Ban on Carolina Kostner Over

[randomfan]

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.

It's not that they should give her a chance because she's a heroine. My point is that what she did was wrong (and thanks for correcting me about the WADA part guys) but like Alba said the rules are too harsh for someone who didn't do the actual doping. Of course she shouldn't get away with lying just because of who she is. But it's just that rather than a small punishment they're taking the situation way too far than they should. For anyone who gets into Carolina's current situation the rules shouldn't be like this.

 

[solani]

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



Tu sum up what they are saying is: she was not covering [/FONT][/COLOR]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.

Thanks for clarifying this, I thought I read somewhere that she's supposed to have violated article 2.9, not 2.3. And I was totally wrong because 2.9 didn't exist before 2015. But if it is article 2.3 there is no doubt in my mind that she will be cleared.
Schwazer violated article 2.3, not Carolina, he did it by making her lie for him, Carolina didn't evade a doping test. Schwazer first violated article 2.4 (Whereabouts) and then 2.3 by making Carolina lie for him.
It's not that she had planned this, she had only seconds to make a decision, is this worth 18 months? (this is nearly a full doping ban for an athlete who violated 2.3!). They are practically treating her like an doping athlete, that can't be right.

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]

I don't like to think that CONI did her a "favour". If she has indeed intentially violated the Anti Doping Code I would have wanted her to be banned immediatley and not allowed to compete in Sochi. Waiting so that somebody can compete is not taking the Anti Doping War seriously and I want it to be taken seriously especially by a Anti Doping Organization like CONI.

 

[deneb]

The Bolzano Prosecutors send the whole dossier to the Antidoping prosecuters CONI-NADA and they did nothing.

From what I've understood, Bolzano prosecutors sent nothing. When they had terminated their investigations they simply released the whole dossier and CONI could acquire it. And it happened one year ago and not in 2012.

 

[Alba]

From what I've understood, Bolzano prosecutors sent nothing. When they had terminated their investigations they simply released the whole dossier and CONI could acquire it. And it happened one year ago and not in 2012.

Well, you understood wrong. It was a long and meticulous investigation in coordination with Ros Trento and Nas Firenze which was concluded a year ago because other people were being investigated which are now accused and facing a trial but the dossier I'm talking about, with Schwazer interrogation, was with CONI long before and Carolina was called by CONI a year ago.

This is what Claudio Galli - Il Sole 24 Ore journalist who has followed (still following) the whole thing - wrote on the 9th september 2014.

Si legge nell’avviso di conclusion delle indagini preliminari:
“Il Team Olimpico WADA–CIO operativo a Londra ha disposto un secondo controllo a sorpresa su SCHWAZER Alex (…) che dichiarerà nell’interrogatorio: “Ha suonato, la Carolina è andata giù e io ho detto: ‘Questo può essere solo l’antidoping, non è possibile’, e io gli ho detto: ‘No, digli che non ci sono, sono a casa’...”.

Questa circostanza è stata quindi ammessa sin dall’inizio da SCHWAZER, e sicuramente costituisce una macchia nel comportamento sportivo di KOSTNER che sa benissimo come ciò costituisca una violazione del codice WADA. Sembra non accorgersene la Procura Antidoping del CONI NADO allorché riceve i documenti dalla Procura di Bolzano, incluso l’interrogatorio di SCHWAZER: non solo evita di aprire un procedimento a carico della KOSTNER.

Schwazer violated article 2.3, not Carolina, he did it by making her lie for him, Carolina didn't evade a doping test. Schwazer first violated article 2.4 (Whereabouts) and then 2.3 by making Carolina lie for him. It's not that she had planned this, she had only seconds to make a decision, is this worth 18 months? (this is nearly a full doping ban for an athlete who violated 2.3!). They are practically treating her like an doping athlete, that can't be right.

And all that is stated in the motivation indeed but for them Caro helping him evade the test was serious enough offense to punish her. Worth 18 months? No, not reading that motivation, and that's what I think is too harsh.
3 month, 6 at max but not 18.

I don't like to think that CONI did her a "favour".

