Ban on Carolina Kostner Over

[Meoima]

How good or close a friendship could you have had? In ten years none of you saw any signs that this "friend" could be irresponsible and unreliable. No, nothing wrong in trusting someone, but betrayal is always a possibility unfortunately.

The guy was quite rich, he always used money generously. We have known him from high school and he had never had money issue before. So we can never tell.

Not that I say Caro lying for her boyfriend is right, but it's not her fault for trusting her ex. You can never tell.

 

[moriel]

The guy was quite rich, he always used money generously. We have known him from high school and he had never had money issue before. So we can never tell.

Not that I say Caro lying for her boyfriend is right, but it's not her fault for trusting her ex. You can never tell.

Yup, its so easy to facepalm afterwards...
I bet many people here, at some point, have done stupid stuff because of their partners, which didn´t look stupid at the moment.

 

[ice coverage]

... It IS against the rules that Caro herself bound herself to lie to the drug testers to protect her boyfriend - and him asking her to lie should have been a massive warning flag.

Haven't followed this thread closely and I am not piling on, but this one sentence that I have quoted seems fair to me.

Even if one were willing to assume that CK previously had been oblivious to her BF's doping, what she knew for sure is that her BF asked her to lie about his whereabouts to someone representing the doping authorities.

And as an elite athlete herself, CK would have recognized even in that split second that telling any lie (about anything) to the doping authorities was not a decision for her to make lightly.

If I were in the same situation as CK, maybe I would have been willing to risk my own integrity and my own good standing in my sport -- for the sake of someone I loved.
But before I opened my mouth to tell the lie, it would have been obvious to me (as it must have been obvious to CK) that I would be taking a serious risk regarding my own career -- even if I had no idea what it was that my BF ultimately hoped to hide.
(And if I had no idea why my BF wanted to mislead and dodge the authorities, then perhaps[??] the alarm bells in my head would have rung extra-loudly that lying for him would be taking an especially big risk for myself.)

 

[Mathman]

To me, the point is this. We are not Carolina's judge, jury and executioner. On this matter why would we say anything but, "hang in there, Caro, we're still rooting for you."

 

[Buttercup]

Haven't followed this thread closely and I am not piling on, but this one sentence that I have quoted seems fair to me.

...

But before I opened my mouth to tell the lie, it would have been obvious to me (as it must have been obvious to CK) that I would be taking a serious risk regarding my own career -- even if I had no idea what it was that my BF ultimately hoped to hide.
(And if I had no idea why my BF wanted to mislead and dodge the authorities, then perhaps[??] the alarm bells in my head would have rung extra-loudly that lying for him would be taking an especially serious risk.)

This has been rehashed endlessly. Schwazer told Kostner that he'd given his whereabouts in Racines in Italy rather than in Oberstdorf (I never understood under what authority they came looking for him in a different country, but never mind that). Athletes can get into trouble for not being where they said they'd be, and it later came out that Schwazer had his methods of evading inspectoers. Kostner had no time to weigh her options. She lied for him but reportedly later told him to go get tested at the location he said he'd be. He went, and failed the test. CONI has not suggested that she was aware of his doping, which I am sure they would if they had even a shred of evidence.

Where interpretations differ is whether Kostner's lie regarding the whereabouts was a serious violation or a minor one, and what his request would have signaled to her. I am more inclined to a charitable explanation of her actions. Karne thinks that she is either a doping enabler, a moron, or both.

 

[ice coverage]

This has been rehashed endlessly. Schwazer told Kostner that he'd given his whereabouts in Racines in Italy rather than in Oberstdorf (I never understood under what authority they came looking for him in a different country, but never mind that). Athletes can get into trouble for not being where they said they'd be, and it later came out that Schwazer had his methods of evading inspectoers. Kostner had no time to weigh her options. She lied for him but reportedly later told him to go get tested at the location he said he'd be. He went, and failed the test. CONI has not suggested that she was aware of his doping, which I am sure they would if they had even a shred of evidence.

