I'm guessing "grandpa" doesn't actually exist, especially since its evolved that the alleged grandpa isn't even her biological grandfather but the father of her mother's boyfriend and when Valieva's career was on the line this man was nowhere to be found. This was and is a huge story in Russia - I'm sure there's some capability of enlisting private investigator that could track him down if Mama Valieva and the boyfriend separated and the family ghosted them.
Kamila Valieva: Anti-doping Case and Follow-ups
- Thread starter GS Forum Staff
- Start date
I'm guessing "grandpa" doesn't actually exist, especially since its evolved that the alleged grandpa isn't even her biological grandfather but the father of her mother's boyfriend and when Valieva's career was on the line this man was nowhere to be found. This was and is a huge story in Russia - I'm sure there's some capability of enlisting private investigator that could track him down if Mama Valieva and the boyfriend separated and the family ghosted them.
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2022
How does a grandfather-figure who doesn't exist give a prerecorded video statement? That line was very confusing.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2014
It's more that he never provided any supporting documentation as to his identity. He may very well be who he says he is, but they don't have any proof of it beyond that video, and an e-mail.
I'm not sure about WADA using this logic to pin it on Eteri:
e. Ms Tutberidze was the Athlete’s head coach. In an interview in 2019 MsTutberidze confirmed that meldonium was provided to Russian athletes forimproved recovery and in support of the heart muscle and that after meldoniumwas banned by WADA in 2016 “we had to look for something new”. TMZ andmeldonium have similar properties
TMZ was banned in 2014. Meldonium banned in 2016. So she decided to use a banned drug to replace another banned drug? Does not really make sense.
e. Ms Tutberidze was the Athlete’s head coach. In an interview in 2019 MsTutberidze confirmed that meldonium was provided to Russian athletes forimproved recovery and in support of the heart muscle and that after meldoniumwas banned by WADA in 2016 “we had to look for something new”. TMZ andmeldonium have similar properties
TMZ was banned in 2014. Meldonium banned in 2016. So she decided to use a banned drug to replace another banned drug? Does not really make sense.
Of course he exists. We're getting into conspiracy theory territory if we accuse him of being an actor. Wouldn't they be more organised with fully developed theories if they were planning to have alibis in the event of being caught?
I'm sure there will be some journalist that tracks him down and tries to knock on his door in the coming weeks.
In March 2022 he was hospitalised so maybe Kamila and her mother didn't want to involve him any longer because of the stress it was causing him. I can understand that. You don't know whether there has been some falling out maybe the grandfather's family wasn't happy that he was putting himself in this position to help his son's ex-girlfriend's daughter.
Kamila and her mother came from Kazan too so would have no family to rely on his Moscow, the step grandfather probably played a big role in Kamila's life growing up. She was only 15 so even if he was around her life for 6-7 years it is a huge part of her life.
You talking about people hiring PI's to track him down is exactly why he or his family wouldn't have wanted him taking further part in this, especially when he's already had multiple heart attacks. What makes you think this guy is fair game? Kamila got the absolute maximum for a child it is unprecedented, they had to test the sample 9 times before they got the result they wanted (I'm sure they don't go to such lengths for other "random" samples -- they are not random there is enough information to figure out who it is for especially if it saying 15 years old and arrived on the 29th December in a lab that handles Russian samples). How many times do they test, it is inconclusive, and then just move onto the next one. It sounds like for the first 9 tests it was an atypical result.
Was the excuse made up? Probably. They probably convinced themselves it was the truth. How would she remember exactly what she ate and if she drank water from a glass on the 21st December. Can you remember what you drank or ate two months ago? Probably a bunch of memories all muddled up. Simply saying I don't know how I tested positive isn't good enough you get 4 years, so in the absence of finding proof via contamination of supplements or sabotage, then they went with this theory to save her career.
I would do the same if I had to save my career.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2022
If I read any more of these same talking points from you I might actually lose all my patience.
