Kamila Valieva: Anti-doping Case and Follow-ups
- Thread starter GS Forum Staff
- Start date
So what I garner from reading this report.
1. The lab conducted the first test on Dec 30, 2021. (sample 1-5)
2. The lab closed for 10 days.
3. On Jan 11 the results returned as positive.
4. They took additional sample to verify results. (Sample 6 on Jan 12)
5. The results were rejected as "“unsatisfactory Quality Control results".
6. Samples 7, 8, and 9 were then taken to confirm results and all discarded for quality control issues. (Jan 12th through 20th)
7. Jan 20th, the lab used a different test that was more targeted “Trimetazidine, Lomerizine and metabolite confirmation withUHPLC-HRMS, Validation plan”
8. Feb 4th, the day sample 10 was taken.
9. Feb 7th, the day sample 10 came back positive.
10. RUSADA was informed on Feb 8th.
Based on this outline its clear that the lab in Sweden was in no way negligible. They started testing 4 days after receiving the sample.
IMO, what this tells me is that the sample found was indeed very small and likely due to a slight miscalculation in dosage likely due to weight fluctuation and water intake. As whoever was doping Kamila intended the sample was barely detectable by the standard test used. Once it needed to be confirmed the rest of the samples provided unclear results and thus they used a more specific test since they knew what they were looking for.
b. The DADC held that the Stockholm Laboratory “substantially violated” the ISL
by reason of its delay in reporting. This is not correct.
c. The ISL provides, by Article 5.3.8.4, that the reporting of an athlete’s A sample
“should occur” within 20 days of receipt of the sample and that the testing
laboratory should inform the testing authority of any delay in the reporting of
the results.
d. This is a guideline and not a mandatory standard and the DADC was wrong to
say otherwise. There are many reasons why the 20-day period “may be
unachievable in practice”. In this case there was a delay because the Stockholm
Laboratory experienced staffing difficulties in the Covid-19 pandemic. The
Stockholm Laboratory informed RUSADA as to the fact of and reasons for the
delay.
e. In any event, the delay in reporting by the Stockholm Laboratory is “completely
irrelevant to any of the issues” in this appeal. In this case, the results of the B
Sample confirm the results of the A Sample.
by reason of its delay in reporting. This is not correct.
c. The ISL provides, by Article 5.3.8.4, that the reporting of an athlete’s A sample
“should occur” within 20 days of receipt of the sample and that the testing
laboratory should inform the testing authority of any delay in the reporting of
the results.
d. This is a guideline and not a mandatory standard and the DADC was wrong to
say otherwise. There are many reasons why the 20-day period “may be
unachievable in practice”. In this case there was a delay because the Stockholm
Laboratory experienced staffing difficulties in the Covid-19 pandemic. The
Stockholm Laboratory informed RUSADA as to the fact of and reasons for the
delay.
e. In any event, the delay in reporting by the Stockholm Laboratory is “completely
irrelevant to any of the issues” in this appeal. In this case, the results of the B
Sample confirm the results of the A Sample.
IMO standard protocol should be that the athlete and the governing sporting body be made aware ASAP of a suspected positive test and be told we're doing additional analysis to conclusively rule a doping violation. I doubt Valieva would have gone to the Olympics if the Russian Fed knew or at the very least she would have been kept out of the team event especially considering Shcherbakova and Trusova could have secured gold as well.
It doesn't excuse the doping but....seriously the whole Olympic disaster could have been avoided
Or could just be contamination from one of the supplements, sabotage, food, etc. Why go through such an effort to take so many legal supplements only to drop a highly illegal one that doesn't do a whole lot into the mix and risk destroying everything and everyone.
I don't disagree entirely.
I wonder how often they get false positives, and I'm betting they have the rule in place about confirming the test a second time around for a reason.
However, it appears they did about a test every 1-2 days. Had the sample been marked urgent as it should have been it wouldn't have been an issue.
If team Tut weren't hiding anything, they would never have come up with the ludicrous grandpa excuses. They would have simply said, it must have been supplement contamination.
Last edited:
133. When an athlete provides an explanation for an ADRV “it needs to be based on
evidence. Athlete testimony is evidence but on its own is not good enough to satisfy the
balance of probabilities; in other words, if an athlete – even a Protected Person –
provides an explanation that is simply based on the athlete’s own word, and nothing
else, then CAS has said repeatedly that this is insufficient to be accepted as being more
likely than not. The [Russian] ADR places a burden of proof on Ms Valieva to provide
an explanation … that includes her own word and testimony but also includes other
evidence (which can be wholly circumstantial) to substantiate her explanation.” See
CAS 2019/A/6541.
