- Joined
- Dec 29, 2013
When I get a second (likely not until tomorrow
) I’ll check for @Jumping_Bean ‘s posts in This thread because I’m just looking to read the official rule regarding point reallocation . .. thanks 
Last edited:
Kamila Valieva: Anti-doping Case and Follow-ups
- Thread starter GS Forum Staff
- Start date
) I’ll check for @Jumping_Bean ‘s posts in This thread because I’m just looking to read the official rule regarding point reallocation . .. thanks 
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2015
Here is the rule book for the team event : Look at Results determinationWhen I get a second (likely not until tomorrow
Skate Canada's statement :
Skate Canada’s Response to the ISU’s Statement Regarding the Awarding of Medals for the 2022 Beijing Olympic Games Figure Skating Team Competition
Skate Canada is extremely disappointed with the International Skating Union’s [...]
skatecanada.ca
Rule 353 starts at page 15... you will need to look for D/Q skaters and its effect on final result... page 20 or so.
Yes, it's section four, under "Publication of Results."Here is the rule book for the team event : Look at Results determination
Skate Canada's statement :
Skate Canada’s Response to the ISU’s Statement Regarding the Awarding of Medals for the 2022 Beijing Olympic Games Figure Skating Team Competition
Skate Canada is extremely disappointed with the International Skating Union’s [...]
Rule 353 starts at page 15... you will need to look for D/Q skaters and its effect on final result... page 20 or so.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
"Should" is a terrible word. What does it mean? Suppose there are rules "Should" we follow them or defy them? "Should" is a logician's nightmare.There is no logical principle that allows an argument of the form: (A) is a fact. (B) is a fact. (C) is a fact. Therefore we "should" do (D).
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2017
So I guess you hate bodybuilding and all of the crazy stuff they do.
And yes bodybuilders have a high mortality rate and yet it's still crazy popular despite all of the participants knowing this. Are you going to outlaw it?
That's why there are divisions: bodybuilding and "natural" bodybuilding. And everyone gets to decide how risky they want to be in the "drugged" event, but they all know it's high risk regardless. If they don't like the risk, they signup for the "natural" competitions.
I already pointed out you can't do that with children since they are below the age of consent, but with adults we already have had it happening for years and years. Are you going to outlaw it and tell adults what they can and can't do with their bodies because its super risky? Make sure you outlaw smoking, drinking, and meat-eating while you're at it because those are also high risk. And driving cars or climbing up ladders.
I'm for freedom of choice for adults as long as they've read the waiver and understood all of the things that can go wrong.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2013
@4everchan for the links
From the Beijing Olympic Rules
for the linksFrom the Beijing Olympic Rules
What the heck? This is worded in a very peculiar way. It’s not only obscure it feels purposely obtuse to use the phrase but not limited to in this context. I can’t work out the reasoning as to why they wouldn’t want to be limited to rules 352 or 353 from the Official ISU guidelines and why they had the forethought to even write this language into the rules for the Beijing Games.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2015
If the ISU is not limiting itself to rules 352 and 353, then they need to come up with something solid to explain what they are doing. They have not.@4everchan
From the Beijing Olympic Rules
What the heck? This is worded in a very peculiar way. It’s not only obscure it feels purposely obtuse to use the phrase but not limited to in this context. I can’t work out the reasoning as to why they wouldn’t want to be limited to rules 352 or 353 from the Official ISU guidelines and why they had the forethought to even write this language into the rules for the Beijing Games.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2013
They probably should ( cover your eyes @Mathman ) but my guess is they won’t say much at all until all of the appeal process is complete with the ROC. I think that is still ongoing since the ROC motion was submitted six days ago. Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t see a ruling on the appeal at this point,
I did see that Christine Brennan sent emails six hours before publishing her story to the ISU but my guess is that even she won’t hear anything official regarding “legal” decisions until the entire process is complete. Maybe we’ll get lucky and someone will leak something to her
I’m with you though…I’d love to hear the reasoning why they chose not to invoke rule 353. I can only imagine the thought process and intention behind putting it into the rules that this event “isn’t limited” to abide by that rule. My fear is that the ISU will just conjure some confusing legal friendly media release that lends itself to more confusion and debate.
