Kamila Valieva: Anti-doping Case and Follow-ups

[el henry]

There is a difference between a lie and 'no comments'. Can you just do not answer the question (without any legal consequences) if f.e. your mother is being prosecuted?

You can only "take the fifth" (5th Amendment to US Constitution, against self incrimination) if you yourself are subject to prosecution. You cannot assert it on behalf of a family member.

If your mother is running a drug ring, you are expected to protect the community, not your mother. There are exceptions (spouses, priest/penitent). Not your mother. (And of course, I mean the general "You", not anyone specifically).

Also of interest, (I'm sorry, I get very geeky on this, more than you wanted to know) although you can take the fifth in a civil case, an "adverse inference" may be taken. If I ask you, did you supply defective goods to my factory, (civil case) and for some reason you take the fifth, I can argue that an inference may be taken that you did supply defective goods.

No inference can be taken in criminal cases.

This thread is making me think; I haven't talked this much law in years.

 

[Mista Ekko]

I blame the boyfriend. He took performance-enhancing drugs, lied about it, then made Carolina lie, too, jeopardizing her own career, reputation and livelihood.

I think everybody blames him , there's a reason that he became the ex-boyfriend pretty quickly.
I believe Carolina when she says she found herself in a situation where she had to make a quick decision
and she didn't really know what was going on, and she has taken responsibility.

 

[matin calin]

WADA is not a criminal enforcement scheme.

exactly, this is why it makes no legal sense if you put it in a bigger context. You are exempted from testifying against your boyfriend who's a serial rapist or a child molester but you need to testify against your BF if he's using doping and face sanctions if you refuse or lie. The balance of interests in these two examples is just way off.

 

[solani]

And that lesson was...? I hope you don't mean you must report your loved ones because WADA says so? In this case anti doping rules should be revised as they compromise the most essential values of humanity. Or maybe they have been already?

The lesson is, that you shouldn't trust your boyfriend if he's a lying git.
Joking aside, she didn't report him, he did report her to get his sentence shortened. He was in her flat in Oberstdorf, the WADA inspectors ringed and asked for him via the speaker and he told her to tell them, that he wasn't there and she did. She had seconds to process and do this. I don't blame her. And I don't blame a teenage girl if she swallows all the "vitamins" her coaching team gives her. But a "Competent Child" would ask the right questions.

 

[Draculus]

You can only "take the fifth" (5th Amendment to US Constitution, against self incrimination) if you yourself are subject to prosecution. You cannot assert it on behalf of a family member.

Hmm. Some Darwinian part of me even like it, I just wonder why to stop for spouse? Or I misunderstood and you cannot do it for a spouse too?
But still cannot call it 'value of humanity'.

Ok then the regulation you have is more restrictive (and conservative) than what we have.

Why is it conservative? I think it's further away from 'traditional' in terms of 'conservative' / 'preserve what has been before' meaning.
To not testify against you parents/family is kind of more traditional, isn't it?

 

[[email protected]]

And since Kamila seems to take 2 other heart medicaments too, the accidental intake is very unlikely.

I found no indication about "2 other heart medicaments" in CAS report. So it may be a pure fabrication. If it is not it is a highly unethical move to disclose the irrelevant personal info especially while talking about a minor. It's less unethical but still not a good move in my books to keep reposting this irrelevant information. It is irrelevant because at least one of "2 other heart medicaments" is l-carniteen which can be found in food and vitamins, which is not prohibited, and which is by no means a heart medicament.

 

[el henry]

exactly, this is why it makes no legal sense if you put it in a bigger context. You are exempted from testifying against your boyfriend who's a serial rapist or a child molester but you need to testify against your BF if he's using doping and face sanctions if you refuse or lie. The balance of interests in these two examples is just way off.

this is the difference:

No one is making you skate. No one is making you train for the Olympics. You agree to the WADA Code when you decide to do those things.
You don't like the WADA Code, fine, don't train to be an elite athlete. Do something else.

You have no choice about the criminal law, you are subject to it. Therefore the protections are greater.

Apples and oranges

 

[Mathman]

There is a difference between a lie and 'no comments'. Can you just do not answer the question (without any legal consequences) if f.e. your mother is being prosecuted?

There is a big body of law about when you can say "no comment" and when you can be complelled under penalty of law to give testimony. The only thing that is unambiguous is that you cannot be compelled to give testimony against yourself. (This is enshrined in the Constitution as a protection against the ploice beating you with a rubber hose until you confess to a crime that you didn't comit.