Where interpretations differ is whether Kostner's lie regarding the whereabouts was a serious violation or a minor one, and what his request would have signaled to her. I am more inclined to a charitable explanation of her actions. ...

I had paid enough attention to the thread to be familiar with the basic facts and to be well aware that the thread has had some strong (understatement) differences of opinion -- which, yes, have been rehashed endlessly. Wasn't asking for a re-cap, although maybe for some reason you honestly thought I was.

I just was giving my two cents that the extended discussion in this thread has not been persuasive to me that it is unreasonable to hold CK responsible for her split-second decision.

I knew and know that the lie was about the BF's whereabouts; that athletes are required to inform the doping agency in advance of their whereabouts; blah, blah, blah.
What I meant is that warning bells would have been extra-loud for me if I suddenly realized that my BF wanted to evade the doping agency. In that split second, I would have gotten a huge wake-up call that I didn't know the scope of what I didn't know about him. And as my mind was reeling, I think that it would have occurred to me that maybe he really was doping -- and if so, lying for him could be a very grave matter indeed.

To me, the point is this. We are not Carolina's judge, jury and executioner. On this matter why would we say anything but, "hang in there, Caro, we're still rooting for you."

Speaking only for myself: because I am not blindly rooting either for or against CK.

When a skater falls during his program, I don't consider it uncharitable to acknowledge that a 1.00 deduction is in the ISU rules. Doesn't mean that I am rooting against the skater.

 

[Mathman]

When a skater falls during his program, I don't consider it uncharitable to acknowledge that a 1.00 deduction is in the ISU rules. Doesn't mean that I am rooting against the skater.

To me, this discussion seems different from falling on a triple Salchow. Some of the posts on this thread seem like they are saying, Carolina is person without any ethics and a big fat liar. Others are saying, how incredibly stupid must this chick be to let a boyfriend make a fool of her like this.

I agree with Buttercup. This is the same Carolina that we have admired throughout her career. There is no harm now in looking at her troubles with a sympathetic eye and wishing the best for her going forward.

 

[shiroKJ]

Some of these comments are just :disapp: Its easy to give judgement when you're on the outside looking in.

 

[Buttercup]

What I meant is that warning bells would have been extra-loud for me if I suddenly realized that my BF wanted to evade the doping agency. In that split second, I would have gotten a huge wake-up call that I didn't know the scope of what I didn't know about him. And as my mind was reeling, I think that it would have occurred to me that maybe he really was doping -- and if so, lying for him could be a very grave matter indeed.

You're treating this as a hypothetical with yourself as a stand-in for Carolina. Of course, as the star of this scenario, you're smarter, more moral and better able to discern Schwazer's motives than she was - even as your mind is "reeling". Do you know why that is? It's not because you're better than her. It's because you have the benefit of knowing about the positive drug test, his subsequent confession, and the ongoing media coverage that revealed all his wrong-doing in one easy to comprehend package, rather than as isolated incidents over a period of years.

Kostner knew none of those things. And she had no time to weigh her decision, or to have her long-term relationship flash in front of her to realize Schwazer's depravity and the scope of her ignorance. That's all in your imagination. Frankly it sounds like a movie rather than real life.

We would all like to think that we will do well under pressure, but there's not way to know for sure how you'd react to a lot of situations. Kostner made a bad decision, but I don't think it's reflects so poorly on her as you and some other posters suggest.

 

[ice coverage]

To me, this discussion seems different from falling on a triple Salchow. ...

Yes :yes: and no .

One way that I would draw an analogy:
Max Aaron (one of my favorites ) has landed clean quads at competitons in the past.
And by all accounts, he has landed many more quads when practicing at home.
But when he makes a split-second error in a competitive program, and falls on his quad, the 1.00 deduction is applied -- as it must be and should be. Doesn't matter whether the tech panel and judges have faith (based on long-term past knowledge of Max) that his overall mastery of the quad sal is good. If he falls in competition, he gets the deduction.
Getting the deduction does not mean that he is a terrible jumper. It means that on the particular day of competition, he made an error.

