- Joined
- Mar 7, 2015
I didn't know Grandpa attended Russian Nationals... my bad.. just me again
Kamila Valieva: Anti-doping Case and Follow-ups
- Thread starter GS Forum Staff
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2006
What exactly DO you know, really? More than CAS? Perhaps you could have testified and offered your two cents and the matter would have been quickly resolved. I doubt it though.I didn't know Grandpa attended Russian Nationals... my bad.. just me again
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2014
Thanks. I knew she spoke about Eteri in her story but I don't speak Russian or Ukrainian.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2015
yup... using a drug, that is to treat an illness on totally healthy athletes... but that is not on the banned list... = legal doping... but is it ethical or healthy?
that's exactly why meldonium was banned as it started showing up in a lot of samples. They probably thought TMZ would be easy to escape testing.
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2018
And what does it means?
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2014
Maybe if you don't have anything to do and want to shake your head every two posts you canI guess I am starved of attention enough to quote myself here... but anyway ... please tell me is it worth my time to read through all 179 pages of this thread that I missed? Should I? Should I not?
I am intruiged but simultaneously I do think that I can spend my time better! I mean it is like falling into a black hole.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2009
Maybe WADA could have some self tinkering done as well after this event, while everyone else is at it.
they could start by shedding light on where was the sample on the 3 weeks it spent arriving
from Russia to the Swedish lab
.- Joined
- Feb 14, 2022
I guess it depend on what information you are looking for! If you are looking for speculation and opinion, by all mean read the whole thread. If you're looking at officials statements, look at the first post. If you need to look at the code and rules (wada/ioc/ita/isu) and ONE interpretation of the possible legal future of the case, you can find them all there: https://www.goldenskate.com/forum/t...oping-controversy.90942/page-167#post-2936061
What are you looking for?
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2015
i do not pretend to know anything more than anyone here.... if people can talk about how they crush their tablets, I can talk about the simple fact that I personally, at 15, had no idea about the drugs my grandparents were taking.
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2018
Cmon, WADA have no obligation. They just set the rules and control them, we cannot ask them questions.Maybe WADA could have some self tinkering done as well after this event, while everyone else is at it.
they could start by shedding light on where was the sample on the 3 weeks it spent arriving
from Russia to the Swedish lab
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2011
hmm, i don't know. it seems like its an indicator they moved to TMZ despite it being banned since Valieva tested positive for it
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2017
She hates everything that has to do with Eteri. Honestly, her behavior is even sick, she has attacked Zagitova. Anyway.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2009
I guess it depend on what information you are looking for! If you are looking for speculation and opinion, by all mean read the whole thread. If you're looking at officials statements, look at the first post. If you need to look at the code and rules (wada/ioc/ita/isu) and ONE interpretation of the possible legal future of the case, you can find them all there: https://www.goldenskate.com/forum/t...oping-controversy.90942/page-167#post-2936061
What are you looking for?
Another new member?
and he's already on top of things!?
What is happening this evening
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2011
Oksana isn't making those claims about Tutberidze, it's a quote directly from Eteri herself.
love him- Joined
- Jul 3, 2018
USADA announced today that Jamie Brown, of Oceanside, Calif., an athlete in the sport of Paralympic triathlon, has tested positive for a prohibited substance, which was determined to have been ingested by him without fault or negligence. As a result, Brown will not face a period of ineligibility for his positive test
“If an athlete ingests a prohibited substance from a completely innocent source, such as contaminated medication, meat, or water, and there is no effect on performance, there should not be a violation or a public announcement,” said Travis T. Tygart, Chief Executive Officer of USADA. “We have now had 26 of these tragic no-fault cases since 2016, and the injustice keeps happening. How many more athletes will suffer and resources will be wasted before we, as a WADA community, reform the system to be more fair, effective, and efficient?”
U.S. Paralympic Triathlon Athlete Jamie Brown Accepts Finding of No Fault - LawInSport
Press Release 29th October 2020 USADA announced today that Jamie Brown, of Oceanside, Calif., an athlete in the sport of Paralympic triathlon, has tested positive for a prohibited substance, which was determined to have been ingested by him without fault or negligence. As a result, Brown will...www.lawinsport.com
Oh, really?
You see, "injustice keeps happening".
I don't think you can really compare these two cases.
Brown's test was positive for a very commonly prescribed medication which has been at the center of multiple similar cases arising from contaminated medications and drinking water.
