Valieva Banned for Four Years, Effective December 25, 2021

Allskate said:
I don't think the Russians are going to show up. They are going to insist they were robbed, and they won't want to have the additional scrutiny and criticism. I don't think the Russian skaters themselves would enjoy it. I know Canadians are generally polite, but there's still a distinct risk that the crowd would boo or would start singing "Oh, Canada" when the Russian team was announced as bronze medalists.
Click to expand...
Russia is country that sorts medals by total golds not by total medals overall! They wouldn’t be flying anywhere for bronze
 
I'm watching a documentary on Peacock about the last Canada vs Russia figure skating scandal. SLC 2002, of course. It's called Meddling and is on Peacock. It's four episodes. The first one deals with the personal and professional histories of each skater. Nothing new so far.

It does remind me how quickly that situation unraveled. Nothing would surprise me in this situation, either. I'll believe the medals have been decided once they've been awarded.
 
xxibjt said:
Also, according to the Times article, "members of the CAS panel found Valieva "honest and trustworthy."
The arbitrators concluded, based on the evidence of both Valieva and the appellants, that she had not deliberately cheated.
Some members of the CAS panel felt that a four-year ban for such a young athlete was a "cruel and disproportionate" punishment."
Click to expand...
I don't have access to the Times. There is a firewall. Where is this information coming from? I haven't seen it anywhere else and it definitely isn't in the document CAS released the other day.

From what I understand, it is possible for her not to have known and still have been subject to sanctions if she knew there was a risk she would consume a prohibited substance and disregarded that risk. But, we don't know yet what the factual basis is for the CAS ruling because, AFAIK, the more detailed report hasn't been released.

If it has been released, can someone please post a link to it?
 
skatingguy said:
The Olympic truce extends until the end of the Paralympics.
Click to expand...
I’m confused because America was doing its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan during many olympics. So this truce only applies to launching new wars?! This is something i have heard of of course but now I just have to investigate if the rules say existing wars don’t count
 
Lynn226 said:
I'm watching a documentary on Peacock about the last Canada vs Russia figure skating scandal. SLC 2002, of course. It's called Meddling and is on Peacock. It's four episodes. The first one deals with the personal and professional histories of each skater. Nothing new so far.

It does remind me how quickly that situation unraveled. Nothing would surprise me in this situation, either. I'll believe the medals have been decided once they've been awarded.
Click to expand...

And since people are still :argue: wuzrobbing about 2002, you just know that people are going to be :argue: wuzrobbing about 2022 until, oh, 3022 or thereabouts.
 
overedge said:
And since people are still :argue: wuzrobbing about 2002, you just know that people are going to be :argue: wuzrobbing about 2022 until, oh, 3022 or thereabouts.
Click to expand...
Moksvina says at the beginning that she told B&S that you're now famous in North America and people will spend the next 20 years talking about this scandal. She was right, of course.
 
skatingguy said:
She has been competing in domestic events in Russia this season, but it's hard to know how much longer she would continue. The bigger point is that she will be banned from taking part in any state funded training, or shows.
Click to expand...
Are you sure about that? She was at Russian Nationals.
 
skatingguy said:
The ban is retroactive, but just started when the ruling was announced.
Click to expand...
Makes sense. I think RSSF will figure out how to get her money to train though. They can have the government pay her directly for some "job" they give her, for example.
 
MacMadame said:
Makes sense. I think RSSF will figure out how to get her money to train though. They can have the government pay her directly for some "job" they give her, for example.
Click to expand...
That would be a violation of the sanctions against Valieva. I'm not sure what impact that would have on Russian sport. Violating the sanctions against Valieva would indicate that Russia is not interested in a return to international sport.
 
xxibjt said:
The Times is reporting that Kamila was notified of the positive result on February 6th, and WADA states that she was diagnosed with athletic heart syndrome in 2020. Also, according to the Times article, "members of the CAS panel found Valieva "honest and trustworthy."
The arbitrators concluded, based on the evidence of both Valieva and the appellants, that she had not deliberately cheated.
Some members of the CAS panel felt that a four-year ban for such a young athlete was a "cruel and disproportionate" punishment."

I'm so confused because the information about Kamila knowing the result of the test during the Team Event is somewhat hard to believe. It's also strange how the article says the judges found Kamila 'honest and trustworthy' while not believing she took tmz unintentionally. Wada’s version is better than Kamila’s lawyer's statements about desserts from her grandpa. In case she had a heart condition, she could’ve asked for a therapeutic exemption and taken it with no problems.

www.thetimes.co.uk

Kamila Valieva’s ban is disproportionate – she is a victim of system

The figure skater’s four-year suspension does not sit comfortably. This is a child who, on the balance of probabilities, is the target of abuse
www.thetimes.co.uk www.thetimes.co.uk
Click to expand...
So, here is a major problem and could explain a couple of things:

If the Times is accurate in its reporting that Valieva was notified of the positive result on Feb 6th then she should NOT have competed in, at minimum, the Team Event Women's FS.

