IOC circulate "reasoned" verdicts

[luckyguy]

Reasoned verdicts have been circulated by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) against three more Russian athletes accused of doping at Sochi 2014, including figure skating champion Adelina Sotnikova, one of two so far to have been cleared. ...
Few new details are included in the verdict, which is far shorter than all others published so far.

https://www.insidethegames.biz/arti...-including-olympic-champion-cleared-of-doping

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

Sotnikova was never accused of doping, as the byline indicates. Just because something exists on the internet doesn't make it news.

 

[Mista Ekko]

happy for her that she's been cleared
and can own her great Olympic
performances in everyone's eyes

Anyways, I think in that event it was the corrupt judging panel everyone had an issue with

 

[Mathman]

What is a "reasoned verdict"? What does it mean to issue a "reasoned verdict" against someone who has already been cleared of wrongdoing? Who is insidethegames.biz?

 

[luckyguy]

Sotnikova was never accused of doping, as the byline indicates. Just because something exists on the internet doesn't make it news.

The IOC verdict is the news, not the wording in the article. The verdict has not yet been published but it is probable that this (IMO scandalous) sentence from the verdict is correct:

"The alleged anti-doping rule violation asserted at the time was 'tampering or attempted tampering with any part of Doping Control'.

 

[luckyguy]

What is a "reasoned verdict"? What does it mean to issue a "reasoned verdict" against someone who has already been cleared of wrongdoing? Who is insidethegames.biz?

Maybe it is not a verdict but simply a reasoning of the November decision of the Oswald Commission in the case.

 

[Mathman]

What does this mean?

"The Disciplinary Commission has considered the elements of evidence available to date in relation with Ms Adelina Sotnikova," the IOC verdict explained.

"The Disciplinary Commission has come to the conclusion that there are no sufficient elements in the evidence available to date to establish an ADRV by the athlete."

So,what is the verdict in the case? That Sotnikova is innocent of the charges?

Is this old news that has just now been released into public view, or is it something new that just happened? If it just happened, what just happened? Did someone just issue a verdict that Sotnikova is not invloved in doping, or is this just an acknowledgement that she was cleared months or years ago?

It is very frustrating to me when I read and re-read a news article and am unable to figure out what it says.

 

[Mathman]

Maybe it is not a verdict but simply a reasoning of the November decision of the Oswald Commission in the case.

Well, there is a principle in criminal law that when a person's freedom is at stake, then he has a right (sometimes?) to ask for a "reasoned verdict" -- i.e., not just the words "innocent" or "guilty" -- from the jury. The jury is then expected to provide reasons for their verdict, presumably so that the now-convicted criminal can better prepare for his appeals.

Maybe someone on GS who knows more about the law than I do will be able to explain this netter. (?)

Anyway, the headline says that the verdict was against Sotnikova, but the body f the article seems to say that the verdict was in favor of Sotnikova. So I am puzzled once more.

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

I think the “reasoned verdicts” are for those athletes who were banned and deemed to be a part of or not a part of the “Duchess List”. The verdict for Adelina is that although she was implicated for scratches on her samples there is no conclusive evidence that she was aware or involved in any of the tomfoolery. Rodchenkov said she had no part of the doping cocktail scheme which he has indicated consists of about 20 athletes IIRC.

I think what’s strange is that they didn’t include any of the reasoned verdicts...unless I just missed it. The news is that they released them but the news isn’t granting us access to them. Did I miss something?

What’s even more strange...if they have the Duchess List why don’t they release it.

 

[Violet Bliss]

Why don't they go after whoever tempered with the sample and give us a reasoned verdict? Go after their own slob and leave Adelina alone.

 

[luckyguy]

Well, there is a principle in criminal law that when a person's freedom is at stake, then he has a right (sometimes?) to ask for a "reasoned verdict" -- i.e., not just the words "innocent" or "guilty" -- from the jury. The jury is then expected to provide reasons for their verdict, presumably so that the now-convicted criminal can better prepare for his appeals.

Maybe someone on GS who knows more about the law than I do will be able to explain this netter. (?)

Anyway, the headline says that the verdict was against Sotnikova, but the body f the article seems to say that the verdict was in favor of Sotnikova. So I am puzzled once more.

Well, the wording of the article is unfortunate. What I understand is, that the Oswald Commission published today (probably only IOC internally) the reasoned decision. I read now another IOC News and I am not sure if they publish it for the public.