HCTZ is banned primarily because it (and other diuretics) are sometimes used in large amounts in attempts to cover up the presence of PEDs. It is also used by athletes in some of the weight-class sports (wrestling, etc) to try and rid their bodies of excess fluid in order to meet their weight class. This use is not relevant to the triathlon - so in Brown's case, HCTZ itself wouldn't have provided any performance benefit.
In fact, because contamination is so common with these particular drugs, WADA adjusted their rules regarding positive tests for diuretics last year. Urine tests positive for trace amounts of diuretics are no longer considered to be doping violations (https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/tl24_diuretics_eng_2021_0.pdf). This had been a topic of discussion for some years prior, and is part of what Tygart was referring to in saying Brown's case was an "injustice."
Also, Brown's test occurred outside of his sport's competitive season, so it didn't impact any ongoing competitions, and there was ample time for a proper investigation to take place before clearing him to take part in any future competitions.
Valieva tested positive for a comparatively uncommon medication that so far has not been linked to any lab-confirmed cases of contaminated food, water or other medications.
Trimetazidine is banned both in and out of competition because of the theoretical benefits it could provide with regard to cardiovascular endurance. As many have said - whether or not there is literature *proving* it has benefits is irrelevant. It has been unequivocally banned since 2014, and its presence on the banned list has not been at all controversial.
Her positive test came at the height of the competitive season - meaning that it could have impacts on at least three major competitions (RusNats, Euros and Olympics). Some have pointed out that she hasn't tested positive during the Games themselves - but if she was positive for a banned drug at the time of Nationals and was disqualified, then she wouldn't be at the Olympics in the first place.
There was also not enough time prior to the women's individual event to do a full investigation into what could have caused the positive test, other than intentional doping (whether or not Valieva had any knowledge of it) - so any possible explanations of how she could have accidentally ingested the drug are only theoretical until a full investigation can be done.
Based on the scant facts that are available now, it seems more unlikely that Valieva's case is due to accidental ingestion or contamination than in Brown's case, and because of the timing, it has more far-reaching implications.
I'll be interested to see what happens with her B sample - per WADA rules, a positive B sample is considered sufficient proof that a doping violation occurred, and the burden of proof that it was accidental would then fall to Valieva and her team.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2009
I don't see what that has to do with the relevance or authenticity of the video she posted.
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2019
No, not that uncanny, in my experience. If you have a close family member on medication, you generally know what they're taking and how long they need it for. Admittedly, my experience comes from being part of a family with multiple people on chronic medication, and having friends with family members who were chronically ill, so perhaps that's a heightened sensitivity.
It's also entirely possible that, in a situation where someone doesn't know about a family member's medication as a general rule, they might learn about it from said family member when trying to work out how they had tested positive for that exact medication. There are, to my mind, many perfectly reasonable explanations for a teenager's awareness of their grandparent's medication that don't have to stretch credulity.
I have been kept alive via the wonders of modern medication since I was a toddler, and, having lived on three different continents, I have had a variety of doctors tell me that while it is not advisable to cut up, crush or dissolve some of the medications I've been on, they would rather I do that in order to get the medication into my body than fail to get it down at all. I have about another six months to a year ahead of me with a medication that I have to cut up, because I need a smaller dose than the pills are manufactured in. Is it ideal? No. But ideal isn't always practical.
(Veterinarians I have dealt with have also agreed that it is better to get some medication in than none at all, so medical professionals of all stripes seem to be resigned to the fact that patients aren't going to follow best practice when taking medication.)
I do think it's important to remember that none of our personal lived experiences are universal, and what may seem unlikely to me may be perfectly normal to another poster on this board, and vice versa. Which is why I am hesitant to pronounce an opinion one way or another on Kamila's alleged defence, because there simply isn't enough context for me, personally, to feel comfortable coming down on one side of the fence or the other. I understand that this isn't the case for everyone, though, and I don't wish to discourage others from expressing themselves on this matter.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2016
Yes, but contamination can still happen. My dad consumed my antidepressants with his coffee a couple of times long time ago as I had a habit of popping a pill into an empty cup. But this excuse here seems BS to me for a variety of reasons.
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2022
Another new member?
and he's already on top of things!?
What is happening this evening
I've been reading this thread for a few days... and... I was curious about the legal aspect. I routinely interpret legal texts in the context of work disputes (union/osh stuff).
So I made an account to share my findings and my interpretation here. That's all. I'm not a skating fan... I'm a legal text fan.
Similar threads
