Ban on Carolina Kostner Over

[andromache]

Er, I gave it as possibilities ('ignorance or recklessness'), if that was aimed at me. May be caused by others' posts. I did not say she was either of those things. I gave 3 possibilities including that the authorities were wrong and she was not at fault to do the show. And that possibility seems to be the case now. However, just for the very reason that I don't know her I wasn't going to discount her being unwise enough not to check or even not to care. I didn't say those possibilities were likely, but I can't completely rule anything out without knowing her or the facts. Anything else would be without basis. None of us can surely? We have to hope that people who do know the fact sort things out fairly and wisely, surely?

It wasn't aimed at you! I can't quite remember who it was, but I know your words were much more kind than others I have seen who want to assume the worst and just insult Carolina because they aren't particular fans of hers. Some posters really like to suggest that Carolina is an awful person and blame her fans for feeling some injustice at the sentence, without bothering to read the logical reasons why the ban doesn't seem fair FOR ANY ATHLETE, not just Carolina.

The only reason she is getting a worse punishment than some PED users, is that the users can often times give bigger fish up - like bigger stars or the doctors that gave them the drugs.

It's still a shame that her punishment is longer...she wasn't involved in the doping, so it's not as if she has any information to buy an easier sentence!

 

[karne]

It's still a shame that her punishment is longer...she wasn't involved in the doping, so it's not as if she has any information to buy an easier sentence!

If she'd admitted she'd done wrong from the start, her punishment could have been much less, I'm sure. She is getting treated the way she is because even now she is still arrogant enough to claim she did nothing wrong.

 

[andromache]

If she'd admitted she'd done wrong from the start, her punishment could have been much less, I'm sure. She is getting treated the way she is because even now she is still arrogant enough to claim she did nothing wrong.

I understand the argument you're making and the perspective you're coming from, and it's a totally fair perspective although I disagree with it. However, it is difficult to take seriously when you throw around personal insults towards a skater you do not know and insist that anyone who disagrees with you is treating Carolina like a: "sweet innocent angel of light who should never be touched."

 

[karne]

I understand the argument you're making and the perspective you're coming from, and it's a totally fair perspective although I disagree with it. However, it is difficult to take seriously when you throw around personal insults towards a skater you do not know and insist that anyone who disagrees with you is treating Carolina like a: "sweet innocent angel of light who should never be touched."

There are plenty of people in this thread who thought that even a stern talking-to would have been far too harsh. It's obvious. And it's because she's Carolina. Now, imagine if it had been Adelina...

 

[andromache]

There are plenty of people in this thread who thought that even a stern talking-to would have been far too harsh. It's obvious. And it's because she's Carolina. Now, imagine if it had been Adelina...

There are also plenty of people in this thread who see what happened as unfair due to the circumstances (for example, the leniency being shown to Schwazer the doper in comparison to Carolina), not due to whoever they happen to be fans of. I don't think personal insults and/or negative hyperbole are necessary when discussing skaters, particularly when many other posters in this thread have given actual reasons why they disagree with CONI's decision beyond just "she's Carolina."

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

Welcome to GS Tugboat!!!!!

I hear ya loud and clear!!
https://youtu.be/ElruJMYilow

 

[Meoima]

I've been lurking GS for a long time and the vast majority of posts in this thread focus on the fact that 1) she did not use PEDs and 2) she received a harsher punishment than the person involved in this case who actually used PEDs.

What is obvious to me is that you think Carolina is getting special treatment and that you aren't content to make your opinion known without personally attacking her. The fact that you've brought up Adelina in this conversation, and the venom with which you've spoken about Carolina and the posters here who are sympathetic to her situation - those say much more about you, in my opinion.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:
Welcome to GS! Post long and post often!

 

[Franklin99]

If she'd admitted she'd done wrong from the start, her punishment could have been much less, I'm sure. She is getting treated the way she is because even now she is still arrogant enough to claim she did nothing wrong.

Do you know Carolina personally and know that's what she said/ feels? Or is this your assumption based on your intense dislike/hatred for her?

 

[Hevari]

It seems that anti-doping "war" principles now need a total review and change...

Отправлено с моего Uno через Tapatalk

 

[solani]

It seems that anti-doping "war" principles now need a total review and change...

Not necessarily. I think that the interpretation of the existing anti doping code by CONI is highly questionable. They're treating her as if she's evaded the doping test, not Schwazer and that must be wrong. There is nothing in the anti doping code that they can use against her in my opinion.

 

[TheGrandSophy]

It wasn't aimed at you! I can't quite remember who it was, but I know your words were much more kind than others I have seen who want to assume the worst and just insult Carolina because they aren't particular fans of hers.

Ah, okay. Phew!

 

[karne]

Not necessarily. I think that the interpretation of the existing anti doping code by CONI is highly questionable. They're treating her as if she's evaded the doping test, not Schwazer and that must be wrong. There is nothing in the anti doping code that they can use against her in my opinion.

She helped him to evade the doping test, which is pretty bloody close to the same thing.

My issue with her is that in interviews and articles she insists she has not done anything wrong.

 

[nullusecundus]

She helped him to evade the doping test, which is pretty bloody close to the same thing.

My issue with her is that in interviews and articles she insists she has not done anything wrong.

I'm totally agree

 

[Meoima]

She helped him to evade the doping test, which is pretty bloody close to the same thing.