No, I don't think CONI made her a favor because they pited her or because they're so generous. I meant that their (non) actions does not suggest at all that they were searching for something to use against her as you seemed to think.

If she has indeed intentially violated the Anti Doping Code I would have wanted her to be banned immediatley and not allowed to compete in Sochi. Waiting so that somebody can compete is not taking the Anti Doping War seriously and I want it to be taken seriously especially by a Anti Doping Organization like CONI.

That's the key thing. Did she violated the anti doping code or not? Remains to be seen by the CAS decision now.
Maybe at the time CONI thought she did not violated any anti doping code and they didn't think they had a strong case against her. I don't know, I'm just speculating now. I mean even now, in the motivation, is written that it was not premeditated and she didn't know about his doping, only that she consciously lied about his absence in the house and that's it.

 

[MK's Winter]

It's been a while since I've read about this case, but I am under the impression that Carolinas boyfriend had been misleading her a bit as well. I don't think she viewed it as lying since it was not his time to be tested or something like that.

It's not her responsibility to track him for anti doping agents. This girl had no idea what he was hiding from her. I don't think it's fair.

 

[Alba]

I don't think she viewed it as lying

She did though and she isn't denying that. She immediately activated herself to make him go and give the test. This was recognised as an extenuating circumstance in her favor and stated in the motivation.

since it was not his time to be tested or something like that.

It's called unannounced check during out-of-competition time. Athletes don't know when is "their time", that's the pupose.
The rule compels athletes to register on a quarterly basis for potential testing when not in competition, and they must report their schedule and anticipated activity for each day. Not only do athletes or their coaches need to anticipate where the athlete will be for one hour every day and stick to the schedule, but the athletes could also be visited unannounced by WADA inspectors any random day for a lab test.

It's not her responsibility to track him for anti doping agents.

Nobody asked her to do so. They are not accusing her for failing to track him down, somewhere else, but for saying he was not in the house when he was.

 

[MK's Winter]

She did though and she isn't denying that. She immediately activated herself to make him go and give the test. This was recognised as an extenuating circumstance in her favor and stated in the motivation. It's called unannounced check during out-of-competition time. Athletes don't know when is "their time", that's the pupose. The rule compels athletes to register on a quarterly basis for potential testing when not in competition, and they must report their schedule and anticipated activity for each day. Not only do athletes or their coaches need to anticipate where the athlete will be for one hour every day and stick to the schedule, but the athletes could also be visited unannounced by WADA inspectors any random day for a lab test. Nobody asked her to do so. They are not accusing her for failing to track him down, somewhere else, but for saying he was not in the house when he was.

Thanks Alba. I have been so out of touch with this since I thought it was done. What's the big deal on her doing shows? I could understand the fuss if it was an ISU sanctioned event, I don't think she is coming back so why not let her earn a living.

 

[deneb]

Well, you understood wrong. It was a long and meticulous investigation in coordination with Ros Trento and Nas Firenze which was concluded a year ago because other people were being investigated which are now accused and facing a trial but the dossier I'm talking about, with Schwazer interrogation, was with CONI long before and Carolina was called by CONI a year ago.

This is what Claudio Galli - Il Sole 24 Ore journalist who has followed (still following) the whole thing - wrote on the 9th september 2014.

"Indagini preliminari" (preliminary inquiry) are covered by "Segreto investigativo" (investigative secrecy). The whole content of inquiry (hearings, depositions, etc...) becomes public only when preliminary inquiry is closed.
Schwazer's declaration were made in a questioning during that inquiry and so the declaration itself was covered by secrecy.
The same thing for Carolina's declaration. She admitted to have lied during that inquiry.
CONI could not know the content of those declarations until the secrecy was removed.
CONI is only a sport authority. Procura della Repubblica, Ros and Nas do not work for CONI. On the contrary CONI itself can be under investigation.
Investigators cannot reveal information to somebody who can be under investigation.

