Ban on Carolina Kostner Over

[karne]

Actually it was already unfair from the start. She didn't do the actual doping herself and she was Italy's heroine in ladies figure skating: winning World medals and an Olympic Bronze (should have been at least a silver IMO but I won't say anything more). A small punishment is enough, but they seem to be putting down their own heroine. This just saddens me.

Wait. Are you saying that just because she was some Italian heroine she should have been allowed to get away with lying to doping inspectors and covering for a doper?

That's a dangerous slippery slope you want to get on there.

 

[solani]

Wait. Are you saying that just because she was some Italian heroine she should have been allowed to get away with lying to doping inspectors and covering for a doper?

That's a dangerous slippery slope you want to get on there.

CONI is also on a dangerous slippery slope by using a anti doping law that was created to get the coaches and doctors who support doping against the girlfriend of the doper. The USADA for example made clear that they don't want to go down this road.

 

[Alba]

CONI is also on a dangerous slippery slope by using a anti doping law that was created to get the coaches and doctors who support doping against the girlfriend of the doper. The USADA for example made clear that they don't want to go down this road.

They're not using a law created for somebody else to get to Kostner. These are the rules and it's because she is an athlete and registered with CONI. I agree that the rules are too harsh with somebody who never used doping and those who do get away quite easily, IMO. They should get a ban for life.

 

[Hevari]

They're not using a law created for somebody else to get to Kostner. These are the rules and it's because she is an athlete and registered with CONI. I agree that the rules are too harsh with somebody who never used doping and those who do get away quite easily, IMO. They should get a ban for life.

One of the main principles of the law process is that you cannot be sentenced/punished for the action, you have not commited. Did Carolina ever used any prohibited substance? NOPE! When was Schwazer banned? Three years ago! Right? So why a hell Caro is persecuted now? What's her crime?

Even if she lied about her boyfrend's whereabout, she was not in the court, yep?)

Отправлено с моего Uno через Tapatalk

 

[solani]

They're not using a law created for somebody else to get to Kostner. These are the rules and it's because she is an athlete and registered with CONI. I agree that the rules are too harsh with somebody who never used doping and those who do get away quite easily, IMO. They should get a ban for life.

Anti Doping Code 2015
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.

I disagree, this law was not created for spouses/girlfriends/boyfriends of the alleged doper who happen to be athletes. And there was never any case like this and as I mentioned before, the USADA doesn't want to go there. The anti doping war is complicated enough already, this doesn't help anybody and what message do we get from it? Normally you also should have certain rights if you're married or betrothed, obviously not in this case. They just searched and found something that they can use against her, but this law was not created for cases like this.

 

[Alba]

I disagree, this law was not created for spouses/girlfriends/boyfriends of the alleged doper who happen to be athletes. And there was never any case like this and as I mentioned before, the USADA doesn't want to go there. The anti doping war is complicated enough already, this doesn't help anybody and what message do we get from it? Normally you also should have certain rights if you're married or betrothed, obviously not in this case. They just searched and found something that they can use against her, but this law was not created for cases like this.

I never said this. You suggested the rule was created for other cases and I'm saying it is not. The fact that Carolina is also an athlete and CONI member brought her the ban. It's within the rules. You might disagree with them - and I think it's harsh given the circumstances - but there is absolutely no prove that they were searching something to use against her. What are you talking about? They went to inspect Alex and she lied. Right there, right in that moment she knew she was breakinga rule. Very simple.

 

[Hevari]

I never said this. You suggested the rule was created for other cases and I'm saying it is not. The fact that Carolina is also an athlete and CONI member brought her the ban. It's within the rules. You might disagree with them - and I think it's harsh given the circumstances - but there is absolutely no prove that they were searching something to use against her. What are you talking about? They went to inspect Alex and she lied. Right there, right in that moment she knew she was breakinga rule. Very simple.

Alex was disqualified in 2012. Why Caro is persecuted NOW, TWO-THREE YEARS AFTER? Where that CONI with its principles was then? Or then, when Caro was one of the World Championships and Olympics favourites, nobody in that CONI worried about Caro's lie some years ago (a doper was punished, so what?) and now, when Caro had retired from competitive skating, that CONI think, that they can do with her whatever they want? Why?