They probably should ( cover your eyes @Mathman ) but my guess is they won’t say much at all until all of the appeal process is complete with the ROC. I think that is still ongoing since the ROC motion was submitted six days ago. Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t see a ruling on the appeal at this point,
I did see that Christine Brennan sent emails six hours before publishing her story to the ISU but my guess is that even she won’t hear anything official regarding “legal” decisions until the entire process is complete. Maybe we’ll get lucky and someone will leak something to her
I’m with you though…I’d love to hear the reasoning why they chose not to invoke rule 353. I can only imagine the thought process and intention behind putting it into the rules that this event “isn’t limited” to abide by that rule. My fear is that the ISU will just conjure some confusing legal friendly media release that lends itself to more confusion and debate.
The ISU loves controversy is the only explanation. Like it should have been straight forward situation once Valieva was suspended where her Olympic results are DQed but here we are.
Is is in the International Standard for Testing and Investigations.
Can you city your source for 60 days? I assume you won't.
It wasn't 59 days between when the lab receiving sample was collected and the result given to the athlete anyway, it was about 40-45 days.
Of course it is their fault. They have a 21 day maximum limit to return the results to the athletes. They took over double that, and even waited to the completion of the team event to hand over the result causing athletes to wait two years for their medals.It is NOT the lab's fault. Repeat after me, louder for the people in the back, it is NOT the lab's fault.
The skaters were literally cornering WADA officials at Europeans demanding their results. RUSADA did follow up and the lab assured that the remaining samples were given a high priority but still failed. RUSADA and the skaters could not do much more than they did.
RUSADA sent the sample off 27th December. There was no need to mark anything high priority because COVID cases were only just starting to tick up in Sweden it wouldn't peak until a month later, and the 21 day maximum period to notify the athletes was more then adequate. No reason for a sample to be tested immediately unless there was a competition in the coming days which there wasn't.
I think you have it the wrong way around. Blaming COVID two years into a pandemic rather than having a backup plan, blaming RUSADA for not marking it high priority when the lab hadn't even made that request on 27th December (RUSADA is supposed to predict the future now?) is the dog did it.RusFed excuses remind me of a toddler: the dog did it, it was my brother, waaah, mommy it wasn't me, anything that would stop RusFed from looking in the mirror and taking responsibility as they deserve for this entire situation
And laughing responses mean that you are happy and agree with me, so I'll take it
There is a maximum 21 days to return the result to allow for disruptions (normally results returned in 5-10 days but still took double the time allowed). Promising to make something a high priority then still failing is unacceptable from an organisation that plays God with athletes careers. If they are going to hold athletes to the strictest standards the least they can do it abide by their own standards. Sending out the result on the day of the completion of the team event makes me think there was no delay just the lab was poorly managed at best, at worst, well I probably shouldn't go there.
The lab were able to get the results of the other athletes at the Russian championships out to the athletes before the Olympics. Surely they have something on their computer that allows them to query which samples are outstanding. When they checked Shcherbakova, Truovsa, etc, surely they look for the other samples received from Russia on the 27th December. The samples have information like gender, origin, age on it. Wouldn't be too hard to find the sample for the 15 year old girl that was received 27th December.
Last edited:
They have been disqualified. The Japanese women move up to first place. The 10 points Valieva earned in each program have been deducted from Russia's score. They can't then award 10 points to the two Japanese women because Valieva was already awarded 10 points and they have been removed from the table. That would mean skaters have been awarded 10 points twice in each program.
She was allowed to compete in the event and did not break any rules in the event, earning 10 points in each program.
I know he had to wait for gold, but he should be thankful for the result (and Chen) getting back to Kamila so late rather than 30 hours earlier, otherwise ROC would have put Shcherbakova and Trusova. Trusova in the free skate had a base value 33 points higher than Sakamoto I think, so safe to say it would have 99% chance Russia would have won gold with Shcherbakova or Trusova.
It's an incredible twist of fate, he should be thankful everyday he had to wait for gold because in any other scenario except Kamila's result being delayed until after the team event he walks away with silver.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2015
A lot of athletes have described their experience with getting medals months/years after the competition is over, because some other athletes were indeed disqualified... ( I suggest to you, reading the Christine Girard story, if you want to know about only one of them. There is even a short film if I recall properly. )
The athletes all say the same thing :
Nothing compares to getting your medal right after the competition, at the games. Nothing.
So no, none of these athletes should be thankful as you have written.
I am not even sure getting a gold in these circumstances will be worth (emotionally) as much as a fair silver against clean competitors received in the euphoria of the Olympic games.
(And i am pretty sure that the Japanese skaters couldn't care less about upgrading to silver as they have lost their Olympic moment too.)
Enough with the Russians would have won in any other circumstances. The reality is that they did not and they only have themselves to blame that for. They need to go after doping like it's done in some countries. They need to make it a priority. Enough with blaming the lab. The reality is that the lab being late would have had no impact on a clean athlete. Enough with the what ifs...
