis was that this detention was already planned prior to our meeting. Our team believed that our efforts throughout the meeting made enough of an impact for the Brazilians to change course.
The next 24 hours proved us correct.
Outcome: On August 18, 2016 within 24 hours of being pulled off the plane, Gunnar Bentz and Jack Conger were released after giving statements to the Brazilian authorities with no additional fines or penalties. On August 19, 2016 James Feigen was released after agreeing to donate $10,800 to a local Brazilian charity.
The Brazilian response was considered magnanimous and public opinion opinion was quite favorable of how the entire situation was resolved. Public opinion with respect to the athletes was far less favorable.