And it's disgusting, that there are people, who respect what CONI does with Caro... It's awfull...

Отправлено с моего Uno через Tapatalk

 

[TheGrandSophy]

Alex was disqualified in 2012. Why Caro is persecuted NOW, TWO-THREE YEARS AFTER? Where that CONI with its principles was then? Or then, when Caro was one of the World Championships and Olympics favourites, nobody in that CONI worried about Caro's lie some years ago (a doper was punished, so what?) and now, when Caro had retired from competitive skating, that CONI think, that they can do with her whatever they want? Why?

And it's disgusting, that there are people, who respect what CONI does with Caro... It's awfull...

Отправлено с моего Uno через Tapatalk

Huh? They banned her. This is about a possible extension because she has done a show whilst under ban that she arguably should have not done?

 

[Alba]

Alex was disqualified in 2012. Why Caro is persecuted NOW, TWO-THREE YEARS AFTER? Where that CONI with its principles was then? Or then, when Caro was one of the World Championships and Olympics favourites, nobody in that CONI worried about Caro's lie some years ago (a doper was punished, so what?) and now, when Caro had retired from competitive skating, that CONI think, that they can do with her whatever they want? Why?

And it's disgusting, that there are people, who respect what CONI does with Caro... It's awfull...

Отправлено с моего Uno через Tapatalk

Huh?! :scratch:

 

[Snow63]

Alex was disqualified in 2012. Why Caro is persecuted NOW, TWO-THREE YEARS AFTER? Where that CONI with its principles was then? Or then, when Caro was one of the World Championships and Olympics favourites, nobody in that CONI worried about Caro's lie some years ago (a doper was punished, so what?) and now, when Caro had retired from competitive skating, that CONI think, that they can do with her whatever they want? Why?

And it's disgusting, that there are people, who respect what CONI does with Caro... It's awfull...

Отправлено с моего Uno через Tapatalk

I think you did not follow the case, or the conversation in this thread.

 

[Alba]

I think you did not follow the case, or the conversation in this thread.

To say the least.

 

[solani]

I never said this. You suggested the rule was created for other cases and I'm saying it is not. The fact that Carolina is also an athlete and CONI member brought her the ban. It's within the rules. You might disagree with them - and I think it's harsh given the circumstances - but there is absolutely no prove that they were searching something to use against her. What are you talking about? They went to inspect Alex and she lied. Right there, right in that moment she knew she was breakinga rule. Very simple.

I don't think that it's simple. My interpretation of that article 2.9 is different from yours (not uncommon when it comes to law). The question is wether the can prove the "intentional complicity" and I don't think that they can. Schwazer never talked to Carolina about what he was doing as far as we know and lying is not a crime and not against article 2.9. And Schwazer was tested only hours after the incident, he travelled back to Italy. So she didn't hide him after this and they got him (we know that with those tests a couple of hours can be crucial, but not in this case). I believe that they were searching for something that they can use against her, also because it took so long. This started right after Sochi, Schwazer was banned long before Sochi. Schwazer will start in Rio and Carolina is a kind of scapegoat, maybe there was a deal, this whole case is very fishy. Schwazer gets deal after deal and Carolina's appeal hasn't even got an appointment. Right before the appeal they even threatened her and said that an appeal would most probably lengthen her ban, as if she wouldn't know of that risk herself.
It's good to discuss this imho, this will be a leading case. I hope that the CAS decision will be wise.

 

[Hevari]

Huh? They banned her. This is about a possible extension because she has done a show whilst under ban that she arguably should have not done?

I know about ban. I mean, that ban is also awfull...

Отправлено с моего Uno через Tapatalk

 

[Hevari]

I don't think that it's simple. My interpretation of that article 2.9 is different from yours (not uncommon when it comes to law). The question is wether the can prove the "intentional complicity" and I don't think that they can. Schwazer never talked to Carolina about what he was doing as far as we know and lying is not a crime and not against article 2.9. And Schwazer was tested only hours after the incident, he travelled back to Italy. So she didn't hide him after this and they got him (we know that with those tests a couple of hours can be crucial, but not in this case). I believe that they were searching for something that they can use against her, also because it took so long. This started right after Sochi, Schwazer was banned long before Sochi. Schwazer will start in Rio and Carolina is a kind of scapegoat, maybe there was a deal, this whole case is very fishy. Schwazer gets deal after deal and Carolina's appeal hasn't even got an appointment. Right before the appeal they even threatened her and said that an appeal would most probably lengthen her ban, as if she wouldn't know of that risk herself.
It's good to discuss this imho, this will be a leading case. I hope that the CAS decision will be wise.