In my own personal experience, I am greatly indebted for my legal education to a certain rural sheriff (who was also the justice of the peace and the county judge) who pulled me over for speeding. The conversation went like this:

"Hpw do you plead, son, guilty or not guilty. Now "guilty -- that means you done it. "Not gulty" means you ain't done it."

Me: I guess I'm guilty.

"Well, then, you have to pay a fine. How much money you got."

I look in my pockets: Thirty dollars.

"Thirty dollars or thirty days, son."

 

[el henry]

Hmm. Some Darwinian part of me even like it, I just wonder why to stop for spouse? Or I misunderstood and you cannot do it for a spouse too?
But still cannot call it 'value of humanity'.

....

The US is governed by case law rather than codes in these matters. So the exemptions are not "codified", but what cases over the years have decided and therefore count as precedent. Cases have decided that spouses cannot be compelled to testify against each other, but not other family relationships.

I hope this helps.

 

[[email protected]]

this is the difference:

No one is making you skate. No one is making you train for the Olympics. You agree to the WADA Code when you decide to do those things.
You don't like the WADA Code, fine, don't train to be an elite athlete. Do something else.

You have no choice about the criminal law, you are subject to it. Therefore the protections are greater.

Apples and oranges

That's a very convenient logic for those who control WADA and WADA'a acts like issuing TUEs. Didn't you forget how many athletes from the US had TUE in 2015? I remember. USADA alone issued 469 TUEs. Russia could get the same year just 15 TUEs.

 

[el henry]

That's a very convenient logic for those who control WADA and WADA'a acts like issuing TUEs. Didn't you forget how many athletes from the US had TUE in 2015? I remember. USADA alone issued 469 TUEs. Russia could get the same year just 15 TUEs.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with whether:

1) Kamila and any other athlete agreed to abide by WADA regulations
or
2) TMZ was found in Kamila's sample

Oh look, a squirrel (chipmunks are close )

 

[CrazyKittenLady]

Btw, Kamila is back in Moscow. Dudakov flew back with her. Understandably, they made a quick escape at the airport.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CaH8qtUqdF4/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

 

[[email protected]]

Which has absolutely nothing to do with whether:

1) Kamila and any other athlete agreed to abide by WADA regulations
or
2) TMZ was found in Kamila's sample

Oh look, a squirrel (chipmunks are close )

Yes, it does but it's a fruitless discussion. TMZ was found in the dosage of 2.1 ng/ml which according to CAS report means that if just 1 pill of TMZ was taken it could happen not later than 5-7 days before the competition. With due understanding that the logic of using TMZ in such a dosage makes no sense as a doping is not working with those who will "prove you anything" there is another logic which is accepted by WADA. The logic of a lab mistake (the report says that TMZ can be surely identified with the concentration of 10 ng/ml and higher) and the logic of a use by mistake.

If any of these 2 points (or any other point) is accepted by CAS as valid in the ultimate verdict to clear Kamila no matter what people here and elsewhere talk about their supposed higher moral grounds, about WADA's rules, about conspiracies, etc. if Kamila is cleared by the court, I personally will not care less about the outrage, about hundreds of pages full with indignation. I will just strongly wish her to win the post-games worlds.

Will she be cleared? I don't know. CAS in their ruling was much more logical and just than WADA. But it was only an ad hoc meeting. The true legal battle will follow. I am sure that there will be 2 camps at GS. I understand your camp and where you are coming from but sorry, I am from another one.

 

[[email protected]]

I just wonder how the process of sample B is going to be handled. The potential embarassment to WADA if it is clean will be so big that, sorry, I don't trust them to do the test without a third party control.

 

[el henry]

Yes, it does but it's a fruitless discussion. TMZ was found in the dosage of 2.1 ng/ml which according to CAS report means that if just 1 pill of TMZ was taken it could happen not later than 5-7 days before the competition. With due understanding that the logic of using TMZ in such a dosage makes no sense as a doping is not working with those who will "prove you anything" there is another logic which is accepted by WADA. The logic of a lab mistake (the report says that TMZ can be surely identified with the concentration of 10 ng/ml and higher) and the logic of a use by mistake.

If any of these 2 points (or any other point) is accepted by CAS as valid in the ultimate verdict to clear Kamila no matter what people here and elsewhere talk about their supposed higher moral grounds, about WADA's rules, about conspiracies, etc. if Kamila is cleared by the court, I personally will not care less about the outrage, about hundreds of pages full with indignation. I will just strongly wish her to win the post-games worlds.