In addition to this decision, the IOC Disciplinary Commission has issued a third decision in which it found that the elements in the file and the conclusions of the investigations conducted so far were not sufficient to establish an anti-doping rule violation. Accordingly, the disciplinary proceedings opened against the athlete were terminated and the case filed. In order to protect the rights of the athlete, the identity of the athlete concerned will not be disclosed and the decision will not be published at this point in time.

https://www.olympic.org/news/ioc-sa...ne-case-as-part-of-oswald-commission-findings

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

Why don't they go after whoever tempered with the sample and give us a reasoned verdict? Go after their own slob and leave Adelina alone.

He’s in witness protection in the US.

 

[Violet Bliss]

He’s in witness protection in the US.

Nice. Witness your own crime and get protected.

 

[luckyguy]

So, now I found the original IOC News from 09 Nov 2017.

In addition to these four decisions, the IOC Disciplinary Commission has issued a fifth decision in which it found that the elements in the file and the conclusions of the investigations conducted so far were not sufficient to establish an anti-doping rule violation. Accordingly, the disciplinary proceedings opened against the athlete were terminated and the case filed. In order to protect the rights of the athlete, the identity of the athlete concerned will not be disclosed and the decision will not be published at this point in time.

https://www.olympic.org/news/ioc-sa...ne-case-as-part-of-oswald-commission-findings

The fifth decision was about Sotnikova. It was therefore an indiscretion that we learned the name of the athlete.

 

[mrrice]

I can only hope that Adelina has moved past this situation now that it's been 4 years and a new Olympic Cycle is here. They have left her in Limbo for 4 years and I hope she's moved on with her life and closed this odd and sad chapter. I still believe that if she was given anything without her knowledge that it's the association they should go after. If they want to give a duplicate medal to Yuna, that's fine. However, if they can't prove that she was complicate, I don't think Adelina should be effected and her name should stay in the history books as the 2014 Champion.

 

[kimi492]

Nice. Witness your own crime and get protected.

Educate yourself please - Vladimir Putin was trying to have him killed for exposing the national doping program which is why's he's in protective custody - what he did wasn't right but the punishment certainly isn't murder

 

[Mathman]

It was therefore an indiscretion that we learned the name of the athlete.

OK, so a month later we accidentally learned the name of an athlete who was declared innocent of any involvement. Hey, I wasn't involved either. Is this news?

 

[el henry]

I'm going to post an article "El Henry not involved in Sochi Doping Scandal", in semi-incomprehensible English, and see if it can get any clicks.

Right after I revise an article entitled "You call this a sport???? Figure Skating and its ticky-tacky Costumes". It will take a few minutes to change some of the words for the fifth version of the same article.....

But hey, I'll get those views

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

I don’t mind seeing news like this to counter some of the equally repetitive articles and negative public statements in the past about Adelina. In the McLaren report that WADA released there was evidence suggesting Adelina as A0848 and had type 1 scratches on her urine samples in Sochi. The head of USADA publicly speculated about Adelina just a month or so ago and used her as an example of an athlete in order to push for the banning of Russia.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/sports/olympics/olympics-figure-skating-doping.amp.html

The McLaren investigation produced circumstantial evidence that raised questions about dozens of Russian athletes who competed at the last Winter Games, including Adelina Sotnikova, the Russian teenager who won the women’s skating competition in Sochi. The questions center on whether Sotnikova and others were provided with a cocktail of anabolic steroids and had their incriminating urine samples destroyed. But there is no direct evidence of a drug violation, and Sotnikova has not been publicly accused.

She was 17 at the time. Would she have been aware of Russia’s scheme? Would she have had the power to say no?

“The problem is, it’s not being followed up on,” Tygart said. “There’s no evidence she’s been interviewed. There’s no evidence her coach has been talked to.”

 

[volk]

I don’t mind seeing news like this to counter some of the equally repetitive articles and negative public statements in the past about Adelina. In the McLaren report that WADA released there was evidence suggesting Adelina as A0848 and had type 1 scratches on her urine samples in Sochi. The head of USADA publicly speculated about Adelina just a month or so ago and used her as an example of an athlete in order to push for the banning of Russia.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/sports/olympics/olympics-figure-skating-doping.amp.html

It's been demonstrated that a single scratch could appear after closing the tube too tightly. Also more than one scratch is necessary to open it. Adelina's sample has normal level of salt. Basically they have nothing that proves doping charges.