- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Kamila Valieva: Anti-doping Case and Follow-ups
- Thread starter GS Forum Staff
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2021
this doesn't surprise me anyway. Nothing else was to be expected. Previously, they had to analyze the pre-rotation for a long and tedious time, now it has become easier for them.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
I think what mrrice was getting at is that it's a sad situation for figure skating in general, and Kamila in particular. No matter what happens in the individual women's event, there will be questions over the results merely based on the allegations as they stand now. While Kamila is a minor and is entitled to extra protection and confidentiality under the doping rules, I think it's unfortunate that the ROC will use that as a way to deflect any questions about the case.
USA Today's Nancy Armour's opinion piece. I agree 100%.
www.usatoday.com
IOC getting what it deserves for not holding Russia accountable for doping | Opinion
Russian figure skater Kamila Valieva believed to have tested positive for trimetazidine, medication used to treat angina that will improve blood flow
www.usatoday.com
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2021
Okay, I've edited the post. The full text can be read by the link.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2014
The girl is only 15.....why is she being dragged for this? I just hope this whole thing gets resolved before the Olympics end. Because it must suck that everyone is stuck in limbo about the medals from the team event.
Wasn’t Carolina Kostner suspended for having knowledge of her boyfriend doping? I don’t understand why she would be suspended and someone who actually took an illegal drug (if though she is a minor) would not be suspended. Someone should be held accountable, especially after Sochi.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
It's kind of hard not to, unfortunately. The cat was let out of the bag by the Russian press and outlets in all other countries are just following suit.
The goal here is just to keep the discussion on related matters in this thread until we learn more.
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2005
If the speculation is true of the person and substance that is rumored, would COVID be an appropriate medical reason for limited use of this as a cardioprotective medication, e.g., for arrhythmia? Could that case perhaps be made? Did Valieva have COVID at one point? All speculative, and of course this medical information is a private matter, but these are unusual times and circumstances.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
Carolina was accused of helping him evade testing and lying about her knowledge of his doping.
That is a totally understandable reason, which I have considered myself. However, if that is true, then why wouldn't the doctor a) prescribe something to help her that wasn't banned or b) file for a medical use exemption?
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2009
Yeah I didn't really believe it'll last, but tried for a second there
as long as you're fine with it...
I did think at first that they were lingering with an announcement because they were trying to figure out
how they could possibly word the information without giving the person away, it's probably impossible.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2009
It's still a banned substance, you can't have it in your system and participate.
in cases like that there are other substances you can use, and if there aren't you have to report that you're taking it.
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2005
I wonder that too, but maybe they did file and exemption and this uproar is in spite of that having been done? Maybe it will be straightened out. If Russian medical practices are anything like U.S. ones, maybe somebody was supposed to fax something and didn't.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2009
Thing is from what I gather, the Russian sport and culture world is already discussing this passionately out in the open,
in support of "the accused" of course, so I don't think this is dying down, the official statement from the Russian
govt. (I think) was respectful to the lack of knowledge though.
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2009
I do not believe this is a correct interpretation of what the rules say.
I DO believe that we have some of the facts (that have been leaked out) but perhaps not all the nuances. There are a lot of moving parts to the situation and more than one "legal issue."
What we DO have as a starting point are the WADA Anti-doping regulations, which are available to anyone who wishes to get some context around which to fit their speculations. Document here (bolded comments are my editorial additions):
In it's entirety, it's a weighty and ponderous read, but investing 10-15 minutes of perusal to the critical items might be useful for many readers here. In particular, I can point to the following:
--Article 2, sections 2.2 to 2.9 (with 2.8 being key)
--Article 4 about Prohibited List (distinguishes between in-or-out of competition, Therapeutic Use Exemptions etc. Just the first 2-3 pages of this gets the flavor.
Substance in question, trimetazidine, has been banned for both in- and out-of-competition use since 2014. So this much is clear cut.
--Article 7 concerning Results Management, timing, etc of positive samples, also Provisional Suspensions. This one I didn't have time to get deeply into but will go back later. It seems some of the legal points raised by this case concern this Article.
--Article 10, especially 10.3.1, 10.3.3 and 10.6.1.3. This speaks to "Protected Athletes" and their support personnel (this would include coaches and team doctors) and the concept of relative Fault.
Article 10 establishes that for a Protected Athlete, the minimum punishment is a reprimand and no suspension, the maximum punishment is 2 years of "ineligibility" (basically, suspension). Or could be something in between. With punishment to be meted out, dependent upon findings of degree of fault of the athlete.
--Article 14.3.7, which mandates public disclosure of the athlete found in violation of anti-doping regulations, EXCEPT when it concerns a Protected Athlete, in which there is no mandatory public disclosure required. However, disclosure in this case is optional, depending on "facts and circumstances of the case."
This is misinterpreted by many people, and I think is part of the basis for the misleading bullet point I mentioned at start of this post.
--Article 20.5.12 requires automatic investigation of Athlete Support Personnel in the case of an anti-doping violation by a Protected Person.
Very important issue for this case, as if it is determined that a violation occurred, it means Tutberidze's operation is supposed to be put under scrutiny.
--Glossary at back of document. Useful to read the entries about "Fault" "No Fault/Negligence" and "Protected Person."
Hopefully this helps at least start to get our heads around a common basis for evaluating whatever decision comes down.
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2005
Okay, then I misunderstood the concept of a "medical exemption." Excuse me. When did Kami have COVID? Quite a while ago, I think. If it was a year ago, then that was while treatment protocols for COVID were not as developed as they are now. Since I'm not a doctor, I don't know if there is another equivalent substance not on the banned list that could have been given for the therapeutic purpose. I guess we'll see what happens. Thanks.
The bold is what I want more than anything else!
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
Maybe. But considering the ROC is likely to appeal any unfavorable outcome, I doubt a final resolution will happen by then unless the IOC decides it should be a total acquittal since the accused is a minor. What will be awful is if Kamila wins the event and then is later disqualified. This needs to be resolved ASAP.
Similar threads
