Kamila Valieva: Anti-doping Case and Follow-ups

[Diana Delafield]

Actually it is not of specifically Russian origin. It comes from an old scoring scale in gymnastics where difficulty of an element was marked with letters A to C. Ultra C was a slang expression among gymnasts then to mean more than difficult, extra difficult, better than the best etc.
That was a long time ago, now the scale in gymnastics is much more elaborate. This expression of old was adopted by Russian FS fans to mean jumps with the highest number of rotations - quads and 3A - for the economy of expression, I guess, I am not sure if they started to use it when Russian girls started to jump quads, or if it is older than this, but it became very popular among their fans then. Still, it is surely just adopted and not a Russian invention as such.
Wiki defines it as originating in Japan of the 60s. but I am sure I read somewhere it was used more broadly among gymnasts at a time.
Hope this helps!

Ultra C - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Actually it is not of specifically Russian origin. It comes from an old scoring scale in gymnastics where difficulty of an element was marked with letters A to C. Ultra C was a slang expression among gymnasts then to mean more than difficult, extra difficult, better than the best etc.
That was a long time ago, now the scale in gymnastics is much more elaborate. This expression of old was adopted by Russian FS fans to mean jumps with the highest number of rotations - quads and 3A - for the economy of expression, I guess, I am not sure if they started to use it when Russian girls started to jump quads, or if it is older than this, but it became very popular among their fans then. Still, it is surely just adopted and not a Russian invention as such.
Wiki defines it as originating in Japan of the 60s. but I am sure I read somewhere it was used more broadly among gymnasts at a time.
Hope this helps!

Ultra C - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Thanks! (Never thought of looking up the term in Wikipedia.) I competed at a local level in gymnastics in high school and university but that was so long ago I have no recollection as to what the scoring system was then, and never thought of that. I wasn't involved enough to remember much of the slang terms. I think I have a couple of medals from the team event at the university level, but individually I was usually middle-of-the-pack and not even attempting to learn the most difficult tricks.

 

[gsk8]

Valieva’s attorneys accuse WADA of ‘procedural fraud,’ ask court to revisit her doping case

https://apnews.com/article/valieva-olympics-doping-wada-russia-53a1271b4ed3fc02edf44037eabc83bd

 

[Skating91]

It doesn't look good for WADA.

Here is Olivier Rabin (Senior Director, Science and Medicine at WADA) in that Valieva documentary saying that the level of TMZ in her urine did not match her explanation (this documentary came out before information about this WADA experiment was leaked).

30:20

But the experiment that was conducted by WADA did prove that Valieva's explanation was plausible, because the level of TMZ in the experiment did match the explanation.

They then shut down the experiment and made sure it wasn't part of the report to be used at CAS, because it was going to be 'super favourable' to the child.

Incredible.

 

[gmyers]

Bottom line is they were under legal obligation to provide everything they had. Not judge what they had and keep stuff secret! What else did they keep secret? They can’t keep stuff secret and judge it. They just hand it over. Especially exculpatory information!! This is 101 stuff

 

[saine]

I don't see it amounting to anything. It doesn't prove that the events with the creation of the dessert actually happened. Cross-contamination could have happened, but they couldn't provide evidence that showed the specific person with the specific prescription created the specific dessert at the specific date. That is what they needed to show and they could not provide evidence that it happened.

 

[Karoltyna]

Let me put it this way: when I go this way in my cases, I either don't have a good case, or want to annoy opponent. Recently I got over 150 pages of totally unrelevant documents. I contested the relevance and submitted my own 100 pages of documents. Mine were relevant, but 50 pages would be sufficient, I just decided to annoy the opponent. My other opponent said I didn't show certain document, I contested the relevance of this document and put it in right context and won, because building a case isn't throwing all you've got for the court to pick pieces that actually make sense.
It's not about the fact that the report confirmed that there could be accidental contamination - it didn't, it just mentioned it as one of maybe plausible possibilities, at the same time pointing other, more plausible cause. And even if it stated contamination was plausible, it still has to be proven that this contamination happened, e.i. they'd have to bring the grandpa to the stand. Did they do it?
And TBH it doesn't matter. Even if this was accidental contamiantion, she would be banned. Even if she was banned for shorter time, her fed is already banned. Even if the ban was lifted, she wouldn't be eligible for OG due to her other activities.
It's aimed not to winning the case, it's PR to carry the narrative of innocent russian maiden destroyed by evil western forces.

 

[gmyers]

Let me put it this way: when I go this way in my cases, I either don't have a good case, or want to annoy opponent. Recently I got over 150 pages of totally unrelevant documents. I contested the relevance and submitted my own 100 pages of documents. Mine were relevant, but 50 pages would be sufficient, I just decided to annoy the opponent. My other opponent said I didn't show certain document, I contested the relevance of this document and put it in right context and won, because building a case isn't throwing all you've got for the court to pick pieces that actually make sense.
It's not about the fact that the report confirmed that there could be accidental contamination - it didn't, it just mentioned it as one of maybe plausible possibilities, at the same time pointing other, more plausible cause. And even if it stated contamination was plausible, it still has to be proven that this contamination happened, e.i. they'd have to bring the grandpa to the stand. Did they do it?
And TBH it doesn't matter. Even if this was accidental contamiantion, she would be banned. Even if she was banned for shorter time, her fed is already banned. Even if the ban was lifted, she wouldn't be eligible for OG due to her other activities.
It's aimed not to winning the case, it's PR to carry the narrative of innocent russian maiden destroyed by evil western forces.

If it’s so meaningless why hide it?

 

[Karoltyna]

If it’s so meaningless why hide it?

