From the FasterSkier archive — posts syndicated from athletes’ and coaches’ own blogs between 2004 and 2012, kept online as published. Current coverage is at fasterskier.com.
The silver-medal winning Russian men’s relay team at the 2014 Olympics. Alexander Bessmertnykh, Maxim Vyegzhanin, and Alexander Legkov were disqualified for doping, but had their bans overturned by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
The gold medalist was initially banned and ordered to turn over his medal. That happened after investigations by journalists and anti-doping administrators found that he had likely benefitted from a sample-swapping scheme instituted by the Russian government. The crowning achievement of the scheme came at the Olympics in Sochi, Russia, where athletes’ “dirty” urine was swapped for “clean” samples so that their illicit doping would not be detected by tests.
On Monday, CAS released the details behind its decision in Legkov’s case.
In short, they did not find enough evidence that Legkov had personally been involved in the scheme, which they acknowledged existed. But testimony by whistleblowers and forensic evidence was not deemed to be enough to justify disqualifying him.
Grigory Rodchenkov, the former director of the Moscow Anti-Doping laboratory, wrote in testimony to the Panel in January that Legkov had been involved in the doping scheme and had been instructed to provide clean urine samples so that they could be swapped out to hide dirty ones. Legkov had also participated in “washout testing,” he said, to determine how long drugs would stay in his body. He related conversations with higher-ups who told him that Legkov was a “special project”, and had notes in his diary from the 2014 Olympics which described swapping out Legkov’s urine sample after he won the 50 k.
The CAS panel didn’t agree with any of those assertions. The fact that Rodchenkov stated that Legkov was providing clean urine had little value, they wrote, because nobody testified to having seen him do it.
“The Panel notes that the IOC does not specify the particular date when, or location where, the Athlete is alleged to have provided clean urine for this purpose,” it writes. “Further, no physical evidence has been presented showing the specific vessel in which the clean urine from the Athlete is alleged to have been collected and stored. Nor has the Panel seen any communications sent by or to the Athlete that refer to the collection, transmission, storage or use of clean urine for the purpose of urine substitution.”
Regarding Legkov’s presence on the “Duchess list” of athletes receiving a special drug cocktail, and and Rodchenkov’s conversation with a boss who told him to make sure Legkov was protected, the panel wrote, “this evidence is hearsay and as such its probative value is very limited, particularly insofar as it relates to the Athlete’s subsequent actions during the Sochi Games in February 2014. In any event, even if it is accepted at face value, the alleged statement merely reflects an intention on Ms. Rodionova’s part. It does not provide any evidence regarding the actions or state of mind of the Athlete.”
Rodchenkov’s testimony was not the only aspect of the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) case against Legkov. In addition, multiple marks were found on Legkov’s sample bottles, consistent with having been opened.
CAS did not buy this as evidence of an anti-doping rule violation either, however.
“The Panel considers that the fact that sample bottles were opened would, if established, provide considerable, albeit not conclusive, inferential evidence that urine was substituted and, as a further step of conclusion, the substituted urine contained prohibited substances,” they wrote.
After that, they tore apart the testimony of the expert who identified the marks on the bottle, writing that while he had established that such marks did not occur as part of “normal use”, they could have occurred when the bottles were being transported from one place to another.
Another criticism? That while the IOC’s chosen expert established “normal use” using empty bottles, the presence of urine in a bottle could change things. Maybe these marks might not actually be indicative of the bottles being opened. They wrote, “the Panel considers that there is some merit in the Athlete’s criticism that the failure to conduct tests on sample bottles that were filled with liquid reduces the probative value of the results of those tests.”
In total, they found that the existence of state-sponsored doping could not be used to punish Legkov without other strong evidence that he had benefitted – and didn’t deem any of the evidence presented to be strong enough.
“In reaching these conclusions, the Panel wishes to underscore what it has not decided in this appeal,” the panel wrote. “The Panel has not made a ruling on whether and to what extent the alleged doping scheme during the Sochi Games existed and how it operated even though it recognizes that there is significant evidence that it was in place and worked.”
FasterSkier’s Alex Kochon, Nat Herz, and the author (Chelsea Little) at the 2014 Olympics in Sochi, Russia. Little did we know what was going on behind the scenes of those Games. Looking back at our coverage of the 2014 Olympics, I’m very proud of the work we did. But I’m not too proud to say that while we thought we had a realistic understanding of international sports governance, we were still naive to its incredible inertia.
The following is an editorial written by FasterSkier’s Editor-at-Large Chelsea Little, who has been covering doping in sport, specifically cross-country and biathlon, for the better part of the last decade. The opinions expressed are her own and do not necessarily reflect those of other FasterSkier staff.
The athletes had been disqualified from the 2014 Games by an International Olympic Committee (IOC) Commission. This was after more than 18 months of buildup in which the world learnt of systematic manipulation of the anti-doping process by the Russian state security apparatus at those Olympics.
I was both shocked, and not shocked. When all these athletes had been disqualified by the IOC and handed lifetime bans from Olympic competition, I knew in my heart of hearts that it would be undone (I’ll explain why below). But I hadn’t, somehow, put any thought into how exactly that would come to pass. So on one level, I was surprised, even if on another level I wasn’t.
When the news broke, I had written a profanity-laced all-caps message on our company Slack channel. On Twitter, I wrote, “I am so tired. That means that they have won.” That’s about all I could muster.
“I’m sure you are extremely disappointed by the CAS ruling,” one member of my extended family wrote in an email, knowing how many nights and weekends I had spent covering this story, how many hours and days of my personal life I had erased to chase it, because doing so does not pay the bills if you work for a cross-country ski website in America.
And I was disappointed.
I had thought that those nights and weekends would help make a better sporting world, help bring cheating to light, help hold the powers that be in sport accountable and call on them to do a little better.
But it felt like all that work had accomplished nothing, not changed a single thing to make nordic sports more fair.
I can only imagine how the athletes felt. The ones who found out that they would not be receiving medals after all, medals that they felt had been stolen from them by cheaters, medals that they had been slated to finally receive but now would never see.
I can only imagine.
More than anything, I was disappointed because I didn’t understand. I’m an analyst. No analysis I could do would explain to me just what had happened because CAS did not release a reasoned argument for their decision, which, as USADA General Cousel Bill Bock pointed out, is ludicrous. So at the moment we don’t know why these athletes were cleared; we only have speculation and hearsay.
In that decision, an arbitration panel wrote that they trusted the statements of whistleblower Grigory Rodchenkov and investigator Richard McLaren.
That testimony that is widely speculated to have been found untrustworthy by the arbitration panel which more recently cleared the athletes.
There is a difference between provisional suspensions and rule violations, and maybe that’s the root cause (or maybe it’s not; one day we will find out).
But if two different arbitration panels can come to two completely different conclusions about whether evidence is trustworthy, then what is the point of a “high court” of arbitration? That’s disappointing.
On the other hand, maybe the new panel did believe that the whistleblower testimony was true, but that witness statements alone are not enough to prove a doping violation. We’ll set aside for a moment all the forensic evidence [see footnote 1].
If that’s the case, it’s even more disappointing. It means that all of the rhetoric over the last few years about putting more resources into investigations will not actually result in cleaner sport, unless there is a positive test or the presence of drugs or medical equipment (see: Austrian skier Wurm, Russian skier Pankratov).
It would mean that the World Anti-Doping Agency’s new “secure digital platform” for whistleblowing — and statements by athletes and doctors and team staff — are all useless to anti-doping unless they are followed by physical evidence of prohibited substances or methods.
But we don’t know the panel’s reasoning. This is all just speculation.
I was tired and disappointed because my job as a journalist is to take complicated things, and make them make sense to our readers.
Here, there was nothing to work with. There was nothing to explain.
A second suggested storyline is that the IOC set up the cases to fail, so that it would look like they tried to do something heroic, but in the end nothing would change.
To some extent, that is absolutely the case. Lifetime bans for doping have been attempted by the IOC before. Every time, they have been overturned. There was a zero percent chance it would work this time, either.
Did the IOC go further than that in “set up to fail”? Both storylines may be true. Neither may be true. But each of these storylines is far too myopic in their attempts to explain what happened with this CAS decision.
The reason that, in my heart of hearts, I knew that things would turn out just fine for most of these seemingly disqualified athletes, is that far more than CAS is broken [2].
Broken would imply that at some point the system worked. When was that, again?
This scandal has been going on for years. And in both it and other, non-Russia-related doping scandals, organizations have dragged their feet at every turn. There is no political will to keep sport clean. Ensuring clean sport would be hard. Nobody wants to do hard work. Universally, these organizations just want to run sporting events and for fans to be happy.
“We need to stop pretending sport is clean,” International Ski Federation (FIS) President Gian Franco Kasper [3] famously told New York Times reporter Rebecca Ruiz. “It’s a noble principle, but in practice? It’s entertainment. It’s drama.”
People were mad when Kasper said this, but it was an especially revealing comment. Maybe it is a testament to our optimism that we quickly moved on, focusing on how we would try to “solve” the problem of doping.
There have been individuals and groups who have worked passionately to uncover the truth, and done an admirable job. Beckie Scott at WADA [4] is one who comes to mind. But their work is always prevented from reaching its logical conclusion.
Let’s first look at the IOC, which has deservedly gotten a bad rap for dragging its investigations out for as long as seems humanly possible.
The IOC has certainly not put the resources or good-faith effort into looking under every stone, or doing so quickly. That’s how we got the first Sochi disqualifications – like Legkov’s – being announced in November of 2017. Most of the criticism leveled at the organization on this front is absolutely justified.
In all the time between May 2016, when the Sochi scandal was first broken by the New York Times, and November 2017, the IOC did very little. The decision banning Legkov relied mostly on the same evidence that had been in the McLaren Report.
The IOC Commission asked new experts to revisit the issues of scratches on sample bottles and salt content of urine samples. Basically, they repeated a lot of work which had already been done, expanding it to a larger number of samples but taking longer to do so by insisting on using different experts, who nonetheless came to the same conclusions.
For Legkov, all of this resulted in the same evidence that had been in the McLaren Report: that Legkov’s sample bottle from after the 50 k, which he had won, showed signs of being tampered with.
Sure, the IOC Commission got testimony from Rodchenkov. But that only at the last minute, perhaps because they were publicly shamed when it was revealed that they hadn’t contacted him.
It’s fair to criticize the IOC for its anemic investigation, but this is not just an IOC problem, just like the disqualifications being overturned is not really a CAS problem.
Look further. Since the McLaren Report, few other governing bodies have been doing better.
“We like to play coy, like the cat wagging its tail when the mouse runs in front,” IBU Vice President for Medical Issues Jim Carrabre told me back at the 2014 Olympics, in an interview that led to the IBU’s media chief calling me into his office at the press center and dressing me down for talking about things that he would rather journalists didn’t ask his organization’s board members.
“It goes by once or twice, and then the third time it gets bitten,” Carrabre said at the time.
He was referring to blood profiles, a topic that has recently gained prominence.
For years I have been told by various people that the IBU has cases in the works, that soon I will hear about them, that they know some people are doping and are about to catch them.
I don’t doubt that Carrabre is a true believer in the anti-doping fight. He gets pretty fired up about things, as does fellow Executive Board member Max Cobb.
But the cases that I heard rumors of, even promises of, have never materialized.
The Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) was supposed to revolutionize anti-doping and indicate if athletes had been blood doping even when no illicit substance was detected. That sure would have been handy due to the drugs’ short detection windows and athletes’ and doctors’ strategies of “microdosing.”
But there have been no doping bans on the basis of ABP in skiing or biathlon [5]. I don’t think that even the most optimistic of fans really believes that this is because there is no blood doping going on.
What does that mean? That ABP doesn’t work, that it wouldn’t hold up in arbitration? Or that something else is going on?
It would be hard to look at IBU President Anders Besseberg’s behavior in the last two years – for instance, the IBU’s continued insistence that it’s totally fine to hold events in Russia, or his demeanor and statements during meetings with athletes – and conclude anything other than that he is sympathetic to Russia and would even more generally like to simply pretend that there was no scandal in his sport.
Having a few true anti-doping crusaders on a governing board does not clean sport make. I don’t want to put words into their mouths, but probably, it just makes these crusaders even more frustrated.
“When the McLaren Report first came out, I thought that doping was the greatest threat to our sport,” U.S. biathlete Susan Dunklee told FasterSkier in January 2017. “However after watching the last few weeks play out, I believe that the IBU’s reluctance to meaningfully act to prevent doping is the greatest threat to our sport.”
Then there is FIS. As I’ve repeatedly pointed out, there were 46 skiers implicated in the McLaren report. Not all of them, obviously, were at the 2014 Olympics or Paralympics, yet as far as anyone can tell, FIS has done nothing to investigate the other cases, some of which include alleged anti-doping rule violations.
(Which, by the way, how can I get in on that? Hi? I’m over here! I know a lot about doping in skiing and I also how to do statistics!)
The data is interesting, but nothing can really be done with it, as it is old and from the days before ABP was a policy. Without the journalists or their experts explaining how they decided what an “abnormal or highly abnormal” blood profile is, it’s impossible to judge what percentage of the athletes they identify as potentially having doped actually were likely dopers.
But perhaps this indicates that someone within FIS is frustrated with how things are going. If you cared about skiing being clean, cared about doing your job well, and listened to Kasper say things like “sanctioning entire countries is purely political and I do not agree with this,” you might be frustrated too.
And here’s the last thing. In this whole scandal we are talking about one country. That’s Russia, and it has led to a lot of ideological discussion.
But it’s not really about Russia.
Yes, the IOC and the IBU and FIS want to keep Russia happy, because their sports are popular in Russia, the Russian athletes are talented and popular even outside the country, because Russia is great at hosting events, and because Russian fans travel all over to watch competitions. That’s part of it.
And yes, some commentators have complained that athletes are being punished just because they are Russian. They have complained that this is a U.S.-led effort reviving Cold War hostilities. That we are Russophobes. That we are hypocrites because American sports stars dope too, and/or that lots of countries dope but we just haven’t found out about it.
But again, that’s being far too myopic about things, and believing that this scandal is only a thing unto itself, not part of the bigger problem.
If this scandal had taken place with Norway, Sweden, Germany, the United States, or any other country at the center – the outcome or the (lack of) speed of its resolution probably wouldn’t have been much different [6].
I – yes, I’m among those journalists accused of being hypocritical and anti-Russian, I’ve even been compared to Nazis, gee that was fun – I would chase this scandal just as hard if it had arisen in any of these other countries.
In fact, I would have investigated it with even more fervor if these were American or Canadian skiers and biathletes we were talking about. And presumably most of the evidence would have been in English, so I could investigate more effectively, without translating things I was looking for into Russian, searching the internet or evidence documents, and then translating the Russian back into English, in a crappy game of “telephone”.
I think that the North American athletes I routinely interview are aware that if I found out they were cheating, I would have no remorse and they would have nowhere to hide.
Just as I’m not a hypocrite, these sports organizations aren’t, either – well, they are, but not in this way, not when it comes to nationality. The claims that various decisions just come from Russian money and bribes are missing the point.
Whether coming from Russia or elsewere, these organizations don’t want a big scandal. They don’t want to rewrite their results sheets. The athletes who missed out on medals they probably should have taken home? These organizations don’t really care about athletes.
They are just an unfortunate bit of collateral damage, but oh well.
Time will march on. A new race will be held. It will be an exciting race! We will all be caught up in it.
Maybe Pellegrino will upset Klæbo.
Maybe an American will finally win a medal.
Maybe Fourcade will mess up his first stage, but then climb back to gold anyway.
Maybe Makarainen will mess up all her shooting stages, and we will all watch rapt to see whether she can pass 15 people on the final loop. Maybe she can.
Maybe Harvey will finally truly become the Prince of Quebec, crowned with an Olympic medal.
Maybe the breakaway will succeed.
Or maybe the favorite will win, but we will be enthralled until the final moment, watching to see whether they will pull it off.
Soon, we will forget about those athletes whom we were wondering about, the ones who maybe probably should have a medal stashed in their safe deposit box somewhere and a whole lot more sponsor money than they have now.
Those athletes will slip farther and farther to the back of our minds. In the forefront will be the day’s competition – so amazing! – and the big happy family that is sport.
Actual clean sport is not, and never was, these organizations’ goal.
*****
Footnotes:
[1] On the topic of skiers who were cleared by CAS: Maxim Vylegzhanin’s sample from Sochi also had scratches on it and had an incorrectly reported specific gravity; the two other members of the men’s relay team also had marks on their sample bottles, and one had a sample whose specific gravity was too high to be believable; two sprinters had marks on their sample bottles and for one, there as also a foreign fiber inside the bottle. Julia Ivanova, whose ban was not overturned by CAS, had an impossibly high salt value in her urine sample.
