I’m not questioning the lab or how they conducted their tests. I’m neutral on this topic and I’m waiting for more information to become available before. I’m only questioning the timing of the results.
Kamila Valieva: Anti-doping Case and Follow-ups
- Thread starter GS Forum Staff
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2015
As soon as an athlete tests positive, it's over... there is no need to consider further tests. It would be absolutely normal they would be negative as the substance is no longer detectable. Once an athlete tests positive, they get a suspension retroactive to the date of the sample, erasing the data from other events... So Kamila, if her suspension gets confirmed "never competed at Euros or Beijing" and we can even say that she never tested for Euros and Beijing..
she was not even there.
A few thoughts.
Trimetazidine is listed in the Prohibited list 2022 as a non-Specified Substance within the meaning of the World Anti-Doping Code.
Section 7.4.1 of said code provides that "when an Adverse Analytical Finding or Adverse Passport Finding (upon completion of the Adverse Passport Finding review process) is received for a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method, other than a Specified Substance or Specified Method, a Provisional Suspension shall be imposed promptly upon or after the review and notification required by Article 7.2: where the Signatory is the ruling body of an Event (for application to that Event); where the Signatory is responsible for team selection (for application to that team selection); where the Signatory is the applicable International Federation; or where the Signatory is another Anti-Doping Organization which has Results
Management authority over the alleged anti- doping rule violation. A mandatory Provisional Suspension may be eliminated if: (i) the Athlete
demonstrates to the hearing panel that the violation is likely to have involved a Contaminated Product, or (ii) the violation involves a Substance of Abuse and the Athlete establishes entitlement to a reduced period of Ineligibility under Article 10.2.4.1. A hearing body’s decision not to eliminate a mandatory Provisional Suspension on account of the Athlete’s assertion regarding a Contaminated Product shall not be appealable."
So there seems to be only one way out of the provisional suspension (except a negative result on sample B, as provided for in Section 7.4.3 but we do not know if B sample analysis was requested): demonstrating that the violation involves a contaminated product (which explains why the suspension was lifted on that basis). Good luck...
Trimetazidine is listed in the Prohibited list 2022 as a non-Specified Substance within the meaning of the World Anti-Doping Code.
Section 7.4.1 of said code provides that "when an Adverse Analytical Finding or Adverse Passport Finding (upon completion of the Adverse Passport Finding review process) is received for a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method, other than a Specified Substance or Specified Method, a Provisional Suspension shall be imposed promptly upon or after the review and notification required by Article 7.2: where the Signatory is the ruling body of an Event (for application to that Event); where the Signatory is responsible for team selection (for application to that team selection); where the Signatory is the applicable International Federation; or where the Signatory is another Anti-Doping Organization which has Results
Management authority over the alleged anti- doping rule violation. A mandatory Provisional Suspension may be eliminated if: (i) the Athlete
demonstrates to the hearing panel that the violation is likely to have involved a Contaminated Product, or (ii) the violation involves a Substance of Abuse and the Athlete establishes entitlement to a reduced period of Ineligibility under Article 10.2.4.1. A hearing body’s decision not to eliminate a mandatory Provisional Suspension on account of the Athlete’s assertion regarding a Contaminated Product shall not be appealable."
So there seems to be only one way out of the provisional suspension (except a negative result on sample B, as provided for in Section 7.4.3 but we do not know if B sample analysis was requested): demonstrating that the violation involves a contaminated product (which explains why the suspension was lifted on that basis). Good luck...
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2015
Usually, results come within 20 days. They came here in 40 days. However, it is the responsibility of RUSADA to inquire if test results are delayed. They didn't do that. The lab explained that due to an outbreak of covid19, a lot of employees were not working and tests were delayed. Also, one can easily imagine that many samples were sent to them during that time frame in prevision to the games. I don't believe the timing of the results is suspicious one bit.
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2015
I can only assume it wasn't a very compelling case of contamination because literally every agency capable of appealing did so.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2019
As we know from previous cases, it usually takes months to prove contamination. How did they prove it for RUSADA to lift the provisional suspension within one day?
Had the results been known earlier, she would not be in Beijing, so it does not change anything. Unless a belated result may have an impact on the result itself (which seems to be unlikely since the B sample can be analyzed even later).
I didn’t say that. The higher possibility is that this was a legitimate positive sample over someone tampering. What I’m trying to say is that the longer it takes to provide a result, the more the reason to doubt the result due to chain of custody issues. Tampering can happen innocently enough, especially with a urine sample out there sitting idly, before the actual test is conducted. At my laboratory, we have to wear masks to prevent our saliva from tampering a sample. There were cases of a sample having two DNAs because a lab technician decided to eat lunch and forgot a sample was on their desk and their saliva got into the sample. When humans are involved, there is always room for error. Yes, the chances are low. But, just because it is low, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I read on this forum that a reason for the delay was due to a Covid outbreak at this laboratory. If this is true, than that in itself is a reasonable stance to take on casting doubt to the chain of custody procedures at this laboratory. We need both sides to be heard. But, I would be peeved if I wasn’t allowed to compete and then I was proven innocent, but, alas, no gold medal on my neck. If I was allowed to compete and then I lose my court case, then, I lose my gold medal and the silver medalist at the event becomes champion. What I’m trying to say is that her competing, doesn’t affect the end result. But, her not competing and being found innocent, would. So, why not let her compete. I guess, we will find out tomorrow.
