Ban on Carolina Kostner Over

[StitchMonkey]

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:

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.

Sounds like she violated the whereabouts rule, not the anti-doping rule. She did not help him dope/pass a test (she made him take the test and he failed) she helped him cheat the rules about where he was. That is what she should have been charged with if anything. I have no idea what that would fall under, but that seems more inline with what she did.

 

[Alba]

Sounds like she violated the whereabouts rule, not the anti-doping rule. She did not help him dope/pass a test (she made him take the test and he failed) she helped him cheat the rules about where he was. That is what she should have been charged with if anything. I have no idea what that would fall under, but that seems more inline with what she did.

That means evading a test. He violated art.2.3, she assisted. The Whereabouts Failure is article 2.4

Any combination of three missed tests and/or filingfailures, as defined in the International Standard forTesting and Investigations, within a twelve-month periodby an Athlete in a Registered Testing Pool

Athletes (Schwazer in this case, only) are ultimately responsible for their whereabouts.

 

[Icey]

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

Just a girl would not have taken the same oath about doping that Carolina did. There would be no basis, then, for punishing "just a girl."

 

[Icey]

You said it was "pretty bloody close to the same thing", which, to take a page from your book, is "pretty bloody close" to saying they are the same thing.

Violations don't have to be the same for punishment or penalty to be in order.

 

[karne]

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.

But, if you want to get technical, you could have been charged if the police had found out your friend was really home and you were covering him. It's called obstruction of justice or perverting the course of justice. So yes, there is provision in the system for what happened and if Schwarzer's girlfriend had been "just a girl" that is what she could have been charged with. But because Carolina had bound herself to the rules of elite athletes, it was covered by them.

 

[Skater Boy]

OMG. Ah Karne is right, in fact that is not even technical - the justice system, the world relies upon honest, good citizens. You just didn't say nothing; you told a lie to mislead the police. Now in the case of Carolina there are several issues that are different.

1. Did Ms. Kostner have an obligation to tell the investigating agency anything?

2. Was Ms. Kotner under anything or obligation to tell the investigating agency something?

We know she is a figure skater but that doesn't necessarily mean for another sport she was obligated to say something. The problem might be like Psaunne. If she did not partake in the questioning she may have been okay if she was not obligated to say something - the problem is Ms. Kotner did. So the new question is does this investgating gency have a right to affect her status in an unrelated sport. I believe what Tonya Harding in trouble in respect to her skating status was not so much she broke the law (criminal) but rather her role or party to a crime so to speak in the attack on Kerrigan who was a competitor in her sport and the cover up following the attack. Had Carolina lied to the police about say something involving a non sporting boyfriend she may be liable criminally but not probably to the sport federation/investigating agency unless there was some kind of marility clause. So I think Karne is saying yes, Kostner was under rules of "elite athletes" and thus it does affect her ablity to compete again.

 

[Alba]

OMG. Ah Karne is right, in fact that is not even technical - the justice system, the world relies upon honest, good citizens. You just didn't say nothing; you told a lie to mislead the police. Now in the case of Carolina there are several issues that are different.

1. Did Ms. Kostner have an obligation to tell the investigating agency anything?

2. Was Ms. Kotner under anything or obligation to tell the investigating agency something?

The question is what do you mean by "anything"?

We know she is a figure skater but that doesn't necessarily mean for another sport she was obligated to say something. The problem might be like Psaunne. If she did not partake in the questioning she may have been okay if she was not obligated to say something - the problem is Ms. Kotner did. So the new question is does this investgating gency have a right to affect her status in an unrelated sport. I believe what Tonya Harding in trouble in respect to her skating status was not so much she broke the law (criminal) but rather her role or party to a crime so to speak in the attack on Kerrigan who was a competitor in her sport and the cover up following the attack.

It doesn't matter if she is a FS or a different sport. The athletes have a code of conduct and they have rules and obligation, all of them. She is a member of CONI and therefore has her obligations. For example, if she knew he was doping (she didn't but just as an example), even if she wasn't helping him with anything (therefore complicity) she would've been punished for failure to report.

Had Carolina lied to the police about say something involving a non sporting boyfriend she may be liable criminally but not probably to the sport federation/investigating agency unless there was some kind of marility clause. So I think Karne is saying yes, Kostner was under rules of "elite athletes" and thus it does affect her ablity to compete again.

Without probably. If her boyfriend was not an athlete and had she lied to the police about something involving him the sporting justice is not concerned with that.