[2] I actually think CAS does work. CAS handles far more than doping cases – they handle contract disputes, team selection, trades, anything you can think of that would need arbitration. And as far as I know, they do a good job. This is the first CAS decision that has left me truly baffled.
[3] Term limits, man. We really, really need term limits.
[4] I’m not going to talk in much detail in this piece about WADA, which alternatingly does the right thing and the wrong thing, and often does the wrong thing for a very long time first. But at least in the last year or so, WADA is no worse than any other group, and indeed maybe a bit better.
[5] Blood profiles have certainly led to targeted testing, which caught athletes before the 2014 Olympics. But nobody bothered to try an ABP case, that we know of. Nor, seemingly, did the biathletes that the McLaren Report alleges were doping – Olga Vilukhina and Yana Romanova – fail their ABP’s. Either ABP is not being used, or it is not being successful and the details of the cases are never made public.
[6] If the perpetrator of this scandal hadn’t been Russia, I think the main difference might have been the reaction within that different country. I don’t think the Norwegian public would react the same way the Russian public has. Each place has its own culture around sport and what it means, and government also plays various different roles in supporting and controlling sport. But the reaction from the international organizations? Things would probably be much the same.
The Russian men finishing in unison to take first, second and third in the men’s 30 k skiathlon, the final race of 2017 U23 World Championships at Soldier Hollow in Midway, Utah. Alexander Bolshunov (8) was deemed the winner, Alexey Chervotkin (1) was second, and Denis Spitsov (11) third. All three will be going to the 2018 Olympics. (Photo: FlyingPointRoad.com)
Earlier this week it was announced that cross-country skier Sergey Ustiugov and biathlete Anton Shipulin were among the Russian athletes excluded from the 2018 Olympic Games coming up in PyeongChang, South Korea, next month.
The question arose: just who would be representing Russia?
The list of the 169 athletes on the “Olympic Athletes of Russia” team (which is not supposed to be confused with the Russian Olympic Team, which has been banned) has now been released.
For nordic sports, no athletes who had competed in the 2014 Olympics in Sochi, Russia – where the anti-doping process was manipulated to protect Russian athletes who had used banned performance-enhancing drugs – are included.
The cross-country ski team is nevertheless reasonably full. According to the Russian Ski Federation, the athletes set to compete are Alexander Bolshunov, Alexei Vitsenko, Andrei Larkov, Andrei Melnichenko, Alexander Panzhinsky, Denis Spitsov, Alexei Chervotkin, Julia Belorukova, Alisa Zhambalova, Natalia Nepryaeva, Anna Nechaevskaya, and Anastasia Sedova.
Russia’s Ekaterina Yurlova reacts after sealing her first career victory and podium on the World Cup level at IBU World Championships in the women’s 15 k individual in Kontiolahti, Finland. Yurlova will not be PyeongChang. (Photo: Kontiolahden Urheilijat/Kari Kuninkaanniemi)
The team size of five women and seven men is nearly identical to the team size from 2014, when five women and eight men represented Russia. Six of those 13 athletes who competed in Sochi have since been disqualified for doping.
For biathlon, the team for PyeongChang is tiny: just four athletes, two men and two women. According to the Russian Biathlon Union, Anton Babikov, Matvei Eliseev, Uliana Kaisheva, and Tatyana Akimova have been invited to PyeongChang. They can thus form a mixed relay team but Russia will be out of both the men’s and women’s relay competitions.
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) released information this week about how the list of invited athletes had been chosen. Some criteria were as expected: it had been previously announced that no athletes who had previously served doping suspensions would be on the list, barring biathletes Irina Starykh and Alexander Loginov as well as cross-country skier Natalia Matveeva.
If an athlete’s name appeared on the “Duchess List”, a list of athletes allegedly receiving performance-enhancing drugs and whose anti-doping samples were covered up or manipulated, then that was also a disqualification, as expected.
But the IOC also used more evidence, for instance the Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS), a database which was copied from the Moscow anti-doping laboratory by a whistleblower and delivered to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). The IOC relied, too, on information from international winter sports federations, checked Russian athletes’ whereabouts reports for discrepancies, and re-tested all previously collected anti-doping samples.
Finally, the IOC used “intelligence extracted from WADA’s ‘Speak-up’ whistleblower programme and other sources.”
The women’s podium for the first race of the 2017/2018 World Cup season, the Ruka classic sprint in Kuusamo, Finland, with (from right to left) American Sadie Bjornsen in second, Sweden’s Stina Nilsson in first, and Russia’s Yulia Belorukova in third. (photo: Fischer/Nordic Focus)
For most of the athletes who were expected to represent Russia but were then found to be excluded – like Ustiugov and Shipulin – it is not known which one of these information sources led to them being disinvited from PyeongChang.
Additional notable absences are Ekaterina Yurlova-Percht, the 2015 World Champion biathlete in the 15 k individual, and Gleb Retivykh, who made the sprint finals in both of the last two cross-country World Cup weekends.
Instead, the Russian biathlon team will feature two World Cup podium finishers: Babikov, who won a World Cup and was part of Russia’s gold-medal winning men’s relay team at 2017 World Championships, and Akimova, who likewise has a win and a third-place World Cup finish to her name.
Those two have each competed in two World Championships. Neither Kaisheva nor Eliseev have ever competed in a senior World Championships. Eliseev has three World Cup top-tens in his career.
The cross-country team’s biggest stars will be its rising U23 athletes: Bolshunov, Chervotkin, Spitsov, Belorukova, Sedova, and Nepryaeva. All have their own collections of World Cup top-tens this season, including podiums by Belorukova and Bolshunov, and Sedova’s seventh-place finish in the multi-stage Tour de Ski.
Much older is Larkov, who also had a World Cup podium this season and was a member of Russia’s 2015 and 2017 World Championships teams, and 2010 Olympic sprint silver medalist Panzhinsky.
Russians Olga Zaitseva and Olga Vilukhina competing in the pursuit at 2013 World Championships. Both were disqualified from the 2014 Olympics by the International Olympic Committee, with a whistleblower stating that the biathlon team was doping in the years leading up to Sochi.
On Friday, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) posted the reasoned decision from its Disciplinary Commission, in which Russian biathlete Olga Zaitseva was disqualified from the 2014 Olympics in Sochi, Russia.
Zaitseva’s disqualification had been announced previously, but this is the first full-length decision presenting the evidence for the disqualification of any biathlete. Olga Vilukhina and Yana Romanova have also been suspended, but the Oswald Commission’s full decisions for their cases have not yet been released.
The reasoned decision not only contains details about Zaitseva, but also additional information which should put the whole biathlon world on notice.
“Dr. Rodchenkov further states that the entire Russian biathlon team, including the Athlete Zaytseva, has been using the Duchess Cocktail before the Olympic Winter Games Sochi 2014,” paragraph 359 of the decision reads. “He also provided an email sent April 2013, whereby he raised concerns about the high levels of haemoglobin for the biathlete team that was detected by his laboratory.”
The Duchess Cocktail refers to a combination of performance-enhancing drugs designed by Rodchenkov, the former director of the Moscow Anti-Doping Laboratory who assisted Russian teams in numerous sports to evade anti-doping rule violations before he became a whistleblower.
The Russian sports agency and the state security agency, FSB, developed a method to open anti-doping sample bottles. Using this method, they replaced the urine of athletes who had taken the Duchess Cocktail with previously-collected clean urine so that their doping would not be detected.
Thus, Rodchenkov is asserting that every Russian performance in the biathlon events at the 2014 Olympics was tainted by illegal performance-enhancing drugs.
This is notable because the men’s biathlon team, for instance, had not previously been implicated in doping scandal that has been raging for several years. Only the likely members of the women’s biathlon relay team – Vilukhina, Zaitseva, Romanova, and Irina Starykh (who was caught using the blood-doping drug EPO before the Olympics and suspended) – were on the “Duchess List,” a list of athletes presumed to have been given the drug cocktail. No male biathletes appeared.
However, it doesn’t seem surprising that they would, given that 14 cross-country skiers, virtually the entire Russian squad for Sochi, appeared on the list, as well as the female biathletes.
And that’s what Rodchenkov said, too.
“Dr. Rodchenkov… gives indications regarding the widespread use of Prohibited Subtances notably human growth hormones and EPO in the years preceding the Olympic Games,” another paragraph of the decision reads, referring to “members [of] the biathlon and cross-country skiing teams, for which the endurance is an absolutely critical elements.”
This raises the question of whether further action will be taken against more biathletes by the IOC, or by the International Biathlon Union (IBU).
The IBU has provisionally suspended the Russian Biathlon Union, but that actually has few consequences: Russia is still slated to host a World Cup weekend in March, Russian Victor Maygurov is still the First Vice President of the IBU, and all Russian athletes are still allowed to compete in the World Cup and the Olympics (Romanova, Vilukhina, and Zaitseva retired before they were suspended).
In the meantime, she has maintained her innocence. So has Wolfgang Pichler, the German coach who worked with the Russian women’s biathlon team in the four years leading up to the Sochi Olympics. For his troubles, he has been banned from attending the 2018 Olympics, where he would have coached the Swedish women’s team, which he now leads.
As the decision notes, Zaitseva and her legal team raised several objections to the case against her. She claimed that to suspend her was to pursue “collective justice” based on the widespread evidence of doping by Russia, rather than referring to any fault of her own. She also attacked Rodchenkov’s character, calling him an unreliable witness.
And finally, her team questioned the methods developed by Professor Champod at the University of Lausanne to detect whether anti-doping sample bottles had been tampered with.
That was wise, because the most damning evidence against Zaitseva comes from her sample bottles. Two of her sample bottles from Sochi had multiple marks on them consistent with tampering. In one of those bottles, the urine had such high amounts of salt that it is not possible that the concentration was produced by the human body. Together, these two pieces of evidence were used to argue that her samples had been tampered with.
According to logic used by the Disciplinary Commission in this and other cases, that tampering couldn’t have happened without Zaitseva’s knowledge. DNA testing showed that the urine in the samples was hers, which indicates that if the urine was replaced, it had to have been given by her at a different time. The Commission rejected the possibility that such a urine sample could have been collected without an athlete knowing its intended purpose.
But while two experts testifying on Zaitseva’s behalf criticized Champod’s methods as being incompletely described, they were unable to convincingly explain why their questions would absolve Zaitseva of blame.
“Neither Mr Alexei Bushin, nor Ms Evgeniya Burova did, in particular, offer any alternative explanations for the presence of marks consistent with the opening of the bottles with tools of the kind used by Prof. Champod,” the decision noted. “The IOC Disciplinary Commission finds this absence of alternative explanation even more significant in the case where one of the bottles not only bears marks strongly indicative of opening, but in addition contains urine with an abnormal salt content. Both elements support the conclusion that it was opened. The expertise of Prof. Champed convincingly demonstrates how this opening, which necessarily occurred, could be operated.”
This forensic evidence was used in the Commission’s decision that Zaitseva had violated the provision of the Anti-Doping Rules for the 2014 Winter Olympic Games which prohibits tampering with samples or with the integrity of the anti-doping process.
By doing so, they also found that she was complicit in a cover-up, thus breaking another provision of the Anti-Doping Rules.
In a strange aside, a urine sample belonging to Zaitseva but collected later, in October 2014, was analyzed in order to make a DNA comparison to the Sochi samples. What such a comparison actually revealed was that the October sample contained the urine of two different women mixed together, indicating that sample-swapping continued after the 2014 Olympics.
“This result does not concern the Olympic Games in Sochi and, as such does not fall within the scope of the application of the Rules,” the Commission wrote in its decision. “It however constitutes additional evidence that the Athlete was a protected elite athlete actively engaged in doping practices.”
The Commission also concluded that Zaitseva had used prohibited performance-enhancing drugs, on the basis of testimony from Rodchenkov.
“Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance can be established by any reliable means,” the Commission wrote. “This includes witness evidence.”
In an affidavit to the Disciplinary Commission hearing, Rodchenkov shared his own observations, many of which were based on detailed notes he had taken in a daily diary over the years. He also provided emails and documents related to Zaitseva and to the biathlon team.
“Dr Rodchenkov provides a list issued in October 2012 reflecting the clean urine bank existing at that time,” paragraph 358 reads. “The Athlete Zaytseva is mentioned on this list, with an indication that her urine was delivered to the Moscow Laboratory on 24 October 2012.”
“Dr Rodchenkov also recalled that in 2013 and early 2014 he had numerous conversations about the Athlete Zaytseva, as she was on a protected list,” another paragraph reads. “In autumn 2013, he took part to a discussion with the Athlete Zaytseva at the Ministry of Sports in Moscow. During this meeting the abnormal [Athlete Biological Passport’ data, due to her constant [performance-enhancing drugs] use, was discussed.”
And there was also evidence that Zaitseva was both doping, and also being tested more frequently than many other athletes, which is consistent with a previously-stated policy of the IBU to do “targeted testing” on athletes with suspicious biological passport profiles.
“Dr Rodchenkov specifically recalls swapping sessions of the Athlete’s numerous sample,” paragraph 361 reads. “Due to the intensity of the testing, Dr Rodchenkov underlines that they almost ran out of the Athlete’s clean urine. He remembers that the Athlete Zaytseva provided three plastic bottles of clean urine to freeze and store at the FSB and that additional urine had to be delivered.”
Zaitseva argued that Rodchenkov’s recollections and correspondence should not be used against her because of the illegal actions he had taken in the past. The Disciplinary Commission disagreed.
“Given the insistence of the Athlete’s attacks, the Disciplinary Commission will add the following,” the Commission wrote. “The Athlete refers to the past actions and behaviours of Dr Rodchenkov. In this respect, the Disciplinary Commission wants to be very clear in confirming that considering Dr Rodchenkov as a reliable witness is not in any way an approval of his past actions and his moral character. His actions, while being a director of the Moscow Laboratory, are despicable and inexcusable. This said, in a case of a conspirative scheme, the main evidence is often coming from participants, who accept to stand as witness.”
Russia’s Natalia Matveeva (l) winning a World Cup sprint in January, 2017. Matveeva was sanctioned for using EPO in 2009, but has returned to competition; a provision in an IOC decision would bar her from competing in the 2018 Olympics, but is almost guaranteed to be struck down by the Court of Arbitration for Sport. (Photo: Fischer/Nordic Focus)
Yesterday, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) decided that while Russian athletes who are “considered clean” may compete at the 2018 Games in PyeongChang, South Korea, they will do so in neutral uniforms and under the moniker “Olympic Athlete from Russia” rather than as the Russian Olympic Team. The Russian national anthem wouldn’t be played if they win, although the team may be reinstated for the closing ceremonies.
That is a big step for the international sporting community in their task of dealing with Russia’s manipulation of the anti-doping system at the 2014 Olympics.
But significant as it may be, the drama is far from over as several more decisions must be taken. Individual athletes disqualified from the Olympics by an IOC Disciplinary Panel are appealing their bans to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), sport’s supreme court. Several of the provisions in the IOC’s Tuesday decision are also certain to be appealed to CAS, among them the assertion that no Russian athlete with a previous doping ban can compete in the 2018 Games.
Decisions must also be taken by individual international sports federations, like the International Ski Federation (FIS) and the International Biathlon Union (IBU). Russia has broken enough statutes of these federations that they may be suspended, which could have its own effects on the competitive field at the World Cup, the Olympics, and lower levels of competition.
And finally, there allegedly hundreds to thousands of doping cases indicated in digital forensic evidence from the Russia investigation which have not been dealt with yet because they do not involve athletes from the 2014 Olympics.
Sport Federation Statutes and Suspensions
The Russians celebrate a silver medal in the men’s 4 x 10 k cross-country skiing relay at the 2014 Sochi Olympics. After the disqualification of Alexander Legkov and Maxim Vylegzhanin, the team has been ordered to return the medals.
The 2014 FIS Anti-Doping Rules, which went into effect on January 1, 2014 (before the Olympics started that February), state that the federation can take action against national ski teams, such as barring athletes from competition or assessing fines, if there is evidence of extensive doping within the team.
Article 12.3.1 of the rules state that such action may be taken when “Four or more violations of these Anti-Doping Rules… are committed by Athletes or other Persons affiliated with a National Ski Association within a 12-month period in testing conducted by FIS or Anti-Doping Organisations…”
At the moment, eight Russian cross-country skiers have been disqualified by the International Olympic Committee for doping violations at the 2014 Olympics: Alexander Legkov, Evgeny Belov, Alexei Petukhov, Maxim Vylegzhanin, Julia Ivanova, Evgenia Shapovalova, Anastasia Dotsenko, and Julia Tchekaleva.
