- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
This is a good point, and is true of all bureaucracies. They quickly become more invested in guarding their own prerogatives and authority than in performing the function for which they were created.
Ban on Carolina Kostner Over
- Thread starter cruzceleste
- Start date
This is a good point, and is true of all bureaucracies. They quickly become more invested in guarding their own prerogatives and authority than in performing the function for which they were created.
- Joined
- May 18, 2014
This is where we sometimes have to separate our activism and idealism from how things function in the real world. Do I think doping is okay? No. Do I think they should strip every win or record away from MLB during the Steroid era? Well, no. Why? Because all of the baseball players were doping back then. It isn't "right" or "fair" but it was what was being accepted by those playing as "what was happening in the real world." Back in the day (60's/70's) Eastern Europe was doping gymnasts, skaters, and swimmers to try to win the Olympics and the IOC looked the other way. They would give girls male hormones before puberty which kept gymnasts and skaters small. I remember the excitement of Jill Stoerkel for winning a swimming gold because she won clean and beat a bunch of girls who were doping to do it.
I also think there is some hypocracy going on here. Carolina didn't dope herself. She knew about someone else's doping and didn't report it. She should get a verbal warning alone. She is not responsible for somebody else's behavior.
I also think there is some hypocracy going on here. Carolina didn't dope herself. She knew about someone else's doping and didn't report it. She should get a verbal warning alone. She is not responsible for somebody else's behavior.
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
Nobody has presented any evidence that she knew Schwazer was doping. She knew that he wanted her to lie to testers about his whereabouts. Everything else is conjecture, and unlike CONI prosecutors, I don't feel like the most uncharitable explanation is necessarily the correct one.
- Joined
- May 18, 2014
If that's the case, why was she punished? If they can't prove it, they shouldn't punish for it. Too bad they don't all follow the US's adage that you are innocent until proven guilty.
So the Italian skating feds wants to LENGTHEN her ban? Seriously? This is no longer to do with ethics: someone on the federation really, REALLY hates her and this is becoming just plain personal.
Also, when I read the articles mentioning this I only thought "*** DID I JUST READ?????"
**punches things**
Also, when I read the articles mentioning this I only thought "*** DID I JUST READ?????"
**punches things**
She was punished for lying, which I believe (I don't read/speak Italian and Google translate is often times confusing) she admitted to... And the judges or whoever is making the rulings is not a total idiot - it's fairly reasonable to assume that she most likely knew that he was doping. Most people would assume that if someone is asking them to lie about their whereabouts to what amounts to in their world/profession as the law - that it was because they are doing something they don't want the law to know about.
Except she also urged him to go to the town he had told them he'd be and get tested right away, which he apparently did. If she was trying to help him avoid a test because she thought he was doping, why would she have done that? Wouldn't it have made more sense to simply lie to the officers and then let him remain with her if she did in fact think (or even suspect) that he was doping and she was trying to cover for that? She was simply lying for him not to get in trouble about being at her place instead of where he said he'd be.
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2014
Did she know her ex were doping at the time? Possibly but there is no evidence, all speculation sounds not unconvincing. So I give her the benefit of doubts.
IMO she should received some punishment, but it should have nothing to do with her skating career because she didn't dope herself. No that they even want to ban her even more is totally absurd to me.
IMO she should received some punishment, but it should have nothing to do with her skating career because she didn't dope herself. No that they even want to ban her even more is totally absurd to me.
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2012
I hope we can still see her in shows; I am not sure she really ever planned to return competitively.
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2014
You can as long as you pay a ticket price.
Seriously, even if she accepts the ban, she can perform in any show unrelated to ISU during the period. I hardly imagine she wishes to compete on due to her age.You can as long as you pay a ticket price.
Yeah, I don't think the return to competition is the issue for her. I think it's about clearing her name.
No, it's Italian Olympic Committee (CONI) prosecutors.
Italian Skating Fed (FISG) is publicly supporting her.
She lied (He told her that he was supposed to be in Italy, but he was in Germany with her, that's not allowed, so he told her to tell that he's in Italy and that he will go back to Italy immediatly. She had probably a couple of seconds to make the decision to lie. He was tested positive in Italy at the same day.).
But she was banned for supporting a doped athlete, not because of the lie. That's a huge difference to me. And she didn't lie in court or something.
I think she should appeal to clear her name, if they lengthen the sentence in the end it doesn't really matter, the ban itself is the problem. Many athletes doesn't want to associate themselves with banned athletes and that's totally understandable.
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
"Lying" isn't a charge in any legal sense.
What language was used in the interaction with her and the official involved? What were the exact words? Does anyone know?
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
I don't know the details of this case. But typically the actual charge is something like "obstructing an official investigation," perhaps with "by making misleading statements," tacked on.
Ah, thank you. My error, I was just rage-typing.
My understanding is that the ban is for 'complicity'. Lying does not automatically mean she was complicit in his doping, and she wants to clear her name of any association with doping because she has always been strongly against doping.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2013
If it had just been that first lie, and when the investigators came she admitted to making a mistake and explained the truth, then she likely would have got off with a severe scolding and little more.
But she lied again to the investigators, blew off appointments, changed her story, and continued lying right up until she was presented with irrefutable evidence that they KNEW she was lying, when she finally came clean.
She did it to herself.
But she lied again to the investigators, blew off appointments, changed her story, and continued lying right up until she was presented with irrefutable evidence that they KNEW she was lying, when she finally came clean.
She did it to herself.
Similar threads
- Locked
