“Of course it’s brought up”

With the knowledge of a Russian figure skater Kamila Valjievan a positive doping test emerged among the Beijing Olympics, with many finding the case immediately applauded. However, the 15-year-old skating star was awarded competition law at the International Court of Appeal for Sport in Cas when he won the International Olympic Committee, the World Anti-Doping Agency and the International Skating Federation, who demanded a temporary ban on competition.

The decision concerned only a temporary ban on Valijeva. Not whether Valijeva committed a doping offense.

In its brevity, the case was settled in Valijeva’s favor because the World Anti-Doping Agency’s Wada rules place a lighter-than-normal burden of proof on those under 16 years of age. A sample of Valijeva found trimetazidine on the Prohibited List, but at a concentration of only 2.1 nanograms per milliliter. In addition, Valijeva did not have the opportunity to defend himself against the doping allegation properly because, according to Cas, it took an unacceptably long time, 44 days, from the time the sample was completed.

– It didn’t go as well as it should, but that’s how the world works. The Wada rules do have very strict deadlines for athletes. For example, an athlete should snag seven days to analyze a B-sample, but then it takes more than a month for the laboratory to analyze the sample, an associate judge familiar with sports law Olli Rauste says.

In the Wada rules, the normal processing time is 20 days.

Adherence to schedules is a vital part of anti-doping processes so that a positive doping case also leads to a verdict. When this does not happen, the end result can change radically. Among other things, the hammer thrower has had to state this Olli-Pekka Karjalainensuffered by a competitor Vadim Devjatovski was allowed to keep his medal because anti-doping agents violated his legal security. Read more here.

According to Rauste, the exclusion of Russian athletes from international sports saved the International Figure Skating Association one headache. Without the war of aggression launched by Russia in Ukraine, the Valijeva saga would probably have continued at the World Cup, which is expected at the end of March.

– As the actual Cas hearing of the case would not have taken place at that time, it would have required a rather strong argument that the second Cas line-up would have ended differently from the first. This is therefore on the assumption that the International Figure Skating Federation would have denied Valijeva the right to participate and Valijeva would have appealed to Cas. I suspect that the International Skating Federation would not have left for this but allowed Valijeva to compete, Rauste estimates.

Rauste expects Valijeva’s doping case to be completed in Cas by July. Valijeva’s success is supported by the fact that only a small amount of the banned trimetazidine was found in his sample and that, as a protected person, he is not obliged to find out how the substance has ended up in his body.

It is interesting, therefore, how the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) intends to build its complaint. Valijeva’s coach was seen as one of the lifts Ether Etherberidzen an interview he gave to a journalist legend Vladimir Poznerille in 2019. At the time, Tutberidze regretted that in 2016, Wada added to his list of banned substances meldonium, known as a heart medicine, which had been used by his skaters to speed recovery.

“We had to find something new, because athletes need vitamins to help them recover anyway,” Tutberidze said.

– Admittedly, this statement is made by Wada that this is evidence of the deliberate replacement of meldonium by a new Medicinal Product and that this is an intentional doubling. In Cas, the same principle applies as in the Finnish court, ie free consideration of evidence. Yes, that is one piece of evidence in the direction that it may be a deliberate doup, Rauste comments.

As Valijeva is a so-called Protected Person as an athlete under the age of 16, under Wada’s rules, the scale of punishment for these individuals is in principle less severe than for adults, with a minimum warning and a maximum of two years of non-competition. In addition, a person protected by the Wada Rules does not need to be able to show where a Prohibited Substance has entered his or her body, and the Athlete’s name is not disclosed to the public in principle.

However, there is a loophole in Wada’s rules regarding the pre-sentence suspension.

– Mr Cas criticizes the fact that the special position of persons under the age of 16 has been taken into account in three other respects, but that there is no specific mention of this in the provisional suspension clause. Cas’s panel interpreted the deficiency in favor of the athlete, meaning they filled a gap in the law, says Rauste, who first acted as an arbitrator in Cas.

From the point of view of equality for athletes, the special position of underage athletes is difficult. The situation has not been alleviated by the fact that in recent years the International Olympic Movement has expanded its family into sports where the winners are even younger than Valijeva. For example, in the women’s debut skateboarding debut at the Tokyo Summer Olympics, three of the six medalists were 13 years old and one was only 12 years old.

In order for anti-doping work to be on a sustainable basis, Rauste says that he is in favor of higher age limits in value competitions.

– I am in favor of setting a minimum age for participation so that no check-ins are placed at the Olympics and the World Cup. But on the other hand, if these teenagers were also not subject to testing before the race age, if the limit was at least 18, it could lead to them being systematically douped as minors in some countries, Rauste reflects.

As Valijeva is an athlete under the age of 16, the judgments of her backgrounds would be harsh if their involvement could be demonstrated. For this reason, Rauste does not hold his breath.

– When an athlete gives a positive test result, we have a display. But there is no similar means of proof for a coach or support person. These can be, for example, emails in which the coach writes that this is being given and this is being bought. Then a judgment can be given. Another option is for someone to agree to testify about the involvement of a coach or background person. However, this is very rare.

According to Rauste, the fate of the Valijeva case is completely open based on the Beijing decision published by Cas.

– It is typical of doping cases that when the media begins to spin the subject on rumors, the leading theme is often the lynching mood. But many times when you read an objective court decision in which the case has been opened in detail, listening to all parties and experts, the case is often anything but clear.

– Case Valijeva is a young female athlete, a gold medalist in the Olympics, and the sport is figure skating, which is the most watched sport in the United States. Yes, this was and is all the ingredients of a real drama, a media spectacle, Rauste says.