Beijing Winter Olympics, Highlights & Coverage | Reuters
The Beijing 2022 Winter Games
www.reuters.com
An investigation not only by RUSADA, but now also by WADA
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2009
Because they tend to prioritise the good of the sport over the interest of a single athlete.
Unfortunately this substance is forbidden both in and out of competition, so it wouldn't make a difference
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2014
Not exactly because then that silver medallist misses out on one of the greatest moments of their lives, standing atop the podium with the gold medal around their neck.
Of course it's awful that Kamila won't get that chance, but that's the fault of her team - if the banned drug was indeed in her system, which seems to the case here.
The saddest thing about this case is that it's unfair either way... But it would be worse for Kamila to win the gold and then have to give it back. It looks like she'll already have to do it for the Team Gold.
For something that wasn't even her fault that's a hard price to pay.
It's been a week if the B Sample was clear we'd know by now surely? So it's not looking good.It's just a screwed up situation all around.
I don't care what's more likely at this point. I'm interested in all possibilities. And the knowledge how those supposedly tamper proof sample bottles can be tampered with is inside of Russia. The WADA still doesn't know exactly how they did it in Sochi, they only know that heat was used and that it leaves scratch marks on the bottles.
I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility, that someone inside of Russia hates Team T enough to do this. And because the knowledge is inside of Russia how to do it, I'm sure they check those bottles thouroughly for scratch marks.
The Brennan story also rubs me the wrong way. I guess she's very excited at this point, but bullying a hearing impaired young woman is just not defendable. I hope for her that she didn't know and that she'll apologize once she knows. But I agree that RusFed should have protected Diana better, Gleb obviously also didn't know who they we're dealing with. I would have told him "Run!" But he seems to be caring and I'm glad that Diana has a supportive partner.
The timing was the day after Valieva competed. If the results came out prior to the Olympics, I wouldn’t be taking this stance.
I didn’t know RUSADA didn’t inquire about the test results delay. Is this true? Because if they didn’t, then, they are also to blame 50/50. Is this a fact? Is there a link? I’d be curious to know this.
Thanks for confirming what I heard about the Covid-19 outbreak.
If there is more than one sample, I’d be curious to know the results of the second sample. This is vital piece of information that would sway me the other way.
Eventually, the truth will come out in due time. I’m interested in finding out how this all turns out.
I’m really looking forward to the Women’s event and my hope is for a fair competition like the Men’s event. Which, I enjoyed.
That is so true. I forgot about the position of the other athletes. Like if the result was:Not exactly because then that silver medallist misses out on one of the greatest moments of their lives, standing atop the podium with the gold medal around their neck.
Of course it's awful that Kamila won't get that chance, but that's the fault of her team - if the banned drug was indeed in her system, which seems to the case here.
The saddest thing about this case is that it's unfair either way... But it would be worse for Kamila to win the gold and then have to give it back. It looks like she'll already have to do it for the Team Gold.
For something that wasn't even her fault that's a hard price to pay.
It's just a screwed up situation all around.
1) Valieva
2) Sasha
3) Anna
4) Kaori
The Olympic experience of Sasha as champion and Kaori of being on the podium would be ruined.
I think you’ve cast doubt on my stance now. I’m in the middle now. I see both sides now…. I will go to bed unsure of my stance now. What a terrible ordeal.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2019
One thing I've found extremely hard is to make peace with my own stance and with myself about how I feel.
I adore Kamila. I want her to skate. I want her to win. But I fully understand the enormous issues with that and how unfair it is on all the other competitors. Yet on a human, mothering and emotional level I can't bring myself to want Kamila banished from the competition.
Frankly it is a very uncomfortable feeling which is why I've given up arguing with others. How can I when I'm not even sure what my views are?
If, as it was said, the provisional suspension was lifted because the athlet could prove everything had happened because of a contaminated product, well, it means that no one expects anything from the B sample...For something that wasn't even her fault that's a hard price to pay.
It's just a screwed up situation all around.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2009
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2019
I see your point and appreciate your balanced view. Of course there is a non-0% possibility that the sample was contaminated during the testing process at the Swedish lab, be it on purpose or by mistake. That is why every athlete is given the opportunity to appeal against the suspension, as Kamila and her team did. In anti-doping law the burden of prove is on the athlete as soon as a positive sample is found, so whatever our moral standpoint might be, legally "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply in this case. Kamila's lawyers will have to prove the sample was contaminated, not the other way round.
Regarding the provisional suspension, imo, there is no other possibility than to exclude any athlete with a positive test from competition until the case is resolved (or the period of provisional suspension is over). The system just cannot work in any other way, or we would have athletes with positives tests competing and winning medals only for them to be rescinded later all the time as those legal proceedings to reach a final verdict can take forever.
And it hurts other athletes as it takes away their podium moments and in this age of social media also potential monetary benefits from them. Posters in this thread have already brought up Loena Hendrickx who had to start a gofundme to collect money for her trip to the Olympics. Just imagine if she would have won the bronze medal at Europeans and maybe posted a picture on her insta. Some Belgian sports gear store or whatever could have seen it and decided it would be good publicity for them to sponsor the Euro bronze medallist's trip to Beijing. So yes, if we look at the bigger picture, Kamila competing or not affects a lot of people.
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2018
This is not true. And your guarantee is a fake.
Similar threads