“In such event FIS may in its discretion elect to: (a) withdraw some or all FIS membership rights, including participation in all FIS calendar competitions, voting rights at the FIS Congress, ban all officials from that National Ski Association for participation in any FIS activities for a period of up to two years and/or (b) cancellation of the organisation of future FIS events in the disciplines concerned and/or (c) withdraw some or all FIS funding to the National Ski Association…” the rules state.
A second provision states that if four more cases are found within a 12-month period after the first four or more cases, “FIS may suspend that National Ski Association’s membership for a period of up to 4 years.”
The rules also stipulate that if “More than one Athlete or other Person from a National Ski Association commits an Anti-Doping Rule violation during an International Event… FIS may fine that National Ski Association in an amount up to CHF 50’000.–.”
FIS has yet to officially consider any of these actions, but they will likely be brought up for discussion soon.
Russian anchor Anton Shipulin celebrates his team’s gold medal in the men’s relay over Germany’s Simon Schempp. So far, no male biathletes from Russia have been implicated in the doping scandal.
In a statement released by U.S. Ski and Snowboad, CEO Tiger Shaw said, “On behalf of our athletes, we have a fundamental obligation to fight for fairness in sport, to advocate for the health and welfare of athletes and to protect the image of our sport. Now we look to the International Ski Federation (FIS) to hold a FIS Council meeting to review the IOC’s decision and related evidence to consider its impact on the Russian Ski Association, its FIS committee members, officials and athletes.”
Meanwhile, the IBU will hold an Executive Board meeting this weekend, in which it may address violations of its own statutes.
The IBU did not implement rules similar to the FIS rules regarding suspending member federations or canceling events on the basis of repeated doping offenses until its 2014 Congress, which was held after the Sochi Olympics. But Russia may have violated other IBU statutes.
In the 2012 IBU Rules, it is stated that “The IBU may impose a fine either by requesting payment or by withholding financial support from a member federation if more than one athlete or more than one person from such member federation commits a violation of the IBU Anti-Doping Rules during a 12-month period.”
In the same edition of the rules, a provision states that “IBU member federations that are full members may be suspended by the Executive Board, for up to two years, until the next IBU Congress if they do not fulfill their obligations stated in Art. 2.3.2.”
Among the “Obligations of Full Members” described in that article is, “to comply with the IBU Constitution and Rules.” Two of the “Objectives” listed in the IBU Consitution are “to prevent doping in biathlon” and “to prevent all methods and practices that might jeopardize the integrity of biathlon competitions.”
All of the athletes banned by the IOC, additionally, may see sanctions from their relevant international federations. The skiers and biathletes are currently under provisional suspensions from FIS and the IBU, and doping hearing panels will (eventually) consider the evidence against them and decide whether to bring anti-doping rule violations. The time frame for that is unclear.
Likely CAS Rulings
There are already 22 appeals registered at CAS by athletes who were disqualified from the 2014 Olympics by the IOC’s Disciplinary Commission.
Alexander Legkov is one of 22 Russian athletes appealing their disqualifications to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. (Photo: Marcel Hilger)
Thus it is likely, but not guaranteed, that the retroactive disqualification from the 2014 Games will remain standing.
(Then there’s the question of getting the medals back: biathlete Yana Romanova said that “I’d rather throw my medal in the dumpster, than return it to the IOC,” referring to the silver medal she was given in the women’s relay and was ordered to return after her disqualification.)
Besides disqualifying the atheltes from the 2014 Games, the IOC Disciplinary Commission decisions also banned them from all future Olympics. There is no provision for lifetime suspensions on a first doping offense in the World Anti-Doping Code, so this could be a real fight at the CAS level.
Similarly, the IOC’s Tuesday decision included a ruling that no Russian athlete who had ever been suspended for an Anti-Doping Rule Violation could compete in the 2018 Olympics. That is very unlikely to stand, as the Court of Arbitration for Sport has ruled several times, in different specific circumstances, against past doping violations being used anew to bar athletes from competing in a new set of events.
Aside from the issue of double jeopardy, there would be an inherent unfairness to preventing Russian athletes who had completed doping suspensions from competing, while others who had served and completed similar suspensions were allowed to participate.
Athletes who may challenge this provision include cross-country skier Natalia Matveeva and biathlete Alexander Loginov, both of whom finished their suspensions for using EPO, and have since returned to competition.
In comparison, Martin Johnsrud Sundby of Norway and Justyna Kowalczyk of Poland have both served doping suspensions and will almost certainly be on the start line.
Outstanding Cases
Finally, there are many more cases that have not yet been handled.
The IOC has so far only suspended athletes involved in a doping cover-up scheme at the 2014 Olympics. But in the course of the investigation of that scheme, evidence came to light of many, many more cases outside of the Games.
Russia walks into the opening ceremonies at the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver, Canada. (Photo: s.yume/Wikimedia Commons)
In Lausanne, Switzerland, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) Executive Board voted to allow Russian athletes at the 2018 Olympics in PyeongChang, South Korea, but only to compete as neutral athletes. That means no national anthem, no Russia-emblazoned uniforms, and no Russian flags to be raised should the athletes win medals. Instead, the Olympic anthem would be played.
The decision, available in full here, follows years of investigation into a state-organized doping program at the 2014 Olympics in Sochi, Russia, where Russia broke numerous international anti-doping statutes.
As evidence towards its decision, the IOC Executive Board relied on two reports compiled by IOC commissions. The results from one of the investigations, the Oswald Commission, have already been used to disqualify 25 athletes from the 2014 Olympics and all future Olympic Games. That included eight Russian cross-country skiers (Alexander Legkov, Evgeny Belov, Alexey Petukhov, Maxim Vylegzhanin, Julia Ivanova, Evgenia Shapovalova, Anastasia Dotsenko, and Julia Tchekaleva) and three biathletes (Olga Vilukhina, Yana Romanova, and Olga Zaitseva); all of the biathletes had already retired, but many of the skiers were hoping to compete in PyeongChang.
The report of the Schmid Commission, which was delivered to Executive Board members at 1:30 p.m. today, investigated not individual athletes but the systematic nature of the doping program. Board members had only a short “reading period” to get familiar with the contents of the report, and the Russian delegation at the meetings to argue for their continued participation allegedly were only given 20 minutes to look at the report before making their presentation.
Other Recent Developments
Norwegian broadcaster NRK reported that the current president of the Russian Biathlon Union, Aleksandr Kravtsov, was personally involved in the doping scandal. At the 2014 Olympics, Kravtsov was the diplomatic head of the Russian team. “From time to time I talked with Aleksandr Kravtsov about the use of performance-enhancing drugs in general, and about the Sochi plan in particular,” whistleblower Grigory Rodchenkov told NRK.
Rodchenkov told the New York Times that he thought being forced to compete under a neutral flag was a fair solution to the scandal. “Innocent athletes should not be prevented from participating,” he said.
In the same piece, Rodchenkov said that the deputy sports minister Yuri Nagornykh “asked him to ‘make the sample dirty’ to disqualify [Ukrainian biathlete Vita] Semerenko. Dr. Rodchenkov did not comply, he said, convincing the minister that a retest of the drug sample would show the drugs had been spiked into the sample rather than passed through a human body.”
“The conclusions of the Schmid Report, on both factual and legal aspects, confirmed ‘the systemic manipulation of the anti-doping rules and system in Russia, through the Disappearing Positive Methodology and during the Olympic Winter Games Sochi 2014, as well as the various levels of administrative, legal and contractual responsibility, resulting from the failure to respect the respective obligations of the various entities involved’,” the decision noted.
The IOC is suspending the Russian Olympic Committee immediately, as well as its president, Alexander Zhukov, from his IOC Member status.
Also included in the sanctions is a fine of $15 million – which will go towards the IOC’s pet project the Independent Testing Authority, an anti-doping agency – as well as the payment for the costs of the IOC’s investigations into the scandal.
But the punishment of the most interest is undoubtedly that which directly, rather than indirectly, affects athletes and their participation in the upcoming Olympics in February.
A country has never been disqualified from the Olympics for doping before, although countries have been suspended for other reasons. In those cases as well, their athletes have been able to compete under the Olympic flag.
Previously, the participation of Russian athletes at the 2016 Summer Olympics had been handled by individual sports federations. The International Weightlifting Federation completely banned Russia from those Games, while the track and field federation allowed a select few athletes to compete under a neutral flag. In other sports, some athletes were ruled out but others were allowed to compete as Russians.
This is notably different, as it applies across all sports. The deal is believed to have been agreed upon before today’s meetings, as such a short time was given for the Board to read the Schmid report’s findings and Inside The Games reported that the IOC had already contacted Nike to produce “neutral” uniforms for the Russian athletes.
There had been discussion of whether Russia would boycott the Olympics under these conditions. A Kremlin spokesman said yesterday that a boycott was not being discussed, but there is popular support for a boycott through the “No Russia No Games” social media campaign.
Meanwhile, a number of additional measures will determine just who can constitute this neutral Russian team. One provision is that no coach or doctor whose athlete has ever had an anti-doping rule violation can be part of the delegation. It is unclear whether this includes the Russian athletes banned by the IOC Disciplinary Commission as part of the Sochi investigation so far. But it would seem to include biathlon coach Vladimir Korolkevich, who was named to train Russia’s women’s biathlon team this season and who coached Ekaterina Iourieva and Irina Starykh, both of whom were caught for doping violations just before the 2014 Olympics.
It also would include Aleksandr Kravtsov, currently the head of the Russian Biathlon Union (see sidebar).
However, these decisions, along with the eligibility of individual athletes, will be determined by a panel chaired by the head of the Independent Testing Authority. This panel will consider athletes’ backgrounds of anti-doping tests before allowing them to participate. Russian athletes will undergo targeted anti-doping testing before the Games.
There is also a provision stating that “Athletes must not have been disqualified or declared ineligible for any Anti-Doping Rule Violation.” That would appear to rule out, among others, cross-country skier Natalia Matveeva, who was banned for using EPO in 2009, and Alexander Loginov and Irina Starykh, Russian biathletes formerly banned for using EPO. However, it is not completely clear whether this provision was intended to exclude any athlete who has ever served a doping suspension, or only those currently serving suspensions.
Of note is that the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) remains not accredited by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), so the targeted testing of athletes who will compete in PyeongChang will be coordinated by other testing agencies.
In the press release of the IOC decision, President Thomas Bach said, “As an athlete myself, I feel very sorry for all the clean athletes from all NOCs who are suffering from this manipulation. Working with the IOC Athletes’ Commission, we will now look for opportunities to make up for the moments they have missed on the finish line or on the podium.”
Just yesterday, FasterSkier published an interview with Italian biathlete Karin Oberhofer, who won bronze in the sprint in 2014 but was not recognized for her performance at the time, until Russia’s Olga Vilukhina was recently disqualified for participating in the doping scheme. Oberhofer said that she was unsure whether there would be any official ceremony when she finally receives her medal.
Italy placed second in the mixed relay at the IBU World Cup in Canmore, Alberta, in 2016. Karin Oberhofer (second from l) is the 2014 Olympic bronze medalist in the sprint after the disqualification of Russia’s Olga Vilukhina for doping. (Photo: Daniel S. Guay)
And not only Italy – but specifically, Karin Oberhofer.
The then-28-year-old was part of the mixed relay team which won bronze, along with Lukas Hofer, Dominik Windisch, and Dorothea Wierer. Oberhofer will now receive her bronze medal in the sprint as well, where she finished 27.9 seconds behind gold medalist Anastasia Kuzmina of Slovakia with ten-for-ten shooting. Before 2014, she had never stood on an individual podium at the top level of competition.
“I would be very happy to belatedly receive the Olympic bronze medal,” Oberhofer – who was officially fourth at race time, while now-disqualified Vilukhina was officially second – wrote in an email. Her comments were made in German and translated into English.
Vilukhina, meanwhile, has said that she refuses to give back silver medals from the relay and the sprint.
“I won’t just give up the medals,” she told sports.ru, according to a translation. “I’m a two-time Olympic medalist.”
The International Olympic Committee, however, has ordered that her medals be returned, and notified the Italian Olympic Committee that Oberhofer will be getting bronze.
“Of course everything has a bitter aftertaste, but I would say: ‘better late than never’,” Oberhofer wrote. “It would be wonderful for me if my performance on that day would now be crowned with the bronze. It would also mean to me that justice has finally won.”
Since the Olympics, Oberhofer also won two bronze medals at 2015 World Championships, in the mass start and the women’s relay. The same season, she was second in a World Cup sprint.
Then, Oberhofer took a break last season to prepare her first child, Paul, who was born in August. She has continued training but has not raced yet this season.
“I am very happy with my little family and about my new challenge,” Oberhofer wrote. “Every day with my little son is unique and indescribably beautiful. It’s not always easy, but my family helps me a lot and I love doing sports. I do it because I like to do it, and little Paul allows me to do it and is very well-behaved. At the moment I am at home and prepare myself individually for the competitions. I have to qualify again for the international competitions first.”
Oberhofer has known for nearly a year that her Olympic sprint was likely medal-worthy. When the McLaren report released its evidence packet, the names of four Russian biathletes, including Vilukhina, were not redacted in one of the documents.
“11 months ago there were already these rumors, and several members of the media contacted me about that,” Oberhofer wrote. “[Recently] I was contacted by Giovanni Malagó, President of the Italian National Olympic Committee, who informed me that Vilukhina had been banned and removed from the list of results.”
Oberhofer isn’t sure whether there will be some medal ceremony arranged for the one she missed out on in Sochi.
“Honestly, I don’t really know what to say about that,” she wrote. “It would be a big surprise for me if it took place in public. But that’s not so important. The most beautiful thing for me would be to get the medal at all. But what I do know is that I would belatedly celebrate this medal with my family and friends in a small ceremony.”
Biathletes Veronika Vítková, Jitka Landová, Gabriela Koukalová, and Eva Puskarčíková after a 2015 relay in Oslo, Norway. The Czech women learned that they would receive an Olympic bronze medal after the Russian team has been disqualified for doping. (Photo: Fischer/NordicFocus)
(Editor’s note: This article contains explicit language.)
The U.S. women finished seventh in the Sochi relay, and some athletes spoke out about how much it would have meant to be sixth not three years later, but the day they competed.
“It only took us 4 years, but now our historic 7th place is actually 6th…tying the best ever Olympic relay result for US Biathlon – men or women!” team member Sara Studebaker wrote on Facebook. “It’s unfortunate it took 4 years for this to happen. Because we were 7th instead of 6th, some teammates missed out on being pre-qualified for events and getting monetary support… Doping affects all athletes at some level. There is no excuse.”
“The ripple effect from athletes doping feels even more personal now,” she wrote. “It’s wild to think about what would have been different for us with a 6th place relay at the Olympics instead of 7th. Thanks Russia for the flower ceremony at the Olympics that we didn’t get to have, A-team status and funding for 2015, and pre-qualification for the World Cup.”
Canada finished eighth in the relay and will now move up to seventh.
Vilukhina earned a silver medal in the 7.5-kilometer sprint; that means that Vita Semerenko of Ukraine will be upgraded from bronze to silver, and Karin Oberhofer of Italy will earn bronze, the first individual Olympic medal of her career.
Then there is the relay, where both Vilukhina and Romanova represented Russia. They took silver with teammates Olga Zaitseva and Ekaterina Shumilova. The Norwegian team will now move from bronze to silver, and the Czech team will now earn bronze.
Gabriela Koukalová posted on her Facebook page about how frustrated she was with the scandal. A translated version reads,
“I know that you all know… I mean about our Olympic medal from Sochi for the women’s relay, which we are going to receive with almost four years of delay. On one side it’s great that justice was achieved, but on the other side I am truly sorry for Eva Puskarčíková and mostly for my lifelong friend Jitka Landová, who had to end her biathlon career due to medical reasons. She spent almost her entire career with hard work and without any memories of success. I am not sure about you, but I want to turn doping into a crime and not allow Russian Federation to start at the Winter Olympics, like it already happened at the Summer Games! I also would like to stress one more goal, and that is more important than victories. Their names are HONESTY AND FAIRNESS, not only in sport but overall in the life! Too bad that they [Russians] hadn’t figured that one yet! And now I would like to move on from this topic…”
Meanwhile, Landová isn’t sure that a medal would have changed the trajectory of her career, saying that she doesn’t look back. But she does wish she’d had the medal earlier, she said in a Czech radio interview.
“Last night I received a message from Eva Puskarčíková that we really had the Sochi medal,” Landová said, according to a translation. “I looked at it first with disbelief, because as long as I have no tangible evidence, I just don’t believe it. From the very beginning, we knew the Russians were not clean.”
“I do not know whether to be glad or cry,” Puskarčíková told the same radio broadcaster.
The pushback against the women on social media has been swift and severe.
The number of comments below Koukalová’s Facebook post calling her stupid and a disgrace are too many to count, as are those telling her to stick to sport and “worry about your performance,” a comment that sometimes had a foreboding connotation. Other comments call her a “b*tch” or a “f*cking b*tch.” Still others compare her to Nazis or fascists.