The Team Event Women's SP began at 9:30am local time on Feb 6th. The Team Event Women's FS began at 11:35am local time on Feb 7th.

Let's give Valieva and Team ROC the benefit of doubt that the notification for the positive result came AFTER the SP on Feb 6th. But, recall, at the conclusion of the Team Event Men's FS (started at 11:50am local time), the entrants for the FS the next day had to be submitted/confirmed to the IOC. Let's also give Team ROC more benefit of the doubt that the notification of the positive result came AFTER they had already confirmed Valieva as their entrant for the Team Event Women's FS the next day.

What should have happened, at that point, is Team ROC should have withdrawn Kamila on some pretext from the FS. They did not. They did not feel confident in the rest of their team being able to hold onto the lead they already had. They rolled the dice that somehow they would be able to sweep the positive test result under the rug and win. And they needed her points from the FS. The original final points total was: Russia 74, USA 65, Japan 63. Without Valieva's 10 points from the FS, the result would have been USA 66, Japan 64, Russia 64 - and Japan would have won silver on the tiebreak I think.

So, what does all of this explain?

1) The delay last September which was explained as asking for additional documentation/information surrounding the notification of the positive result - who knew what when. This wasn't about Russia trying to make it seem like Valieva hadn't been properly or correctly notified. This was about establishing exactly when she knew she had a positive result because, guess what? It mattered back on Feb 7, 2022 when she took the ice to skate in the Team Event Women's FS.

2) The length of the ban. Four years seems harsh but Valieva knew she had a positive result and she STILL went out there on Feb 7th and competed. If you are an athlete acting with integrity and respect for CLEAN sport you do the right thing and you do NOT get on that ice, no matter what your entourage is telling you. She absolutely must be held accountable for THAT choice and that is why, I suspect, she got a 4 year ban.
 
Last edited:
Karen-W said:
So, here is a major problem and could explain a couple of things:

If the Times is accurate in its reporting that Valieva was notified of the positive result on Feb 6th then she should NOT have competed in, at minimum, the Team Event Women's FS.

The Team Event Women's SP began at 9:30am local time on Feb 6th. The Team Event Women's FS began at 11:35am local time on Feb 7th.

Let's give Valieva and Team ROC the benefit of doubt that the notification for the positive result came AFTER the SP on Feb 6th. But, recall, at the conclusion of the Team Event Men's FS (started at 11:50am local time), the entrants for the FS the next day had to be submitted/confirmed to the IOC. Let's also give Team ROC more benefit of the doubt that the notification of the positive result came AFTER they had already confirmed Valieva as their entrant for the Team Event Women's FS the next day.

What should have happened, at that point, is Team ROC should have withdrawn Kamila on some pretext from the FS. They did not. They did not feel confident in the rest of their team being able to hold onto the lead they already had. They rolled the dice that somehow they would be able to sweep the positive test result under the rug and win. And they needed her points from the FS. The original final points total was: Russia 74, USA 65, Japan 63. Without Valieva's 10 points from the FS, the result would have been USA 66, Japan 64, Russia 64 - and Japan would have won silver on the tiebreak I think.

So, what does all of this explain?

1) The delay last September which was explained as asking for additional documentation/information surrounding the notification of the positive result - who knew what when. This wasn't about Russia trying to make it seem like Valieva hadn't been properly or correctly notified. This was about establishing exactly when she knew she had a positive result because, guess what? It mattered back on Feb 7, 2022 when she took the ice to skate in the Team Event Women's FS.

2) The length of the ban. Four years seems harsh but Valieva knew she had a positive result and she STILL went out there on Feb 7th and competed. If you are an athlete acting with integrity and respect for CLEAN sport you do the right thing and you do NOT get on that ice, no matter what your entourage is telling you. She absolutely must be held accountable for THAT choice and that is why, I suspect, she got a 4 year ban.
Click to expand...
Yeah, wow, this explains so much. And pisses me off even more!
 
Karen-W said:
If the Times is accurate in its reporting that Valieva was notified of the positive result on Feb 6th then she should NOT have competed in, at minimum, the Team Event Women's FS.
Click to expand...
Could someone please summarize what the article says. It's not clear to me what it is saying and what the sources are.

What is the source the Times is using for the timing? And, even if the timing could explain the length of the ban, what is the basis for any ban? What is the relevance of her supposed heart condition if she is claiming that she was accidentally taking grandpa's medication? (And how would such a claim about grandpa be credible and trustworthy? Was that claim just PR and not presented to the panels of decision-makers?) And what is the source for the assertions that the arbitrators concluded that she was honest and trustworthy and had not deliberately cheated? What discussion is there of whether she knew there was a risk and took it anyway? If she didn't know, that definitely was relevant to the decision. That seems pretty clear from the document they released the other day.
And what is the source for the assertion that some members of the CAS panel felt that a four-year ban for such a young athlete was a "cruel and disproportionate" punishment?"
 
Allskate said:
Could someone please summarize what the article says. It's not clear to me what it is saying and what the sources are.