"The result they wanted" is a result they would be allowed to input into ADAMS, not anything you are trying to insinuate. And yes, they would go to such lengths for other samples, because that's literally their job, what about that is so hard for you to understand? Lab personnel has no other information apart from the sample number and what tests have to be run on the sample (i.e. in-competition or out-of-competition sample), and most of them probably couldn't care less even if they knew. Sweden isn't Russia, for God's sake. On that day, there would have been at least 9 samples coming in from Russian Nationals alone (all medalists in Women and pairs), plus several other competition and non-competition samples. The result was also never inconclusive, they had issues with the reference material, not the sample.
The doping control form used by RUSADA for the Russian championships in December 2021 included the age of the skater. It's not too hard to determine who the 15 year old athlete was.
They got 9 inconclusive results before getting the correct result the 10th time. Maybe it's standard procedure I don't know.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2022
The lab personnel, i.e. the actual people testing it get none of that information. They only come into contact with the sample after it has received a sample number, and the two things are only put back together when both forms (doping test and test result) are uploaded to ADAMS.
They were not inconclusive results, and nobody claims that they were inconclusive, not even Kamila's defense team. They were of unsatisfactory quality but not inconclusive. The quality control standards in doping test analysis (and many other lab tests) are very high, way higher than you need for a conclusive result because these results are essentially evidence before a court (when it comes to that). They have to be absolutely sure that they can rely on these test results, so yes, if it doesn't pass quality control, they will keep on repeating the test, or eventually (as in this case) devise a better protocol for this particular substance. This is a common procedure for even non-doping related lab work - Sometimes things that should work simply don't, for no particular reason and no matter how many times you try.
The lab even admitted that it was very unusual for them to not manage to achieve a result that passes quality control in 3 tests. (1-5 are standard tests, 6 was used for determining specific gravity, only aliquots 7-9 were used for HPLC and rejected).
No the lab's copy of the doping control form had the age of the athlete on it. It would normally be anonymous because WADA only recommends to have details like sport, date taken, in or out of competition test, but this had the age for some reason. So some people at the lab would have been able to figure it out if they had access to the lab's copy of the doping control form.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2022
The DCF is not given to the lab with any identifiable personal information on it. As it says in the template of the DCF, laboratories and athlete passport management units only have access to coded data (based on sample codes or passport IDs)that does not disclose your identity. The DCF given to the lab is the yellow (2nd) copy, where almost everything is made unrecognisable apart from information specifically about the sample, including the date of birth of the tested athlete.
So at most, the lab would have known that it was a female figure skater tested in competition on the 25th of December by RUSADA - Could have been any of the female medalists or any others who were randomly selected for testing (which is also standard procedure).
And again, there's a difference between "the lab" and the lab personnel/technicians - Sure, someone knew that this sample was taken from a female figure skater, but that is with almost 100% guarantee not the person actually running the test. Processes are streamlined, it would be simply very inefficient for these two jobs to be done by the same person instead of one person being responsible for the cataloging of incoming samples and the other for actually doing the tests.
Last edited:
The head of the lab was brought in as a witness. I'm on my phone, so I can't look up the exact page, sorry. This was on the part of Kamila's lawyers trying to have the results dismissed. If any procedures were not followed by the lab, it could have led to her case being dismissed. Since the results were not dismissed, her lawyers could not prove wrong-doing on the part of the lab.
Her lawyers did their job with regards to the lab. Even if it did not get the case dismissed.
No, the one RUSADA were using for whatever reason had the age in the part that can be seen by the lab.
Whether the person inspecting the sample knew whose sample it doesn't matter they get told what sample to look at by someone more senior than them. Definitely though people at the lab would have seen that doping control form with the age on it, and when they started having trouble with the sample January 11th I'm sure a manager or someone would have said 'hey let me have a look at that doping control form'.
They finally were able to devise a method for the testing the sample by February 3rd, but curiously another four days elapsed before they could complete that final test. It would prove a grave error and result in everyone being denied their medals for the next two years.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2022
All the information is there. Some people will continue to spread nonsense.