In my previous post i meant this! Thanks for telling it in another, less emotional, words...

Отправлено с моего Uno через Tapatalk

 

[TheGrandSophy]

In my previous post i meant this! Thanks for telling it in another, less emotional, words...

Отправлено с моего Uno через Tapatalk

But, then, CONI did do something back then. You might not agree with what they did and obviously nor does Carolina and thus the appeal. However, this latest update is about actions during the ban.

Now, it may seem draconian to many, but I have to say that either a) Carolina has not checked whether if she did this show she would be contravening the ban; b) she did not care and skated anyway.or c) the authorities have got this completely wrong and this show was not in contravention of the ban. If c, then Carolina has done nothing wrong and should only have to see out her ban or win her appeal. However, if a or b, then, tbh, although the original ban may seem harsh, she hasn't got a leg to stand on really and she may have to face the consequences of her ignorance or recklessness.

 

[Ophelia]

Kostner doesn't seem like the brightest bulb in the room...

 

[Lys]

Now, it may seem draconian to many, but I have to say that either a) Carolina has not checked whether if she did this show she would be contravening the ban; b) she did not care and skated anyway.or c) the authorities have got this completely wrong and this show was not in contravention of the ban. If c, then Carolina has done nothing wrong and should only have to see out her ban or win her appeal. However, if a or b, then, tbh, although the original ban may seem harsh, she hasn't got a leg to stand on really and she may have to face the consequences of her ignorance or recklessness.

According to the article I posted some days ago,

In prima battuta, la colpa attribuita a Kostner era stata quella di avere preso parte ad una serie di eventi riconducibili in qualche modo a "Ghiaccio Spettacolo", associazione dilettantistica affiliata al CONI come ente di propaganda. Proprio Ghiaccio Spettacolo ha però preso da subito le distanze con gli eventi in questione: "Siamo totalmente estranei all’organizzazione, all’amministrazione e all’allestimento delle manifestazioni in oggetto".

(summing up: at first, the problem seemed to be that those shows were organized by "Ghiaccio spettacolo", an amateur association affiliated to CONI. But "Ghiaccio spettacolo" itself declared it was totally extraneous to those shows).

uno dei principali problemi sarebbe rappresentato dal fatto che tre dirigenti nonché artisti tesserati per Ghiaccio Spettacolo sarebbero soci o comunque figure riconducibili alla Shuffle Srl di Sesto San Giovanni, che avrebbe stipulato il contratto con Kostner. Ovviamente, resta da appurare la rilevanza del fatto ai fini della normativa antidoping vigente,

(summing up again: then the problem seemed to be that three managers and members of Ghiaccio spettacolo are also members or linked to "shuffle srl" - the private agency that organized those shows and which Kostner signed her contract. How and if this fact is relevant to Carolina ban is yet to be determined).

The article than points out how one of the main problem with Kostner's sentence is how what she can do and what she can't do is not clearly defined.

In the last part of the article is reported that:

Michela Morizzo, manager di Tecnè che si occupa di Carolina Kostner,[...]: “Non siamo sprovveduti e Carolina può pattinare. Abbiamo chiesto l’autorizzazione, ci siamo confrontati anche con noi con tutte le dovute verifiche. [...] Carolina ha chiesto l’autorizzazione alla Fiamme Azzurre per questi tre eventi (Corvara, Pinzolo, Asiago) e per quello di ottobre (Intimissimi On Ice). Sono state loro a coordinare il tutto [...]”.
[...]
Le Fiamme Azzurre, infatti, tramite una nota hanno precisato come "nella gestione degli eventi non risultassero coinvolte società o gruppi sportivi affiliati alle federazioni sportive nazionali riconosciute dal Coni".
[...]
Ippolito Sanfratello, che, contattato dal quotidiano “Il Trentino”, ha dichiarato: “Come FISG ci siamo accertati che la manifestazione non fosse organizzata da un affiliato alla federazione. Di questo abbiamo conferma scritta ed è arrivata. Se abbiamo informato il CONI? Ne ho parlato negli ultimi giorni con Fabbricini (segretario generale nazionale)”.

