- Joined
- Sep 14, 2014
Such a vicious comment I can't even believe it. You are dismising opinions of educated people and experts in their field.
Also, the first part can be seen in this thread but rather from your side.
Kamila Valieva: Anti-doping Case and Follow-ups
- Thread starter GS Forum Staff
- Start date
Also, the first part can be seen in this thread but rather from your side.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2019
How do you determine the degree of fault?Brief, reasonable analysis. And a call for using brain instead of emotions:
Valieva skates as the rush to unwarranted judgment roars on | 3 Wire Sports
BEIJING — People, let’s smell the coffee, please. The world is not black and white. Them and us. Americans: you want to make like U.S. Olympic athletes have never, ever used performance-enhancing drugs. Like no one in a position of authority at the U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee has evewww.3wiresports.com
There are possible outcomes:
Here is how the rules can work when the A and B are positive, and in this context for an in-competition test like the one Valieva took Dec. 25 at the Russian national championships:
1. The athlete is disqualified, and
2. Sanctioned with a period of ineligibility
How long is the sanction?
it depends on the type of substance — two or four years.
That two or four years is then eliminated or reduced (or sometimes increased) based on factors set out in the Code.
1. Someone “not at fault” can see the ineligibility period totally eliminated. See Code section 10.5
2. Someone “not at significant fault” can have the period reduced, and in the case of a “protected person” — not yet 16 — can be reduced to a warning or reprimand with no ineligibility. See 10.6 and for “protected person,” 10.6.1.3
3. Someone more at fault will get two to four years (depending on the substance and other factors)
In Valieva’s case, working through the intersection of what’s what, there would ultimately appear to be four possibilities:
1. She is cleared. Totally exonerated. That is, no doping violation of any sort. How? For example, the B sample doesn’t show trimetazidine.
2. A doping violation is confirmed — some level of TMZ in the B — but she is found not at fault. Result: no ineligibility.
3. Doping violation confirmed but she is found “not to have significant fault,” and given the minimum penalty, which for a “protected person” is a reprimand or warning and no ineligibility
4. Doping violation confirmed, she is found to have some fault and given up to two years off.
And this:
The three-judge panel had to balance a lot of stuff. This is what judges do, right? Here: “fundamental principles of fairness, proportionality, irreparable harm and the relative balance of interests as between the Applicants,” meaning the ITA and the other institutions appealing the lifting provisional suspension, “and the Athlete,” Valieva.
“Irreparable harm” is one of those bits of jargon that lawyers toss around. In this instance, going back to the four options above, if Valieva were not allowed to skate and the ultimate finding is any of the first three scenarios, she would be permanently harmed by missing her chance to medal when she would have been found not to have done anything wrong that made her ineligible to compete at the Olympics.
That would be a harm that can’t be undone. That is “irreparable harm.”
On the other hand:
If she were allowed to compete and the fourth scenario is finally what’s what — she ultimately is found to have committed a doping violation, one with enough fault to have been ineligible here in Beijing — she will be disqualified and the other skaters will move up in the standings.
Those skaters will be harmed by not having their moment in the spotlight, no question. But, in the end, they will get their medals. Just like the Nigerians got their golds when the U.S. relay team got stripped after the Jerome Young saga.
I know she'll eventually be disqualified but I'm wondering how she's gonna get the 4 year ban.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2018
Every court must ask this question with every judgement. Usually it is not just guilty/not guilty, but when guilty, also how much. No sensence, probation, 6 months, 5 years...
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2017
I do not doubt that there are some experts who have provided quality information. But I also know that the majority is carried away by their nationalism and by the anti-Russian journalism that is preached everywhere.
- Joined
- May 24, 2021
What a nasty comment...
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2017
Адвокат Валиевой о словах члена МОК про то, как допинг попал в организм фигуристки: «Будем предпринимать необходимые правовые шаги в связи с подобными заявлениями»
Адвокат Валиевой о словах члена МОК про то, как допинг попал в организм фигуристки: «Будем предпринимать необходимые правовые шаги в связи с подобными заявлениями» - Фигурное катание на Sports.ru
www.sports.ru
I share this since it has not been commented:
Anna Kozmenko, a partner at the Swiss law firm Schellenberg Wittmer, which defends Kamila Valieva's interests, commented on IOC member Denis Oswald's words about how the banned substance entered the figure skater's body.
Oswald told reporters that Valieva allegedly tried to justify herself by accidentally taking her grandfather's drug. Subsequently, the IOC issued a statement: Oswald was not at the meeting on the Camila case, he simply repeated information from the press.
“I regret to point out that despite these factors: confidentiality, Kamila's status as a protected person, some international sports officials took it upon themselves to make statements in the press about this case, in particular, misrepresenting the facts and the very position of Kamila Valieva. From our point of view, this not only seriously violates the current rules, but is also extremely unfair to the athlete himself. We will take all necessary legal steps in connection with such additional statements to better protect Kamila's interests in these Olympic Games," Kuzmenko said.