The reality here, is that no matter the colour of the medal, the American and Japanese skaters should have received theirs in 2022 and they didn't because of "doping".
Last edited:
I never claimed my assumption was correct but rather looking for you to be able to back up your claims with facts.
As you haven’t cited the source it’s obvious that your 21 day timeline doesn’t hold anymore credibility than my assumption.
So let’s stop sitting on our high horses claiming it was all the labs fault when you have no concrete evidence they did anything wrong
[/QUOTE]
I was talking about Zhou. He somehow caught COVID in the bubble so would have missed the ceremony and they would have mailed the medal to him.
It is the lab's fault that Kamila skated and everyone had to wait two years for the medal (it's going to drag on longer now because Canada is appealing in vain to CAS over the ref's decision. The lab is 100% to blame.
I think it's valid to say the Russian's would have won with a replacement for Valieva. They only needed to finish 4th in the short program to seal gold. Shchberbakova could have fallen and still done it.
I'll help you with it. I gave you the name in the post you just had to search for it.I never claimed my assumption was correct but rather looking for you to be able to back up your claims with facts.
As you haven’t cited the source it’s obvious that your 21 day timeline doesn’t hold anymore credibility than my assumption.
So let’s stop sitting on our high horses claiming it was all the labs fault when you have no concrete evidence they did anything wrong
International Standard For Testing And Investigations
For those who think it's easier to annoy you than to Google 'International standard for testing and investigations' themselves.
21 days is the limit. It took 40-45 to return the result, so clearly the lab is at fault for that delay.
Sample was taken the 25th December, arrived at the lab on the 27th December. If they took the sample the 25th December, but it arrived at the lab 7th February then you could blame RUSADA, but since the lab had the sample for 6 weeks and 21 days to return the result, the lab has to take the blame on this one.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2015
Meh... I am not him and I haven't even watched the interview... but guess what, Vincent may have loved seeing his teammates on TV, in his room, while he was confined, winning this medal... They may have even taken a big picture of him to the podium... etc... He may have had an Olympic moment... and yes, his medal may have come later in the mail... like 2 weeks later ... That won't convince me that he is happier now that he will have a chance to get a medal "in person"
I wonder who is appealing more in vain, ROC or Canada... Time will tell.
Meh again. The doper is always 100% to blame, except when it's a child... then the doper's entourage is to blame.
You are free to think whatever you want. I prefer sticking to the facts. Even the best teams can lose. For instance, many think the best team in 2018 was ROC. Strangely, Canada won it, and by quite a margin. What happened ? They all skated well, perhaps even better than expected and some ROC stars did not. This happens and different teammates can influence the results of the event... For instance, sub in Keegan Messing, Canada's traditional team leader, and maybe Canada does much much better in 2022... but I won't dwell on this thought... just a thought... a hypothetical thought... Not a fact. Same goes to whatever would have happened if Kamila had been exposed earlier.
I think ROC have the stronger case because they selected their team in good faith, Kamila did not test positive at the event, performed her programs within the rules. If WADA had followed their own procedures then ROC would have had an opportunity to replace her.
What are the odds WADA's lab forgot to test the one positive test, and this one positive test belonged to the most important athlete in the Russian team, plus was 15 so if they notified her early she could have withdrawn and would have been entitled to confidentiality instead of no stop leaking of confidential information about the child (which continues until today)? It has to be in the billions to one these series of events and coincidences.
I'm not saying there's a conspiracy of some kind it's just a series of events that must be in the billions to one.
What if it's just some kind of cross-contamination and the source can't be established. Who would be a coach under that scenario because doping a child is a long prison term even in Russia.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2015
OK.. this will be my last reply to you on this topic because these answers were given to you before and you perhaps haven't read them 
It doesn't matter that she didn't test positive at the event. She already had tested positive. End of story. It doesn't matter if she tested negative 3 months before, 3 days after XMAS etc.. When there is a positive test, it's because the lab detected foul play.
Not the anti-doping rules and the code of ethics of the Olympians. Have you watched opening ceremonies ? Athletes swear they will play fairly in the olympic spirit. Doping is not playing fairly.
ROC didn't flag the sample properly for outside testing. ROC had to send out their samples for testing because they lost accreditation to do it themselves.. because they have been caught tampering tests... So there.
tough luck... but no odds if there hadn't been doping to start with.
Kamila didn't argue it was. She went with another defense. It wasn't convincing enough.
Similar threads
