Olympic Games and doping

The CAS were created back in the 1980s due to the increased globalisation of sports and issues arising from this. They essentially are a form of supreme court of sports. The IOC, WADA and the International Skating Union asked the CAS to suspend her which they do not have the authority to do, period. However, Valieva's case is more complex because she's a minor to begin with, has a clean sheet for doping so far, tested positive in a competition prior to the Games while testing negative during the Games and on top of all this tested positive during a national competition. RUSADA originally suspended her and then cancelled the suspension (Valieva appealed the ban decision). This OG case is pending and ongoing. Hence why the CAS decided to proceed with the cautious let-her-compete-in-the-immediacy-of-things-we-shall-see-and-decide-as-the-case-unfolds-whether-to-revoke-or-not approach. 

The IOC is political and, I'd argue, pretty weak. I am far from being a fangirl or defender, quite on the contrary. But in this case, they kind of have nothing to do with it. I think they'd happily cut Valieva to preserve the image of the Olympics brand after the Putin-Xi Jinping lovefest and other issues these Beijing Games have exposed. The CAS are taking a pretty standard decision here and it just happens to be one that's not popular. If they do suspend her but her RUSADA case ends up going in her favour, they'll have denied an athlete the chance to compete. Without time machine technology, there's simply no way to ever repair such damage, especially when age + body fitness comes into play so heavily. It makes sense but it still stings and seems unfair from the outside. Her pending doping case is with RUSADA, not the IOC, CAS or International Skating Union. It sucks but here we are.

I sure hope there won't be any celebrating of doping teenagers (or adults, as a matter of fact). From my POV, there are far more people concerned about Valieva's health and outraged at her being allowed to compete than the other way around. But like many other accused people have learned: appeal, stretch time as far as you can and try to make some weak excuse work. I wouldn't be surprised if RUSADA ended up siding with Valieva after all. It's a systemic problem in Russian sports that has not been resolved by the official ban at all. Ultimately, Valieva's career will end very prematurely be it through ban or the immediate consequences of Eteri Tutberidze's appalling training "regimen". And another one will rise only to very quickly fall. Rinse, repeat. 

CAS, however, also ends careers and bans. I've seen athletes be allowed to compete at first because of a similar pending doping case with an anti-doping agency. When the case eventually found them guilty, CAS applied the ban and any results in the meantime were revoked. Valieva's in the grey zone for now. It's really RUSADA we should be questioning at this stage. They might just throw Valieva to the wolves to preserve the image that Russia's been punished and has served its time, cleaned up everything and is totally fine to be Russia, not ROC, for the next Games. We'll see.

What also frustrates me is that this is all about Valieva and the effects it will have on her if she is denied the ability to skate.  But what about the other athletes?  They have worked very hard to get where they are as well, and now will be denied the full Olympic experience because of her/Russia.Why is she more important?

I understand why you're so upset and vocal about the situation. It is an alarming doping affair albeit very much not a surprise. I also understand why fans of the sport will watch and enjoy the other athletes. It's not necessarily hypocritical to continue supporting skaters who have nothing to do with Valieva or Eteri Tutberidze except they happen to compete in the same event. The best fans can do is speak out about the Russian system in general and Tutberidze's training especially. But to reduce the sport to just the Russian clan is giving Russia way more attention and weight than it deserves. Ultimately, the International Skating Union can't do much here and I don't think it's a fair moral standard to hold the other competitors hostage of the Russian system.

If you ever go to Figure Skating boards, you'll see a lot of people are not only aware but very outspoken about Eteri and not in a good way. The sport doesn't stop because one country decides they are immune to international outrage and sanctions. From the perspective of a different Winter Games sport, I'm pissed that the Russian delegation was the only one allowed into China to check out the biathlon track and prepare for it ahead of the Games. All the fans except the ones supporting ROC are. It's a significant advantage. The other nations competing are unhappy as well. But you go and you beat them wherever you can (and yes, despite the unfair preparations in biathlon + doping in skating, they can be beat). The world and these Games do not revolve around them no matter how hard they're trying to make it look that way. Putin's Ukraine offensive wasn't randomly planned to happen right now either. I'm not giving him or his corrupt system that satisfaction.

I personally was conflicted about whether or not to watch.  But in the end I decided that I wanted to support the other athletes.  I also thought about turning it off when the Russians skated, but didn't know if anyone would "know" anyway--when looking at viewers, can they get that detailed of information?  I don't know how ratings work.  I ended up keeping it on because I wanted to hear what the commentators said.  I didn't watch much, though.  I wish someone would have had more upbeat music. Everyone that I saw was kind of slow and not really that interesting to me.

This is in today’s Washington Post. I thought that it might interest those of you who follow skating. This law professor argues that the decision to allow her to skate was the correct one. I don’t have a horse in this race, since I am not really following the Olympics much. But this debate is interesting.



Doriane Lambelet Coleman, a professor at Duke Law School, is co-director of the Center for Sports Law & Policy and a senior fellow at the Kenan Institute for Ethics.


Russian Kamila Valieva is the best figure skater on the planet, she is gorgeous to watch perform and she should be skating in Beijing.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport’s decision to allow Valieva to compete this week has been widely criticized as the arbitrary product of corrupt institutions driven by commercial and political interests. Actually, the decision was a textbook application of well-established law. It was also ethically sound.
No one’s goal should be premature, career-ending penalties for children. It’s also wrong to turn Valieva into a punching bag for legitimate concerns about Russian state-sponsored doping and the Olympic movement’s flawed anti-doping effort.