Then there are the threats.
“Russia will be wait you on World Cup in Tyumen 2017… you want to get negative before the Olympic Games? ok, you will get it!,” wrote one poster, following this with an emoji of a punching fist.
“you have found enemies in the face of 300 million people… be careful,” one commenter wrote.
“Can be you sure that your test-tube Ok or someone scratch it and you will be deprived of all medals,” another threatened.
Instagram was, if anything, worse – even though that’s not the platform where the athletes had made any of their comments.
On the account “jitka_official_landova”, which it is not clear is actually maintained by Landová, received hate on nearly all of the posts, even though the last post was only from 2015 and the account has no recent activity. Under a picture of Landová posted in February, 2015, one comment reads, “prostitutky,” which translates from to “prostitutes”.
There are several Instagram pages attributed to Koukalová, some of which are clearly fan pages and two which are verified by Instagram (calling into question the efficacy of the verification system, but that’s another story.) It’s unclear if either of the two verified accounts are operated by Koukalová; there is no link to Instagram from her website.
But regardless of whether comments left there are actually reaching her, a lot are being posted regardless. Many are filled with emojis of livestock like pigs and sheep, and feces. The pigs and excrement were often accompanied by a lipstick emoji; Koukalová has a contract to appear in makeup ads.
On a page seeming to really belong to Koukalová, she was repeatedly called “scum.”
“you’re a lying b*tch!” one commenter wrote in English. “You are fascist,” wrote another. “You are one disgraceful sh*tty slut,” another commenter added.
Then there were those written in Russian, which translated to, if anything, worse comments:
“Go in a hole and don’t come back”
“prostitute”
“burn in hell”
“F*ck you, f*cking b*tch, no one will remember you and the medal”
“You b*tch”
“you don’t take medals, you only take it in the mouth”
“piece of sh*t”
“The end”
After one Russian fan writes a supportive message, another replies, “burn at the stake with her, sheep.”
Comments also riddled posts on an account which appeared to be maintained by fans.
“Such animals must be hung!” one comment translated from Russian read. Some others:
“Better not come to Tyumen!”
“Whore”
“Her brains are only enough to paint her face”
“Wash it, it’s a man”
“Lose weight, you’re so fat”
Many mention the phrase “life is a boomerang”. “Remember everything comes back, it’s the rule of life and your joy for getting not yours medal will turn into tears soon,” one comment written in English says.
Koukalová is not competing in the opening World Cup weekend in Östersund, Sweden, as she is still recovering from a calf injury. Many comments stated that they hoped she would never return to competition, or if she did, that she would lose every race. See this link for a good example. Take a look.
In the 15 k individual today, the first individual race of the World Cup season, Puskarčíková finished seventh with perfect 20-for-20 shooting; Vítková finished 12th with two penalties.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport decided that there was a “reasonable possibility” that Alexander Legkov had doped at the 2014 Olympics. Here, he pumped his fist after Russia claimed silver in the 4 x 10 k relay, their nation’s first medal in cross-country at the Sochi Olympics.
Nearly two weeks ago now, the lawyer for Russian cross-country skier Alexander Legkov published the decision a panel at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) had come to after a hearing in May.
Legkov has been suspended by the International Ski Federation (FIS) since December, 2016, because of his presence in the McLaren Report, an investigation commissioned by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to assess potential state-sponsored doping by Russia at the 2014 Olympics in Sochi. Legkov won a gold medal in the 50-kilometer freestyle in Sochi, and is mentioned in multiple places in the McLaren Report’s evidence packet.
As we summarized last week, CAS agreed that it was justified for FIS to provisionally suspend Legkov pending further investigations into whether he committed a Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV).
However, CAS decided that this provisional suspension could not be infinite and gave it an Oct. 31, 2017, deadline. After that point, FIS must either bring a full ADRV case against Legkov, or drop the provisional suspension until they have new information.
Besides the new deadline, there were a number of interesting details in the 51-page decision from CAS.
Before diving into them, the background: the IOC and FIS are considering a specific ADRV for Legkov: “tampering or attempted tampering with any part of the Doping Control”, outlined in the IOC Anti-Doping Rules for Sochi.
That’s because one of Legkov’s urine sample bottles showed suspicious marks when examined by a forensic expert in the McLaren Report. The conclusion was that the bottle must have been opened after the sample had already been collected, presumably in order to swap out a “dirty” urine sample for a “clean” one. This was the scheme outlined by the McLaren Report as well as news outlets such as The New York Times, whereby the Russians systematically cheated the anti-doping system.
Thus, the case hinges not on one doping sample: a urine sample collected on Feb. 23, 2014, the day Legkov won the 50 k.
Provisional Suspensions Don’t Have the Same Standard as Final Decisions
Alexander Legkov (3) beat out fellow Russians Maxim Vylegzhanin (not shown) and Ilya Chernousov (r) for gold in the Sochi Olympics 50 k freestyle mass start — the last race of the 2014 Games. The sample bottle for Legkov’s anti-doping urine sample collected the same day showed signs of tampering.
The suspension that Legkov was appealing was a provisional suspension, not a final one. FIS is still considering whether and how to bring a doping violation case against him, at which point there will be a different set of hearings and, if he’s found guilty, the implementation of a ban. (The long delay is because FIS is waiting on evidence from another IOC panel in order to bring their case.) In that case, the standard suspension for a first-time doping offense is four years; as of today, Legkov has been provisionally suspended for nearly 10 months.
FIS outlined in their pleadings why it is important to keep suspected dopers out of competition while their cases are investigated:
“Maintaining the suspension mitigates the ‘serious further risk’ of requiring retroactive disqualification of the Athlete (should he be found guilty of an ADRV),” the CAS Panel wrote in summarizing FIS’s position. “The potential need to revisit rankings, re-distribute medals, or otherwise modify competition results would ‘diminish the value’ of competition for participants, sponsors, and the viewing public.”
CAS did not have a problem with this system, writing that “the provisional suspension occupies a space in which an ADRV is asserted, but not yet proven.” This is important, as it is likely to be used more and more frequently as the types of doping cases being tried gets more diverse.
When there is a positive drug test, things often move forward fairly quickly. A mandatory provisional suspension is automatically triggered with a positive “A” sample (once it is established that the athlete does not have a Therapeutic Use Exemption for the substance), and there’s not much debate as to whether this is justified or not. From there it is on to analyzing the “B” sample and having hearings.
But in non-traditional cases, which are becoming more and more common, provisional suspensions might play a bigger role – and putting them into place will have more gray areas. This includes cases like autologous blood doping, where athletes extract some of their blood, save it for later, and then re-infuse is to get a boost of red blood cells and oxygen-carrying capacity. There are (at the moment) few good chemical markers of this type of blood doping and all evidence must be observed directly.
Other cases, too, sometimes rely on direct observation of doping, police finding doping materials, or paper or electronic files indicating wrongdoing, even in the absence of a positive doping test. The four-year ban of Austrian cross-country skier Harald Wurm is one example.
Because provisional suspensions are intended to keep athletes out of competition while their cases are being fully investigated, the standard of proof required to implement and maintain a provisional suspension is less stringent than it is for an actual doping violation. By definition, evidence is still being gathered.
In American civil law, the approximate analogy is to the situation in which someone seeks a temporary restraining order to protect themselves from a partner whom they fear will cause them domestic violence. The standard of proof that must be met to receive such an order is one of the lowest standards used in American law, because it is important to act quickly in this situation and because a longer follow-up hearing will be held soon after at which more evidence can be developed.
Thus, merely having doubts about the evidence is not enough to overturn such a suspension: “In this appeal, a provisional decision is overturned if it has ‘no reasonable prospect of being upheld,’” the Panel wrote.
So: a provisional suspension can be put in place if there is a “reasonable possibility” of a doping violation existing, and can only be overturned if there is “no reasonable prospect” of a doping violation being proven.
In CAS’s view, FIS was justified in putting the provisional suspension into place last December. And secondly, CAS did not think that Legkov had proved that there was ‘no reasonable prospect’ of further developing their case, so the provisional suspension was upheld, albeit with a deadline.
CAS Generally Trusts McLaren and Rodchenkov, With Caveats
Legkov and his legal team argued that the McLaren Report was riddled with errors and that it was never meant to establish the guilt of specific athletes anyway, only to investigate the mechanism of systematic doping. As such, he argued, the report shouldn’t be weighed too heavily in proceedings.
Richard McLaren speaking at a news conference in Toronto regarding his WADA-commissioned report on state-sponsored doping in Russia.
Likewise, the team painted Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov, the biggest whistleblower in the Russian doping scandal and a major source for McLaren’s report, as an unreliable source.
Quite separately from Legkov, the Russian government has also been seeking to discredit Rodchenkov. Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev called him “scum”, his assets were seized, and there’s currently a warrant out for his arrest.
While agreeing that the evidence in the McLaren Report was not enough to prove a doping violation, CAS signaled that in general it trusted the evidence and that it certainly shouldn’t be ignored completely.
“It would however follow from the report’s findings as to the corruption of an entire system, devised to favor selected athletes, that some individual athletes must have benefited,” CAS wrote of the argument that the McLaren Report was not intended to identify individual athletes for disciplinary measures. “It could not sensibly be concluded that whereas the system was corrupt in the manner identified nonetheless no athlete drew advantage.”
The one exception: emails that Rodchenkov shared with McLaren. The emails are fascinating, but CAS wrote that they were “without context” and therefore very difficult to rely on as indicators of anything in particular.
On Rodchenkov, too, CAS indicated that they value the testimony of whistleblowers, even and especially if those individuals have broken the rules in the past.
“Although the Appellant has strongly challenged the credibility of Dr. Rodchenkov, the Panel observes first of all that the testimony of persons guilty of wrongdoing themselves can be decisive in establishing the guilt of others, and that the extent of their own culpability may even add to their value, since it is likely to be the result of their extensive involvement, at high levels, in the unlawfulness being examined,” the decision said.
Relatedly, CAS recently used evidence from the McLaren Report to uphold the ban of a Russian triple jumper. According to documents in the evidence packet, she had participated in a “washout” scheme where she took performance-enhancing drugs at home in Russia, where positive tests were suppressed, and then traveled to international competitions once the drugs were undetectable.
McLaren Didn’t Show
All parties probably would have loved to ask Professor Richard McLaren, who assembled the McLaren Report, some questions. But they couldn’t. The Canadian was invited to the hearing but declined – CAS wrote that he “chose not to make himself available.”
“From its perspective, the Panel regrets Professor McLaren’s absence and unavailability for questioning,” they wrote. “In any event, neither the Appellant nor the Panel has been able to pose questions to the person under whose supervision and control the evidence that fundamentally informs the suspension under appeal was gathered and organized.”
McLaren did give FIS a sworn statement, but it was after the deadline had passed for the two legal teams to exchange evidence. So it was not permitted to be used in the proceedings.
McLaren’s absence would have had stronger implications than simply the panel’s disappointment were this an American criminal case. The United States Supreme Court has interpreted the Confrontation Clause of the U.S. Constitution as requiring that a criminal defendant be able to cross-examine (that is, to “confront”) a witness against him, and specifically that prior out-of-court statements by a now-unavailable witness may not be used against hi at tria. McLaren’s physical absence from this hearing, in a case based almost exclusively on evidence he had previously gathered (but that the parties had not previously had a chance to ask him about), would have sufficed to overturn a conviction obtained on this basis under American criminal law.
‘I Live in Europe’ Is Not Enough
One of Legkov’s main refrains through this whole ordeal has been that he was training outside of Russia for the time leading up to the 2014 Olympics, and so could not have participated in a state-sponsored doping program.
Legkov and Swiss physiotherapist Isabelle Knaute at the finish of the 35 k stage of the Tour de Ski in 2012.
“To the extent that any opportunity might have existed to tamper, moreover, the Appellant considers it precluded by virtue of his geographical isolation from Russia,” the CAS Panel wrote in its summary of Legkov’s arguments. “The Appellant’s trainings have taken place outside of Russia since 2011, under the supervision of non-Russian coaches and personnel. Similarly, the Appellant has ‘used exclusively medical services in Davos,’ Switzerland (stemming from an apparent disappointment with Russian doctors following a bout of exercise-induced asthma in 2008).”
But at some other point in the hearings, Legkov seems to have made the argument that Russian officials could have taken urine provided during medical tests he occasionally had to undergo in Moscow, and swapped it out from his Sochi sample without his knowledge or consent. Legkov’s Instagram does show him spending at least some time in Russia at a few points in the last few years – as would be expected. It’s his home country.
Furthermore, with the Olympics being in Russia, Legkov was by nature back in Russia before the Games. This was the time period the CAS panel seized on in agreeing that yes, there was a “reasonable possibility” that he could have committed a doping violation.
“While Mr. Legkov’s geographical distance might complicate day-to-day participation in the ‘chain of distribution’ of performance-enhancing drugs prior to Sochi, it does little to quell the reasonable suspicion arising from his appearance on lists relating specifically to the Olympics.”
This is interesting because the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), the international governing body for track and field, suspended the Russian track federation after the first part of the McLaren Report came out. As a result, Russian athletes could not compete in international events. But the IAAF made exceptions for athletes who lived and trained outside of Russia and were assumed to be tested routinely by non-Russian doping agencies.
The difference may be that in that case, the IAAF was assessing athletes’ current status and trying to protect current competitions. They knew which athletes to track; further testing can be ordered, to the extent that the federation trusts an athlete is clean at, say, World Championships.
In this case, FIS is trying to adjudicate a case from years past, rather than prevent doping in the future.
‘I Passed Many Tests’ Is Not Enough, Especially Since the McLaren Report Says Tests Were Suppressed
Like many other doped and non-doped athletes before him, Legkov argued that he had passed so many doping tests that his reputation should help absolve him from suspicion.
Photos of a sample bottle from the McLaren Report’s evidence packet.
CAS didn’t buy this argument, and indicated that Russian athletes may in fact have a much harder time using it in the future. The McLaren Report indicated that one of Russia’s strategies to get their doped athletes to competition was to simply alter test results in ADAMS, the international anti-doping results management database, from “positive” to “clean”.
As such, the database can’t be relied upon.
“The Panel considers it difficult to draw a conclusion from an athlete’s appearance or absence in ADAMS, given Professor McLaren’s indication that the Moscow Laboratory routinely manipulated and concealed test results,” the Panel wrote.
Legkov was tested at least once by Russian authorities between Jan. 1, 2014, and when he arrived in Sochi for the Olympics.
“The Appellant provided at least thirteen samples between 1 January 2014 and 5 February 2014, the date of his arrival in Sochi; at least twelve of these tested clean by laboratories outside of Russia and ‘without any chance’ to be manipulated,” CAS wrote in their summary of Legkov’s legal team’s arguments.
In an email to FasterSkier, Legkov’s lawyer Christof Wieschemann wrote that the one remaining test was collected by the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) in Switzerland, and analyzed in Moscow. However, the very next day FIS collected “a sample for blood, blood passport and urine, [and] analyzed in Cologne [Germany].”
(Note: a previous version of this story assumed that the RUSADA test had taken place in Russia. According to Wieschemann, that is incorrect.)
‘I Passed a Test Two Days Before’ Is Not Enough
Legkov provided three urine samples and one blood sample at the 2014 Olympics; only the last urine sample showed signs of tampering. He argued that since the other samples were clean, he could not have doped at the Olympics.
“During the Olympic Games themselves, the Appellant adds, three urine samples were submitted, including one sample on 21 February 2014, i.e., a mere two days before the urine sample which according to the IOC exhibited signs of tampering and which triggered the provisional suspension,” CAS wrote of Legkov’s argument. “The Appellant accordingly considers it ‘evident that he did not use the cocktail prior to or within the Olympic Games.’”
CAS found this, well, ridiculous, especially given that the “Duchess Cocktail” – the mixture of illicit drugs alleged to be given to top Russian athletes whose “dirty” urine samples were later swapped out for “clean” ones – quickly disappears from the body, becoming undetectable.
The silver-medal Russian men’s relay team at the 2014 Olympics.
“Intermittent consumption aimed at exploiting the cocktail’s short wash-out periods is entirely possible and, potentially in the Appellant’s case, desirable (given strict controls he faced in Europe prior to his arrival in Sochi),” CAS wrote.
“It is hardly unusual for doped athletes to start and stop the consumption of performance-boosting substances abruptly, evading detection,” the panel continued. “Sufficient time (nine days) lapsed between the first and latter two samples for traces of the Duchess cocktail to dissipate; similarly, to the extent that the Appellant may have waited until shortly before his Gold medal-winning event to begin taking the cocktail, the two-day period separating his second (clean) and third (suspected) urine samples does not lift the cloud of suspicion established by this inclusion in the Duchess List and related documents.”