(summing up:
Michela Morizza, Carolina's manager, said: "We are not clueless and Carolina can skate. We have asked the authorization, we have checked. [...] Carolina asked the authorization to skate in these three events and in Intimissimi on Ice to Fiamme Azzurre. They have coordinated everything.

Fiamme Azzurre, through a note, declared how no clubs nor sporting teams linked/affiliated to CONI were linked with those shows.

Ippolito Sanfratello (high manager of Italian Skating Federation) said how FISG made sure that those shows were not organized by someone linked to the federation and how they have a written note confirming it. He said he had already spoken about it with Fabbricini (high manager of CONI).)

sooooooo... from that article (and Neveitalia and Ambesi, who I think wrote it, are usually quite trustable), I don't think Carolina face anything.
Probably CONI will have to open an inquiry (it's a standard procedure if they have received a note about something that could be amiss) but if everything written in the article is right, they will close it soon enough. Even if those shows were organized by someone linked to CONI, it seems she did anything she could to make sure not to break her sentence.

What's more interesting to me is why and how this mess of mixed informations spread around, tbh.

 

[TheGrandSophy]

Thank you, Lys. If all is as is said there, then it is scenario c of my three possibilities and the matter should be closed soon. Then, if will be for her to see the ban out or succeed in an appeal.

As for it getting out and being spread, when famous people are involved, there is always someone ready to leak info.

 

[Alba]

sooooooo... from that article (and Neveitalia and Ambesi, who I think wrote it, are usually quite trustable), I don't think Carolina face anything.
Probably CONI will have to open an inquiry (it's a standard procedure if they have received a note about something that could be amiss) but if everything written in the article is right, they will close it soon enough. Even if those shows were organized by someone linked to CONI, it seems she did anything she could to make sure not to break her sentence.

Yep, I think that's the case too.

What's more interesting to me is why and how this mess of mixed informations spread around, tbh

Because of this

In prima battuta, la colpa attribuita a Kostner era stata quella di avere preso parte ad una serie di eventi riconducibili in qualche modo a "Ghiaccio Spettacolo", associazione dilettantistica affiliata al CONI come ente di propaganda.

And this:

uno dei principali problemi sarebbe rappresentato dal fatto che tre dirigenti nonché artisti tesserati per Ghiaccio Spettacolo sarebbero soci o comunque figure riconducibili alla Shuffle Srl di Sesto San Giovanni, che avrebbe stipulato il contratto con Kostner. Ovviamente, resta da appurare la rilevanza del fatto ai fini della normativa antidoping vigente,

But above all the problem with Kostner's sentence regarding of what she can and can't do. Somebody must've thought she can't and leaked the info. to the press. Not unusual but what is still unclear to me is did CONI received an official note about this or not? Till now I've seen nothing official, just media talk.

 

[Alba]

I don't think that it's simple. My interpretation of that article 2.9 is different from yours (not uncommon when it comes to law). The question is wether the can prove the "intentional complicity" and I don't think that they can. Schwazer never talked to Carolina about what he was doing as far as we know and lying is not a crime and not against article 2.9. And Schwazer was tested only hours after the incident, he travelled back to Italy. So she didn't hide him after this and they got him (we know that with those tests a couple of hours can be crucial, but not in this case).

And all this has been taken into account, based on the motivation of the sentence, and that's why she got less than what the Antidoping Prosecutor asked for. This is the motivation: http://www.coni.it/it/news/primo-pi...del-tna-sulle-motivazioni-della-sentenza.html