The only issue before the arbitration panel in Beijing was whether to restore a provisional suspension imposed — and then reversed — by Valieva’s domestic federation after a December drug test returned a preliminary positive for a banned heart medication. The panel was not charged with deciding whether Valieva had committed a doping violation. That decision has not yet been made.
 Under the law, children and younger adolescents are considered “protected persons,” and claims against them may be adjudicated more leniently than those against older adolescents and adults. Many have focused on 15-year-old Valieva’s protected status, suggesting it’s the reason she has escaped punishment for alleged doping. But her status, and the proportional treatment she receives, are only part of the heavy weight on her side of the legal scales.


Valieva’s case so far is characterized by the absence of evidence — both for her opponents to prosecute her and for her to defend herself. The burden was on Olympic organizations to show they were likely to succeed on the merits of a doping charge. Combine that with the irreparable harm Valieva would undoubtedly suffer were the suspension reimposed, as a legal matter the decision allowing her to compete was not surprising. Indeed, a different outcome would have been political.


The law applied to Valieva’s case is the same as used in the United States. In 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered USA Track & Field to allow world-record holder Butch Reynolds to run in Olympic trials even though he was serving a suspension for a two-year-old positive steroid test. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote: “A decent respect for the incomparable importance of winning a gold medal in the Olympic Games convinces me that a pecuniary award is not an adequate substitute for the intangible values for which the world’s greatest athletes compete.” The law hasn’t changed since I was one of the lawyers on the losing side of that argument.


This week, U.S. sprinter Sha’Carri Richardson tweeted that the only difference between her not being allowed to compete in the Olympics last summer after a positive drug test and Valieva’s clearance to compete now is that “I’m a black young lady.” Actually, other facts explain why: Richardson, an adult, acknowledged knowingly and voluntarily using a banned substance, marijuana. Afterward, she sought and obtained leniency given the particular drug and her personal circumstances.


Beyond law, the ethical calculus is also in Valieva’s favor. Valieva is a world-class competitor but also a child who should be safeguarded by the adults and organizations charged with her care. Does anyone believe that she personally schemed to find a cocktail of heart drugs? There is a lot of speculation about the metabolic effects of trimetazidine but no peer-reviewed evidence that it enhances performance. Benjamin D. Levine, one of the world’s leading experts in cardiology and exercise science, opined that there was “zero” chance that trimetazidine would improve her performance. Even peers who think she should not skate allow that she would be a star regardless, suggesting that fairness to competitors is not the issue so much as the integrity of the anti-doping movement.


Which brings us to the bear in the room: Russia’s doping history. Punishing Russia for its trespasses arguably requires punishing its athletes — that’s how sanctions work. The International Olympic Committee’s response to Russian doping has been to allow individual athletes to compete, but not allow the Russians to fly their flag, a sometimes laughable approach. The effort, however, also reflects the human values the Olympics represent and the general sense among athletes that sanctions shouldn’t be on the table in sports. A corrupt nation-state should not be able, year in and year out, to deprive its best young athletes of the opportunity to compete against their peers.


I get the instinct that because Valieva tested positive she should not skate. I was in the race in 1983 when Jarmila Kratochvílová of Czechoslovakia set the still-standing 800-meter world record. That record is widely understood to have been the product of doping.
I later helped set up the world’s first random out-of-competition drug-testing program for USA Track & Field, and I drafted the White House’s negotiating document that helped establish the World Anti-Doping Agency. I’ve learned that anti-doping efforts are strong only if they have integrity. Decisions can’t be only politically expedient; they have to be based in law and evidence. Taking down a brilliant kid whose adults may have abused rather than safeguarded her isn’t the way to fix what’s broken about the anti-doping movement.“

Like I said, I don’t really have a horse in this race, but thought that it was an interesting perspective.

“Protected minor” is what the IOC seems to be sticking with.

I read an article last night (wish I could remember what site it was on) and they talked about the amount of the banned substance that was in her system, and it was 200 times the amount that someone else in the past had who successfully claimed contamination. They said that the amount was similar to what you would expect if you were “tailing down” after having taken a full dose several days earlier. I’m curious if they just didn’t stop their “supplements” soon enough for her to get it out of their system? And it makes me wonder about the other Russian athletes as well. The article also said that the other two substances make her claim of accidental exposure much less believable.

I just couldn't watch.  I was too angry and didn't watch because I need positivity in my life right now.  But I think it's great that you watched to support the other athletes.  I hope the other skaters had their best performances.

I don't have a source to quote here but while I was watching the Olympics on Peacock yesterday (watched the replay of Tuesday night's event), the announcer said that they actually found a mix of three substances in her blood. He said combined they increase endurance because of how they affect the heart's ability to use oxygen. This was the dude that stands in the room, not one the dude who commentates with Tara and Johnny.

So with you sister - I'm just so damn mad and I LOVE the Olympics My husband went to put it on last night and I was like NO - at what point do we as consumers demand more as we all know there is no actual venue beyond Olympics - these sports are meaningless without eyeballs every 4 years.

I didn't watch! When I turned on the TV it was over around 9am(?)... That team sure did abandoned the little one. Left her standing all alone. Shame on them. And the other tantrum... I guess they will face consequences when they get home.

I did not see any medals!! Or were they in/on those bear(mascot) things?