Ban on Carolina Kostner Over

[Amei]

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.

Well she should quit the appeal now, whether she is suspended or not she is associated with a doper.

 

[MaxSwagg]

I think she should just accept the punishment. In my opinion, her reputation and legacy are still untarnished...

 

[hippomoomin]

You made some very good points here. The punishment should not be banning her from skating. Italian authorities may think it is the easiest choice for them to punish Caro.

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.

 

[Buttercup]

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.

More like, she would have gotten away with a warning if Schwazer had decided to stay retired rather than try to come back for Rio, which necessitated "cooperation" with the authorities = telling them whatever they wanted to hear and throwing his ex-girlfriend under the bus.

From what I've read, the only parts of what you wrote that are actually true are that she gave short notice for one missed appearance and asked for it to be rescheduled - which it was - and there were some inconsistencies in a few of the details between her account (which has always been that she lied regarding his whereabouts but was unaware of his doping), the testers, and Schwazer's. Anyone who has ever taken a class, read a book or sat in on a lecture on how human memory works can understand that such inconsistencies are very likely to be due to memory distortion over time rather than deliberate lying. Personally I think that anyone who works in law enforcement or in a judicial capacity needs to understand the limitations of human memory, but clearly that is not the case.

But I forgot - evil doping! She's clearly guilty!

What is it about doping cases that make reasonable people react out of all proportion to the actual offense?

 

[anyanka]

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.

If we follow this then, would the charge in her case would be akin to conspiracy rather than committing the actual crime itself? Would that therefore justify the severity of the sentence?

 

[jiggs]

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.

Just to get things straight:
She lied once when she was asked about his whereabouts. She never denied that fact from the very first time she was questioned back in 2012. The other occasions that you make out to be "lies" were small discrepancies between Schwazers and her version of the story on what happened that morning. Things like at what time the inspector showed up (he said at 9, she said at 7). Hardly anything that can be seen as a lie.

About the hearing she missed, it was scheduled in rome on the day of her Verona show. She officially asked for them to reschedule because of the show. They didnt do her that favor so she missed the meeting. They gave her a new meeting date and she showed up. End of story.

No matter how you twist it, the only thing she was charged for was that she lied ONCE about schwazers whereabouts. Even the court acknowledged that she didn't know about his doping or covered for him. That's what was released in the written statements by the court!

And this is exactly the paradox of this case. Because by charging her and banning her, they say she is guilty of being a complicit in his doping, while at the same time they say in their written statement that she didn't know about his doping and didn't cover for him. So I find it totally understandable that she is going to appeal.

 

[Mafke]

What is it about doping cases that make reasonable people react out of all proportion to the actual offense?

What is it about doping that makes reasonable people think there was an offense? There's no evidence she ever doped and she had no official connection to signore douche-bag's athletic career.

She's being punished because a powerful body _can_ punish her, and that is what people mean by "power corrupts".

 

[peg]

and there were some inconsistencies in a few of the details between her account (which has always been that she lied regarding his whereabouts but was unaware of his doping), the testers, and Schwazer's. Anyone who has ever taken a class, read a book or sat in on a lecture on how human memory works can understand that such inconsistencies are very likely to be due to memory distortion over time rather than deliberate lying. Personally I think that anyone who works in law enforcement or in a judicial capacity needs to understand the limitations of human memory, but clearly that is not the case.

In addition to inconsistencies due to memory distortion over time, there will pretty much always be inconsistencies in details between different parties because they tend to focus on different details of the situation. One person will focus on one aspect and unconsciously "fill in the blanks" on others.

 

[solani]

Nice article regarding the matter: http://www.newyorker.com/news/sporting-scene/carolina-kostner-anti-doping
I especially like that part:

“It’s to give the thought that it’s working,” Charles Yesalis, professor emeritus of health and human development at Penn State, said. “I don’t think it is. They’re trying to show merit in what they’re getting paid for.”

 

[andy08]

Just to get things straight:
She lied once when she was asked about his whereabouts. She never denied that fact from the very first time she was questioned back in 2012. The other occasions that you make out to be "lies" were small discrepancies between Schwazers and her version of the story on what happened that morning. Things like at what time the inspector showed up (he said at 9, she said at 7). Hardly anything that can be seen as a lie.

About the hearing she missed, it was scheduled in rome on the day of her Verona show. She officially asked for them to reschedule because of the show. They didnt do her that favor so she missed the meeting. They gave her a new meeting date and she showed up. End of story.

No matter how you twist it, the only thing she was charged for was that she lied ONCE about schwazers whereabouts. Even the court acknowledged that she didn't know about his doping or covered for him. That's what was released in the written statements by the court!

And this is exactly the paradox of this case. Because by charging her and banning her, they say she is guilty of being a complicit in his doping, while at the same time they say in their written statement that she didn't know about his doping and didn't cover for him. So I find it totally understandable that she is going to appeal.

You made the right points here!
She did right to appeal to a sentence which is severe towards her and doesn't make sense. I have to read the motivations, but as far as I know we are talking about one - ONE - occasion in which she said to an inspector/official that Schwatzer was not at her home. Point. Why to charge her, about what ? Well, she's an Athlete, therefore is a Principle Sentence!