The case itself is closed and the only questions actually remaining are definitely not about the lab or something, but rather such like why did they let her do the team event when they had two other skaters who would likely get the same points and they did not have clean test results from Kamila yet - which, from what I can gather would hint at a certain probability that these were not clean.
It looks legitimate.
Some of you reacting as though it is impossible for confidential information to be leaked. We have just witnessed a 15 year old girl have her right to privacy and confidentially violated for two years. It was like a frenzy in Beijing everyone seemed to know before she even did.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2022
Where do you get this information from? This is not described in the CAS document.
I don't know why they would, there's nothing in that report that would help them. And even if they did, looking for the age of the tested athlete was definitely not the priority, because that has absolutely no bearing on anything happening in the lab.
No, four more days didn't elapse curiously. They had a new method, but in order to be allowed to use that method, they had to show that it fulfills the purpose for which it had been designed, which was done in the days from the 4th up to 7th (validation report). Once they had that report, they immediately completed the confirmation procedure and uploaded her results to ADAMS.
I'm sorry, but why would they? A lot of people don't follow sports at all, and skating does not have anywhere near the popularity it has in Russia in Sweden. Assuming that the one person who might or might not know about this specific test being taken from a 15-year-old Russian skater somehow knew about this and should have made the connection is ludicrous.
Apart from the fact that there was also more than one 15-year-old competing at Senior Nationals in that year. Muravieva and Khromykh were also 15 and tested by RUSADA in 2021. Considering the fact that Valieva's only sample that season came from Sr Nationals (as well as the same being true for a number of the other medalists), I think it's possible that at least one of the two also had a sample taken at Sr Nationals (Muravieva was tested once, Khromykh twice in 2021) and it was being tested in the same lab at the same time.
Whatever the legitimacy, it was not enough to have the results dismissed. She accepted the results as being valid during the hearing. Whatever errors you find in how the lab operated, it does not change that she accepted the results as valid. There will be no overturning the case based on that.It looks legitimate.
Some of you reacting as though it is impossible for confidential information to be leaked. We have just witnessed a 15 year old girl have her right to privacy and confidentially violated for two years. It was like a frenzy in Beijing everyone seemed to know before she even did.
My position was always the lab was to blame for the delay not RUSADA. That has been proven correct.
This is what WADA said at the time.
This is simply untrue. WADA lied. It arrived on the 29th December and conducted the preliminary test on the 30th. The lab was then shut to the 11th January, tested again on the 12th when the preliminary test showed something. Then they spent time doing those 7th, 8th and 9th tests which came back inconclusive (and were thrown away so we'll never know what they showed, if one of them had of been positive then ROC could have changed their team, we'll have to take their word for it that they were inconclusive, which is fine I have no reason to not trust them). Then they worked on that new method of testing the sample, that concluded 3rd, then completed the test on the 7th which came back with a satisfactory result.
This is what WADA said at the time.
This is simply untrue. WADA lied. It arrived on the 29th December and conducted the preliminary test on the 30th. The lab was then shut to the 11th January, tested again on the 12th when the preliminary test showed something. Then they spent time doing those 7th, 8th and 9th tests which came back inconclusive (and were thrown away so we'll never know what they showed, if one of them had of been positive then ROC could have changed their team, we'll have to take their word for it that they were inconclusive, which is fine I have no reason to not trust them). Then they worked on that new method of testing the sample, that concluded 3rd, then completed the test on the 7th which came back with a satisfactory result.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2022
This isn't Kamila's, so was this supposed to be only an example or what?It looks legitimate.
Some of you reacting as though it is impossible for confidential information to be leaked. We have just witnessed a 15 year old girl have her right to privacy and confidentially violated for two years. It was like a frenzy in Beijing everyone seemed to know before she even did.
Once again, NOBODY is claiming that these tests were INCONCLUSIVE - Not RUSADA, not the laboratory, not even Kamila's lawyers. Inconclusive is a very specific word that applies to a very specific situation which is not what happened here. Insufficient maybe, unsatisfactory for sure, but inconclusive? No.
Last edited:
Similar threads