Your post sums up why i wanted to become a lawyer then backed off when i saw all reading i would have to do.WARNING: This post is heavy on theory-crafting!
Without speculating on the horrible timing, the usefulness of trimetazidine, the response of rusada (lifting the suspension, really?), or the decision of CAS (wasn't expecting this, big surprise!).. I think the Russians will receive all "their" medals. The Russian team without Kamila will received their team medal, and Kamila will receive any individual medal that she will win later. If the final verdict on the merit of the case absolved Kamila, she will receive the team medal too.
AND... here's the logic:
The code: https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/2021_wada_code.pdf
According to article 10.10, Kamila, if found "guilty", will be disqualified for the period between Dec. 25th and Feb. 8th... INDIVIDUALLY. Section 10 is about sanctions on individuals.
Article 11.2 is about Consequence to Teams, and it start with "If more than two members of a team in a Team Sport are found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation during an Event Period...". It's about violation during an event, not violation prior to the event. So, the team shouldn't have consequences.
Article 11.3 is about Stricter Consequences for Team, under another organization authority. I've reviewed ITA/IOC rules and ISU rules, and found some additional "Consequences for Team" but they are all for violation "during the Period of the Olympic", "during a Competition" or "prior competition of the same Event"... nothing about a violation during a previous event.
https://ita.sport/resource/anti-doping-rules-for-the-olympic-winter-games-beijing-2022/ (page 31)
https://www.isu.org/inside-isu/isu-...-archives/352-1922-isu-anti-doping-rules/file (page 39)
Now, if Kamila is ultimately found "guilty"... back to the anti doping code (wada), 10.13... they say when the ban should start: the period of Ineligibility shall start on the date of the final hearing decision providing for Ineligibility. The ban should start in a few month. Not retroactively to Feb. 9th.
If... the provisional suspension has been lifted, and... if the period of ineligibility (ban) hasn't started... on what ground would they withheld medals won today or the 17th?
I sure hope rusada had a damn good reason to lift the provisional suspension... everything else fall apart without it.
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2014
The original appeal of WADA/IOC is embedded in the English language document in this website. I am not a conspiracy theorist; it certainly looks legitimate. Of course, I would not know.
I do not know what the Russian portion says and have not taken that into account.
dossier-center.appspot.com
If Ms. Kozmenko wants to correct the facts, I would like to see her address the document. Otherwise, it's the usual
"You don't know what's happening, we look forward to presenting our side and giving all the facts etc etc" That language is in the Lawyer Sekret Handook, "Talk to the Press 101"
(Just like the skater's Sekret Handbook "Talk to the Press 101": I want to go out there and just skate my program the way I have trained and way I know I can skate it etc etc etc )
I do not know what the Russian portion says and have not taken that into account.
Камилу Валиеву решили не отстранять от Олимпийских игр
Мы узнали, как ее защита объясняла допинг в пробе
dossier-center.appspot.com
If Ms. Kozmenko wants to correct the facts, I would like to see her address the document. Otherwise, it's the usual
"You don't know what's happening, we look forward to presenting our side and giving all the facts etc etc" That language is in the Lawyer Sekret Handook, "Talk to the Press 101"
(Just like the skater's Sekret Handbook "Talk to the Press 101": I want to go out there and just skate my program the way I have trained and way I know I can skate it etc etc etc )
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2020
So we have an interesting case when the prosecution goes after the defense in defence of their client... Hmmm...Адвокат Валиевой о словах члена МОК про то, как допинг попал в организм фигуристки: «Будем предпринимать необходимые правовые шаги в связи с подобными заявлениями»
Адвокат Валиевой о словах члена МОК про то, как допинг попал в организм фигуристки: «Будем предпринимать необходимые правовые шаги в связи с подобными заявлениями» - Фигурное катание на Sports.ruwww.sports.ru
I share this since it has not been commented:
Anna Kozmenko, a partner at the Swiss law firm Schellenberg Wittmer, which defends Kamila Valieva's interests, commented on IOC member Denis Oswald's words about how the banned substance entered the figure skater's body.
Oswald told reporters that Valieva allegedly tried to justify herself by accidentally taking her grandfather's drug. Subsequently, the IOC issued a statement: Oswald was not at the meeting on the Camila case, he simply repeated information from the press.
“I regret to point out that despite these factors: confidentiality, Kamila's status as a protected person, some international sports officials took it upon themselves to make statements in the press about this case, in particular, misrepresenting the facts and the very position of Kamila Valieva. From our point of view, this not only seriously violates the current rules, but is also extremely unfair to the athlete himself. We will take all necessary legal steps in connection with such additional statements to better protect Kamila's interests in these Olympic Games," Kuzmenko said.