I don't know why some are mixing things and bringing more confusion in the discussion.
This is not about Carolina or Schwazer as individuals. It's about two athletes (could be anybody) and sporting justice.

 

[cruzceleste]

I don't know why some are mixing things and bringing more confusion in the discussion.
This is not about Carolina or Schwazer as individuals. It's about two athletes (could be anybody) and sporting justice.

I this is a very important coment in order to have a more unbiased discussion in this thread.

Would be nice if we remove the names and focus of wheather we will defend or not an another athlete as we are doing here with Carolina.

 

[solani]

But, if you want to get technical, you could have been charged if the police had found out your friend was really home and you were covering him. It's called obstruction of justice or perverting the course of justice. So yes, there is provision in the system for what happened and if Schwarzer's girlfriend had been "just a girl" that is what she could have been charged with. But because Carolina had bound herself to the rules of elite athletes, it was covered by them.

That's true but they would have had a hard time proving that he was there and because nobody was hurt except that road sign they would have certainly dropped the case. And he paid for that road sign later.
But that is not my point. What punishment do you think I'd deserve. A temporary withdrawal of my driving licence? As if I had driven that car drunk and hit that sign? Surely not! You have to keep in mind that this is what happened to Carolina: she is treated exactly as if she herself had violated article 2.3.

 

[karne]

That's true but they would have had a hard time proving that he was there and because nobody was hurt except that road sign they would have certainly dropped the case. And he paid for that road sign later.
But that is not my point. What punishment do you think I'd deserve. A temporary withdrawal of my driving licence? As if I had driven that car drunk and hit that sign? Surely not! You have to keep in mind that this is what happened to Carolina: she is treated exactly as if she herself had violated article 2.3.

You would probably get a fine, at the very least. Now, let's say your friend had hit and killed somebody. The police come by, and you lie. Of course they later find him, arrest him, and figure out you lied. This is the part where he goes to jail, but so could you. And I don't think that's unreasonable.

We're not talking about a whoops-hit-a-road-sign comparison here. Schwarzer ended up testing positive, and the avoidance of the doping test is a serious offence in itself. So given that Carolina helped him to commit a serious offence, and then proceeded to continue with the lying and also to claim she had not done anything wrong, I am perfectly okay with her receiving a ban.

If she had gone straight to the authorities when the investigation into that day started and admitted, "Yes, I messed up, I lied to the inspectors then told him to get tested, I am very sorry" I can bet she would have got a much more lenient punishment. But because she continued to perpetuate the lie until she was really caught, it made her situation worse.

 

[Interspectator]

You would probably get a fine, at the very least. Now, let's say your friend had hit and killed somebody. The police come by, and you lie. Of course they later find him, arrest him, and figure out you lied. This is the part where he goes to jail, but so could you. And I don't think that's unreasonable.

We're not talking about a whoops-hit-a-road-sign comparison here. Schwarzer ended up testing positive, and the avoidance of the doping test is a serious offence in itself. So given that Carolina helped him to commit a serious offence, and then proceeded to continue with the lying and also to claim she had not done anything wrong, I am perfectly okay with her receiving a ban.

If she had gone straight to the authorities when the investigation into that day started and admitted, "Yes, I messed up, I lied to the inspectors then told him to get tested, I am very sorry" I can bet she would have got a much more lenient punishment. But because she continued to perpetuate the lie until she was really caught, it made her situation worse.

in your hypothetical situation the drive-by would get say 15 years in prison and then should the person who lied to the police get 17 years?

 

[karne]

in your hypothetical situation the drive-by would get say 15 years in prison and then should the person who lied to the police get 17 years?

Of course not.

The sad fact is that in a lot of "justice" systems, if you cooperate and start dropping names, you will get reductions. That's what Schwarzer did. And it's wrong. IMO, a positive test should be a life ban. No comeback, EVER.

If Carolina had co-operated and admitted her wrongdoing from the start, it would never have come to this. But she chose not to, so here we are.

 

[Interspectator]

Of course not.

The sad fact is that in a lot of "justice" systems, if you cooperate and start dropping names, you will get reductions. That's what Schwarzer did. And it's wrong. IMO, a positive test should be a life ban. No comeback, EVER.

If Carolina had co-operated and admitted her wrongdoing from the start, it would never have come to this. But she chose not to, so here we are.

If a person got 17 years for lying to the police about whereabouts of friend for said drive-by scenario...wouldn't they have grounds for appeal?
Perhaps Carolina feels the same too.

 

[karne]

If a person got 17 years for lying to the police about whereabouts of friend for said drive-by scenario...wouldn't they have grounds for appeal?
Perhaps Carolina feels the same too.

