Ban on Carolina Kostner Over

[kiara_bleu]

:thumbsup:


The investigation against her started so late because Schwazer retired after his first ban. He changed his mind, retired from his retirement and well, he needed to "give" the investigators something to shorten his sentence so that he can compete in Rio. He could have chosen the people that actually made him dope (I'm sure he was under pressure, I think he still is. That doesn't change my opinion about him, but it's not all black and white) or supported him. He chose Carolina.
I only want to add one thing about those new better anti-doping rules (I think they're good, in fact): They were made and updated to get the instigators, the sport officials who want to see results, the doctors who earn a lot of money with it, the trainers, the whole medical staff etc.. Not the girlfriends who happen to be athletes coincidentally.

So he did not give those specific info about Carolina during his first investigation? I thought that the fact Carolina lied to the officials who went to her apartment would at least have come out during that investigation. So he did not say anything about the drugs disguised as vitamins in the refrigerator and the visit to the doping doctor until the second investigation after he decided he wanted to unretire? Thanks for the clarification.

 

[solani]

So he did not give those specific info about Carolina during his first investigation? I thought that the fact Carolina lied to the officials who went to her apartment would at least have come out during that investigation. So he did not say anything about the drugs disguised as vitamins in the refrigerator and the visit to the doping doctor until the second investigation after he decided he wanted to unretire? Thanks for the clarification.

Yes, that's the way the media has presented it. But when I think about it, maybe it's not true. Maybe CONI told Schwazer to lie about his retirement, so that the investigation in his case stopped. So that Carolina could compete in Sochi, now Schwazer can compete in Rio, now thats a win-win for CONI! :hopelessness:

 

[Mafke]

So you disagree with the 'whereabouts' requirement? How could you effectively fight doping at the elite level without it?

I don't especially care about doping and to the degree that I do care, making athletes give up essentially all privacy seems like a case where the cure* is worse than the illness.

*the fact that it's not a cure just makes things worse

 

[noskates]

I don't understand how you can be a sports fan and NOT care about doping. It certainly takes away from a level playing field. Ask Lance Armstrong.....:disapp:

 

[Buttercup]

I don't understand how you can be a sports fan and NOT care about doping. It certainly takes away from a level playing field. Ask Lance Armstrong.....:disapp:

As if Armstrong was the only doper in the peloton.

One has to be really naive to believe that doping is the only thing that contributes to a lack of level playing field: differences in budgets, access to training facilities, to the best coaches, nutrition expertise, medical treatment, equipment and gear - there is no level playing field in sports.

It is true that doping is not allowed, whereas those other things are perfectly legal and acceptable. But I think it's absolute hypocrisy to make the level playing field argument against doping. If you want to discuss it from a medical perspective, that's another matter - and that's what the focus should be on, ensuring athletes compete healthy.

 

[solani]

Armstrong has very very high criminal energy, the guy's frightening. He actually made his whole team dope. He's a blackmailer and a bully. And we have a link: Armstrong - Ferrari - Schwazer.

Anyway, it took some time, but now I found an article in an italian online newspaper (south tyrol) that finally tells me why exactly Carolina Kostner was banned. She allegedly violated article 2.9 of the World-Anti-Doping-Code:

2.9 Complicity
Assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, conspiring, covering up or any other type of intentional complicity involving an anti-doping rule violation, Attempted anti-doping rule violation or violation of Article 10.12.1 by another Person.

10.12.1 is about banned persons attending competitions (I think this is about banned trainers).
I would be interested to know how they proved the "intentional complicity".

 

[Buttercup]

Armstrong has very very high criminal energy, the guy's frightening. He actually made his whole team dope. He's a blackmailer and a bully. And we have a link: Armstrong - Ferrari - Schwazer.

Anyway, it took some time, but now I found an article in an italian online newspaper (south tyrol) that finally tells me why exactly Carolina Kostner was banned. She allegedly violated article 2.9 of the World-Anti-Doping-Code:

10.12.1 is about banned persons attending competitions (I think this is about banned trainers).
I would be interested to know how they proved the "intentional complicity".