Another analogy (sticking with Max):
At 2014 Nats, Max did not skate horrendously, but he made enough small split-second errors that he placed third. Third kept him home from Sochi.
Doesn't mean that he is a terrible skater. It means that errors have consequences. (I was heartbroken for him, and I have never stopped rooting for him to do well at every competition.)

CK's boyfriend put her in a terrible position, forcing her to make a split-second decision. I would call her split-second decision an error in judgment. An error in judgment even if she had no prior knowledge of her boyfriend's doping.

I am not condemning her as a terrible person. I am saying that she took a risk and made a error in judgment. A split-second error, but an error.

You're treating this as a hypothetical with yourself as a stand-in for Carolina. ...

LOL, and I am the one giving Carolina more credit for having common sense and basic intelligence than you are .

... Frankly it sounds like a movie rather than real life. ....

LOL, no more dramatic than the umpteen posts (including your own) in this thread that have emphasized that she did not have the luxury of deliberating at length over her decision.

... Kostner made a bad decision, but I don't think it's reflects so poorly on her as you and some other posters suggest.

You are putting your own negative spin on what I have said in my posts today.

So I'll repeat what I wrote just above in this post:
I am not condemning her as a terrible person. I am saying that she took a risk and made a error in judgment. A split-second error, but an error.

 

[Buttercup]

LOL, and I am the one giving Carolina more credit for having more intelligence than you are .

No, you're not. Because there's no indication that she thought or acted in accordance with your expectations, which is apparently how you believe an intelligent person should have dealt with the situation.

Your insistence that recognizing someone's objective skating errors is somehow analogous to the subjective interpretations of Kostner's situation is rather odd. There is no room for interpretation when Max Aaron falls on a quad: it's a fall. There is clearly more than one possible interpretation of Kostner's actions and how applicable various anti-doping laws are, as the discussion in this thread amply demonstrates.

 

[moriel]

No, you're not. Because there's no indication that she thought or acted in accordance with your expectations, which is apparently how you believe an intelligent person should have dealt with the situation.

Your insistence that someone's recognizing objective skating errors is somehow analogous to the subjective interpretations of Kostner's situation is rather odd. There is no room for interpretation when Max Aaron falls on a quad: it's a fall. There is clearly more than one possible interpretation of Kostner's actions and how applicable various anti-doping laws are, as the discussion in this thread amply demonstrates.

Before finidng out about doping, one could see hundreds of quite inocent explanations for the situation, and they would all seem quite logical / acceptable.
But then ofc now that we know, its easy.

 

[ice coverage]

No, you're not. ...

Actually, I am. But not worth trying to explain what I meant to you.

... There is no room for interpretation when Max Aaron falls on a quad: it's a fall.

Is it not an objective fact that CK told a lie? Whether it was a lie or not is not open to interpretation, is it?

... There is clearly more than one possible interpretation of Kostner's actions and how applicable various anti-doping laws are, as the discussion in this thread amply demonstrates.

Agree that there are plenty of varying opinions as to whether the circumstances of the lie do or do not justify any penalty for the lie.

And guess what? If you read back over my posts today, I purposely have never expressed an opinion as to an appropriate penalty for CK.

But the fact that the authorities did not automatically excuse her lie because of her track record as a good person is not tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment, IMO.

... There is no harm now in looking at her troubles with a sympathetic eye and wishing the best for her going forward.

My slightly different point of view:

There is no harm now in looking at her troubles with an objective eye and wishing the best for her going forward. :yes:​

 

[Icey]

You're treating this as a hypothetical with yourself as a stand-in for Carolina. Of course, as the star of this scenario, you're smarter, more moral and better able to discern Schwazer's motives than she was - even as your mind is "reeling". Do you know why that is? It's not because you're better than her. It's because you have the benefit of knowing about the positive drug test, his subsequent confession, and the ongoing media coverage that revealed all his wrong-doing in one easy to comprehend package, rather than as isolated incidents over a period of years.