What Was FIS Doing About the Other 40 Cases?
In its arguments, FIS repeatedly held up the McLaren Report as a reliable source of evidence.
Furthermore, the arguments indicated that FIS had been paying attention since the day the report dropped, Dec. 9, 2016.
“The IOC’s notification letter dated 22 December 2016 laid out compelling evidence [about Legkov] that had been known to the Federation since at least 9 December 2016,” the CAS panel wrote in summarizing FIS’s position. “The unprecedented scale of Professor McLaren’s allegations in combination with athlete-specific data in the EDP, FIS insists, required an immediate and resolute response.”
While FIS may have made a relatively fast response with regard to Legkov and five others, it appears to have not taken public action in other cases. From FasterSkier’s assessment of the Evidentiary Disclosure Package (EDP), there were 46 skiers who were mentioned in the McLaren Report. This represented 99 anti-doping samples. FasterSkier summarized all of them in a database and wrote about the cases.
To public knowledge, however, FIS only issued provisional suspensions to six athletes: Legkov, Maxim Vylegzhanin, Evgeny Belov, Alexei Petukhov, Julia Ivanova, and Evgenia Shapovalova.
These were the six who seemed to be under investigation by the IOC for doping in Sochi. To public knowledge, FIS has not issued any formal sanctions or charges based on any of the other, non-Olympic, evidence in the McLaren Report.
FIS did, however, allow Legkov to keep training with the Russian National Team as of Jan. 18, 2017, “an accomodation intended to allow him to maintain his competitiveness pending the resolution of his case.”
Competing in Sport Is Not a Fundamental Right or Liberty
Legkov made the argument that his right to a fair trial was being infringed upon, because he was being suspended without any charge. His legal team called on Swiss law to overturn the FIS suspension; in the CAS summary, they wrote that Legkov alleged “the provisional suspension’s incompatibility with Swiss fundamental rights.”
CAS was not sympathetic, noting that the components of due process under Swiss law – “the Appellant’s right to understand, confront, and refute the evidence against him” – were being followed by the very fact that the hearing was taking place.
“The question under Swiss law, moreover, is not whether the Appellant enjoys certain protections but rather to which degree they find expression vis-à-vis competing notions of associational autonomy,” the Panel wrote. “An athlete subject to sanctions proceedings internal to an association does not ‘require protection in the same measure as, for example, the accused in a criminal proceeding’… CAS sanctions result in a period of ineligibility to compete and forfeiture of prizes, not deprivation of liberty.”
Anti-Doping Rules Are Hard to Write
In determining the “reasonable possibility” standard for proof of a doping violation with regard to provisional suspensions, the CAS Panel waded through several provisions in the FIS Anti-Doping Rules.
They found unclear the order in which provisions were supposed to be considered, and found that some provisions might even be inconsistent with others. While the Panel eventually decided that there was a clear way around this problem, they were not complimentary of the FIS rules.
“Though both options [for interpreting the FIS Rules] have merit, ambiguous drafting frustrates attempts at a definitive interpretation of the FIS Rules’ intended order of precedence,” the Panel wrote at one point.
“A literal focus on the word ‘assertion’ may therefore prove elusive,” they wrote at another. “The drafters’ intent finds no expression in a uniform, literal construction of Articles 7.7 and 7.9.”
It is the second time in just over a year that FIS has been rebuked over clarity of rules, although the first was not fully the fault of the federation.
The case of Norwegian skier Martin Johnsrud Sundby hinged on how to interpret rules about how much salbutamol, an asthma medication, can be inhaled in a certain period of time – and whether a nebulizer counts as an inhaler.
The rule in question was the WADA Code – written by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), not FIS – but in this case, FIS was applying the rule and thus was party to the proceedings.
“The Panel considers that the Athlete genuinely misunderstood the meaning of the β2A Provision, and also itself considers that the β2A Provision could have been drafted more clearly in certain respects (an issue the Panel will return to when discussing the appropriate sanction),” CAS wrote in that decision.
The notion of an adjudicative body critiquing a legislative body for unclear statutory construction is not unusual. The solution is, ideally, for the relevant legislative body to clarify the relevant text in a future session. In the case of asthma medication, the 2018 WADA Prohibited List updated its text on β2-agonists.
It remains to be seen whether FIS (or WADA, the IOC, or other sporting federations which use the same or similar language in their rules) will respond to this portion of CAS’s Legkov decision in the same manner.
Alexander Legkov (c) beat out fellow Russians Maxim Vylegzhanin (not shown) and Ilya Chernousov (r) for gold in the Sochi Olympics 50 k freestyle mass start — the last race of the 2014 Games. Vylegzhanin took silver by 0.7 seconds, just a tenth of a second ahead of Chernousov in third, and Norway’s Martin Johnsrud Sundby (l) missed a medal by 0.2 seconds in fourth. Legkov will soon know whether he is clear to compete this 2017/2018 World Cup season.
That date is drawing near, and although there has been no external sign of progress, action might come soon.
At an International Olympic Committee (IOC) meeting in Lima, Peru, last month, Denis Oswald, the Swiss lawyer heading that organizations Disciplinary Commission, told Reuters that the IOC may begin adjudicating the first cases under investigation from the 2014 Olympics in October.
Christof Wieschemann, the German lawyer hired by Sochi gold medalist Alexander Legkov, believes he will hear about his client’s case soon.
“We expect that our case will be the first one which will be brought to Oswald commission hearing,” he wrote in an email to FasterSkier on Friday. “[We] hope it will be clarified until 31 October. But even if not, the athletes are free.”
On the opposite side, FIS Secretary General Sarah Lewis wrote in an email that FIS is awaiting any information from the IOC commission and will act as soon as possible once it receives a directive.
“FIS will not undertake any actions before the findings of the IOC Disciplinary Commission are communicated, which are scheduled to follow in October,” Lewis wrote. “Thereafter FIS will act with any aspects that come within its competence. There is regular communication and coordination between the respective legal experts… We would not be able to enlighten you any further on more precise timings of the IOC Disciplinary Commission and you will have to address this question with the IOC.”
This underscores some awkward dynamics about the case. Because the alleged doping took place at the Olympics, the IOC has jurisdiction to address the cases.
Thus, FIS is waiting for the IOC. But the IOC is operating slowly and very much on a different timeline. Many observers have noted that the IOC is only motivated to adjudicate the cases before the start of the 2018 Olympics in PyeongChang, South Korea, in February.
Athletes, obviously, would like the case resolved much more quickly – ideally, long ago. Legkov and the other five skiers have already been suspended for nine months.
Meanwhile, FIS is now facing a deadline mandated by CAS, but is not directly in charge of the investigation themselves.
“The CAS panel left no doubt that the time limit to complete the investigations and to provide the result is not expandable,” Wieschemann wrote. “A longer term would not be reasonable and appropriate regarding the interests of the athletes. The problem is that the investigations are conducted by IOC. They have no problem with the deadline because their ‘deadline’ is the beginning of the Olympic Games, not the season of FIS competitions. However, I suppose that all will do their very best to bring the cases to their end before the deadline expires.”
The CAS Award
Although the CAS decision was announced at the end of May, CAS has still not posted its arbitration award on its website, and so Wieschemann did instead.
Many are taking the decision to mean that Legkov will be free to compete on Nov. 1, and at the upcoming Olympics in South Korea as well.
But with 30 days left in October, that’s not a sure bet.
First of all, CAS did not disagree that it was appropriate for FIS to issue Legkov a provisional suspension in the first case.
It rejected many of Legkov’s arguments about the shortcomings of the McLaren report, which implicated him in a sample-swapping scheme at the 2014 Olympics. One of Legkov’s urine sample bottles was shown to be tampered with, and his name appeared in documents related to the planning of systematic doping.
While this wasn’t enough to prove an anti-doping rule violation, CAS wrote in the decision (available here), it was certainly enough to indicate a “reasonable possibility” of a rule violation, which is all that is required for a provisional suspension while further investigations proceed.
“The Panel concludes that the evidence establishes a ‘reasonable possibility’ of an [anti-doping rule violation] in the Appellant’s case,” the decision reads. “It further considers that the Appellant has not demonstrated with satisfaction the fulfillment of criteria necessary to lift the suspension, though the Panel has decided that it should be modified.”
As that modification, CAS decided that the length of a provisional suspension should not be indefinite. It gave FIS until Oct. 31 to bring an anti-doping rule violation against Legkov – and if they don’t, his provisional suspension will be lifted.
If Legkov’s case is not addressed by the Oswald commission before Oct. 31, but is brought up later with new evidence, FIS can then start over and apply a new provisional suspension. The federation just can’t extend the current suspension based on the current evidence.
“The Panel appreciates the unusual magnitude and complexity of cases awaiting Mr. Oswald’s attention,” the decision noted. “It cannot however endorse an indefinite and indeterminable suspension as proportionate… the Panel deems it appropriate and just that the current provisional suspension expire after 31 October 2017, at which time it will be for FIS to consider whether or not to seek a further suspension justified by new developments.”
So – it’s all down to the IOC, and if they find some speed (and new evidence) in their investigation.
International Politics
Others, too, are impatient.
“If you chose to cheat at the Olympic level, and put banned substances into your blood so you can gain an advantage, I really don’t see any place for that person in the Olympic movement,” U.S. biathlete Lowell Bailey told the Associated Press.
And the athletes are not the only ones frustrated by the IOC’s slow progress.
“A lot of progress has been made, but we’re not there yet,” a Dutch IOC member, told the Associated Press. “I understand it takes a lot of time, but we cannot have this discussion just before the PyeongChang Games. It must be clear months before.”
“The failure to expeditiously investigate individual Russian athlete doping poses a clear and present danger for clean athletes worldwide and at the 2018 Winter Games,” leaders of the organizations, collectively called the National Anti-Doping Organization and including such countries as France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Japan, Australia, and the United Kingdom, wrote. “We have serious doubts that the 2018 Games will be clean due to the incomplete investigation of massive evidence of individual doping by Russians athletes at the 2014 Sochi Olympic Games and given the inadequate testing evidence of Russian athletes over the past four years.”
“When you have our International Olympic Committee commissioning additional studies, questioning its own regulatory body, WADA, you wonder, really, who’s controlling all of this? What’s the motivation there?” U.S. Ski and Snowboard CEO Tiger Shaw told the Associated Press. “The investigation has been done. It’s conclusive.”
Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin denied that any state-sponsored doping had occurred at the Olympics in Russia.
“In Russia we never had, don’t have, and I hope won’t have a state-sponsored doping program,” he reportedly said on Russian television. “On the contrary, there will only be a fight against doping.”
Several days later, the Russian government issued a warrant for the arrest of Grigory Rodchenkov, the former director of the Moscow anti-doping laboratory who actually helped athletes cheat before turning whistleblower and fleeing the country.
“Russia has refused to accept responsibility,” Rodchenkov recently wrote in an op-ed in The New York Times. “My former boss, Vitaly Mutko, a deputy prime minister and former minister of sport, has repeatedly denied knowledge of my activities as director of the Moscow Anti-Doping Center, where I oversaw Russia’s doping program with help from several agents of the Federal Security Bureau (formerly the K.G.B.), and many government officials.”
Maxim Vylegzhanin competing in the 10 k classic in Falun, Sweden, in 2016. Vylegzhanin is provisionally suspended while the International Olympic Committee investigates possible doping infractions at the 2014 Olympics. (Photo: Fischer/NordicFocus)
In part of the media storm following the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s response to an appeal by six Russian cross-country skiers, Russian Ski Federation President Elena Valbe made a surprising assertion: that the athletes, who remain provisionally suspended by the International Ski Federation (FIS), are allowed to train with the national team.
This is not generally the case for athletes serving suspensions, but FIS Anti-Doping Coordinator Sarah Fussek confirmed the organization’s stance.
“You cannot really say it is a deviation [from the norm] because we have not had these [types of] facts on the table before,” she said in a phone interview on Friday. “This is a special case and it requires special handling.”
Are All Provisional Suspensions Created Equal?
FIS more often deals with cases which start with a positive drug test, or “adverse analytical finding”. A positive test results in a nearly-automatic suspension while the case proceeds – called a “mandatory provisional suspension”.
The cases of Alexander Legkov, Maxim Vylegzhanin, Alexey Petukhov, Julia Ivanova, and Evgenia Shapovalova arose via investigation started by journalists, continued by Richard McLaren on behalf of the World Anti-Doping Agency, and now being conducted by the International Olympic Committee (IOC).
“The investigation of the alleged anti-doping rule violations will be carried out by the IOC Disciplinary Commission, which has the results and case management authority for anti-doping at the Olympic Winter Games, whereby the provisional suspensions are imposed by FIS,” stated a FIS press release announcing the suspensions on Dec. 22, 2016.
In cases without a positive drug test, sports federations are allowed to implement an “optional provisional suspension”. This is what FIS put in place on the six Russian skiers, whose samples were allegedly tampered with at the 2014 Olympics.
Fussek said she awaited a written explanation from the FIS Anti-Doping Panel, which gave the recommendation to the athletes that they could train with their national team again. For privacy reasons and due to rules governing ongoing cases, FIS cannot not share documents which were provided to the athletes explaining such decisions.
However, Fussek understood that it was because of the optional nature of the provisional suspension that the athletes were being allowed to officially train again (all had been training on their own while serving their suspensions).
“As you know, we do not have an adverse analytical finding where a mandatory suspension would have been put in place,” Fussek said. “Presumably they have decided for that, because it was special circumstances… they would give them a special allowance to train. They have decided not to prohibit them to train in order to keep a balance between the provision of the suspension and the actual consequences. It is an ongoing case with special circumstances.”
Indeed, considerable time that has passed with no news or hearings from the IOC investigation. In the ruling from the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), the organization gave FIS until Oct. 31 to bring a formal case against the athletes, or else their suspensions will be lifted. At that point, they would have waited 10 months.
“The provisional suspension switches into a sanction in face of its duration and the ongoing investigations from which nobody knows how long they will last,” the lawyer for Legkov and Belov wrote in a press release. “The provisional suspension is no longer appropriate if the federation is not in the position to provide full proof that the athlete is guilty of an anti-doping rule violation within a reasonable time.”
FIS is in a strange position because it is waiting on the IOC commission and doesn’t necessarily have control over the time frame. But if allowing the athletes to train with the national team was FIS’s attempt to mitigate these special circumstances and the long wait, it does not appear to have a formal basis in anti-doping rules. There are no specific guidelines in the FIS Anti-Doping Rules or the World Anti-Doping Code specifying what is allowed of athletes under mandatory versus optional provisional suspensions, if indeed there is a difference.
Those rules only note the meaning of a provisional suspension more generally: “Provisional Suspension means the Athlete or other Person is barred temporarily from participating in any Competition or activity prior to the final decision at a hearing conducted under Article 8,” the 2016 FIS Anti-Doping Rules state at the top of page 61.
In prior rulings against the skiers, it was made clear that anything involving the national team was off-limits.
On Dec. 30, 2016, FIS denied an appeal by the skiers, who wanted to be reinstated in time for the Tour de Ski.
“As a result of the decision, all of the above mentioned athletes may not take part in any competitions or national team activities,” FIS wrote in their press release at the time.
And in a Jan. 25, 2017, press release confirming the decision to uphold the provisional suspensions of Alexander Legkov and Evgeny Belov, FIS again wrote, “as a result of the decisions, the above-mentioned athletes may not take part in any competitions or national team activities.”
So what constitutes “activities”? The 2017 International Standard for Testing and Investigations, published by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), defined “team activity” as “Sporting activities carried out by Athletes on a collective basis as part of a team (e.g., training, travelling, tactical sessions) or under the supervision of the team (e.g., treatment by a team doctor).”
However, that was in reference to whereabouts reporting, not to allowable activities under a suspension.
Unwittingly, A Trap?
The skiers may want to be wary of FIS’s allowance. One reason that an athlete’s treatment during a provisional suspension is important is because the time served in a provisional suspension is usually included in the period of their final suspension as well – credit for time served.
“If an Athlete or other Person voluntarily accepts a Provisional Suspension in writing from FIS and thereafter respects the Provisional Suspension, the Athlete or other Person shall receive a credit for such period of voluntary Provisional Suspension against any period of Ineligibility which may ultimately be imposed,” read the FIS Anti-Doping Rules (page 43).
And once an athlete is ineligible, they cannot participate in training or any other national team events.
“No Athlete or other Person who has been declared Ineligible may, during the period of Ineligibility, participate in any capacity in a Competition or activity (other than authorised anti-doping education or rehabilitation programs) authorised or organised by FIS or any National Ski Association or a club or other member organisation of FIS or any National Ski Association, or in Competitions authorised or organised by any professional league or any international or national level Event organisation or any elite or national-level sporting activity funded by a governmental agency,” the FIS Anti-Doping Rules state (page 44).
