Vallieva was allowed to continue to participate in the Winter Olympics, but the legacy would belong to Russia, and the legacy was destined to be very large.
On February 14, the court of arbitration for sport finally came down, and Valieva was allowed to continue to participate in the Winter Olympics. In the current situation, this decision is reasonable.
At the same time, this is also a decision that cannot solve any practical problems, and it can only be said that the three judges of the arbitral tribunal have done their best in respecting the law and safeguarding the fairness of sports.
The legacy will belong to Russia, and the legacy is destined to be very large. It could even be said that Russia brought a bomb to the Winter Olympics, and now the Court of Arbitration for Sport has packaged it up and returned it to Russia after ensuring that the bomb does not explode immediately, with a huge impact.
The three judges of the arbitral tribunal were from Italy, the United States and Slovenia. Two of them may have heard of Chinese readers who are interested in international sports, and the presiding judge, Fabio Ludica, is from Italy, a law professor who is often involved in the litigation of Italian sports figures and football clubs. Another judge, Jeffrey Benz, is from the United States, now lives in the United Kingdom, and has cooperated with Chinese international arbitration professionals, and after Sun Yang was banned for 8 years on February 28, 2021, Jeffrey Benz recorded an in-depth analysis video program with Brother Fashan and Lawyer Cai Guo, which had a great impact and helped many Chinese netizens understand the principles and insiders of international sports arbitration.
Simply put, The Storm in Valieva comes from this:
- Tested by the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) on December 25 for a domestic competition in St. Petersburg.
- In Russia, there are currently no WADA-accredited laboratories in Russia because of laboratory cheating, and samples from domestic events can only be sent to laboratories in Stockholm, Sweden, for testing.
- Due to the New Year's holiday and the rumor that the Stockholm laboratory was infected with COVID-19 and could not be fully operational, the process of producing results in about 20 days took 40 days, and on February 8, Vallieva received the results when she had already come to Beijing to compete.
- In accordance with the anti-drug regulations, RUSADA made a temporary ban on Vallieva.
- Valieva immediately appealed, RUSADA's legal department ruled that the appeal was justified, and Vallieva was allowed to cancel the temporary ban and continue to participate in the Winter Olympic Games.
- Anti-doping test results and cases in all countries must be uploaded and reported to the WADA database simultaneously. WADA, the International Olympic Committee and the International Skating Union found RUSADA's judgment unreasonable and appealed to the International Court of Arbitration for Sport in accordance with the regulations.
This is the origin of the postponement of the award of the figure skating collective project and the news from the Russian media. Theoretically, the Russian media should not reveal Vallieva's name because she is a minor, the WADA anti-drug regulations have special protection provisions for minors, and the entire incident should be handled in an anonymous state.
Vallieva's name was revealed, she was also a figure skating superstar, and there was a huge controversy around this matter at once. But the controversy is completely divorced from the incident itself, and some common sense issues are seriously confused. For example, Russian netizens have left messages everywhere that "trimetazidine will not improve competitive performance", which is purely intended to mislead public opinion. Trimetazidine has been repeatedly found to be abused among athletes, one is to help recovery, the other is believed to help improve muscular endurance, which is precisely related to Valieva's project.
As the appealing three parties, is it reasonable enough for the IOC, the International Skating Federation and WADA to reinstate a temporary ban on Vallieva? In terms of maintaining the integrity of the rules, the appeal of the three institutions is necessary, and if it is not appealed, it will trigger protests from athletes from other countries.
However, the decision of the International Court of Arbitration for Sport took into account fairness and found a suitable interim solution to the dispute.
The crux of the matter is 3 points:
First, the controversy surrounding Vallieva is all about temporary bans. Her positive results for the drug ban in December turned out to be a fact, but a formal verdict on this fact was not made. Before a formal verdict can be decided, she must be given plenty of time and space to defend herself. If she is eventually acquitted, the damage caused to her by canceling the gold medal in the group event and banning her from participating in individual events because of the temporary ban will be huge and irreparable. This is what .c judgment 2 emphasizes.
Secondly, she is a minor and is a "protected person" under the specific provisions of the World Anti-Drug Regulations. The decision to ban drugs could not have been made by her alone, and she could also receive a light sentence for the same offence under the relevant regulations. If ultimately acquitted, enforcing a temporary ban at the moment could cause even more harm to a minor.
Third, it is a fact that the test results are late. Although there are technically justifiable reasons for the late detection (precisely because it is positive, the B bottle must also be tested), it also leads to the athlete's lack of time to defend himself before the legal authorities (for example, the positive case of the British sprinter Uja at the Tokyo Olympics that I cited in a previous article has not been sentenced to this day).
Therefore, it is a reasonable decision to lift the temporary ban and allow Vallieva to continue to participate in the Beijing Olympic Games. If any athlete feels that this undermines the fairness of the event, they must wait for the final official verdict in the Valieva drug ban case, although the waiting time must exceed the Uja case.
At the same time, as the judgment emphasizes, the Court of Arbitration for Sport did not make any evaluation of The Valieva's positive drug ban case itself. Since no formal trial has been held in Russia, it would now be ultra vires for international agencies to make an assessment.
After Valieva returns to Russia from Beijing with her medals, she will first face RUSADA hearings and trials. It is certain that if Vallieva cannot give a reasonable explanation for the positive trimetazine, her Winter Olympic results may be cancelled in accordance with the World Anti-Ban Regulations. Please note: The next step will be for the world to focus on Russia and see what the Russians themselves do. This is the time bomb mentioned earlier.
RUSADA will undoubtedly face a difficult situation – as long as they commit any form of cover-up (which will be very difficult to operate) and have serious flaws in the judgment, the IOC, the International Skating Federation and WADA will certainly appeal again at the International Court of Arbitration for Sport.
Poor athlete herself as a minor, from taking the medication to the final verdict, everything is not something she can decide on her own.
Wen | Wang Qinbo
Edit | from the heart