Sotskova busted for doping

[Vagabond]

Seriously, I fail to see why a retired athlete should be expected to follow anti-doping rules. And how can she be forced to take a test?

She hadn't taken the steps necessary to be deemed retired in the eyes of RUSADA. I find it difficult to believe that she didn't know this, but if she truly didn't, she should have.

Regardless, she didn't have to forge a document and give it to an investigative agency, but that is apparently what she did.

 

[MsZem]

Still, if the authorities show up to test an athlete and that athlete says they're retired, why test? If it turns out they're lying, you can always get them later for lying and evading the test.

 

[DELTA]

She didn't compete in March why did she use PED? I hardly believe any figure skater used PED.

Some people are guessing she did it to lose weight for wedding photos.

 

[Sylvia]

Sotskova was quoted as follows in a TASS interview in July (excerpt translated by @Ka3sha in this thread):

After the rest, my future husband will start working and I have my studying [at GITIS/Russian Institute
of Theatre Arts] starting from July 20th. Life takes its former pace, we start to move somehow. As for the wedding, we will most likely have the big ceremony next year. Now we will just sign the documents and exchange rings.

 

[her grace]

Seems like a very similar situation to Kyoka Ina a few years ago: Much ado about nothing.

 

[beckab81]

Adam Rippon talked about testing procedures in his book, and his experience getting tested after "retiring" because he hadn't submitted the paperwork. If I remember correctly, declining the test is the same as a doping violation, which is probably why she agreed to take the test, even though she was retired (I'm not commenting on the actual doping part, just why she would have taken the test even though she was retired). She probably filed her retirement paperwork soon after the test so that it wouldn't happen again (Rippon said he made calls to get off the "active" list as soon as the test was finished).

 

[Sylvia]

Re. Kyoko Ina's case: https://web.archive.org/web/20040819024227/http://www.usfigureskating.org/event_story.asp?id=906
Excerpt:

The United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) announced Thursday that Kyoko Ina of Greenwich, Conn., an athlete and three-time Olympian in the sport of figure skating, has agreed to a two-year sanction under the United States Olympic Committee's (USOC) Anti-Doping Policies which provide that “any athlete who has not provided advance written notice of retirement to USADA and then refuses to participate in a USADA NAN test claiming retirement, shall be ‘ineligible' within the meaning of [the policy] . . . for a period of 2 years following such refusal,” beginning on Jan. 15, 2003.
Under the sanction, Ina will not be eligible to participate in Olympic Games, trials or qualifying events; be a member of an Olympic team, or have access to the training facilities of an Olympic Training Center or other programs and activities of the USOC. Ina will otherwise be able to continue her career as a professional skater. This sanction replaces the previously announced four-year suspension for a refusal to test by an active skater pursuant to the International Skating Union (ISU) rules.

ETA:

Adam Rippon talked about testing procedures in his book, and his experience getting tested after "retiring" because he hadn't submitted the paperwork.

That was certainly one of the more hilarious & "graphic" sections in his book!

 

[aka_gerbil]

She hadn't taken the steps necessary to be deemed retired in the eyes of RUSADA. I find it difficult to believe that she didn't know this, but if she truly didn't, she should have.

Regardless, she didn't have to forge a document and give it to an investigative agency, but that is apparently what she did.

The clinic thar wrote the prescription for her wasn’t licensed to prescribe furosemide, therefore it was called a forgery when she said it was prescribed to her.

 

[Japanfan]

Well, I felt MissK with 20K posts could be more pleasant with her rantings.

This forum is not known for its politeness - nor would we want it to be.

Anyway, I am new to skating with only 225 posts, so I'm just learning about it all, I suppose. Yippee. Go Sasha, Anna, Alyona, Kamila, Daria, Maiia, etc. It's a sport. May the best athlete win.

Take your time and enjoy the forum. You'll find us to be a feisty and but friendly bunch. But be prepared to defend your views, with citations as needed.

 

[Cherub721]

What I don't understand is didn't Yuri Larionov also test positive for furosemide and he only got 18 months (reduced from two years)? And that was while actively competing. He got to go to the Olympics the year after. Sotskova would be banned from the next three Olympics. I knew that times have changed and they are making an example of her but it seems way disproportionate to the offense.

I also haven't read anything about her participating in any sort of adjudication or defense process so I'm assuming she can still appeal the length.

 

[VGThuy]

Ten years does seem really extreme.

 

[Aerobicidal]

It would be wise for you to first become a member of this community before you start hurling insults about. Otherwise you will never be welcomed here.

Miss K. has almost 20,000 posts and is known to most of us. In comparison, you have only 222 posts and are new here.

I would give more credibility to someone with twenty good posts compared to caseyedwards someone with thousands of terrible ones, but I suppose I'm not a welcomed member of this community.