Because you don't show not relevant documents - this is rule no. 1 in legal proceedings - you don't throw documents and evidence on court, you present you strategy and argumentation, you show causation and logic of the events. I agree, if they had a grandpa to present with credible testimony, the report could be relevant, but with no grandpa around, it was meaningless.

 

[gmyers]

I don't see it amounting to anything. It doesn't prove that the events with the creation of the dessert actually happened. Cross-contamination could have happened, but they couldn't provide evidence that showed the specific person with the specific prescription created the specific dessert at the specific date. That is what they needed to show and they could not provide evidence that it happened.

There was no reason to do any of that because of the alleged impossibility of it. You can’t present a case that has been ruled impossible. And it turns out it wasn’t impossible

 

[saine]

There was no reason to do any of that because of the alleged impossibility of it. You can’t present a case that has been ruled impossible. And it turns out it wasn’t impossible

If they could prove that the events as they presented them happened, it would be possible. But they couldn't, and that is the evidence that they needed to present.

This is grasping at straws and making it out to be a conspiracy when they can't prove that the man who made the dessert existed. Until they prove that, this won't change anything.

 

[gmyers]

If they could prove that the events as they presented them happened, it would be possible. But they couldn't, and that is the evidence that they needed to present.

This is grasping at straws and making it out to be a conspiracy when they can't prove that the man who made the dessert existed. Until they prove that, this won't change anything.

They tried to do that with the wada study that was buried and they never got the results for. The whole study was the basis for their defense and the study supported them. They never got it. They should have got the study. You are supporting burying the study that said their defense was possible.

 

[Karoltyna]

There was no reason to do any of that because of the alleged impossibility of it. You can’t present a case that has been ruled impossible. And it turns out it wasn’t impossible

How? Nothing is deemed impossible during the legal proceeding - this is the idea of the proceeding, you form a thesis and try to prove it. The ruling comes after presenting the case, not before. They blamed the granfather but never presented anything to confirm it, including the grandfather himself.

 

[Karoltyna]

They tried to do that with the wada study that was buried and they never got the results for. The whole study was the basis for their defense and the study supported them. They never got it. They should have got the study. You are supporting burying the study that said their defense was possible.

No, the study was about theorethical possibility of certain event, the existence of the event is another topic and this is where they failed. I personally support bringing grandpa to the stand and hearing him out.

 

[gmyers]

Because you don't show not relevant documents - this is rule no. 1 in legal proceedings - you don't throw documents and evidence on court, you present you strategy and argumentation, you show causation and logic of the events. I agree, if they had a grandpa to present with credible testimony, the report could be relevant, but with no grandpa around, it was meaningless.

You know very well you can’t keep arguing a defense if it has been ruled improper and out of order

 

[gmyers]

No, the study was about theorethical possibility of certain event, the existence of the event is another topic and this is where they failed. I personally support bringing grandpa to the stand and hearing him out.

That could never have happed because the very foundation of that story was ruled impossible. The wada study showed it was possible

 

[Karoltyna]

You know very well you can’t keep arguing a defense if it has been ruled improper and out of order

But there is no such thing, I and my opponents can argue anything. In my long career I saw people arguing things far more unhinged than contamiantion with banned substance due to strawberries cut on contaminated cutting board. See into Dorota Borowska case. Wild, right? But you know, she presented the evidence, including the dog and testimonies of people who knew she took the dog with her to the camps and that the said dog was indeed in need of certain medication that was banned and showed in Borowska's results and no one ruled the said dog improper and out of order. So they allowed the dog but wouldn't allow grandpa? Not really.

 

[Mathman]

Still, it doesn't seem like the Swiss courts have much continuing interest in this case. I would be very surprised if anything comes of it.

 

[Skating91]

This experiment is apparently so irrelevant and unimportant according to some of you, but here is a Olivier Rabin (Senior Director, Science and Medicine at WADA) justifying the 4 year ban of a 15 year old based on the TMZ concentration in her urine not matching up with the timeline of her story.

https://youtu.be/Yqf-QVHUFkk?si=a6lbvXamf-YwixD5&t=1822 30:20

It was seemingly important enough for Olivier Rabin (Senior Director, Science and Medicine at WADA) to include as part of his justification for having a child banned for 4 years.

He would have gone into this interview with all the talking points drummed into his head, he's an executive at WADA, one of the most important people, he'd know everything that is going on in the case, was probably instrumental in pushing for the 4 year ban.

Sure, some of you might think it's not important, but WADA obviously thought this justification to ban her for the timeline not matching up with the levels in her urine was very important to mention in this documentary, Unbeknownst to WADA of course a couple months later proof that the did in fact conduct an experiment show her explanation and timeline did match with the levels in her urine would come out, directly contradicting what Olivier Rabin (Senior Director, Science and Medicine at WADA) says in this interview to justify banning her with the harshest suspension.

And of course the head of WADA got personally involved to shut down this experiment straight away when he heard it was going to be 'super favourable' to the 15 year old girl. Nothing to see there of course. Just another day at WADA

 

[Skating91]

Still, it doesn't seem like the Swiss courts have much continuing interest in this case. I would be very surprised if anything comes of it.

I don't they will overturn it. It would be a mortal blow to WADA to overturn it. But Valieva is a fighter.

 

[Karoltyna]

That could never have happed because the very foundation of that story was ruled impossible. The wada study showed it was possible

This study wasn't WADA's, this was study commisioned by RUSADA and it only vaguely pointed on some possibility of certain event and the expert performing this study was perviously paid consultant for organizers of Sochi OG, so his credibility is at least vague. But ok, I see I won't convince you, so I'll go and watch ice dance.