I'm reading the CAS report and some things jumped out at me.
On her Doping Control Form, the Athlete disclosed that she was taking three substances, two of which were legible (l-carnitine and hypoxen).
What does that mean? I wonder what the 3rd was. Will we ever find out?
Also on 7 February 2022, based on the information contained in the relevant Test Report, the Doping Control Laboratory of the Karolinska University Hospital in Stockholm, Sweden, a WADA-accredited laboratory (the “Doping Control Laboratory”), issued an Adverse Analytical Finding (“AAF”) for the presence of “S4. Hormone and Metabolic Modulators/trimetazidine” in the Athlete’s Sample, which is a Non-Specified Substance. The AAF included the following details concerning the finding: “Neither lomerizine nor its metabolite M6 were detected in the Sample”. According to the Test Report, the Sample was received by the Doping Control Laboratory on 29 December 2021. It was explained that the delay in providing results sooner arose from the fact that the laboratory had personnel shortages as a result the COVID-19 pandemic.
So the explanation that she may have taken a migraine drug is off the table. They tested for that.
Also, the sample was received on Dec 29th which is a reasonable timeframe and does not suggest that RUSADA was engaging in monkey business with the sample.
A video recording was viewed during the hearing which was made by the Athlete`s grandfather according to the Athlete`s representative, showing the Athlete’s grandfather with a package of “Trimetazidine MV” in his car.
Trimetazidine MV is a "Modified release" version of the medicine. So it's not going to be on someone's hand or someone's spit IMO as it has a coating to make sure it doesn't all release at once.
The Athlete had to demonstrate on a “balance of probability” that the anti-doping rule violation more likely happened through contamination than not. However, since the Athlete is a minor below 16 years of age, she falls under the definition of a “Protected Person” according to the Russian ADR and the WADC, which means that, with regard to the upholding of a provisional suspension, a lower standard of evidence than a balance of probability is to be applied.
So that's their defense for lifting the suspension. She said it was contamination and, even though that's not likely, she doesn't have to meet the standard of someone 16+ and prove it's reasonably likely.
Moreover, the DADC also took into consideration that the Athlete’s legal representative disputed the positive results CAS OG 22/08-22/09-22/10 – Page 8 Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Tribunal Arbitral del Deporte of the Sample alleging that the concentration of 2.1 ng/ml, is well below the technical limit of detection of Trimetazidine, which is 10 ng/ml, and may be a technical mistake of the sample analysis in the laboratory and she confirmed at the hearing the intention to request the analysis of the “B” sample.
So it looks like their arguments are: she got it from her Grandfather by accident except the result was a mistake so she didn't take it at all even accidentally.
Btw, as far as has been reported, a request to analyze the B sample has not happened.
In addition, the DADC recalled that the provisional suspension is not a punitive measure (CAS 2017/A/4968); the imposition or lifting of a provisional suspension must follow the principles of justice and proportionality and leaving the suspension in place should not be “clearly unfair” (CAS 2017/A/4968). In this respect, the DADC considered that it would be “clearly unfair” to maintain the provisional suspension, taking into account the potential irreparable harm to the Athlete as a result of such measures: “The Athlete is one of the leaders in figure skating, therefore non-participation in the Winter Olympic Games in Beijing will be an irreparable harm for the Athlete, who is one of the main contenders for gold in the individual classification”.
So it's clearly unfair because they'd be taking away her opportunity to win Gold. This implies that someone who wasn't favored to medal would possibly still be suspended.
Finally, maintaining the provisional suspension would be disproportionate also based on the balance of interests of the stakeholders and does not prejudice the outcome of the hearing on the merits of the case.
What does that mean? I bet a lawyer would know.
This is just the declaration of facts. It doesn't include what happened in the CAS hearing and their decision. I will get to that later. Maybe.