From the same journalist, that very day:

http://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/comm...-era-tutto-sistema-063846.shtml?uuid=ABAwPrrB

Ma la Procura di Bolzano non si è limitata a puntare il dito su quelle quattro persone. Ha fatto molto di più, lanciando una pesantissima accusa all'intero sistema sportivo italiano. Dalla lunga e meticolosa indagine, coordinata dal procuratore Guido Rispoli e condotta dal sostituto Giancarlo Bramante con il supporto investigativo del Ros di Trento, con il tenente colonnello Michael Senn e il maresciallo capo Alessandro Fontana, assieme ai Nas di Firenze e di Trento, è infatti emerso che nell'epoca in cui il Coni era presieduto da Gianni Petrucci il sistema anti-doping ha fatto acqua da tutte le parti. Non solo, abbiamo anche appreso che nelle rare occasioni in cui hanno rischiato di finire nelle seppur larghissime maglie della rete anti-doping, atleti di punta sono stati puntualmente aiutati a uscirne indenni. Per fare nomi e cognomi, a parte Schwazer si parla degli staffettisti che nel 2010 hanno vinto l'argento nella 4x100 agli Europei di Barcellona e del velocista/saltatore Andrew Howe.

L'atto di accusa che emerge dalle carte di un'inchiesta condotta da un team di Carabinieri di due reparti e due città diverse, mette a nudo un intreccio di interessi e connivenze sportive ed economiche (vedi box su Asics) che fa inevitabilmente tornare a mente l'epoca buia del "doping di Stato", quando il professore ferrarese Francesco Conconi era sotto contratto del Coni per sperimentare sostanze o tecniche di "potenziamento artificiale" della performance atletica.

Obviously I do not want to defend CONI, on the contrary! I agree that CONI slept (to say the least).
I only want to point out that CONI could not receive anything from investigators during the inquiry for the reasons I explained and besides it would be illegal.

 

[Amei]

Thanks Alba. I have been so out of touch with this since I thought it was done. What's the big deal on her doing shows? I could understand the fuss if it was an ISU sanctioned event, I don't think she is coming back so why not let her earn a living.

Well a suspension/ban is supposed to be a punishment, perhaps the issue is arising about her doing shows because she was unlikely to return to competition before the ban and if she's still doing shows then she's not really getting any punishment for her actions.

 

[solani]

And all that is stated in the motivation indeed but for them Caro helping him evade the test was serious enough offense to punish her. Worth 18 months? No, not reading that motivation, and that's what I think is too harsh.
3 month, 6 at max but not 18.

They can't reduce penalty when they apply article 2.3, because 16 months is the reduced sentence (4 years downto 2 years because it wasn't intentional and then 2/3rds of that, because they're being nice because she's a first time offender or something like that) it cannot be lowered. But why apply article 2.3 in the first place? She is not the doping athlete! Applying article 2.3 is ridiculous and article 2.9 didn't exist.

No, I don't think CONI made her a favor because they pited her or because they're so generous. I meant that their (non) actions does not suggest at all that they were searching for something to use against her as you seemed to think.

Hmm ... I hope that my suspicions are wrong, that there're just a couple of anti doping investigators in Italy taking their jobs too seriously and having lost sight of their primary objective(s).

That's the key thing. Did she violated the anti doping code or not? Remains to be seen by the CAS decision now.
Maybe at the time CONI thought she did not violated any anti doping code and they didn't think they had a strong case against her. I don't know, I'm just speculating now. I mean even now, in the motivation, is written that it was not premeditated and she didn't know about his doping, only that she consciously lied about his absence in the house and that's it.

Yes and I keep my fingers crossed for her.

 

[andromache]

Well a suspension/ban is supposed to be a punishment, perhaps the issue is arising about her doing shows because she was unlikely to return to competition before the ban and if she's still doing shows then she's not really getting any punishment for her actions.

I don't know much about CONI as an organization (because all the webpages are in Italian), but if they regulate doping, then I assume they are only concerned with competitive events. I'm not sure how they can ban her from doing shows as long as the shows are not affiliated with CONI.

 

[Alba]

Obviously I do not want to defend CONI, on the contrary! I agree that CONI slept (to say the least).
I only want to point out that CONI could not receive anything from investigators during the inquiry for the reasons I explained and besides it would be illegal.