CAS 2023/A/9451 - CAS 2023/A/9455 - CAS 2023/A/9456 – Page 44
If you are a 15 year old Jamaican swimmer you don't need to provide evidence for multiple positive samples and escape with a reprimand, if you are a adult swimmer you can claim you were contaminated from tap water and WADA won't take this to CAS (which would be a slam dunk 4 years), if you are Jon Jones USADA which talks a big game for two year will give a repeat offender, maybe the worst doper in the world 1 year and 3 months. No-one has cheated the system like Jon Jones but USADA slap him with a 1 year 3 month suspension in a combat sport where they only perform once a year anyway.
I would have no problem with the punishment if WADA were as vindictive with every other person who tests positive as they are with a 15 year old girl with a sample that took 10 tests and 6 weeks to confirm if it was positive.
evidence. Athlete testimony is evidence but on its own is not good enough to satisfy the
balance of probabilities; in other words, if an athlete – even a Protected Person –
provides an explanation that is simply based on the athlete’s own word, and nothing
else, then CAS has said repeatedly that this is insufficient to be accepted as being more
likely than not. The [Russian] ADR places a burden of proof on Ms Valieva to provide
an explanation … that includes her own word and testimony but also includes other
evidence (which can be wholly circumstantial) to substantiate her explanation.” See
CAS 2019/A/6541.
CAS 2023/A/9451 - CAS 2023/A/9455 - CAS 2023/A/9456 – Page 44
If you are a 15 year old Jamaican swimmer you don't need to provide evidence for multiple positive samples and escape with a reprimand, if you are a adult swimmer you can claim you were contaminated from tap water and WADA won't take this to CAS (which would be a slam dunk 4 years), if you are Jon Jones USADA which talks a big game for two year will give a repeat offender, maybe the worst doper in the world 1 year and 3 months. No-one has cheated the system like Jon Jones but USADA slap him with a 1 year 3 month suspension in a combat sport where they only perform once a year anyway.
I would have no problem with the punishment if WADA were as vindictive with every other person who tests positive as they are with a 15 year old girl with a sample that took 10 tests and 6 weeks to confirm if it was positive.
Given the timeline they were testing frequently anyways so I'm not understanding how you think the sample being marked urgent would have changed anything. They knew in early January after the lab reopened they had a suspected positive and initiated validation procedures that took till February to confirm
As to sabotage, the basis for this explanation is the assertion by the Athlete that the
manufacturer of one of the supplements that she was using, Hypoxen, also manufactures
TMZ such that there was a possibility of cross-contamination. There is “nowhere near
enough evidence to conclude that some sort of contaminated medication or supplement
was the cause of or in any way related to” the Athlete’s ADRV and this explanation
must also be discounted. The DADC did not accept this explanation either.
There are many instances of Russian supplements being contaminated and RUSADA issuing warnings to be careful about manufacturers. This is no worse an explanation that consuming TMZ via tap water in a country where few people use TMZ lol. That got 2 years for an adult. And it turned out to be a BS excuse because months later she was able to prove it was contamination via supplements, but WADA accepted this by not appealing for 4 years. WADA were appealing for 4 years before this investigation even concluded, which tells you everything about their motivation.
manufacturer of one of the supplements that she was using, Hypoxen, also manufactures
TMZ such that there was a possibility of cross-contamination. There is “nowhere near
enough evidence to conclude that some sort of contaminated medication or supplement
was the cause of or in any way related to” the Athlete’s ADRV and this explanation
must also be discounted. The DADC did not accept this explanation either.
There are many instances of Russian supplements being contaminated and RUSADA issuing warnings to be careful about manufacturers. This is no worse an explanation that consuming TMZ via tap water in a country where few people use TMZ lol. That got 2 years for an adult. And it turned out to be a BS excuse because months later she was able to prove it was contamination via supplements, but WADA accepted this by not appealing for 4 years. WADA were appealing for 4 years before this investigation even concluded, which tells you everything about their motivation.
I'm not saying its a defense, I'm saying its terrible procedures which should change. This same scenario could still happen today with more medals being in legal limbo and the governing bodies could change that by requiring notification to the athlete and their governing sporting body. They suspected a positive on January 11th, that's almost a full month before the Olympics, different procedures in place she likely would have never been in Beijing for precautionary reasons.
The excuse about it needing to be high priority is total BS because they finished examining the sample the day the lab reopened after being shut for two weeks. Marking it high priority would have saved one day at most lol.
c) Despite the fact that he had a weak heart and had suffered four heart
attacks, Mr Solovyov drove two hours every day to drive the Athlete to
the Ice Palace which was 200m away from the Athlete’s apartment.