My issue with her is that in interviews and articles she insists she has not done anything wrong.

Since when helping people to evade the doping test is the same as evade the doping test herself (and she did not dope)? :shocked:

 

[karne]

Since when helping people to evade the doping test is the same as evade the doping test herself (and she did not dope)? :shocked:

I did not say it was the same thing.

 

[solani]

She helped him to evade the doping test, which is pretty bloody close to the same thing.

My issue with her is that in interviews and articles she insists she has not done anything wrong.

She helped him evade that test, that is true.
A couple of years ago I had a shared appartment with a friend of mine who came home on Sunday at 8 a.m. drunk. He slured something about having hit a road sign with his car, I went out and looked at his car, it was parked correctly and the damage wasn't visible, so I thought that it wasn't really something serious. I asked him if he had hit something else, he denied that and I told him he shoud go to sleep and that he should go and tell the police about that road sign once he was sober.
Two hours later the police was at the front door, somebody had seen his car hitting that road sign. I told them that he got home early but that he left again and that I didn't know where he was. So ... I know that what I did was wrong but I still don't think that anyone could have punished me for what I did that day. But I had a driving licence back then and I knew that hitting road signs and driving drunk is wrong. What kind of punishment do you think that I would deserve? Would a temporary withdrawal of my driving licence for 6 months be appropriate, or would two years be better?
I know the difference between right and wrong, but there are many things that are wrong that aren't punished.

 

[usethis2]

What is the exact charge? I am late to this "news," and only read the last few pages of this thread. I get a vague contour of the controversy but facts can often be made opaque when people get emotional. Before I comment on Kostner's trouble, I would like to know:

1. Exact charge, preferably as it is spelled out in an official document (if there is any)
2. Exact time frame when the charge was made, and the time frame when the alleged offense took place
3. Official sanction and/or "recommendation" made by the "prosecutors" (if there is any)
4. Official response by Kostner and her lawyer (Did she accept the #3 above, did she fight for her innocence, or did she not contest the charge?)

P.S. Who is Kostner's fiance anyway?

It seems unreasonable to go after a fiance in a civil procedure for "aiding and abetting," even if that is what actually happened.

Edit: Never mind. It looks like there are more details as I read posts from the farther past. I don't know if I can read 40+ pages, though. haha.

 

[solani]

What is the exact charge? I am late to this "news," and only read the last few pages of this thread. I get a vague contour of the controversy but facts can often be made opaque when people get emotional. Before I comment on Kostner's trouble, I would like to know:

1. Exact charge, preferably as it is spelled out in an official document (if there is any)
2. Exact time frame when the charge was made, and the time frame when the alleged offense took place
3. Official sanction and/or "recommendation" made by the "prosecutors" (if there is any)
4. Official response by Kostner and her lawyer (Did she accept the #3 above, did she fight for her innocence, or did she not contest the charge?)

P.S. Who is Kostner's fiance anyway?

It seems unreasonable to go after a fiance in a civil procedure for "aiding and abetting," even if that is what actually happened.

Edit: Never mind. It looks like there are more details as I read posts from the farther past. I don't know if I can read 40+ pages, though. haha.

1-4 was rather hard to find out, I got it wrong (I thought she was banned because of article 2.9, but article 2.9 didn't exist back then), Alba summed it up nicely for me:

Tu sum up what they are saying is: she was not covering [/FONT][/COLOR]Schwazer because she knew he was doping and they do recognise all the circumstances and her reasons for lying to WADA inspector; it was not premeditated, she acted based on a request from the person she loved, it happened in a very short time, she didn't know he was doping and also that she asked him later to go and give the sample. What she's been punished for is: for consciously lying to WADA inspector, in charge for taking the blood sample, therefore assisting him in evading sample collection and violating (art. 2.3 NSA). So Caro's action is more linked with art.2.3 because in that moment, although she didn't know that he was doping, she practically made for him possible to evade the sample collection, therefore violating art. 2.3 which states: ""evading" or “refusing” Sample collection contemplatesintentional conduct by the Athlete", and she knew she was doing that. They also add that just because she is not the person who directly violated the rule it doesn't make her action less serious because the unannounced checks are essential for an efficient fight against doping.
So according to this sentence, Caro's offense does not consist in helping a doped Schwazer evading the sample collection but in helping the athlete Schwazer evading it.
Based on this, in all honesty, I can't say this judgment is unfair. I don't know what kind of decision CAS is gonna make but most probably they will need "full knowledge/awareness" from Carolina - which according to that sentence there isn't - therefore will absolve her as you said.

[FONT=Open Sans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] [/FONT]

Alex Schwazer was her fiancé, he is a racewalker, an Olympic champion and a convicted doper. He was in Oberstdorf with her, but he should have been in Italy, he violated the whereabouts rule. Carolina didn't know that but when the anti doping investigators called at her flat he told her that he wasn't supposed to be there and asked her to say that he wasn't there and she did that. Afterwards he travelled to Italy immediatly and was tested positive. This happend shortly before the Olympic Games in 2012.

 

[usethis2]

Thank you, psuanne. That is very informative.

 

[Hevari]

She helped him to evade the doping test, which is pretty bloody close to the same thing.

And if she was just a girl, not an athlete - what then? Should she have been punished or not?