I didn't meant that they received the dossier when they started the invastigation but before september 2014 for sure, no? Gatti (I have read all his articles) clearly suggest that they did. Otherwise why say: Sembra non accorgersene la Procura Antidoping del CONI NADO allorché riceve i documenti dalla Procura di Bolzano, incluso l’interrogatorio di SCHWAZER: non solo evita di aprire un procedimento a carico della KOSTNER.

I remember we were discussing this point with Ambesi last year, when the articles came out, on FB FS group.
The preliminary inquiry can't last longer than 18 months. When the preliminary inquire startedand did they finish exactly ?
Anyway, my point was I really don't see anything that suggest somebody was after Carolina.

They can't reduce penalty when they apply article 2.3, because 16 months is the reduced sentence (4 years downto 2 years because it wasn't intentional and then 2/3rds of that, because they're being nice because she's a first time offender or something like that) it cannot be lowered. But why apply article 2.3 in the first place? She is not the doping athlete! Applying article 2.3 is ridiculous and article 2.9 didn't exist.

Yeah, I know that. I meant the punishement in these cases (taking into account all the circumstances) seems harsh.

I'm not sure how they can ban her from doing shows as long as the shows are not affiliated with CONI.

They can not indeed. According to the media (let's not forget that's all we have right now. No accusations or statements from the officials so far) she might risk because that show apparently is affiliated with CONI. Now, from what I read it's not clear at all, to say the least, if it was affiliated or not and worse, it's not clear even what she can do or can not do.
When things are not clear is hard. You check with some officials and they would say you is okay, only to find out later than it isn't, from somebody else and it's a mess. That's bureaucracy for you and the italian one is one of the worsed I've ever experienced.

 

[andromache]

I didn't meant that they received the dossier when they started the invastigation but before september 2014 for sure, no? Gatti (I have read all his articles) clearly suggest that they did. Otherwise why say: Sembra non accorgersene la Procura Antidoping del CONI NADO allorché riceve i documenti dalla Procura di Bolzano, incluso l’interrogatorio di SCHWAZER: non solo evita di aprire un procedimento a carico della KOSTNER.

I remember we were discussing this point with Ambesi last year, when the articles came out, on FB FS group.
The preliminary inquiry can't last longer than 18 months. When the preliminary inquire startedand did they finish exactly ?
Anyway, my point was I really don't see anything that suggest somebody was after Carolina.



Yeah, I know that. I meant the punishement in these cases (taking into account all the circumstances) seems harsh.



They can not indeed. According to the media (let's not forget that's all we have right now. No accusations or statements from the officials so far) she might risk because that show apparently is affiliated with CONI. Now, from what I read it's not clear at all, to say the least, if it was affiliated or not and worse, it's not clear even what she can do or can not do.
When things are not clear is hard. You check with some officials and they would say you is okay, only to find out later than it isn't, from somebody else and it's a mess. That's bureaucracy for you and the italian one is one of the worsed I've ever experienced.

Yes, based on another article that someone posted it seems like Carolina's people went through the correct channels to make sure everything was okay for her to perform in the particular show that is being considered now. It'll be a shame if she receives further punishment because of a bureaucratic inaccuracy. Contrary to what someone posted earlier, I doubt this is all happening because Carolina is stupid or arrogant. Amazing that someone can say that without knowing a person.

 

[Alba]

Yes, based on another article that someone posted it seems like Carolina's people went through the correct channels to make sure everything was okay for her to perform in the particular show that is being considered now. It'll be a shame if she receives further punishment because of a bureaucratic inaccuracy. Contrary to what someone posted earlier, I doubt this is all happening because Carolina is stupid or arrogant. Amazing that someone can say that without knowing a person.

I'm sure they have checked. They are not stupid. I don't think she will receive any further punishment for this.

 

[deneb]

I didn't meant that they received the dossier when they started the invastigation but before september 2014 for sure, no? Gatti (I have read all his articles) clearly suggest that they did. Otherwise why say: Sembra non accorgersene la Procura Antidoping del CONI NADO allorché riceve i documenti dalla Procura di Bolzano, incluso l’interrogatorio di SCHWAZER: non solo evita di aprire un procedimento a carico della KOSTNER.

