- Joined
- Feb 27, 2012
... But because she declined the B sample to be tested in the first place it's sufficient proof of a violation. ...
"Proof"???
If WADA has a rule in writing that it would be "proof," please provide a citation.
... But because she declined the B sample to be tested in the first place it's sufficient proof of a violation. ...
Of course, here you are. https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/wada-2015-world-anti-doping-code.pdf"Proof"???
If WADA has a rule in writing that it would be "proof," please provide a citation.
Article 2.1.2
Sufficient proof of an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 is established by any of the following: presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in the athlete’s A Sample where the athlete waives analysis of the B Sample (...)
New information from Katia:
- She used Mildronat till November 2015, after that she dropped it once and forever.
- She declined testing her 'B' sample because they were sure they still had a chance to clarify it all, to prove her innocence, and go to the Worlds in Boston.
- AFTER that she got a letter, and the dose of Mildronat in it shocked her because it was GIGANTIC.
- The dose this big can be detected in blood only if it was injected not more than 24 prior the test.
So. So many questions. Zero answers. http://rsport.ru/figure_skating/20160308/902335536.html
Yes, there are so few doping cases in figure skating that the team might not have acted wisely. Maybe they panicked. And there's reason to panic, because if she tells the truth there's still not much than anyone can do to help her. I think she should try to get the B sample tested. If the result is negative, all would be good (but probably not enough time for the whole process until Worlds). If it's negative it wouldn't be worse than it is now.Thx, psusanne. Your pdf shows that the rule about the B sample is clearly stated in the WADA code.
I know that lack of awareness of a rule does not exempt anyone from a rule. But I do wonder whether Team Bobrova knew/remembered this rule about the B sample, based on what Snow posted about why she declined testing of the B sample.
So many questions about the whole situation, as Snow says.
Why should it be worse? It has happened that the A sample was positive and the B sample negative. It's the easiest way to proof the athlete's innocence. And if she doesn't know how the melodium got into her system there's a possibility, however small, that it wasn't there in the first place, that samples got mixed up. I don't think that the WADA would hold it against her. Athletes are allowed to proof their innocence. Sharapova f.e. knew that she took it so she knew why she's tested positive and then there's really no need to test the B sample.If the B sample was positive it might actually be worse because getting it tested is expensive and takes time, so the WADA is not thrilled when athletes do it, especially if it just confirms the original test.
I still believe in her innocence, but, let's face it, Russia's been doping since the 1960s. It pains me to write this, as I truly admired Russian and other Eastern European sports people growing up and I certainly love the present Team Russia skaters, but look at athletics alone! After the Wall came down in Germany, a lot of athletes, including skaters, told the truth about performance enhancing substances. Therefore, there is no doubt in my mind that there are still elements who try this on. Whether the athlete in question is aware of it or not. Funny, the coincidence with Sharapova. Sounds like some international sporting body raided the medical HQ in Russia. Anyway, Dima and Katia, stay strong, we're behind you!
That's two different cases. Mildronat was legal up to 2016, and 40.000 athletes (according to WADA) used it. Yes, you can call it a system if you want. But it's not the same as athletics, where strong banned drugs were used knowingly.
No one, including Ekaterina, denies that there was Mildronat in her blood. She never said there wasn't. She only says she didn't use it herself or knew it was used without her knowing of that fact. So there is no need to test 'B' sample, it's as easy as that.
Ukrainian biathlon coach (three biathlonists from Ukraine were banned for using Mildronat) says they have an official independent conclusion of some French laboratory that says that Mildronat could accumulate in athlete's body and stay there up to 120 days. It happens when athlete use it constantly for a long amount of time.
It's here: http://www.sports.ru/biathlon/1037882108.html
Didn't she say that they expected that the test result would only show traces of the substance? That would have been explainable, because she could have taken Meldonium in December. But a large amount of the substance was found and Ekaterina and her team were surprised by that. The amount of the banned substance will make a difference in the final WADA decision. If it's true that Meldonium can accumulate in the body this could all become a very different story. I would be surprised if it really could accumulate (the WADA tests normally should take this into account). Anyway, she says that she didn't take it and doesn't know how that large amount got into her system and because of that I think it would be smart to have the B sample tested. There could be a mix up or a false positve test result.No one, including Ekaterina, denies that there was Mildronat in her blood. She never said there wasn't. She only says she didn't use it herself or knew it was used without her knowing of that fact. So there is no need to test 'B' sample, it's as easy as that.
Didn't she say that they expected that the test result would only show traces of the substance? That would have been explainable, because she could have taken Meldonium in December. But a large amount of the substance was found and Ekaterina and her team were surprised by that. The amount of the banned substance will make a difference in the final WADA decision. If it's true that Meldonium can accumulate in the body this could all become a very different story. I would be surprised if it really could accumulate (the WADA tests normally should take this into account). Anyway, she says that she didn't take it and doesn't know how that large amount got into her system and because of that I think it would be smart to have the B sample tested. There could be a mix up or a false positve test result.
Yes her continuing to decline to have the B sample tested is what really doesn't ring true to me in all of this. If true that she really thought initially that there were going to be trace amounts she could explain away, I don't understand why on receiving more detailed papers she did not immediately say 'since to my knowledge this seems impossible, I changed my mind and want the B sample tested'. Why she isn't at least trying to get the B sample tested, if everything she is saying is true, blows my mind.
I support Katia!
So great to see Lena & Zhenia insta posts!