On topic, when I first heard this news, I thought it might finally make Sotskova interesting, but actually I don't think it has.

 

[MsZem]

On topic, when I first heard this news, I thought it might finally make Sotskova interesting, but actually I don't think it has.

It's one of the more interesting doping cases we've had in skating! Probably the most exciting one since Bobrova got busted for taking meldonium, and the most original since Kostner covered for her ex.

 

[Erin]

What I don't understand is didn't Yuri Larionov also test positive for furosemide and he only got 18 months (reduced from two years)? And that was while actively competing. He got to go to the Olympics the year after. Sotskova would be banned from the next three Olympics. I knew that times have changed and they are making an example of her but it seems way disproportionate to the offense.

I also haven't read anything about her participating in any sort of adjudication or defense process so I'm assuming she can still appeal the length.

I would assume the reason for the difference between Sotskova’s punishment and Larionov’s is the coverup.

 

[aka_gerbil]

I would assume the reason for the difference between Sotskova’s punishment and Larionov’s is the coverup.

But is it really a cover up on her? They’re calling it a forgery because the clinic wasn’t authorized to prescribe the medication. I have never thought to check the licensing on any doctor who has written me a prescription.

Sotskova should have done her paperwork in November, but I think when you look at the specific circumstances, 10 years was a bit OTT in this situation.

 

[blue eyes]

She allegedly tested positive for only a diuretic. Anyone who has danced in the last 40 years has probably known the benefit of a diuretic before a dancing competition. It's not to hide PEDs, put-leaze. Your muscles look sharper, more toned and defined. The only reason why they test for diuretics is that it can mask actual PEDs. Does Maria Sotskova look like she's taking PED? Hardly. Just trying to adjust her water weight before competition. But diuretics ARE NOT performance enhancing drugs. The drugs are only on the list because diuretics can mask a drug urine test.

Furosemide is used as masking agent for other doping drugs. It increases removal of drugs when tested.

 

[MsZem]

But is it really a cover up on her? They’re calling it a forgery because the clinic wasn’t authorized to prescribe the medication. I have never thought to check the licensing on any doctor who has written me a prescription.

Sotskova should have done her paperwork in November, but I think when you look at the specific circumstances, 10 years was a bit OTT in this situation.

Not to mention that if she presented a certificate from an unauthorized source that's not forgery, it's an invalid authorization.

Is this case about making an example of an easy target to deflect from what going on with doping in Russia?

 

[VGThuy]

It seems weird. When I first heard "forgery", I thought she was actively forging documents herself. It seems like any sort of unauthorization did not come from her. Unless they know something we don't know.

 

[aka_gerbil]

Not to mention that if she presented a certificate from an unauthorized source that's not forgery, it's an invalid authorization.

Is this case about making an example of an easy target to deflect from what going on with doping in Russia?

I’ve wondered to if RUSADA is making an example out of this to appear like they’re being tough as an example to the IOC and WADA.

 

[MacMadame]

But is it really a cover up on her? They’re calling it a forgery because the clinic wasn’t authorized to prescribe the medication. I have never thought to check the licensing on any doctor who has written me a prescription.

Sotskova should have done her paperwork in November, but I think when you look at the specific circumstances, 10 years was a bit OTT in this situation.

Look at it from WADA and RUSADA's POV. They have an athlete on the rolls who tests positive for a PED masking agent and when asked to defend taking it, produces a paper from a shady clinic that isn't even authorized to write such prescriptions.

This is exactly what someone who is doping would do.

If Maria was a track and field athlete or a cyclist, I think people would be up in arms and taking it more seriously.

I’ve wondered to if RUSADA is making an example out of this to appear like they’re being tough as an example to the IOC and WADA.

Well, that's possible too but I'm not sure what else they could have done except giving her 5 years or 2 years instead 10. She broke the rules and I don't think they should make exceptions.

 

[Coco]

She hadn't taken the steps necessary to be deemed retired in the eyes of RUSADA. I find it difficult to believe that she didn't know this, but if she truly didn't, she should have.

Regardless, she didn't have to forge a document and give it to an investigative agency, but that is apparently what she did.

The clinic that wrote the prescription for her wasn’t licensed to prescribe furosemide, therefore it was called a forgery when she said it was prescribed to her.

Yes, let's all rid our minds of the initial impression that Maria herself drafted a fake prescription to cover up for testing positive for a banned substance.

Maybe it's more accurate to say if the person writing the prescription doesn't have the authority to do so, even if they are a licensed medical professional, it might as well be your mother writing the prescription as far as WADA/RUSADA is concerned.

 

[MsZem]

Look at it from WADA and RUSADA's POV. They have an athlete on the rolls who tests positive for a PED masking agent and when asked to defend taking it, produces a paper from a shady clinic that isn't even authorized to write such prescriptions.