Nella decisione depositata oggi, il TNA ha sottolineato che Carolina Kostner non ha posto in essere alcuna azione che possa riferire direttamente a lei pratiche dopanti, o coperto Schwazer nell’assunzione di sostanze illecite. L’Atleta, invece, è stata condannata per aver consapevolmente mentito all’incaricato del prelievo allorché questi si presentò ad Oberstdorf per testare Schwazer il 30 luglio 2012. L’art. 2.9 delle NSA vigenti, infatti, punisce l’aiuto alla commissione di qualsiasi violazione della normativa antidoping: dunque, non solo all’uso di una sostanza vietata (violazione dell’art. 2.1 o 2.2 NSA), ma anche, ad esempio, all’elusione di un controllo (art. 2.3 NSA). La diversità di oggetto della violazione, peraltro, non ne fa venire meno la gravità: l’effettuazione di controlli a sorpresa e fuori dal contesto agonistico è infatti essenziale per un efficace contrasto al doping.Allo stesso tempo, il TNA ha ritenuto che sul comportamento di Carolina Kostner abbiano influito svariati fattori, attenuando il grado di sua colpevolezza. Tra tali elementi il TNA ha dato rilievo al fatto che l’Atleta ha agito sulla base di una richiesta della persona che amava, al carattere subitaneo della richiesta, che esigeva una risposta nel giro di pochi secondi, all’assenza di elementi che facciano ritenere che il comportamento dell’Atleta sia stato premeditato, al fatto l’Atleta si è immediatamente attivata affinché Schwazer si recasse nel luogo in cui poteva essere sottoposto al controllo, e alla circostanza che l’Atleta, pur consapevole dell’aiuto all’elusione del controllo, non sapeva che Schwazer faceva uso di sostanze vietate.

Tu sum up what they are saying is: she was not covering Schwazer because she knew he was doping and they do recognise all the circumstances and her reasons for lying to WADA inspector; it was not premeditated, she acted based on a request from the person she loved, it happened in a very short time, she didn't know he was doping and also that she asked him later to go and give the sample. What she's been punished for is: for consciously lying to WADA inspector, in charge for taking the blood sample, therefore assisting him in evading sample collection and violating (art. 2.3 NSA). So Caro's action is more linked with art.2.3 because in that moment, although she didn't know that he was doping, she practically made for him possible to evade the sample collection, therefore violating art. 2.3 which states: ""evading" or “refusing” Sample collection contemplatesintentional conduct by the Athlete", and she knew she was doing that. They also add that just because she is not the person who directly violated the rule it doesn't make her action less serious because the unannounced checks are essential for an efficient fight against doping.
So according to this sentence, Caro's offense does not consist in helping a doped Schwazer evading the sample collection but in helping the athlete Schwazer evading it.
Based on this, in all honesty, I can't say this judgment is unfair. I don't know what kind of decision CAS is gonna make but most probably they will need "full knowledge/awareness" from Carolina - which according to that sentence there isn't - therefore will absolve her as you said.

I believe that they were searching for something that they can use against her, also because it took so long. This started right after Sochi, Schwazer was banned long before Sochi. Schwazer will start in Rio and Carolina is a kind of scapegoat, maybe there was a deal, this whole case is very fishy. Schwazer gets deal after deal and Carolina's appeal hasn't even got an appointment.

Actually this started since Schwazer was banned. He gave his testimony to the Bolzano Prosecutors and admitted the whole thing from the start. The prosecuters interrogated Kostner and she confirmed. The Bolzano Prosecutors send the whole dossier to the Antidoping prosecuters CONI-NADA and they did nothing. Why? Could be many things but I strongly disagree that they were searching for something to use against her, let alone a scapegoat. What for?! FS is not popular at all in Italy and she is loved by those few who follow this sport here and by the people involved with figure skating. Besides, FS is not touched by doping.
If anything, I would say the delay went in her "favor" because she was able to compete and partecipate in the Olympics. If we're going to speculate why it took so long I would say Sochi. CONI knew they couldn't keep this thing on hold forever but they could do that long enough till after the Olympics. I'm not saying she knew but it suited to everybody. Schwazer's deals are not for Carolina, who has no weight in the bigger picture and he has not accused her of anything. His deals are related in exchange for the big fishes of FIDAL (Italian Federation of Light Athletics). People who knew and were also involved (at least according to Schwarz) with his doping, like the Fed doctor Pierluigi Fiorella[FONT=Open Sans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif], [/FONT]Giuseppe Fischetto (at the time health director of FIDAL) and Rita Bottiglieri who was a high official of FIDAL. Maybe you don't know all these things because we're not following Alex's case here. I don't follow his case that much either but all these people I mentioned are waiting for their trial in Bolzano. [FONT=Open Sans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] [/FONT]