Perhaps so, if by the laws of the country the sentence was manifestly excessive. But I do not understand what Carolina claims her grounds for appeal are. There's no disputing she did it, and there's no disputing that she did not co-operate with the investigators. Really, I am not sure what she hopes to achieve by this.

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

Why didn't Schwazer include Caro in his name dropping deal and get her a reduced sentence as part of the conditions. She had his back at the door so why didn't he reciprocate. Chivalry is dead I tell ya.

 

[Interspectator]

Perhaps so, if by the laws of the country the sentence was manifestly excessive. But I do not understand what Carolina claims her grounds for appeal are. There's no disputing she did it, and there's no disputing that she did not co-operate with the investigators. Really, I am not sure what she hopes to achieve by this.

And all this has been taken into account, based on the motivation of the sentence, and that's why she got less than what the Antidoping Prosecutor asked for. This is the motivation: http://www.coni.it/it/news/primo-pi...del-tna-sulle-motivazioni-della-sentenza.html



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.




Actually this started since Schwazer was banned. He gave his testimony to the Bolzano Prosecutors and admitted the whole thing from the start. The prosecuters interrogated Kostner and she confirmed. The Bolzano Prosecutors send the whole dossier to the Antidoping prosecuters CONI-NADA and they did nothing. Why? Could be many things but I strongly disagree that they were searching for something to use against her, let alone a scapegoat. What for?! FS is not popular at all in Italy and she is loved by those few who follow this sport here and by the people involved with figure skating. Besides, FS is not touched by doping.
If anything, I would say the delay went in her "favor" because she was able to compete and partecipate in the Olympics. If we're going to speculate why it took so long I would say Sochi. CONI knew they couldn't keep this thing on hold forever but they could do that long enough till after the Olympics. I'm not saying she knew but it suited to everybody. Schwazer's deals are not for Carolina, who has no weight in the bigger picture and he has not accused her of anything. His deals are related in exchange for the big fishes of FIDAL (Italian Federation of Light Athletics). People who knew and were also involved (at least according to Schwarz) with his doping, like the Fed doctor Pierluigi Fiorella[FONT=Open Sans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif], [/FONT]Giuseppe Fischetto (at the time health director of FIDAL) and Rita Bottiglieri who was a high official of FIDAL. Maybe you don't know all these things because we're not following Alex's case here. I don't follow his case that much either but all these people I mentioned are waiting for their trial in Bolzano. [FONT=Open Sans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] [/FONT]

Post explains possible defense?

 

[kiara_bleu]

Say your friend did come home drunk and tell you he just hit a road sign then the police came and ask about your friend and you lied in the exact way you described. You were incredibly lucky that your friend was speaking the truth. What if he lied/didn't know that he hit a person who then died? I don't think the police would give that info openly when asking you where he is. Then your friend goes and confess/find out that he killed a person and during his interrogation said that you knew he was drunk and that he told you he hit something. Maybe he does not outright implicate you but insinuate enough that you may know more. So then police interviews you and now know you lied about him being at home when they visited. Why would you lie if you thought it was just a road sign he hit? What was your motivation for lying to the police? Maybe you missed a bit of blood when you looked at the car damage. Did you really not see it or did not want to tell the police that? You can bet the police are going to be suspicious of you and look more carefully at what else you could be hiding. What if your friend decided to do a plea deal, show appropriate remorse and gets significantly less time than he would be getting for such a crime. What if you get a particularly vindictive police and judge that don't appreciate being lied to and charge you for maximum what they can. These things don't work out in a cut and dry way.

That's essentially what happened to Kostner. Why lie if it is for something small as her boyfriend being not in the place where he reported he will be? Also, he said enough to raise red flags (like hiding the drugs in their fridge, meeting the doctor with Kostner, discussing with doctor Kostner's blood work). And for that split second decision to lie about her boyfriend to doping authorities (who she is also bound to follow as an athlete) she is currently catching the short end of the stick.

You said you know what you did was wrong but decided to do it anyway. But it was not just wrong in a moral way one can have philosophical debate about, it is actually wrong in the eyes of the law. And what you did (and Kostner too) was incredibly risky and could have had major consequences. You were lucky, she hasn't been.

 

[solani]

You would probably get a fine, at the very least. Now, let's say your friend had hit and killed somebody. The police come by, and you lie. Of course they later find him, arrest him, and figure out you lied. This is the part where he goes to jail, but so could you. And I don't think that's unreasonable.