For one thing, a retired skater does not fall under the jurisdiction of RUSADA or WADA. Sotskova may be at fault for not filing the paperwork, but she really shouldn't have been forced to do the control. Why not offer her the opportunity to file the official retirement notice instead?

Second, do we know that the clinic was shady? Is it possible that it was perfectly legit but not authorized to issue certificates for the specific purpose of therapeutic use exemptions?

This is exactly what someone who is doping would do.

If Maria was a track and field athlete or a cyclist, I think people would be up in arms and taking it more seriously.

Someone who was doping would likely have a more specific setup in place.

Personally I think it's ridiculous no matter what sport Sotskova had been in before she retired.

 

[Tinami Amori]

It seems weird. When I first heard "forgery", I thought she was actively forging documents herself. It seems like any sort of unauthorization did not come from her. Unless they know something we don't know.

If the clinic and doctors are not licensed, any of their documents and signatures are forgeries.
There is still a question: if she knew that she is no longer an active athlete then why did she even bother to get a medical exception?

 

[ilovepaydays]

Ten years does seem really extreme.

There are activists in some of these sports who want lifetime bans - to do anything in the sport - for any drug testing infraction.

 

[MsZem]

If the clinic and doctors are not licensed, any of their documents and signatures are forgeries.
There is still a question: if she knew that she is no longer an active athlete then why did she even bother to get a medical exception?

Let's say I go to the doctor, who does a writeup and prescribes whatever medication. I now have a document from a medical professional stating that I require this medication for a valid reason, or I wouldn't be able to get it. This does not mean that it would be acceptable to anti-doping authorities if I were a competitive athlete - which I am not. And neither is Sotskova.

 

[VGThuy]

For one thing, a retired skater does not fall under the jurisdiction of RUSADA or WADA. Sotskova may be at fault for not filing the paperwork, but she really shouldn't have been forced to do the control. Why not offer her the opportunity to file the official retirement notice instead?

Second, do we know that the clinic was shady? Is it possible that it was perfectly legit but not authorized to issue certificates for the specific purpose of therapeutic use exemptions?


Someone who was doping would likely have a more specific setup in place.

Personally I think it's ridiculous no matter what sport Sotskova had been in before she retired.

I guess the question becomes whether she was "retired" under the jurisdiction of RUSADA or WADA. It sounds like one has to take active measures to retire to no longer be subjected to such testing. I guess Sotskova could have simply refused and then go through whatever happens to an athlete when they refuse, but she chose to go to a clinic that was unauthorized to issue these certifications for TUE. Did she knowingly go to a shady clinic or did she think it was a legit place?

 

[Erin]

I’ve wondered to if RUSADA is making an example out of this to appear like they’re being tough as an example to the IOC and WADA.

Yes, that thought has occurred to me too.

 

[aka_gerbil]

Those are good questions—is it a shady place or just a place that didn’t have authorization to prescribe that medication? If it is shady, did Maria know it was shady or did she think it was legit?

In general for most situations, I do think you break the rules/you get the consequences. That said, I do think sometimes, you look at the circumstances. This is one of those times. It looks ridiculous to give a 10 year ban in this situation. When an organization makes a decision that looks ridiculous, then I think you can start running into trouble with people not wanting to take them seriously as they should be.

 

[her grace]

If Maria was a track and field athlete or a cyclist, I think people would be up in arms and taking it more seriously.

If Sotskova was a current athlete, it would be more serious. If Sotskova was an athlete in track or cycling where performance-enhancing doping is a documented problem, it would be more serious. But a retired athlete in a sport known for weight control and not known for PEDs takes a medicine for weight control?

 

[Cherub721]

Well, that's possible too but I'm not sure what else they could have done except giving her 5 years or 2 years instead 10. She broke the rules and I don't think they should make exceptions.

I think 2-3 years would be reasonable, and that's still longer than Larionov for actual in competition doping. She wouldn't be able to train or coach for a couple of years while finishing her education, depriving her of some income and postponing the start of her coaching career, but it wouldn't effectively shut down her career chances before it starts. Waiting 10 years basically means find another path for your life.

I guess the question becomes whether she was "retired" under the jurisdiction of RUSADA or WADA. It sounds like one has to take active measures to retire to no longer be subjected to such testing. I guess Sotskova could have simply refused and then go through whatever happens to an athlete when they refuse, but she chose to go to a clinic that was unauthorized to issue these certifications for TUE. Did she knowingly go to a shady clinic or did she think it was a legit place?

I was thinking a weight loss clinic or something for her wedding. It's not clear whether she went to that clinic to try and get an actual TUE or just for the prescription. It doesn't seem like she was the brightest bulb when it came to the paperwork. Maybe she was like "oh, but I have a prescription, see?" She wouldn't need a TUE if she's saying she's retired. I'm sure she'll issue a statement eventually - hopefully through a professional.