Below this rule, FIS goes out of its way to clarify even further what types of activities are not allowed during a period of ineligibility.
“For example… an Ineligible Athlete cannot participate in a training camp, exhibition or practice organised by his or her National Ski Association or a club which is a member of that National Ski Association or which is funded by a governmental agency… The term ‘activity’ also includes, for example, administrative activities, such as serving as an official, director, officer, employee, or volunteer of the organisation described in this Article. Ineligibility imposed in one sport shall also be recognised by other sports.”
Logically, time served under a provisional suspension should be counted in any final duration of ineligibility only if an athlete behaved the same way during their provisional suspension as they are required to during ineligibility.
The Russian skiers hope to be proven innocent, and act confident that they will be.
“The athletes will be free to participate in the competition season 2017/2018 and the World Cup 2017/2018 starting 24.11.2017 in Ruka if the ongoing investigations of Oswald Commission of IOC will not bring out new facts and new evidence beyond the facts published by Prof McLaren and if the athletes will not be definitely sanctioned based on such new facts,” Legkov and Belov’s lawyer wrote in their press release. “The defense has no reason to believe that the investigations will bring out such new facts.”
But if the skiers do face sanctions after their final hearings — it would no doubt devastate them if those suspensions started from the hearing date, not from Dec. 22, 2016, when they were very first provisionally suspended.
Bernd Eisenbichler embraces Lowell Bailey after Bailey became the first-ever world champion in the history of US Biathlon. (Photo: Glen Crawford)
With the 2016/2017 season officially in the rearview, FasterSkier is excited to unveil its annual award winners for this past winter. Votes stem from the FS staff, scattered across the U.S., Canada, and Europe, and while not scientific, they are intended to reflect a broader sense of the season in review. This set of honors goes to a coach or team director who has particularly contributed to their team’s success.
Despite the title of this award, Bernd Eisenbichler has never really been a coach.
He has been an athlete (in Germany), a ski technician (for Ricco Gross, Kati Wilhelm, and then the American biathlon team), the high-performance director for the US Biathlon Association (USBA), and now its chief of sport.
Such a title might suggest that as Eisenbichler has risen through the ranks to direct both the national team and now also the development pipeline for the U.S. biathlon community, he has become more distant from the nitty-gritty, the details or the athletes.
Not so much. This season, you could still see the 41 year old zooming around on skis, or running back and forth between different parts of a stadium. Eisenbichler isn’t one who is content to stand around, or to distance himself and watch other people do work.
And when Lowell Bailey crossed the finish line in Hochfilzen, Austria, in February to become a world champion in the 20 k individual, one man ran out to grab him by the shoulders, scream and celebrate. You guessed it, it was Eisenbichler.
“Bernd was the first person who greeted me at the finish line, tears in his eyes,” Bailey wrote in an email this week. “[He is] one of the most passionate, hard-working individuals I’ve ever known!”
Eisenbichler testing skis in 2015. (Photo: Jake Ellingson)
Technically, nobody is allowed in the finish zone except the athletes who just finished the race. But Eisenbichler pushed through the scrum of officials and celebrated with an athlete he had met in the same place, Hochfilzen, back at Junior World Championships in 2000. Back then, he was what Bailey called a “hired hand” to make their skis fast.
At that point, did the German envision himself staying with the U.S. team for nearly 20 years (so far)?
“Along the way, I had different offers from different teams,” Eisenbichler admitted in an interview from his office in the Bavarian town of Frasdorf on Monday. “But I enjoy the freedom I get [from USBA] to create a high-performance program. You learn on the way. You make mistakes on the way. Hopefully you do it better next time. What I always see, though, is the potential to get better… I enjoyed working with Lowell and Tim [Burke] for every day of the 18 years. But every new person who came, they added something to the program. It meant, we are not done here. There are things we can do better, to reach higher.”
Bailey’s gold medal, the first ever by an American, and Susan Dunklee’s silver to make her the first U.S. woman to win an individual World Championships medal – together, they make an argument that this was US Biathlon’s best season ever and that the program is entering a new era.
“We have never, before now, had strong men and strong women at the same time,” USBA CEO Max Cobb said after Dunklee’s silver in Hochfilzen. “This is really exciting for us and a good validation that these opportunities, and the pipeline we have, works.”
The World Championships haul didn’t come out of left field.
Tim Burke gets encouragement from US Biathlon’s High Performance Director Bernd Eisenbichler at the beginning of the 12.5 k pursuit in Hochfilzen, Austria, in 2014.
In 2013, Tim Burke earned World Championships silver. Then at the 2014 Olympics, Bailey and Dunklee set best-ever marks for U.S. men and women, respectively: eighth by Bailey, 11th by Dunklee.
Just weeks after that, Bailey and Dunklee began accumulating World Cup podiums, and they haven’t stopped.
Since 2014, three different athletes – Sean Doherty, Maddie Phaneuf and Chloe Levins – have turned in top-five performances at Youth and Junior World Championships.
And this season, two athletes with college degrees in just their second seasons of biathlon – Paul Schommer and Joanne Reid – turned in individual top-35 performances on the World Cup and then teamed up with Sean Doherty and Clare Egan to finish eighth in a mixed relay. Five different athletes on the team, including Burke, Egan and Leif Nordgren, picked up top-20 World Cup results this season.
We asked Cobb, the USBA President and CEO, whether US biathlon would be where it is today without Eisenbichler.
His answer was simple: “No. Bernd is masterful in his leadership of our program.”
“Bernd is one of most passionate people I know, and for decades he has directed all his energies into building up USBA’s program,” Dunklee agreed.
“What was always interesting with Bernd, even at [the beginning], was that even though he was a German, he was extremely passionate about Team USA’s results,” Bailey wrote. “He got to know all of the athletes and was genuinely interested in seeing our team succeed, even if that meant beating the German team… At first, he was just waxing skis; then, he was in charge of stone-grinding and waxing; then he was put in charge of some team logistics. Eventually he became High Performance Director. Since that time, I’ve seen our team go from a mediocre ‘also-ran’ to one of the strongest teams in the world. That success is largely due to Bernd’s role and his tireless drive to win by out-maneuvering instead of out-spending. He embraced this David-and-Goliath struggle from the start.”
Eisenbichler prefers to call it a puzzle, referring to the complexity of the sport and the intricacy of the management required to win.
“We always knew that our program and our approach works, and we also had results to justify that,” Eisenbichler said. “But this year it really culminated in a perfect way… You always add to the puzzle and you try to have the perfect pieces to complete it. This year we just completed the puzzle. I think we proved that all the additions that we made to the program over the last three or four years, we really benefitted from it this year.”
For North American nordic sports teams, having a European at the helm seems to have worked out about as often as it hasn’t. But for US Biathlon, it sure has, and the consensus seems to be that it’s because of Eisenbichler himself. Having a German guiding your biathlon program doesn’t automatically buy you success. It’s not nationality so much as what the guy does.
The U.S. team and staff — including Cobb (brown jacket) and Eisenbichler (to his left) — celebrate Lowell Bailey’s gold medal at 2017 World Championships in Hochfilzen, Austria. (Photo: USBA/NordicFocus.com/Twitter)
In Eisenbichler’s case, he assembles a coaching team from Sweden, Finland, and Canada, a service team that includes Germans, Czechs, and an Italian, and brings in a shooting advisor from Austria. Plus, of course, Americans.
“We have eight nations represented on our staff, and they all worked so hard towards one goal, over nearly a decade for some of the staff members,” Eisenbichler said. “To see them so happy after Lowell and Susan’s success was just very, very rewarding for me.”
How does it work, gaining buy-in and loyalty from a staff which can be far-flung in the summer months?
“If I was being arrogant, I would say good management,” Eisenbichler laughed. “No, that’s a joke.”
He admits that there have been a few hires which didn’t work out and didn’t fit in with the team. But they have been “actually few.” Part of the staff’s success, Eisenbichler said, was how it fits together.
“We manage pretty well to give everybody a project where they can really identify themselves as being a very important part of the program,” he explained. “As a result they are really giving more than a normal staff member would do, really giving their heart and their energy into these projects. But at the same time they know they are part of the puzzle. There is nobody who is the only one contributing to the success or failure. I really believe it is like a puzzle, and every staff member has — even if at times their role is more important than other times — but they have the feeling that without them, it would not have been possible to be so successful.”
That’s not to say that there have never been cultural differences between Eisenbichler and his team.
“In my early years on the team, we used to have a slight disagreement about the word ‘fun’,” Dunklee wrote, explaining: “I’ve always made it my goal to keep ‘fun’ at the forefront of all my racing and training because the day that I forget to have fun is the day that I burn out. I think Bernd (and many other European coaches I have met) associate the word ‘fun’ with a carefree and unfocused attitude. However, I’ve never thought of fun and hard work or professionalism as mutually exclusive, in fact they can build on each other. I have been most successful and satisfied with the sport when I am directing every effort possible towards a big goal and remembering to savor and enjoy the goofy, spontaneous and joyful moments along the way. On that point, Bernd could agree. We were talking about the same thing, he just preferred to use the term ‘enjoyment’ rather than fun. But he humors me now and sometimes tells me ‘have fun!’ before my race and I always act so surprised to hear that word coming from him. It’s become a running joke.”
In some ways, Eisenbichler is still a ski technician at heart. He works closely with Muck Bauer, the team’s stonegrinder, who is also based in Germany. The pair test skis all year round, and were developing new grinds right up through World Championships. That meant that skis were getting driven from Hochfilzen to Ruhpolding, stoneground, being driven back, and then skied in for 20 k the next morning before being raced on.
“Bernd was excited about some of the new breakthroughs they’d had,” Bailey wrote. “The night before the individual, it was decided that a couple of pairs of my skis should be sent to Germany and re-ground with some of these new grinds. It was one of those pairs that carried me to victory later that day. It’s hard to say what the difference was for me that day, but it’s hard to overlook that fact that, in a race lasting almost one hour, a 3.3-second margin of victory is about as slim as it gets!”
At the end of this year’s U.S. National Championships, Dunklee and Bailey presented Eisenbichler with USBA’s Medal of Honor. The love and appreciation that Eisenbichler has for his athletes, and vice versa, stands out.
“I was meeting with Bernd in the lead-up up to [the 2014 Olympics] in Sochi and one thing he said stuck out to me,” Dunklee wrote. “We were talking about goals and how of course he wants to see someone on the team bring home a medal. He explained how every bit of the high performance budget and staff were being directed towards that main priority. But then he told me, ‘You know, I’ll really gauge my work with the team as successful if 20 years from now, you athletes and staff decide to travel to Munich for an Oktoberfest Reunion together. Then I’ll know I did a good job.’ ”
“I look forward to that reunion some day,” Dunklee concluded.
Lowell Bailey and Bernd Eisenbichler leave the mixed zone after Bailey finished sixth in the mass start at 2017 IBU World Championships in Hochfilzen, Austria. (Photo: USBA/NordicFocus.com)
78 samples from 38 biathletes are mentioned in the McLaren report, an independent investigation commissioned by the World Anti-Doping Agency to assess doping by Russian athletes.
The following is a database we have assembled of all the mentions of these athletes and tests. For each piece of information, we have listed which document in the McLaren report’s Evidence Disclosure Package holds the information. You can find those documents on the Evidence Disclosure Package webpage by searching for the name of the document (for example, “EDP1151”). Some of the evidence documents are also described and discussed in the McLaren report itself. Otherwise, they do not have any titles, metadata, or descriptions.
Below, positive tests are highlighted in red (13 cases), and samples which showed signs of tampering based on forensic investigation are highlighted in blue (seven cases).
In a number of cases, Vice Minister for Sport Alexey Velikodniy gives “save” or “quarantine” orders for positive tests to either be disappeared, or for athletes to be retained in Russia so that they cannot fail external doping tests.
Note 1: EDP1149 and EDP1154 are two different planning documents for the 2014 Olympics in Sochi. As we discussed in a previous piece, they should not be considered accurate information about whether an athlete did or did not compete in a particular event in Sochi. However, an athlete’s mention in these documents indicates that they were at least competing at a level where their inclusion in the Olympics was possible.
Maxim Vylegzhanin competing in the 10 k classic in Falun, Sweden, in 2016. Vylegzhanin is provisionally suspended while the International Olympic Committee investigates possible doping infractions at the 2014 Olympics. (Photo: Fischer/NordicFocus)
Among the six was Maxim Vylegzhanin, who won silver medals in the team sprint, relay and 50-kilometer mass start in Sochi.
Although Vylegzhanin has not been cleared by FIS, he competed in two regional championship races over the weekend, winning both. In the 15 k skate, for instance, he beat Evgeny Vakhrushev by 8.5 seconds to take the title, and bested third-place Dmitry Japarov — a teammate from the silver-medal Sochi relay — by 20 seconds. Results of the competition are available from Skirun.ru.
What’s Allowed During a Suspension?
In the McLaren report evidence packet, a urine-sample bottle associated with Vylegzhanin’s athlete ID number were shown to have marks on them associated with tampering. That sample, #2868240, even had fibers inside the lid of the bottle.
This is one of the cases the International Olympic Committee is investigating, which triggered the suspension by FIS.
FIS has not lifted Vylegzhanin’s suspension, initially announced on Dec. 23, 2016, or the suspensions of any of the other five athletes. The federation rejected an initial appeal by two skiers.
“No Athlete or other Person who has been declared Ineligible may, during the period of Ineligibility, participate in any capacity in a Competition or activity (other than authorised anti-doping education or rehabilitation programs) authorised or organised by FIS or any National Ski Association or a club or other member organisation of FIS or any National Ski Association, or in Competitions authorised or organised by any professional league or any international or national level Event organisation or any elite or national-level sporting activity funded by a governmental agency.
“An Athlete or other Person subject to a period of Ineligibility longer than four years may, after completing four years of the period of Ineligibility, participate as an Athlete in local sport events not sanctioned or otherwise under the jurisdiction of a Code Signatory or member of a Code Signatory, but only so long as the local sport event is not at a level that could otherwise qualify such Athlete or other Person directly or indirectly to compete in (or accumulate points toward) a national championship or International Event, and does not involve the Athlete or other Person working in any capacity with Minors.
“An Athlete or other Person subject to a period of Ineligibility shall remain subject to Testing.
“[Comment to Article 10.12.1: For example, subject to Article 10.12.2 below, an Ineligible Athlete cannot participate in a training camp, exhibition or practice organised by his or her National Ski Association or a club which is a member of that National Ski Association or which is funded by a governmental agency. Further, an Ineligible Athlete may not compete in a non-Signatory professional league (e.g., the National Hockey League, the National Basketball Association, etc.), Events organised by a non-Signatory International Event organisation or a non-Signatory national-level event organisation without triggering the Consequences set forth in Article 10.12.3. The term “activity” also includes, for example, administrative activities, such as serving as an official, director, officer, employee, or volunteer of the organisation described in this Article. Ineligibility imposed in one sport shall also be recognised by other sports (see Article 15.1, Mutual Recognition).]”
Vylegzhanin and Valbe
Neither Vylegzhanin nor Elena Valbe, the president of the Cross-Country Ski Association of Russia, considered his participation in the recent races to be against the rules.
“Maxim doesn’t have right to compete in the international races [organized by] FIS, or to take part in the national team activities,” Valbe said. “There’s nothing else forbidden for him. He trains and will go on training. This race has nothing to do with FIS.”
Vylegzhanin agreed, saying that he had approached Valbe and another Russian ski official to ask what types of competitions he could compete in without violating his suspension. He explained that “people need to understand that you need to keep in shape to compete.”
However, the races were almost certainly within the scope of the FIS rules cited above. They were regional championship competitions in Udmurtia, a state republic on the plains of Russia whose capital, Izhevsk, is 600 miles nearly due east of Moscow.
The races were organized by Ministry of Physical Culture, Sport and Youth Policy of the Udmurt Republic, and the Ski Races Federation of Udmurtia. This federation is a member of the Cross-Country Ski Federation of Russia. This would seem to make the races organized by “a club or other member organisation of FIS or any National Ski Association.”
What Consequences?
FIS has said that it is investigating Vylegzhanin’s participation in the races to see if it is a violation of his suspension.
According to Article 10.12.2 of the FIS Anti-Doping Rules,
“Where an Athlete or other Person who has been declared Ineligible violates the prohibition against participation during Ineligibility described in Article 10.12.1, the results of such participation shall be Disqualified and a new period of Ineligibility equal in length up to the original period of Ineligibility shall be added to the end of the original period of Ineligibility. The new period of Ineligibility may be adjusted based on the Athlete or other Person’s degree of Fault and other circumstances of the case. The determination of whether an Athlete or other Person has violated the prohibition against participation, and whether an adjustment is appropriate, shall be made by FIS. This decision may be appealed under Article 13.”