I remember we were discussing this point with Ambesi last year, when the articles came out, on FB FS group.
The preliminary inquiry can't last longer than 18 months. When the preliminary inquire startedand did they finish exactly ?

I don't know the exact date but from the same article:

È questa la clamorosa conclusione a cui si arriva leggendo le oltre 400 pagine di avviso di conclusione delle indagini preliminari notificato qualche settimana fa agli avvocati di Schwazer

so only a few weeks earlier.

Anyway, my point was I really don't see anything that suggest somebody was after Carolina.

I guess you mean "against". I agree. Well, I hope.

 

[karne]

It's been a while since I've read about this case, but I am under the impression that Carolinas boyfriend had been misleading her a bit as well. I don't think she viewed it as lying since it was not his time to be tested or something like that.

It's not her responsibility to track him for anti doping agents. This girl had no idea what he was hiding from her. I don't think it's fair.

Again, Carolina KNEW THAT IT WAS WRONG. She herself was subject to the same rules, and she knew that the testers could come knock on his door AT ANY TIME. And the second he asked her to tell them he wasn't there because he'd said he was somewhere else, SHE KNEW THAT HE WAS BREAKING THE RULES.

Therefore, when she chose to lie to the anti-doping inspectors, she dug her own grave. She knew, at that time, that her boyfriend was breaking the anti-doping rules, and she HELPED HIM TO DO IT.

I am 100% okay with her ban. This is an unpopular opinion because apparently Carolina is some sweet innocent angel of light who should never be touched, but I really couldn't give a toss.

 

[TheGrandSophy]

Yes, based on another article that someone posted it seems like Carolina's people went through the correct channels to make sure everything was okay for her to perform in the particular show that is being considered now. It'll be a shame if she receives further punishment because of a bureaucratic inaccuracy. Contrary to what someone posted earlier, I doubt this is all happening because Carolina is stupid or arrogant. Amazing that someone can say that without knowing a person.

Er, I gave it as possibilities ('ignorance or recklessness'), if that was aimed at me. May be caused by others' posts. I did not say she was either of those things. I gave 3 possibilities including that the authorities were wrong and she was not at fault to do the show. And that possibility seems to be the case now. However, just for the very reason that I don't know her I wasn't going to discount her being unwise enough not to check or even not to care. I didn't say those possibilities were likely, but I can't completely rule anything out without knowing her or the facts. Anything else would be without basis. None of us can surely? We have to hope that people who do know the fact sort things out fairly and wisely, surely?

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

I am 100% okay with her ban. This is an unpopular opinion because apparently Carolina is some sweet innocent angel of light who should never be touched, but I really couldn't give a toss.

I don't think this is the case. The issue is that she is being treated the same as (actually, worse than) someone who was using PEDs.

 

[Amei]

I don't think this is the case. The issue is that she is being treated the same as (actually, worse than) someone who was using PEDs.

The only reason she is getting a worse punishment than some PED users, is that the users can often times give bigger fish up - like bigger stars or the doctors that gave them the drugs.

 

[Alba]

I don't know the exact date but from the same article:
so only a few weeks earlier.

Hum...it seems the two things are contradictory. I'll ask Ambesi, just out of curiosity, what Gatti meant with what he wrote about CONI. By the way, Neveitalia had a discussion on the topic today on their podcast. I didn't have the chance to listen yet.

I guess you mean "against". I agree. Well, I hope.

Yes. :yes: I meant "after" like searching for something to use against her.

The only reason she is getting a worse punishment than some PED users, is that the users can often times give bigger fish up - like bigger stars or the doctors that gave them the drugs.

Like with Schwazer now. He is getting deals because he is giving big names. It happens with criminals as well. Sad but true. Unfortunately is a necessary tool for justice. Not always effective but still...I hate to see him in Rio though. If that happens it will be disgusting. The courage some people have. How on earth does he even think to partecipate is beyond me.