In fairness it sounds quite reasonable:
f. Because she works, Ms Alsu Valieva asked Mr Solovyov to escort the Athlete
to the Ice Palace and to attend the training sessions. Mr Solovyov drove from
his house in Lukashenko village to the Athlete’s house and then drove the
Athlete to the Ice Palace for the morning session. He did so in order to ensure
her safety (“so that no one knows her home address”) and to be there in case of
an emergency (such as an injury). Mr Solovyov then escorted the Athlete home
where they had lunch, often prepared by him; they then returned to the Ice Palace
for the afternoon session. Ms Alsu Valieva went to the Ice Palace at 16:30 in
order to take the Athlete home after training.
attacks, Mr Solovyov drove two hours every day to drive the Athlete to
the Ice Palace which was 200m away from the Athlete’s apartment.
In fairness it sounds quite reasonable:
f. Because she works, Ms Alsu Valieva asked Mr Solovyov to escort the Athlete
to the Ice Palace and to attend the training sessions. Mr Solovyov drove from
his house in Lukashenko village to the Athlete’s house and then drove the
Athlete to the Ice Palace for the morning session. He did so in order to ensure
her safety (“so that no one knows her home address”) and to be there in case of
an emergency (such as an injury). Mr Solovyov then escorted the Athlete home
where they had lunch, often prepared by him; they then returned to the Ice Palace
for the afternoon session. Ms Alsu Valieva went to the Ice Palace at 16:30 in
order to take the Athlete home after training.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2015
i wasn't targeting you directly but many others who invoked the lab delays and called it negligence
but since you are mentioning this : let me be clear... yes... a suspected positive or any delay caused by testing to get conclusive results could put medals in limbo... but the real problem is doping. That is really the reason why medals are in limbo
So I don't have that much sympathy for ROC who could have sent anyone else here... It is frustrating sure... but that's a risk taken when there are no strong anti-doping regulations within a federation. And the fact that the doctor in question is still employed by the fed, even if he is just there for "first aid" speaks volume about that. So sorry, i would have loved to see Liza at the games... and for figure skating to avoid that scandal but I do not feel much compassion at this point. Played with fire... burned.
194. The Grandfather Explanation evolved over time:
a. At the hearing before the DADC on 14 December 2022, the Athlete argued that
“This substance, this drug, is present in the home. There could be absolutely
different ways in which it got there. For example, the grandfather drank from a
glass, some saliva got into it, the glass was then used by the athlete. For
example, the medication was lying on some surface, some traces were left
behind, and then the medication was lying on this surface and then the athlete
drank it. That is, there are many different ways in which the drug could have
come into contact. But the very fact that it is in the family home, the very fact of
proving that it is more likely than not that there was contamination, must be
taken into account.”
b. In its appeal to the CAS Ad Hoc Division, WADA challenged this explanation,
pointing to the fact that the Athlete left for St Petersburg on 22 December 2021
and competed on 25 December 2021 during which time she had no contact with
her grandfather.
c. In order to meet that challenge, the Athlete now says that she took with her on
22 December 2021 a strawberry dessert made for her by her grandfather and that
it likely contained traces of her grandfather’s TMZ and was thus the cause of
her positive result.
a. At the hearing before the DADC on 14 December 2022, the Athlete argued that
“This substance, this drug, is present in the home. There could be absolutely
different ways in which it got there. For example, the grandfather drank from a
glass, some saliva got into it, the glass was then used by the athlete. For
example, the medication was lying on some surface, some traces were left
behind, and then the medication was lying on this surface and then the athlete
drank it. That is, there are many different ways in which the drug could have
come into contact. But the very fact that it is in the family home, the very fact of
proving that it is more likely than not that there was contamination, must be
taken into account.”
b. In its appeal to the CAS Ad Hoc Division, WADA challenged this explanation,
pointing to the fact that the Athlete left for St Petersburg on 22 December 2021
and competed on 25 December 2021 during which time she had no contact with
her grandfather.
c. In order to meet that challenge, the Athlete now says that she took with her on
22 December 2021 a strawberry dessert made for her by her grandfather and that
it likely contained traces of her grandfather’s TMZ and was thus the cause of
her positive result.
237. The evidence supporting the grandfather contamination route is as follows:
a. The Athlete lives with her mother in Moscow. Ms Alsu Valieva leaves early in
the morning for work (as an accountant) and she works until 15:30. The Athlete
has on-line schooling in the morning.
b. The Athlete trains at the Ice Palace. The morning session is from 10:30 to 13:30.