The Associated Press contacted FIS for comment.
“FIS is currently following up with the Russian national ski association to ensure that during ineligibility these rules are correctly understood and followed,” FIS spokeswoman Jenny Wiedeke wrote in an email reply. “If an athlete does not respect his/her status during ineligibility, then the time of the provisional suspension will not be credited against the final suspension period (if any).”
Alexander Legkov (center) and Maxim Vylegzhanin (left) are among the skiers served provisional suspensions for doping violations at the 2014 Olympics. Along with Ilia Chernousov (right, not suspended), they swept the 50 k mass start in Sochi.
The International Ski Federation (FIS) has provisionally suspended six Russian cross-country skiers implicated in doping violations at the 2014 Olympics. Two dozen more cases are proceeding without any suspensions to date. Meanwhile, Russia has given back the right to host FIS Cross-Country World Cup Finals in Tyumen.
“As a result of the current circumstances whereby the FIS competition season is in full swing and the competitions and sporting accomplishments of the athletes are being undermined by the shadow of the McLaren Investigation Report, the IOC has empowered FIS to undertake follow-up actions in its own competence with the alleged anti-doping rule violations that took place during the period of the Sochi 2014 Games,” FIS noted in their press release.
The IOC has jurisdiction over all anti-doping activity at Olympic Games. That means that any samples collected between Jan. 31 and Feb. 22, 2014 which tested positive for banned substances or showed signs of tampering are the responsibility of the IOC rather than a relevant international sports federation like FIS.
FIS cannot release the names of the athletes until disciplinary proceedings – in this case handled by the IOC – are complete.
If the names are to be released, FIS “leaves it to the athletes and the Russian Ski Association to do so.”
Update: multiple sources, including Russian website championat.com, are reporting that the six athletes are Alexander Legkov, Maxim Vylegzhanin, Evgeny Belov, Alexei Petukhov, Julia Ivanova, and Evgnenia Shapovalova.
The 28 cases apparently involve sample bottles which were tampered with.
“Prof. McLaren had investigated 95 samples of Russian athletes provided to him by the IOC,” the IOC wrote in their press release. “They led to the 28 athletes with evidence of sample manipulation. They have now been repatriated back to the Lausanne Anti-Doping Laboratory, and re-analysis has already begun on these samples looking for any Adverse Analytical Findings (AAFs). At this point in time, these 28 new cases are not AAFs, like a positive doping test. However, the manipulation of the samples themselves could lead to an Anti-Doping Rule Violation and sanctions.”
Elena Vyalbe, President of the Cross-Country Ski Federation of Russia, does not believe that athletes were doping. Instead, she blames the suspicious marks on sample bottles on Grigory Rodchenkov, the former Moscow anti-doping laboratory director. Rodchenkov fled Russia and became a whistleblower to the New York Times and WADA.
“I’m sure, I know that my athletes did not take anything,” Vyalbe told R-Sport, according to a translation. “We will insist on this fact… Athletes have no access to the samples after delivery. How could they have inflicted damage on [the bottles]? The athletes themselves have not done this, and the federation also has nothing to do with this. It’s more likely just to dirty tricks by Rodchenkov… we very much hope for a fair conclusion of the investigation.”
a female skier tested positive to EPO and was apparently “quarantined”;
a nordic combined skier tested positive for the banned heart medication trimetazidine, but the test was reported as negative to WADA;
a female skier used exogenous testosterone and was “quarantined”;
another female skier had high testosterone, but the test was nevertheless reported to WADA as being negative;
and a male skier tested positive for phthalates, plasticizers used to soften blood bags, but the test was reported as negative to WADA.
There is no word so far on how FIS is investigating the non-Olympic cases, or a timeline of when provisional suspensions for those athletes may arrive, if appropriate.
World Cup Finals Out of Russia
Meanwhile, the Russian Ski Association has given back the World Cup Finals series set for Tyumen, Russia, in March. FIS will now have to decide where to relocate the races.
“The findings in the McLaren Report have seriously damaged the integrity of sport and we are determined to ensure the necessary measures are undertaken to punish the offences,” FIS President Gian Franco Kasper said in the FIS press release. “We will work together with the Russian Ski Association to rehabilitate the Russian cross-country skiing community and we sincerely count on their commitment to clean sport.”
Alexander Legkov (bib 14) chasing Norway’s Martin Johnsrud Sundby in the 15 k mass start skate in La Clusaz, France, on Saturday. (photo: Fischer/Nordic Focus)
Note: this article has been updated to include more accurate information about Alexander Legkov’s participation at 2014 Russian Championships.
At least 34 skiers are referred to in the World Anti-Doping Agency’s McLaren report, including one by name: Alexander Legkov, the 2014 Olympic champion in the 50 kilometer skate.
Throughout the report’s evidentiary documents, names of athletes were scrubbed and replaced with alpha-numeric codes. But in one set of emails leaked by Grigory Rodchenkov, Legkov’s name is not redacted.
“They rescued the stupid goat Legkov,” Rodchenkov wrote.
The comment was part of a thread of emails referring to a positive test for budesonide, a corticosteroid, by an athlete referred to as ID number A0467. The sample was taken on March 28, 2014, in Tyumen at Russian Championships. Staff emailed back and forth about the case, asking at one point why the athlete did not have a therapeutic use exemption (TUE) for the drug.
“Rescued” indicates that the test was given a “save” order: despite being a positive test, it was reported as negative. This is confirmed in another document, which lists the sample (number 2870442) as being positive for budesonide, but being reported to WADA’s results management database, ADAMS, as being negative.
Results of Russian Championships in Tyumen that year show that Legkov did not compete in individual races, but skied the third leg of the winning relay team (the other skiers on the Khanty-Mansiysk team were Sergey Turyshev, Evgeny Dementiev, and Sergey Ustiugov; Dementiev served a two-year ban for using recombinant erythropoietin, and returned to competition in 2011).
It is possible that Legkov was in Tyumen anyway but was not racing, and that anti-doping officials tracked him down there and requested an out-of-competition sample. Although the championships were taking place in Tyumen at that time, the 28th was not actually a competition day.
Another possibility is that the place or date of sample collection are incorrect in the emails. While the sample is listed in another spreadsheet, that version does not provide the date of sample collection.
A last possibility is that Legkov’s name was inserted into the report incorrectly, perhaps by someone with a bone to pick.
Either possibility would seem like an anomaly in an investigation full of strange occurrences.
Yet other documents suggest that the athlete was indeed Legkov. In another spreadsheet, athlete A0467 is referred to as winning “gold 50 km mass start”.
And yet another spreadsheet shows that the athlete had urine samples collected on February 13, 21, and 23 February in Sochi, and blood samples on February 6 and 23 in Sochi. Another urine sample was collected at an unknown date. No substances are listed for these samples, but all four of the urine samples are present in a long spreadsheet listing tests which were handled incorrectly by anti-doping authorities.
February 23, the day both a urine and blood sample were collected, was the day Legkov won the Olympic 50 k.
The documents show that 13 other skiers were “protected” athletes in Sochi. And besides A0467, nine other skiers – not all Olympians – are described as having positive tests at some point in the last several years.
Here is what we know about them.
About the Documents
EDP1162, EDP1149, and EDP1154: Professor McLaren describes EDP1162 in his report: “Alexey Velikodniy created a daily competition schedule that identified protected athletes. The schedule was continuously updated during the Games and included all those on the Sochi Duchess List and athletes added during the Games, such as the female hockey team.” EDP1149 includes English translation of the original EDP1162.
Professor McLaren (c) addressing the media after the his second report on systematic, state-sponsored doping in Russian summer and winter sports. (Photo: WADA/Twitter)
This – and EDP1154, which summarizes the information in a tabular format and adds a column for “medals – still seem to have been planning documents. For instance, biathlete Irina Staryk is still listed as competing in the relay, even though she had long been off the Olympic team after a positive test for EPO was reported in January. Likewise, Legkov is listed in this document as competing in the 10 k classic, while neither actually did. Several other commentators have tried to link names to ID numbers based on race registration in this document, but that seems unfair.
EDP1156: A list of sample numbers and collection during or immediately before the 2014 Olympics in Sochi, from protected national team athletes. Some data about the urine tests, like pH and specific gravity, are included, indicating that this was not merely a planning document but that the tests took place.
EDP1141: Results of a study done at King’s College London assessing whether the sodium concentration and specific gravity of some doping control samples were abnormal. (They were: in some cases, though none in biathlon, sodium concentrations were consistent with having added a teaspoon of salt to a one-cup urine sample.)
EDP0902: The report of a forensic examiner who looked at urine sample bottles from the Sochi Olympics to determine whether they had been tampered with, consistent with descriptions of a scheme to open the bottles and replace “dirty” urine samples with pre-collected “clean” urine.
EDP1155: Translations of emails involving Grigory Rodchenkov, the former head of the Moscow anti-doping laboratory who became a whistleblower and took his story to the New York Times.
EDP1166: A list of test numbers, mostly associated with athlete ID numbers, identified by the investigation. “The IP has identified more than 1231 samples where the Moscow Laboratory communicated the presence of a prohibited substance in a Russian athlete’s sample to the [Ministry of Sport] and later reported that sample as negative in ADAMS or did not report the sample at all.” This document lists those 1231 samples.
There are columns for which substances were positive in the sample (this column is often blank) and how the report was filed in the ADAMS database. Many samples were filed as “negative”, but this column is also often left blank. This may mean that the sample was never reported in ADAMS at all – as McLaren says was fairly common – or simply that there was no information about it.
In general, the investigation’s translations from Russian into English are not always smooth. This is particularly apparent in reference to competitions: the name or level of a series is hard to interpret. It’s possible that the anti-doping staff themselves were not familiar with the different race circuits because they were not necessarily biathlon experts, and worked more generally in all sports.
A further note: some documents are scanned and thus not searchable by text. Thus some names and numbers may be referenced in places where we have not yet found them.
Other Athletes With Positive Tests
Of the nine other positive tests belonging to skiers, one belonged to an athlete never assigned an ID number. This means that it could be redundant – this skier could in fact be one of the numbered athletes – or it could be an entirely new athlete.
A0086, male cross-country skier
Evidence of being a protected athlete? Yes. This athlete appears in planning documents for Sochi. In these documents, it is clear that the athlete is male.
Evidence of positive tests? In EDP1141, the chemical analysis by staff at King’s College London showed that sample 2889705 was particularly concentrated, and possibly not an authentic post-competition urine sample. Documents related to Sochi show that the sample had been collected on February 12, 2014 – not a competition day at the Olympics.
How was the test handled? It’s not clear. In EDP1166, the field for how the test was reported to ADAMS is left blank. This could mean that it was never reported at all.
Other tests? For this athlete, urine tests were collected at the Olympics on February 6 and 15, 2014, and blood tests on February 6 and 11. Three other urine tests are reported in EDP1166, with no substances listed, and the tests do not seem to have been entered into ADAMS.
A0281, female cross-country skier
Evidence of being a protected athlete? No.
Evidence of positive tests? One of this athlete’s urine samples (3689022) is listed in EDP1166 as testing positive for the blood-doping drug recombinant erythropoietin. The emails show that the test was collected at a training camp in Moscow, and are listed with a “quarantine” order: to prevent the athlete from leaving Russia where they could be drug tested by other authorities. The emails note that “the name is not known.”
How was the test handled? According to EDP1166, the test was reported to ADAMS as negative.
Other tests? None listed.
A0291, female cross-country skier
Evidence of being a protected athlete? Yes. This athlete appears in planning documents for Sochi. In these documents, it is clear that the athlete is female.
Photos of the sample bottle from the McLaren report’s evidence packet.
Evidence of positive tests? There are multiple lines of evidence showing that this athlete’s urine sample (2889689) was tampered with. The sample was collected on February 17, 2014, not a competition day for cross-country skiers at the Olympics. A forensic report showed that the sample had marks consistent with opening the bottle. In addition, the sample inside had such high sodium levels that chemists concluded that salt must have been added to the sample – the sodium values were physiologically impossible. This is consistent with reports of a scheme to swap dirty urine samples for clean ones, because Rodchenkov had described adding water and salt to samples as he and staff switched the urine between bottles.
How was the test handled? It’s not clear. In EDP1166, the field for how the test was reported to ADAMS is left blank. This could mean that it was never reported at all.
Other tests? This athlete also had a blood test collected in Sochi on February 5 and a urine test on February 6. Another urine test was collected at an unreported date. For all of these samples there were no substances listed, and the tests do not seem to have been entered into ADAMS.
A0572, male nordic combined athlete
Evidence of being a protected athlete? No.
Evidence of positive tests? Multiple documents show a sample (2867397) collected on 02.01.2014 which tested positive for trimetazidine, an anabolic agent. The emails note that the athlete was leaving a few days later for France. World Cups were held in Chaux Neuve, France, on January 11 and 12. Only two Russian competed there: Ernest Yahin, who finished last in the large hill 10 k, and Denis Isaykin, who teamed up with him for 17th place in the team sprint relay.
How was the test handled? EDP1166 shows that this sample was reported as negative to the ADAMS database.
Other tests? None listed.
A0942, male cross-country skier
Evidence of being a protected athlete? No.
Evidence of positive tests? In EDP0901, referred to as a list of “dirty” samples, this athlete is listed as being handled by FIS, the International Ski Federation. In another document, EDP0650, the sample is listed as being collected on December 1, 2013, and as being positive for acetazolamide, an anabolic agent.
How was the test handled? It’s not clear. The test is not listed in EDP1166. In EDP0650, there is a note in the “commentary” column: “It is not possible.”
Other tests? None listed.
A0958, male cross-country skier
Evidence of being a protected athlete? Yes. This athlete is listed in several Sochi planning documents. Documents EDP1166 and EDP1156 show that this athlete had samples from taken during the Olympics on February 1, 9, 15, 16, 19 and 23. Of these dates, February 9, 16, 19 and 23 align with the competition dates of the 30 k skiathlon, relay, team sprint, and 50k, respectively. That could, but does not necessarily, mean that the athlete competed in each of those events: analysis of the cases of four biathletes whose names were not scrubbed from an evidentiary document showed that at Sochi, those athletes did not have samples collected every day that they competed, and did have samples collected on some days they did not compete. Thus sample collection and competition were somewhat disconnected.
Maxim Vylegzhanin competing in the 10 k classic in Falun, Sweden, in 2016. (Photo: Fischer/NordicFocus)
Evidence of positive tests? One of the athlete’s samples samples (2866326) tested positive for trimetazidine, an anabolic agent, according to both emails and EDP1166. The positive test occurred on January 5, 2014 at a training camp in Sochi. Most of the Russian distance skiers were at the Tour de Ski at that time; of the four who competed in the 50 k in the Olympics, only Maxim Vylegzhanin did not participate in the Tour de Ski. In EDP1155, beneath the statements about A0958’s positive test, it says “January 11-12 KM, Czech Republic”. Vylegzhanin, after sitting out of the Tour de Ski, did compete in Nove Mesto, winning the team sprint on January 12th.
How was the test handled? In the emails, this sample is given a “save” order. The athlete was likely high-profile because the email (which can be seen in Russian here) also says, “PERSONALLY warn as soon as possible.” And in EDP1166, it is listed as being reported to ADAMS as a negative test result.
Other tests? None listed, other than those from Sochi described above.
Unnumbered cross-country skier, female
Evidence of being a protected athlete? No.
Evidence of positive tests? The emails refer to a sample (2944730) collected on 11.19.2014 in Vertex Tei, which had a testosterone to epitestosterone ratio of 6.6. A high ratio can indicate that an athlete was using exogenous testosterone, and a finding of a ratio above 4.0 triggers further investigation.
How was the test handled? In the email, the description of the sample follows the word “quarantine.” This means that the athlete was likely kept in Russia until they could pass a drug test. The email can be seen (in Russian) here. However, the sample is not mentioned in EDP1166.
Other tests? None listed, but because the athlete does not have an alpha-numeric code number assigned it’s impossible to tell.
A0094, female skier (discipline not listed)
Evidence of being a protected athlete? No.
Evidence of positive tests? A sample (2868048) collected on 09.12.2013 at a junior training camp in Syktyvkar had a testosterone to epitestosterone ratio of 5. In an email (which can be seen in Russian here) it is noted that this is “for women bad”. In the translated emails that’s followed by the comment: “he’s an idiot.” It’s not clear if the pronoun was translated incorrectly and the staff is referring to the athlete, or perhaps to a male coach or doctor.
How was the test handled? EDP1166 shows that this sample was reported to ADAMS as negative.
Other tests? None listed.
A0918, male cross-country skier
Evidence of being a protected athlete? No.
