By: Kelly Bevan
During the summer Olympics, at the picturesque Eiffel tower-adjacent beach volleyball court, an unusual sound came from the crowd: boos and angry shouting. These jeers were directed at Dutch player Steven van de Velde. Van de Velde was not being booed because of poor sportsmanship or a bad play, but rather because he had been convicted of raping a twelve-year-old.
In 2016, Van de Velde pleaded guilty to three counts of rape against a child in a U.K. court of law. The charges stem from a series of events that transpired in 2014. A twelve-year-old girl sent a friend request to a then nineteen-year-old Van de Velde. The pair developed a relationship by messaging and video calling almost every day. Van de Velde initially believed the minor to be sixteen, and he continued the relationship after he learned that she was actually twelve.
Eventually, Van de Velde booked a plane ticket from Amsterdam to the U.K. town where the girl lived. He met the girl at her home, gave her alcohol, and had sex with her. Before leaving, Van de Velde recommended she visit a clinic for a morning-after-pill. Alarmed by the girl’s young age, the clinic staff contacted her family and the police.
Van de Velde continued playing beach volleyball, even seeming like he would qualify for the Dutch team in the Rio Games. However, an arrest warrant was issued in 2015. He was subsequently extradited to the U.K. and pleaded guilty to the charges. Ultimately, he was sentenced to four years. Van de Velde served 12 months in the U.K., before being transferred to the Netherlands where he was released a month later.
Eight years after his conviction, Van de Velde represented the Netherlands at the Olympics, a competition showcasing both athletic and personal achievement. A convicted rapist’s participation in the Olympics creates a clear question: why would the Dutch Olympic committee allow him on their team? The explanation lies in the differing legal approaches to the punishment and categorization of sexual offenses in the Netherlands compared to the U.S. and U.K..
In the U.S. and U.K., a statutory minor can never give consent. Regardless whether the minor participates willingly, the act is rape. In some U.S. states, statutory rape is treated the same as rape by force. In both the U.S. and U.K., statutory rape typically requires perpetrators to register on a sex offender registry. In the U.S., this registry is publicly available. U.S. sex offenders face challenges finding employment and housing, often facing harassment from their community. In both countries, those convicted often face time in prison.
As seen by Van de Velde’s near-immediate release once transferred to the Netherlands, the Dutch take a different approach. Van de Velde likely would not have been convicted of rape if tried in the Netherlands. Instead, he would have been charged with committing an “ontutch.” This Dutch term is for lesser offenses that transgress social and ethical norms. An ontutch typically carries a much lighter sentence than rape, which explains why Van de Velde was able to be quickly released and resume his volleyball career.
The Netherlands is not only lenient on the lesser sexual offenses, this treatment even extends to major offenders. Contrary to the U.S. where sex offenders are publicly known and often ostracized, the Netherlands has no sex offender registry or notification system. This lack of a registry is due to a strong emphasis on offender rehabilitation, and privacy concerns.
If Van de Velde was from the U.S. or U.K., there is no doubt he would have been banned from their Olympic teams. But the Dutch Olympic community has been quite vocal in their support, or at least their defense, of Van de Velde. His beach volleyball partner Matt Immers dismissed the criticism, saying “What’s in the past is in the past. He had his punishment and now he is really kind. For me it is an example that (he) grew and learnt a lot from it.” The Netherlands Olympic Committee also released a statement saying Van de Velde had “grown and positively changed his life.”
How does the International Olympic Committee (IOC) reconcile these different legal approaches? In terms of countries selecting athletes for their Olympic teams, the IOC has historically taken a hands-off approach and leaves the process to the individual countries.
Athletes with criminal pasts in the Olympics are nothing new. For example, Amnat Ruenroeng represented the Thai team in boxing in both the Beijing and Rio Games. Ruenrong had a history of drug addiction and had been to jail several times before being sentenced to fifteen years for robbery. However, after becoming a skilled boxer in prison, Ruenrong received a pardon and went on to professional boxing. Many viewers applauded how Ruenrong transformed his life from a prisoner to an Olympian.
However, the online conversation surrounding Van de Velde’s participation in the Games has largely been negative. Despite the IOC saying that they were satisfied with the Netherlands’ selection process, many are outraged with the IOC’s lack of intervention. Before the games, an online petition demanding Van de Velde’s disqualification reached over 135,000 signatures.
This outrage is further fueled by poor timing for a Dutch sex offender to be competing in the Olympics. On July 1, 2024, a new act addressing sexual offenses went into effect in the Netherlands. This Act updated many antiquated Dutch sexual assault statutes. For example, prior to this Act a rape conviction required proving that there was a threat of violence. Many online are saying it is hypocritical for the Netherlands to reform their sexual offenses laws and send a convicted rapist to represent them on such a large platform.
The Netherlands Olympic Committee did implement some guidelines for Van de Velde due to the sensitive nature of his past. Van de Velde did not stay in the Olympic Village and was instructed to quietly leave matches after they conclude without talking to the media. After the close of the Games, Van de Velde gave an interview where he tearfully admitted it was “the biggest mistake of my life.” Unsurprisingly, this did little to appease victim advocacy groups that are still protesting his participation in international play. Regardless of the IOC’s policy, or lack thereof, the court of public opinion remains clear: sex offenders have no place in the Olympic Games.