Doping went on well before Armstrong's time and continued after it. He was pretty nasty to anyone whom he considered a threat, though.

I don't think they have proven any intentional complicity in covering up doping, but maybe there's more to this case than I know. Either way, I imagine that's the crux of her CAS appeal, that the specific charge is an overreach because she wasn't aware of the doping, only the whereabouts issue.

 

[spread beagle]

Armstrong did not invent the doping, it is true, but his method of new level of doping forced every other athletes to dope more and harder too.

He had many fans and admirer, if they think he is right and succesful to do so, they will emulate behaviour. Same applies to every athletes, also like Carolina Kostner.

In doping prevention, there is concept of role model and values communicator, for future generation of athletes. That makes it important to sanction wrong behaviour of athletes even if they only do lying to officials, some people may think should be condoned, but which has ramification, and need prevention.

Appeal of rightful sanction by authorities is not good value to communicate.

 

[solani]

Appeal of rightful sanction by authorities is not good value to communicate.

Did she violate article 2.9 of the World-Anti-Doping-Code? (sentence 2-4 years(!)). Like there's a difference between culpable homicide and murder. (I know, extreme example.)

 

[Crossover]

How long do you guys think that it will take for CAS' final ruling to announce? Two months, several months, or a year?

 

[Buttercup]

In doping prevention, there is concept of role model and values communicator, for future generation of athletes. That makes it important to sanction wrong behaviour of athletes even if they only do lying to officials, some people may think should be condoned, but which has ramification, and need prevention.

Appeal of rightful sanction by authorities is not good value to communicate.

Is this concept working? Doesn't look like it is. Maybe instead the focus needs to be on better testing and on going after the people who are enabling and even encouraging it. There is a world of difference between what Kostner did and people who distribute banned substances. What she did wouldn't even be penalized were she not an athlete, so I fail to see how this is sending any sort of useful message.

It is up to CAS to decide if the appeal is rightful. People have a right to appeal in the justice system and in the sports world. CONI & WADA are not the final authority on these matters (much as the might like to be).

As for Armstrong, that he was a more effective doper than others doesn't mean the sport wasn't rife with it before his time as TdF champion. I don't recall him being part of the Festina affair, for instance.

 

[solani]

As for Armstrong, that he was a more effective doper than others doesn't mean the sport wasn't rife with it before his time as TdF champion. I don't recall him being part of the Festina affair, for instance.

No he wasn't part of the Festina affair in 1998, because he was never a member of that team or the TVM team which was also involved, he was a member of the US Postal Team at that time.
But the festina affair certainly helped his rise in 1999, many strong athletes were banned and most of the teams got a little cautious, not US Postal though, Armstrong failed a drug test during the Tour de France in 1999 (corticosteroids) and samples that were later tested for EPO from that Tour were also positive.
What makes Armstrong special is not the fact that he doped, but the whole system around him that he's created. The blackmail, the connections to the ICU (International Cycling Union), the bribes. And the fact that he was so arrogant and stupid to start a comeback. There's a huge difference between a Lance Armstrong and f.e. a Jan Ulrich or a Richard Virenque in my books. The latter two are also victims, the first one not so much.

How long do you guys think that it will take for CAS' final ruling to announce? Two months, several months, or a year?

Up to 6 months I think. I never heard of a longer time.

 

[Buttercup]

What makes Armstrong special is not the fact that he doped, but the whole system around him that he's created. The blackmail, the connections to the ICU (International Cycling Union), the bribes. And the fact that he was so arrogant and stupid to start a comeback. There's a huge difference between a Lance Armstrong and f.e. a Jan Ulrich or a Richard Virenque in my books. The latter two are also victims, the first one not so much.

Oh, I am not suggesting that Armstrong wasn't a very effective and aggressive doper, and that he was awful to a lot of people. But let's not pretend that cycling would have been so clean without him. Doping had been part of the TdF for decades by the time he came up (Wikipedia has a useful roundup), and he didn't have the stature to talk anyone into doing anything in his early years on the tour. He didn't even compete at the 1998 TdF, which was obviously dirty. I just can't get too excited about one doper being better than the other dopers - at doping and at cycling. But his treatment of people who challenged him really was disgusting.