What is the source the Times is using for the timing? And, even if the timing could explain the length of the ban, what is the basis for any ban? What is the relevance of her supposed heart condition if she is claiming that she was accidentally taking grandpa's medication? (And how would such a claim about grandpa be credible and trustworthy? Was that claim just PR and not presented to the panels of decision-makers?) And what is the source for the assertions that the arbitrators concluded that she was honest and trustworthy and had not deliberately cheated? What discussion is there of whether she knew there was a risk and took it anyway? If she didn't know, that definitely was relevant to the decision. That seems pretty clear from the document they released the other day.

And what is the source for the assertion that some members of the CAS panel felt that a four-year ban for such a young athlete was a "cruel and disproportionate" punishment?"
Click to expand...
I'm going to see if I can find an unpaywalled version of the article on Archive.org - nope. And I don't plan on subscribing for one article.

There were only 3 members of the CAS panel so if "some members" thought 4 years was too harsh then they would have been in the majority, would they not?
 
Last edited:
I went back and looked at the team results, because I seemed to remember that the results would have been the same before Valieva was DQ'ed, had K/K not skated at all. That was true: Japan would have qualified for the finals without K/K's 4 points from the RD, and, while at the end, Japan and Canada would have had 53 points each (without K/K's 6 points from the FD), Japan would have won the tiebreak on having the highest (x, two?) individual scores.

Georgia was on the cusp of making the final, and must have lost the tie-break to China, as China's top two scores (10+6) were higher than Georgia's (7+7). However, if K/K hadn't skated at all, Georgia would have received 4 points instead of 3 in the RD, and they would have bumped China from the Final.

If the test result was known before the Team Women's SP, and Valieva withdrew, and either Russia hadn't put in the name of a sub, or it was past the sub deadline, then ROC still would have qualified for the final, but would have had 26 instead of 36. All other things being equal, they would have placed 2nd, a point behind USA, if they were able to sub in someone for the FS, even with a win there.

I think that the alternates in curling get a medal if they play in an end, which is why you see them getting a chance in blow-outs. K/K skated entire programs to the very end, and they were there to support their team in the team boxes, which they could, because unlike curling and many other sports, you can't be that kind of distraction when teams are strategizing (and eavesdropping) in real time.
 
I think it must be a chilly night in hell because I finally felt compelled to listen to TSL. I skipped past Meagan and am partway through listening to Christine Brennan and Phil Hersh.
This i found v interesting: Phil Hersh spoke to someone in the IOC yesterday/today and said "Do you think the ISU got the math wrong?" The reply was not Absolutely not!, or simply No. The reply was "What do you think?"
 
Alilou said:
I think it must be a chilly night in hell because I finally felt compelled to listen to TSL. I skipped past Meagan and am partway through listening to Christine Brennan and Phil Hersh.
This i found v interesting: Phil Hersh spoke to someone in the IOC yesterday/today and said "Do you think the ISU got the math wrong?" The reply was not Absolutely not!, or simply No. The reply was "What do you think?"
Click to expand...
Oh, dear.:watch:
 
Karen-W said:
I'm going to see if I can find an unpaywalled version of the article on Archive.org - nope. And I don't plan on subscribing for one article.

There were only 3 members of the CAS panel so if "some members" thought 4 years was too harsh then they would have been in the majority, would they not?
Click to expand...
Hmmm...not necessarily. I've read reports of judicial sentencings where the judge is apologetic about how long the sentence is because it seems unfair. Judges don't necessarily have complete freedom on sentences. In the case of a doping violation, the time limit can be reduced IF the panel believes that the preponderance of the evidence presented by the athlete shows HOW the athlete took the banned substance and that the athlete took what were reasonable precautions to avoid ingesting banned substances. If the athlete can't/won't provide credible evidence as to the means of the doping, the panel doesn't have grounds to reduce the penalty, even if they feel it is unfair. The dog, the cake, grandpa's glass...none of that seemed remotely credible for accidental ingestion. And, even an accidental ingestion usually results in a ban on the grounds that it is the athlete's responsibility to know what they are taking.
 
Last edited:
Karen-W said:
So, here is a major problem and could explain a couple of things:

If the Times is accurate in its reporting that Valieva was notified of the positive result on Feb 6th then she should NOT have competed in, at minimum, the Team Event Women's FS.

The Team Event Women's SP began at 9:30am local time on Feb 6th. The Team Event Women's FS began at 11:35am local time on Feb 7th.
Click to expand...
I think the Times got it a bit wrong. They couldn’t inform Valieva earlier than the ISU and the IOC.
Most likely, the laboratory sent the results of athlete X on the 6th. RUSADA needed time to find out who this athlete was and whether he had permission for this drug. Only after this the ISU, IOC and Valieva were informed. Due to the time difference, most likely all this happened after the girls’ FS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

Sylvia
CAS rules Valieva can compete - reactions/fallout, plus some details from the hearing
17 18 19
Replies
568
Views
67K
Miezekatze
Miezekatze
Sylvia
2022 Olympic FS Team Event delayed medal ceremony - updates
23 24 25
Replies
738
Views
95K
ice coverage
ice coverage
Back
Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information