The afternoon session is from 15:30 until 19:30.
c. The Athlete has a warm relationship with Mr Solovyov, whom she regards as
her grandfather (he is not her blood grandfather). He was a “stable presence” in
her life in the three months leading up to the Russian Championships in
December 2021.
d. Mr Solovyov has had heart problems since 2000. He suffers from ischemic heart
disease and angina pectoris. He has had four heart attacks and has had two
surgeries. As a result he was “systematically taking medications to maintain
proper cardiac activity. This is confirmed by: (i) his 22 December 2008
discharge summary which confirms that he suffered from ischemic heart disease
and angina pectoris; (ii) an extract form his medical record of 10 March 2022
which confirms that he was recommended to take 35mg TMZ twice a day,
courses two times a year for three months; and (iii) an extract form his medical
record of 2 December 2022 which confirms that he suffers from ischemic heart disease and angina pectoris and that he “constantly takes Trimetazidine 35mg
twice a day (course one in 3 months)”.
e. Mr Solovyov started using TMZ “approximately since 2018”. TMZ is “freely
sold in Russian cities, in the form of 20mg or 35mg tablets, and its purchase
does not require a prescription”. He started another three month course in
October 2021 “and he was using this medication at the moment when this
substance entered the Athlete’s system, i.e. in December 2021”.
f. Because she works, Ms Alsu Valieva asked Mr Solovyov to escort the Athlete
to the Ice Palace and to attend the training sessions. Mr Solovyov drove from
his house in Lukashenko village to the Athlete’s house and then drove the
Athlete to the Ice Palace for the morning session. He did so in order to ensure
her safety (“so that no one knows her home address”) and to be there in case of
an emergency (such as an injury). Ms Alsu Valieva went to the Ice Palace at
16:30 in order to take the Athlete home after training.
a. The Athlete lives with her mother in Moscow. Ms Alsu Valieva leaves early in
the morning for work (as an accountant) and she works until 15:30. The Athlete
has on-line schooling in the morning.
b. The Athlete trains at the Ice Palace. The morning session is from 10:30 to 13:30.
The afternoon session is from 15:30 until 19:30.
c. The Athlete has a warm relationship with Mr Solovyov, whom she regards as
her grandfather (he is not her blood grandfather). He was a “stable presence” in
her life in the three months leading up to the Russian Championships in
December 2021.
d. Mr Solovyov has had heart problems since 2000. He suffers from ischemic heart
disease and angina pectoris. He has had four heart attacks and has had two
surgeries. As a result he was “systematically taking medications to maintain
proper cardiac activity. This is confirmed by: (i) his 22 December 2008
discharge summary which confirms that he suffered from ischemic heart disease
and angina pectoris; (ii) an extract form his medical record of 10 March 2022
which confirms that he was recommended to take 35mg TMZ twice a day,
courses two times a year for three months; and (iii) an extract form his medical
record of 2 December 2022 which confirms that he suffers from ischemic heart disease and angina pectoris and that he “constantly takes Trimetazidine 35mg
twice a day (course one in 3 months)”.
e. Mr Solovyov started using TMZ “approximately since 2018”. TMZ is “freely
sold in Russian cities, in the form of 20mg or 35mg tablets, and its purchase
does not require a prescription”. He started another three month course in
October 2021 “and he was using this medication at the moment when this
substance entered the Athlete’s system, i.e. in December 2021”.
f. Because she works, Ms Alsu Valieva asked Mr Solovyov to escort the Athlete
to the Ice Palace and to attend the training sessions. Mr Solovyov drove from
his house in Lukashenko village to the Athlete’s house and then drove the
Athlete to the Ice Palace for the morning session. He did so in order to ensure
her safety (“so that no one knows her home address”) and to be there in case of
an emergency (such as an injury). Ms Alsu Valieva went to the Ice Palace at
16:30 in order to take the Athlete home after training.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2022
Samples are anonymised, lab personnel is only given the number and information that would affect which tests they are supposed to run (in-competition and out-of-competition tests are different). They wouldn't have known until the day it became public knowledge.
Easy - They could prove the presence of TMZ, but the test results weren't "pretty" enough to be acceptable under the quality control criterion in the WADA code. Basically, in chromatography, you want really nice clean peaks, and they had trouble achieving that with the reference material. Despite multiple repetitions, they couldn't achieve a cleaner result, so they had to establish a different protocol to achieve the quality control standards. As a person with lab experience (not with doping or human samples though), sometimes you just don't get pretty results, and that's fine for some purposes and not others. Like, if something's just for me, a bit of weirdness is fine, but for publications? Absolutely not.
l. As Dr Zholinsky explains, in light of (i) the need to take a course of TMZ to
achieve any effect, (ii) a long elimination period, and (iii) on 25 December 2021
the Athlete was in the testing pool and therefore subject to testing at any time,
“it is impossible that an athlete of this class would intentionally take
trimetazidine”
achieve any effect, (ii) a long elimination period, and (iii) on 25 December 2021
the Athlete was in the testing pool and therefore subject to testing at any time,
“it is impossible that an athlete of this class would intentionally take
trimetazidine”
Similar threads