Anyway, Kostner's transgression is so far removed from what Armstrong did that I see no reason to even bring him into the discussion, unless it's people making some kind of slippery slope argument (which I don't buy in this case).

 

[solani]

Oh, I am not suggesting that Armstrong wasn't a very effective and aggressive doper, and that he was awful to a lot of people. But let's not pretend that cycling would have been so clean without him. Doping had been part of the TdF for decades by the time he came up (Wikipedia has a useful roundup), and he didn't have the stature to talk anyone into doing anything in his early years on the tour. He didn't even compete at the 1998 TdF, which was obviously dirty. I just can't get too excited about one doper being better than the other dopers - at doping and at cycling. But his treatment of people who challenged him really was disgusting.

Anyway, Kostner's transgression is so far removed from what Armstrong did that I see no reason to even bring him into the discussion, unless it's people making some kind of slippery slope argument (which I don't buy in this case).

Now that's interesting: You start the whole Armstrong discussion in this thread and now you write that we shouldn't bring him into the discussion? While mentioning my opinion about the Armstrong case at least I always wrote something on the topic. Until now.
Cycling wouldn't be clean without Armstrong, no one said that, no endurance sport can be 100% clean. But imho Armstrong is the worst thing that could've possibly happend to cycling. He is a symbiose between aggressive doper and mastermind and in that he is absolutely unique. And I don't like that beeing talked down. Calling Armstrong a simple doper ist like calling a drug dealer a chemist.
So imho you cannot compare Armstrong to any other doper, you cannot compare him to Schwazer although they had the same doctor.

 

[Buttercup]

I didn't "start the whole Armstrong discussion in this thread". It is true that I responded to people who brought him up.

 

[solani]

I didn't "start the whole Armstrong discussion in this thread". It is true that I responded to people who brought him up.

http://www.goldenskate.com/forum/showthread.php?53077-Doping-ban-requested-for-skater-Carolina-Kostner&p=1113385&viewfull=1#post1113385
I think you started it, noskates only mentioned his name. Now we can end it with a disagreement.

 

[Buttercup]

http://www.goldenskate.com/forum/showthread.php?53077-Doping-ban-requested-for-skater-Carolina-Kostner&p=1113385&viewfull=1#post1113385
I think you started it, noskates only mentioned his name. Now we can end it with a disagreement.

That's a very interesting definition of start: I didn't bring him up (that was noskates), and I didn't expand at length about his activities and evil nature (that was you).

But it never had anything to do with Kostner, or this thread, so I shouldn't have responded to either of you. Can you now please stay on topic?

 

[solani]

You responded to noskates with a sarcastic comment.

As if Armstrong was the only doper in the peloton.

That comment implemented that Armstrong is an ordinary doper. That I couldn't let go. I would have never responded to noskates post, because I agree with it.
And again, only my last two posts didn't include Carolina, so try and set a good example yourself and don't remind me of something I always try to do.

I think we basically agree that Carolina shouldn't get punished severly for what she did. I trust in the CAS (but I also trusted in the CONI a couple of weeks ago ... but the CAS is independent! ). So fingers crossed!

 

[salchowx4]

WADA also asking for harsher punishment:

ANSA) - Lausanne, March 10 - The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) on Tuesday asked the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to lengthen a 16-month Italian ban for skater Carolina Kostner to 2-4 years for helping her ex-boyfriend Alex Schwazer dodge a drugs test.

http://www.ansa.it/english/news/201...ate_17ed2197-a933-4856-900f-cb31ec2f5ad6.html

 

[cruzceleste]

WADA also asking for harsher punishment:

ANSA) - Lausanne, March 10 - The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) on Tuesday asked the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to lengthen a 16-month Italian ban for skater Carolina Kostner to 2-4 years for helping her ex-boyfriend Alex Schwazer dodge a drugs test.

http://www.ansa.it/english/news/201...ate_17ed2197-a933-4856-900f-cb31ec2f5ad6.html

Well, CODI used the new set of rules, that were softer so to help Caolina, I´m guessing WADA wanted the old regulations to be use.