Will she be cleared? I don't know. CAS in their ruling was much more logical and just than WADA. But it was only an ad hoc meeting. The true legal battle will follow. I am sure that there will be 2 camps at GS. I understand your camp and where you are coming from but sorry, I am from another one.

I have never talked about a higher moral ground or conspiracy. I can't decide if others want to (wrongly) attribute motivations to me. I know what my motivations are, and that's enough for me.

My understanding was that the level found was enough to trigger a ban, and that a ban is normally imposed until a full hearing. We have not yet had a full hearing. If it wasn't enough, then presumably that will be the decision. If there is proof there was a lab mistake, that will be the decision.

Nothing to do with other athletes or TUEs. Oh look, a squirrel. Nothing to do with whether the banned substance has a performance enhancing effect; it's banned. Oh look, a squirrel.

But you are right that we will have different opinions, and we will see what happens with a full hearing.

 

[chuckm]

I just wonder how the process of sample B is going to be handled. The potential embarassment to WADA if it is clean will be so big that, sorry, I don't trust them to do the test without a third party control.

I would hope that RUSADA is nowhere near the sample. They'd probably spill it out and replace it with cow urine.

 

[doreen95]

I found no indication about "2 other heart medicaments" in CAS report. So it may be a pure fabrication. If it is not it is a highly unethical move to disclose the irrelevant personal info especially while talking about a minor. It's less unethical but still not a good move in my books to keep reposting this irrelevant information. It is irrelevant because at least one of "2 other heart medicaments" is l-carniteen which can be found in food and vitamins, which is not prohibited, and which is by no means a heart medicament.

CAS merely stated that Kamila wasn't suspended without investigating the case so it doesn't mean anything whether the other 2 drugs are mentioned in the report or not.

However, the other 2 drugs (as heart medicaments) were explicitely mentioned during the hearing (https://www.forbes.com/sites/annaka...d-positive-for-3-heart-drugs/?sh=4156b0339dc4 or https://www.bbc.com/sport/winter-olympics/60399339 or https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/14/sports/olympics/valieva-drug-test-heart-medications.html ). So it is far from being a pure fabrication.

Moreover, the mother of Kamila tried to explain the presence of these 2 other drugs in the sample (https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220215-valieva-had-multiple-substances-in-system-report ) so even she did not deny it. That is the reason why she mentioned the heart "variations" of her daughter. That means that KV's mother, too admitted that these drugs are heart medicaments or were jused by KV as such.

And it is not an irrelevant information because the presence of the 2 other heart medicaments is itself the evidence that the 3rd (prohibited) drug was not taken accidentally, too.

+ If you find my posts unethical than don't read them. So simple.
Otherwise why do you think anyone cares about what you find unethical? I most definitely do not.

 

[matin calin]

You have no choice about the criminal law, you are subject to it. Therefore the protections are greater.

Interesting logic, not sure if I agree or not, maybe it makes sense in a way.

I found no indication about "2 other heart medicaments" in CAS report. So it may be a pure fabrication. If it is not it is a highly unethical move to disclose the irrelevant personal info especially while talking about a minor. It's less unethical but still not a good move in my books to keep reposting this irrelevant information. It is irrelevant because at least one of "2 other heart medicaments" is l-carniteen which can be found in food and vitamins, which is not prohibited, and which is by no means a heart medicament.

It was actually mentioned in CAS decision they published yesterday, p. 75 "the Athlete declared the following three products on her Doping Control Form at the Doping Control: L-carnitine, supradyn and hypoxen". I don't think this is necessarily to her detriment though, they can argue that she had no reason to take banned TMZ which serves essentially the same purpose as the legal and duly reported hypoxen.

 

[matin calin]

Nothing to do with other athletes or TUEs. Oh look, a squirrel. Nothing to do with whether the banned substance has a performance enhancing effect; it's banned. Oh look, a squirrel.

I like your squirrel analogy but I think you're overusing it a bit. I think the aspects samkrut brings up are relevant and surely will be considered in the main investigation. Btw even in the CAS decision re. her provisional suspension they refer to comparable cases (=other athletes) and discuss TMZ's possible effects on performance, so even from a strict legal perspective these matters are of interest, and we are on a figure skating forum.

 

[Warwick360]

I just wonder how the process of sample B is going to be handled. The potential embarassment to WADA if it is clean will be so big that, sorry, I don't trust them to do the test without a third party control.

Their team have the option to ask for it. But the way it has gone, they have pretty much accepted that the drug may have been in her system, since they've already taken the 'grandfather' route.

So I'm not sure what some people are still expecting when they constantly keep referencing sample B. Surely, we've sailed way past that?