I put myself into her shoes and would have done the same.

Let's see what happens next, but she's in good hands with her 2 lawyers from Geneva...

 

[Skater Boy]

Whether you like a person or not (Carolina) the question what is fair and just. While I don't think it is right she lied I am not sure what it has to do with her figure skating career. It is not like she did something to benefit herself in respect to skating including but not limited to improving her chances of winning by enhancing her or detering another skater. I guess one could argue that is what distinguishes this case from Tonya Harding where her actions may have helped the perpetrators get away from the crime. Though I am sure lawyers would argue that Tonya actually didn't do anything or proven to do anything in respect to the attack it was after the assault on Kerrigan. So arguably she may have repercussions but outside the skating world. I honestly do not think the ban effects Kostner's competitive career because truthfullly that seems to be over but it affects what we use to call her professional careers = cheesefest competitions, and isu related shows /events/comps etc.

 

[AsadaFanBoy]

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.

You're absolutely right.

She's responsible for her OWN behavior.

Had she not lied to begin with she wouldn't be in this mess.

I'm in favor of heavily fining her and making her perform public service, all personal travel and appearance expenses to be paid by her. She should have to talk to Itlalian athletes and students and charge no speaking fees. Really, even if she did not know what her boyfriend was doing I'm sure she had the common sense to ask the people who came to her door who they were.

I'm not in favor of banning her from competition. She made a mistake and her career shouldn't have to pay for it.

 

[Mafke]

Had she not lied to begin with she wouldn't be in this mess.

I'm in favor of heavily fining her and making her perform public service, all personal travel and appearance expenses to be paid by her. She should have to talk to Itlalian athletes and students and charge no speaking fees. Really, even if she did not know what her boyfriend was doing I'm sure she had the common sense to ask the people who came to her door who they were.

What would the content of her appearances be? It would be absurd for her to speak about the evils of doping, since she was never involved in that.

Basically it would be: Whenever a person in authority asks you something, spill your guts! Your first loyalty is always to authority figures, never to your family or other loved ones!
Obey authority figures!

 

[Icey]

Appeals can sometimes have unexpected land mines.

 

[noskates]

This has probably been said before but my guess is the Italian government doesn't want someone with her high profile (in the world) to get a pass! They're clearly making a strong statement with their punishment of her. To have all this happen, know that she was complicit in some way, and still represent Italy would be a farce. And I agree with those who have said she should just take her punishment and not make more of an issue out of it. It's not like she's 20 years old and in the middle of her career!!!

 

[solani]

This has probably been said before but my guess is the Italian government doesn't want someone with her high profile (in the world) to get a pass! They're clearly making a strong statement with their punishment of her. To have all this happen, know that she was complicit in some way, and still represent Italy would be a farce. And I agree with those who have said she should just take her punishment and not make more of an issue out of it. It's not like she's 20 years old and in the middle of her career!!!

I see. And Schwazer representing Italy in Rio is not a farce?
CONI is making her a scapegoat, there is no real evidence against her.

 

[noskates]

Well you obviously know more details than I do. I had never even heard of Schwazer before this. Not exactly a household name.

 

[solani]

Well you obviously know more details than I do. I had never even heard of Schwazer before this. Not exactly a household name.

Alex Schwazer is her ex-boyfriend, an italian race walker, Olympic champion, the one who doped with EPO. He told the officials that he hid the dope in Carolina's fridge and that she met Dr. Ferrari with him, he told her to lie to the controllers, he got his sentence shortend for beeing so very cooperative and he's going to compete in Rio and show the world that it can be done clean!

 

[Buttercup]

I'm in favor of heavily fining her and making her perform public service, all personal travel and appearance expenses to be paid by her. She should have to talk to Itlalian athletes and students and charge no speaking fees. Really, even if she did not know what her boyfriend was doing I'm sure she had the common sense to ask the people who came to her door who they were.

I'm not in favor of banning her from competition. She made a mistake and her career shouldn't have to pay for it.

So she should pay for it with her money and the time she can use to pursue her post-competitive career? Because she was unfortunate enough to have been in a serious relationship with someone she trusted but who turned out to be a lying cheat?

Of course she knew who the people asking for Schwazer were, but she saw it as a much more minor whereabouts issue.

Anti-doping agencies do not have the legal authority to make anyone do community service. Nor should they be given such power; if a country has criminalized doping, it should be up to the judicial system to deal with sentencing, and the anti-doping bodies should stick to sports bans and suspensions.

 

[AsadaFanBoy]

What would the content of her appearances be? It would be absurd for her to speak about the evils of doping, since she was never involved in that.

Basically it would be: Whenever a person in authority asks you something, spill your guts! Your first loyalty is always to authority figures, never to your family or other loved ones!
Obey authority figures!

I didn't say she should speak about the evils of doping. Such hyperbole. Unless you're worked up. In which case you can relax a bit.

Nor did I say she should do the propaganda bit.

Public service doesn't have to be related to the crime you committed.

You don't think she has something valuable to say to athletes and students? I guess not.

Also...common sense might lead someone to think that she'd appear at graduations and give speeches and such. Just saying.

For no speaking fees.

She still committed a crime. She should still pay. She can pay with public service.