Kostner knew none of those things. .

We really don't know what Carolina knew. Intelligence or lack thereof doesn't necessarily have anything to do with making such a decision.

 

[solani]

One thing is a very important fact that people tend to forget in this discussion:
She was not banned because she lied, she was banned because she's supposedly assisted Schwazer's doping. And there's just no evidence for that. They would have to proof that she knew, and even the CONI said, that they don't think she knew.
This law was created to get the trainers, the physicians, the physios etc. NOT the girlfriends who happen to be athletes.
As I mentioned before, I believe that her chances are very good. I don't think that the CAS does want to get into the boyfriend/girlfriend or even marriage partners thing. This doesn't help the anti-doping war. I trust that the CAS will make a wise decision.

 

[Mathman]

One way that I would draw an analogy:
Max Aaron (one of my favorites ) has landed clean quads at competitons in the pasts.
And by all accounts, he has landed many more quads when practicing at home.
But when he makes a split-second error in a competitive program, and falls on his quad, the 1.00 deduction is applied -- as it must be and should be. Doesn't matter whether the tech panel and judges have faith (based on long-term past knowledge of Max) that his overall mastery of the quad sal is good. If he falls in competition, he gets the deduction.
Getting the deduction does not mean that he is a terrible jumper. It means that on the particular day of competition, he made an error….

Well….OK. Still, there seems to be a different vibe to, "You lied," or "You cheated at sports by helping your boyfriend gat away with taking performance enhancing drugs," as opposed to, "You're footwork sequence was not in step with the music." Nobody likes liars and cheaters, but some of my best friends are flutzers. :yes: (I am not admitting that Michelle sometimes had a problem holding that outside edge, but just saying… )

 

[Buttercup]

We really don't know what Carolina knew. Intelligence or lack thereof doesn't necessarily have anything to do with making such a decision.

I think it's safe to say that she did not know, in July of 2012, about things that did not happen until after that time there has been a lot of conjecture about what she knew or should have suspected, but as you note, no proof.

But basically what I was trying to point out that the people arguing that she should have known, it was so obvious etc. are doing so with the benefit of information that Kostner did not have, and what may seem obvious in hindsight might not have been so clear in real time.

 

[ice coverage]

... But basically what I was trying to point out that the people arguing that she should have known, it was so obvious etc. are doing so with the benefit of information that Kostner did not have, and what may seem obvious in hindsight might not have been so clear in real time.

For the record :
I for one never said that anything was obvious and never said that CK should have known anything -- except that he asked her to lie re his whereabouts.

 

[Skater Boy]

I think it's safe to say that she did not know, in July of 2012, about things that did not happen until after that time there has been a lot of conjecture about what she knew or should have suspected, but as you note, no proof.

But basically what I was trying to point out that the people arguing that she should have known, it was so obvious etc. are doing so with the benefit of information that Kostner did not have, and what may seem obvious in hindsight might not have been so clear in real time.

I am not sure what the legal test is but one can also not be wilfully blind (Ie turned a blind eye) either. However this is not criminal law but sports law so their standard ay be higher or lower in respect to evidence.

 

[Mafke]

This law was created to get the trainers, the physicians, the physios etc. NOT the girlfriends who happen to be athletes.

Unintended consequences for the win!

There was some article that pointed out that this case set a very bad precedent. The aim of the law was not to force athletes to narc on each other or do the doping police's job for them.

She had no official connection with his athletic career, unless they can prove she aided and abetted his doping they have no ethical case against her (and even if she did aid and abet his doping that has no connection to her skating career whatsoever).

This is such a clear case of prosecutorial overreach that the mind boggles.