Last edited:
As far as we can tell, she presented no credible evidence that she unknowingly took the drug. She didn't need extra time to describe what medications, if any, she took prior to testing positive. She had time to get her medical records before the hearing. We don't even know if she testified at all. The grandfather story is ludicrous and was offered by her mother as a mere possibility. That is not credible (or admissible) evidence. There usually is a balancing of equities in cases like this and avoiding harm to her caused a major disruption to the event in terms of the awarding of medals (and consequential harm to the other competitors) so it is not clear cut. The fact that there was a positive test, in my opinion, was enough to justify a provisional suspension.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2014
It's not nationalism and anti-Russian.
It's pro-skating and pro-ethics. One is simply not like the other. Please let's not play victim to get one's own way. It's very unbecoming to say the least.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
You make an interesting point about nationalism, but I think many look at your point of view and think the exact same thing. In my eyes, "anti-doping" does not mean "anti-Russian."
Would I still be anti-doping if an American were in the spotlight this way? You bet. I abhor Lance Armstrong and what he did to the sport of cycling in the world, and particularly in America. I am ashamed that Justin Gatlin represented my country and waved my flag on the Olympic track when we knew he was a doper. I view Barry Bonds and Mark McGuire as scum for the ruination they brought on baseball, my favorite team sport.
So, questions for you. Would you staunchly defend an American skater if the facts were exactly the same as Kamila's? Can you name a well-known Russian doper that you'll condemn here and now?
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
This makes the CES decision more sensible IMO. The "not at significant fault" stipulation for protected athletes means there is a reasonable possibility that she will face no sanctions, so I suppose allowing her to compete but holding off on awarding medals until the case is resolved was actually the right call here. I don't think the whole drinking-from-grandpas-cup excuse is going to be enough, as I read somewhere that the pill he would take is coated and would dissolve in the stomach, so he'd have to burp or vomit in the cup for any chance of residue getting in it. My hope is that her medal would not be awarded under the "not at significant fault" exception unless adults on her team are held accountable.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2016
I think it is slightly naive to expect someone to objective when that someone has a nick 'prorussianfan'.
Адвокат Валиевой о словах члена МОК про то, как допинг попал в организм фигуристки: «Будем предпринимать необходимые правовые шаги в связи с подобными заявлениями»
Адвокат Валиевой о словах члена МОК про то, как допинг попал в организм фигуристки: «Будем предпринимать необходимые правовые шаги в связи с подобными заявлениями» - Фигурное катание на Sports.ruwww.sports.ru
I share this since it has not been commented:
Anna Kozmenko, a partner at the Swiss law firm Schellenberg Wittmer, which defends Kamila Valieva's interests, commented on IOC member Denis Oswald's words about how the banned substance entered the figure skater's body.
Oswald told reporters that Valieva allegedly tried to justify herself by accidentally taking her grandfather's drug. Subsequently, the IOC issued a statement: Oswald was not at the meeting on the Camila case, he simply repeated information from the press.
“I regret to point out that despite these factors: confidentiality, Kamila's status as a protected person, some international sports officials took it upon themselves to make statements in the press about this case, in particular, misrepresenting the facts and the very position of Kamila Valieva. From our point of view, this not only seriously violates the current rules, but is also extremely unfair to the athlete himself. We will take all necessary legal steps in connection with such additional statements to better protect Kamila's interests in these Olympic Games," Kuzmenko sai
I would believe that her mother was a credible witness and she would know more about her daughter than anyone else. Why would she lie?
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2011
her parents could know too.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2015
i totally agree with this... very well put. Canadians have had to go through the Ben Johnson scandal. What a shame it was ! And then, we have also had a lot of stories of our athletes getting their medals in the mail (Beckie Scott, Christine Girard to name only two) and being robbed of their Olympic moments so it is something that I have heard a lot about.. and this is why this whole story is angering me so much as many young athletes of all over the world are deprived of their chance to compete in a fair environment... even if Kamila ends up forgiven, the fact that she was allowed to compete has changed the event for the other competitors... the media attention, the tension, the feeling that they may be competing against competitors that have an advantage... all of this is enough to ruin the Olympic experience of many skaters, not just the contenders.... . So this is why I am upset with this situation... that and the fact that this drug was found in a child's body... There is nothing nationalistic about that it is a pro-clean sport view.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2020
Not impossible. I just thought that IF it was evident from the start that the concentration suggests therapeutic consumption rather than accidental contamination from someone else's medication they would not have launched a full blown investigation of the grandpa version, as it'd be just a waste of resources. Simply not allowing her to compete would have been more efficient.
Anyway, now when her lawyer spoke out and claimed that what the IOC official said about the grandpa is "the distortion of facts" it does not look like that scenario is the one they're sticking to in their defence strategy.
Her mother would be inherently biased in favor of her daughter. And what she offered was just speculation. That is not evidence.
Her mother is not a credible witness, she's a very subjective witness who would want to see her daughter cleared above all.
Similar threads