We're not talking about a whoops-hit-a-road-sign comparison here. Schwarzer ended up testing positive, and the avoidance of the doping test is a serious offence in itself. So given that Carolina helped him to commit a serious offence, and then proceeded to continue with the lying and also to claim she had not done anything wrong, I am perfectly okay with her receiving a ban.

If she had gone straight to the authorities when the investigation into that day started and admitted, "Yes, I messed up, I lied to the inspectors then told him to get tested, I am very sorry" I can bet she would have got a much more lenient punishment. But because she continued to perpetuate the lie until she was really caught, it made her situation worse.

I think you're not trying to understand my point of view. Schwazer violated a number of articles of the anti doping code, including 2.4 Whereabouts and 2.3 Evading. But Carolina didn't violate 2.3 but she got her sentence for violating 2.3. Like if they caught me back than (and I made him go to the police, I would have done that anyway and Carolina also made Schwazer go to Italy) and punish me by taking away my driving licence. You yourself just said that a fine would be appropriate, because no one was hurt.
That she continued to lie makes no difference at all, because she already got the minimized and reduced sentence for violating article 2.3. They couldn't have made that sentence any lower. And it didn't hinder the prosecution.
She did something wrong from a moral point of view, but she didn't violate the anti doping code, so I agree with her, she did nothing wrong in the eye of the law.

 

[solani]

Say your friend did come home drunk and tell you he just hit a road sign then the police came and ask about your friend and you lied in the exact way you described. You were incredibly lucky that your friend was speaking the truth. What if he lied/didn't know that he hit a person who then died? I don't think the police would give that info openly when asking you where he is. Then your friend goes and confess/find out that he killed a person and during his interrogation said that you knew he was drunk and that he told you he hit something. Maybe he does not outright implicate you but insinuate enough that you may know more. So then police interviews you and now know you lied about him being at home when they visited. Why would you lie if you thought it was just a road sign he hit? What was your motivation for lying to the police? Maybe you missed a bit of blood when you looked at the car damage. Did you really not see it or did not want to tell the police that? You can bet the police are going to be suspicious of you and look more carefully at what else you could be hiding. What if your friend decided to do a plea deal, show appropriate remorse and gets significantly less time than he would be getting for such a crime. What if you get a particularly vindictive police and judge that don't appreciate being lied to and charge you for maximum what they can. These things don't work out in a cut and dry way.

That's essentially what happened to Kostner. Why lie if it is for something small as her boyfriend being not in the place where he reported he will be? Also, he said enough to raise red flags (like hiding the drugs in their fridge, meeting the doctor with Kostner, discussing with doctor Kostner's blood work). And for that split second decision to lie about her boyfriend to doping authorities (who she is also bound to follow as an athlete) she is currently catching the short end of the stick.

You said you know what you did was wrong but decided to do it anyway. But it was not just wrong in a moral way one can have philosophical debate about, it is actually wrong in the eyes of the law. And what you did (and Kostner too) was incredibly risky and could have had major consequences. You were lucky, she hasn't been.

My friend did tell me the story, he could have told me nothing. He knew that he did something wrong and I checked the car and I wasn't lenient in questioning him. And it was broad daylight, so I thought if anything had happend that he didn't recognize somebody would see, because he must have driven through the city. I could have done nothing at this point to help somebody who was possibly hurt.
I lied because he was drunk, they would have made an alcohol test and taken away his driving licence. He needed his driving licence for his job. I know that what I did was wrong but, to be honest, I would do it again. You don't hand over a friend if it's not necessary in my books.
But the huge difference in what I did compared to what Carolina did is that I knew that my friend did something wrong. She only knew that he violated the Whereabouts article and that was always treated far too lenient by the anti doping organizations in the past. There was no real danger of him getting a long ban only for that.
But when I think about it: what would have happened if Schwazer hadn't tested positive? He still violated article 2.4 and 2.3. Would they still go after Carolina? I think not, because then Schwazer would, I'm sure about that, have started in London at the Olympic Games in 2012 ...
I think everyone just has to keep in mind that this is a very special case, a leading case. There's no doping case that you can compare to Carolina's.

 

[Alba]

Why didn't Schwazer include Caro in his name dropping deal and get her a reduced sentence as part of the conditions. She had his back at the door so why didn't he reciprocate. Chivalry is dead I tell ya.

What do you mean? Why Carolina should be included in his deals? She didn't know he was doping and the deal is give me big names (coach, doctors, officials etc.) who knew and help you (Schwazer) with your doping and your sentence will be reduce. Chivalry has nothing to do with this.