This post is going to be a disjoint because I removed some quotes in it that I was replying to. I did that because I don't really feel like engaging with others.
-----------------------
There's some needed context for understanding why this appeal is happening.
1. The text messages and study would likely have not seen the light of day if it were not for the TMZ cases with the Chinese swimmers and the heated relationship between USADA and WADA. The leak came one day before the release of the report from the "independent" prosecutor investigating WADA's handling of the Chinese swimmers. The leak was probably a result of that probe. I don't think it's an accident that the AP reporter writing these reports is based an hour away from USADA's headquarters.
2. The initial appeal was placed a few days before the ISU announced the requirements for Russians to qualify for the Olympics. The Russians surely knew the full terms by then and those requirements are probably why an appeal was made. The terms make it impossible for Kamila to go to the next Olympics(Something the AP report doesn't seem to understand). And, there's vague language about doping that could perhaps disqualify students of Eteri like Petrosian even while Eteri is at the boards with skaters from other countries at ISU events. I don't think that language could be applied if Valieva's case was in the process of re-adjudicated.
-----------------------
The
AP story was updated with an
embedded pdf of the study that was withheld. I wish the appeal was printed in full.
Maybe there's more that the AP is leaving out or that Kamila's lawyers have or that there's a strategy I just don't understand(maybe trying to get more in discovery). But their claim that the study was later modified seems reaching. First they say that Question 8("How did the TMZ enter the athlete’s body?") was left out but then the conclusion which came right after Question 7 answers just that. Then they say the conclusion "contradicts the rest of the report" but it doesn't because the report was mostly tasked on the question if the cutting board scenario had any plausibility and in Question 6 a full dosage is used as the baseline for accessing time to the TMZ concentration level. This is a report written for an anti-doping agency and voluntarily consuming the drug is always going to be the baseline hypothesis until other evidence is presented and no other evidence was given to him. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
-----------------------
But why would the WADA director general describe the study as "super favorable" to Kamila?
Because the report lays out in a way that's easy to understand and visualize just how little TMZ consumed a few days out it would take to result in the TMZ concentration she had. AND, that the amount of TMZ needed for that concentration could have been left as residue on a cutting board. It makes the cutting board scenario sound plausible which is a big hurdle considering how much it was derided when it was leaked long before the CAS decision was handed down.
The report says what an expert witness of hers said at the CAS hearing said with more detail and visualization.
Yes there's a statement that the most likely cause is "voluntary intake of a dose of Trimetazidine", but that's a given considering the evidence presented at that time. Both the author of the report and the WADA director general would assume that new evidence might emerge. Instead, the grandfather seemed to go missing and didn't cooperate with the investigation.
(I don't completely discount the possibility that the WADA director general got word of the results of the experiment and somehow pressed some changing in wording. But I think the report fully reflects the views of the author of the report and I think there is no secret section that's missing that is "super favorable" to Kamila. I'm baffled at what Kamila's lawyers think could be missing from the report.)
-----------------------
The WADA spokesperson said: “The report was not helpful to Ms. Valieva’s case and, anyway, would have had no impact on the result as the Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel ultimately rejected the athlete’s strawberry dessert explanation, not based on the scientific plausibility but rather because it was not supported by sufficient factual evidence.”
He's right that the evidence as presented in the CAS hearing would not be helped Kamila by the addition of this report. The dessert explanation was taken as being plausible and rejected for lack of supporting evidence. The grandpa story was flimsy and "grandpa" went missing. The only unique piece of information that's in the report and not the CAS decision is how much residue comes off cutting a TMZ pill and that's extraneous when the scenario is accepted as being plausible.
But the WADA director general clearly thought the report could be helpful and Kamila's legal team never got the report. WADA's position seems to be that they shouldn't have to disclose because it's a document for RUSADA and RUSADA would probably claim that they don't need to disclose since they didn't dispute the possibility of TMZ contamination in the dessert story.
Kamila's legal team spent time in the hearing and money on an expert to establish what had been posited in the report. Time and money that might not have to be spent had the report been given to them. The missing report meant she wasn't allowed to cross examine the author of the report nor could it be used to bolster her expert witness. Not having access to the report clearly affected her defense.
And while it strains belief that it happened in this instance, spiking a study like this could suppress "grandapas" and other witnesses from testifying if they feel like they're asked to verify details for a theory which has been publicly ridiculed. Details that may have been very well leaked from the anti-doping agencies (dosier.center claimed to have audio from Kamila's initial Disciplinary Anti-Doping Commission hearing.)
Yeah yeah "If Ifs and Buts Were Candy and Nuts", but if WADA was a prosecutor(which it isn't) in a US criminal court(which it isn't) and they were caught intentionally not releasing a "super favorable" report to the defense and messaging how they want it kept out of court then it would likely lead to a mistrial.
-----------------------
In addition, The Chinese Swimmers were flagged for TMZ before Valieva and the details about the case were kept secret from the public. USADA trolled WADA by asking:
"WADA did not advise other athletes in China or the world of the risk of testing positive from TMZ in contaminated kitchens. If they do not know the source but nevertheless believed the story presented by the Chinese Security Service, WADA should have warned athletes and anti-doping organizations around the world. Was this possibility presented to the Valieva arbitrators in the prosecution of that TMZ case?"
If TMZ could spread this easily, it would be good and useful for others to know.
-----------------------
The report said: "Nevertheless, to my knowledge, up to now i has never been documented scientifically that Trimetazidine was found in a supplement and that intake was he source of an AAF for TMZ."
He's talking about scientific studies rather than cases CAS and WADA accepted. But there have been at least 2 instances before(A swimmer and bobsledder IIRC) and 2 instances after the report was written of tainted supplements that were successfully blamed for positive TMZ tests. The recent cases are both from women's tennis players: Iga Swiatek with melatonin and Nikola Bartunkova for a B and E vitamin that also had "milk thistle" in it.
-----------------------
I think this appeal is a waste of time for Valieva and won't result in anything positive for her. I'm not sure the appeal is really for her. It would be nice if some positive precedent was established that forced WADA to share all information that may be useful to those they seek to discipline. But I expect it to be thrown out and whoever is paying Valieva's lawyers will be paying WADA's lawyers.