Evidence of positive tests? A sample (2808826) is listed in EDP1166 as being positive for phthalates, which are plasticizers. They are prohibited because they are thought to indicate the use of blood transfusions, with the plasticizers being used to soften the plastic in blood bags and then diffusing into the blood.
How was the test handled? EDP1166 shows that this sample was reported to ADAMS as negative.
Other tests? None listed.
Other Protected Athletes
There are five athletes who are listed in the Sochi planning documents, indicating that they were “protected” athletes, but for whom no anti-doping samples or tests are described in any documents. They are: A1302, A1303, A1281, A1282, and A1285.
There are six more cross-country skiers for whom tests are actually described.
A0081, male cross-country skier
Samples Described from Sochi: Urine samples were collected on February 6, 12, and 15, 2014, and two different blood samples were collected on February 5. All three urine samples appear in EDP1166, but no substances were listed and the test does not seem to have been entered into ADAMS.
Other Samples? None listed.
A0132, female cross-country skier
Samples Described from Sochi: A urine sample was collected on February 17, 2014, and blood samples on February 5 and 6, 2014. The urine sample appears in EDP1166, but no substance was listed and the test does not seem to have been entered into ADAMS.
Other Samples? None listed.
A0431, cross-country skier
Samples Described from Sochi: Urine samples were collected on February 5, 16, and 19, 2014, and a blood sample on February 6, 2014. All three urine samples appear in EDP1166, but no substances were listed and the test does not seem to have been entered into ADAMS.
Other Samples? Another urine sample (2943988) was collected on an unreported date. Again, although the sample appears in EDP116 no substance was listed and the test does not seem to have been entered into ADAMS.
A0654, cross-country skier
Samples Described from Sochi: Urine samples were collected on February 1 and 12, 2014, and a blood sample on February 5, 2014. Although the urine samples appear in EDP116, no substances are listed and the tests do not seem to have been entered into ADAMS.
Other Samples? Two more urine samples (2943988 and 2947314) were collected on unreported dates. Again, although the samples appear in EDP116, no substances are listed and the tests do not seem to have been entered into ADAMS.
A0772, cross-country skier
Samples Described from Sochi: Urine samples were collected on February 7 and 12, 2014, and a blood sample on February 5, 2014. Although the urine samples appear in EDP116, no substances are listed and the tests do not seem to have been entered into ADAMS.
Other Samples? None listed.
A0999, female cross-country skier
Samples Described from Sochi: A blood sample was taken on February 5, 2014. It does not appear in any other documents.
Other Samples? A sample (2761241) collected at an unknown date is shown in EDP1166 to have been reported as negative to the ADAMS database. But there is no substance listed for this sample in EDP1166. Because this document was assembled to be a list of samples which were reported to the Ministry of Sport as being positive, it’s not clear what to conclude from this combination of facts.
Other Athletes Mentioned in the Documents
For the rest of the athletes, positive tests are not explicitly described in any of the documents. Here is what we know about them.
A packed cross-country stadium for the sprints at the 2014 Winter Paralympic Games in Sochi, Russia.
Anti-doping sample bottles belonging to seven Russian skiers at the 2014 Winter Paralympic Games were tampered with, according to the McLaren report.
Russian cross-country skiers won 12 gold medals, nine silver and 11 bronze at those Games. Some of the same athletes also helped win 12 gold medals, 11 silver and seven bronze in biathlon.
The report, which was commissioned by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and undertaken by Canadian law professor Richard McLaren, found that more than 1,000 athletes may have benefitted from tampering by Russian anti-doping authorities: either manipulation of samples, not reporting samples to WADA’s test-result database (ADAMS), or reporting positive tests as if they were negative.
Among the findings were that Russian staff had discovered a way to open anti-doping sample bottles, produced by the German company Berlinger and long assumed to be tamper-proof.
The sample bottle belonging to a Paralympic cross-country skier. (Photo: McLaren report)
The finding supported claims made by Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov, the former head of the Moscow Anti-Doping Laboratory, that at the 2014 Olympics in Sochi, Russia, he and others had unscrewed the lids of some sample bottles and replaced “dirty” urine with previously collected “clean” urine.
“As the start of the Games approached, Dr. Rodchenkov recalls that he was not confident the bank of clean urine was adequately organised and he asked the [state security service] FSB to see it,” McLaren wrote in his report. “… Dr. Rodchenkov was allowed access to the part of the Command Centre where the samples were stored. The room contained 3 or 4 full size freezer units. Inside were numerous shopping bags labelled with the athlete’s family name and he was advised they were filled with bottles of that athlete’s pre tested clean urine.”
Scratched marks on the same bottle shown above. (Photo: McLaren report)
Based on those claims, McLaren commissioned an investigation by a British Forensic Firearms and Tool Marks Examiner. His or her (the name is redacted) report, which can be found here, details the normal working of the tamper-proof bottles.
The investigator came to the conclusion that the most likely way to open the bottles was to insert a thin metal or plastic object between the lid and the side of the bottle, and open the bottle from the inside. Depending on what type of material was used for this object and how carefully the bottles were opened, this procedure would leave marks on the bottle and/or lid, in some cases detectable only with a microscope or special lighting.
Almost all of the sample bottles sent to the examiner by McLaren showed these marks. Among them: 19 bottles belonging to seven different IPC cross-country skiers.
Athlete ID
Samples Named in Forensic Investigation
A0389
2890467, 2890467
A0469
2892301, 2889197, 2888781, 2890593
A0501
2891821, 2890557, 2889145, 2889128
A0546
2889181, 2890105, 2890786
A0656
2892161, 2891761, 2889127
A0704
2890874
A0705
2890793, 2892237
The sample numbers are also reported in another document in McLaren’s evidence packet, EDP1166. This document is a list of test numbers associated with athlete ID numbers.
“The IP has identified more than 1231 samples where the Moscow Laboratory communicated the presence of a prohibited substance in a Russian athlete’s sample to the [Ministry of Sport] and later reported that sample as negative in ADAMS or did not report the sample at all.”
EDP1166 lists those 1231 samples. In the cases of the Paralympic skiers’ samples, they are associated with the alpha-numeric code of an athlete, but nothing is listed as a substance for which a positive test may have occurred, and the sample is also not listed as being reported as either positive or negative to the ADAMS database.
Because this document was assembled to be a list of samples which were reported to the Ministry of Sport as being positive, it’s not clear what to conclude from this combination of facts.
Other than in the forensic report and this document, neither the samples nor athletes are mentioned anywhere else in the McLaren report’s extensive evidence packet. There’s not even any listing of whether the athletes are male or female.
The lack of a positive test result for any of these samples may be because there was previously-collected clean urine inside them, as described by Rodchenkov. Because no other discussion or information about the samples was found, it may never be known whether the athletes were actually doping or not; if replacing samples with previously collected urine was a policy, it may have been done without even testing to see whether the original samples themselves were clean.
Even without that information, however, this could lead to suspension of the athletes.
“246 athletes can be identified as potentially knowingly participating in manipulation thereby raising the possibility of a violation of WADA Code Article 2.5 (tampering),” McLaren wrote. “Athletes who provided clean urine to the CSP in advance, which was then swapped for a dirty sample, which he or she provided during the Sochi Games, could be in violation of Code Article 2.5.”
In a statement on its website, the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) wrote that “The full findings of the report are unprecedented and astonishing.” Russia has been suspended by the IPC since Aug. 7, 2016.
Olga Zaitseva, Ekaterina Glazyrina, Olga Vilukhina, and Irina Starykh celebrate their IBU World Cup biathlon relay victory in Ruhpolding, Germany in January 2014. (Photo: Fischer/Nordic Focus)
The International Biathlon Union (IBU) has received a list of 31 Russian athletes involved in doping, IBU President Anders Besseberg told Norway’s VG newspaper.
“Some of the 31 athletes are already banned, others have retired, but the most urgent thing is to assess the biathletes who are now participating in our international competitions,” Besseberg said. “I reckon that we on the board will make recommendations within a week… of those athletes who the Committee believes should be provisionally excluded.”
Some information about the athletes, however, can already be gleaned from the McLaren report.
For example, one document in the Evidence Disclosure Packet (EDP) failed to redact the names of four biathletes and replace them with alpha-numeric code identifiers. The four athletes were the planned roster for the women’s 4 x 6 k relay at the 2014 Olympics in Sochi, Russia: Olga Zaitseva, Olga Vilukhina, Yana Romanova, and Irina Starykh.
While the document identifying the women and their code numbers did not contain any evidence of doping, it means that any references to their code identifiers in other evidentiary documents can be connected to them.
For instance, such cross-referencing reveals that one of several samples deemed to be too dilute to be an authentic urine sample by the Drug Control Centre at King’s College London, used by the investigation for external analysis of suspicious samples, belonged to Romanova.
The team – with Ekaterina Shumilova replacing Starykh – won silver in the 4 x 6 k relay in Sochi.
Zaitseva retired after Sochi, as she had long planned to do. Romanova retired after the 2014/2015 season. Vilukhina took that year off and made an unsuccessful return last season, before announcing her retirement on November 14 of this year.
Nine other unnamed biathletes were shown in various documents to have tested positive for banned substances. In at least four of these cases, the results of the test were reported to the World Anti-Doping Agency’s ADAMS reporting database to be negative tests.
And at least 20 more athletes in the report belonged to biathlon, although in those cases there is no specific information about what substances they may have used.
Here is an extensive list of all the biathlon athletes mentioned in central documents from the evidence disclosure packet.
About the Documents
Professor McLaren (c) addressing the media after the his second report on systematic, state-sponsored doping in Russian summer and winter sports. (Photo: WADA/Twitter)
EDP1162 and EDP1149: Professor McLaren describes this document in his report: “Alexey Velikodniy created a daily competition schedule that identified protected athletes. The schedule was continuously updated during the Games and included all those on the Sochi Duchess List and athletes added during the Games, such as the female hockey team.”
EDP1149 includes English translation of the original EDP1162, and on page 44 of EDP1149 the names of the women biathletes are not redacted. Why redaction was successful in all other parts of the document, but not there, is questionable. Additionally, the document still seems to have been a planning document, as Staryk is still listed as competing in the relay even though she had long been off the Olympic team.
EDP1156: A list of sample numbers and collection during or immediately before the 2014 Olympics in Sochi, from protected national team athletes. Some data about the urine tests, like pH and specific gravity, are included, indicating that this was not merely a planning document but that the tests took place.
EDP1141: Results of a study done at King’s College London assessing whether the sodium concentration and specific gravity of some doping control samples were abnormal. (They were: in some cases, though none in biathlon, sodium concentrations were consistent with having added a teaspoon of salt to a one-cup urine sample.)
EDP1155: Translations of emails involving Grigory Rodchenkov, the former head of the Moscow anti-doping laboratory who became a whistleblower and took his story to the New York Times.
EDP1166: A list of test numbers, mostly associated with athlete ID numbers, identified by the investigation. “The IP has identified more than 1231 samples where the Moscow Laboratory communicated the presence of a prohibited substance in a Russian athlete’s sample to the [Ministry of Sport] and later reported that sample as negative in ADAMS or did not report the sample at all.” This document lists those 1231 samples.
There are columns for which substances were positive in the sample (this column is often blank) and how the report was filed in the ADAMS database. Many samples were filed as “negative”, but this column is also often left blank. This may mean that the sample was never reported in ADAMS at all – as McLaren says was fairly common – or simply that there was no information about it.
In general, the investigation’s translations from Russian into English are not always smooth. This is particularly apparent in reference to competitions: the name or level of a series is hard to interpret. It’s possible that the anti-doping staff themselves were not familiar with the different race circuits because they were not necessarily biathlon experts, and worked more generally in all sports.
A further note: some documents are scanned and thus not searchable by text. Thus some names and numbers may be referenced in places where we have not yet found them.
The Biathlon Relay Team
A0944, Olga Vilukhina
Olga Vilukhina won a silver medal in the sprint at the 2014 Olympics.
Why do we know her name? Listed in position “1” on pages 44 and 45 of EDP1149, in the 4 x 6 k relay
Evidence of being a protected athlete? Yes, in multiple documents (although those documents may be redundant; without metadata, it is difficult to tell).
Evidence that positive tests were covered up? Maybe. In EDP1166, one of Vilukhina’s samples (2870741) is listed as being reported “negative” to the ADAMS database and referred to in a document titled (in Russian) “Biathlon 3”, indicating a date of 06.01.2014 for the sample. But there is no substance listed for this sample in EDP1166. Because this document was assembled to be a list of samples which were reported to the Ministry of Sport as being positive, it’s not clear what to conclude from this combination of facts.
Other tests? Besides that one sample, there are several other samples listed for Vilukhina: urine samples collected January 31, February 9, and February 16, 2014, and a blood sample collected February 15, 2014. While the urine samples are referenced in EDP1166, no substances were listed and the test does not seem to have been entered into ADAMS. February 9 was the day of the women’s sprint in Sochi, where Vilukhina won a silver medal. February 16 was the day before the women’s mass start, where Vilukhina placed 21st.
A0983, Olga Zaitseva
Olga Zaitseva blows kisses to the crowd as she brings Russia the gold in the Olympic biathlon relay in 2010.
Why do we know her name? Listed in position “3” on pages 44 and 45 of EDP1149, in the 4 x 6 k relay
Evidence of being a protected athlete? Yes, in multiple documents (although those documents may be redundant; without metadata, it is difficult to tell).
Evidence of positive tests? Maybe. In EDP1166, one of Zaitseva’s samples (2870735) is listed as being reported “negative” to the ADAMS database. But there is no substance listed for this sample or date of collection and it is not referred to in any other documents. Because EDP1166 was assembled to be a list of samples which were reported to the Ministry of Sport as being positive, it’s not clear what to conclude from this combination of facts.
Other tests? Besides that one sample, there are several other samples listed for Zaitseva. Around the time of Sochi, urine samples were collected January 31, February 14 and February 19, 2014, and a blood sample collected January 31, 2014. An additional undated urine sample is referred to in EDP1166. For these samples, no substances were listed and the test does not seem to have been entered into ADAMS. February 14 was the day of the women’s 15 k individual, where Zaitseva placed 15th, and February 19 was the mixed relay, where the Russian team including both Zaitseva and Vilukhina placed fourth.
A0714, Yana Romanova
Yana Romanova competing in Kontiolahti, Finland, in 2010. (Photo: Peter Porai-Koshits/Wikimedia/Creative Commons)
Why do we know her name? Listed in position “4” on pages 44 and 45 of EDP1149, in the 4 x 6 k relay
Evidence of being a protected athlete? Yes, in multiple documents (although those documents may be redundant; without metadata, it is difficult to tell).
Evidence of positive tests? The report from King’s College London indicates that one of Romanova’s samples (number 2889617, collected on February 2, 2014, just before the Sochi Olympics began, according to another document) was too dilute to be an authentic sample. In the report and the New York Times investigation, Rodchenkov described adding water or salt to samples that were being manipulated. The King’s College London test suggests that this may be one such sample.
In EDP1166, one of Romanova’s samples (2870745) is listed as being reported “negative” to the ADAMS database. But there is no substance listed for this sample or date of collection and it is not referred to in any other documents. Because EDP1166 was assembled to be a list of samples which were reported to the Ministry of Sport as being positive, it’s not clear what to conclude from this combination of facts.
Other tests? Besides those two samples, there are several others listed for Romanova. Around the time of Sochi, urine samples were collected January 31, February 2, 13, and 21, 2014, and blood samples collected February 14 and 15, 2014. An additional undated urine sample is referred to in EDP1166. For these samples, no substances were listed and the test does not seem to have been entered into ADAMS. February 14 was the day of the women’s 15 k individual, where Romanova placed 53rd, and February 21 was the day of the women’s relay.
A0856, Irina Starykh
Targeted testing based on data from the IBU’s Athlete Biological Testing program led to the suspension of Irina Starykh, above on her way to fifth place in the World Cup pursuit in Hochfilzen, Austria, in 2013, and another Russian biathlete for blood-doping. The IBU fined Russia for a cluster of doping cases.
Why do we know her name? Listed in position “5” on pages 44 and 45 of EDP1149, in the 4 x 6 k relay
Evidence of being a protected athlete? Yes, in multiple documents (although those documents may be redundant; without metadata, it is difficult to tell).
Evidence of positive tests? In EDP1166, two of Starykh’s samples (2870740 and 2870745) are listed as being reported “negative” to the ADAMS database. But there is no substance or date listed for either sample, and they are not referred to in any other documents. Because EDP1166 was assembled to be a list of samples which were reported to the Ministry of Sport as being positive, it’s not clear what to conclude from this combination of facts.
Other tests? No tests are listed for Starykh at the Sochi Olympics, because she was not there. However, there are five more samples of hers listed in EDP1166, for which no substances were listed and the test does not seem to have been entered into ADAMS.
Other Athletes with Positive Tests Described in Documents
Thirty-one other athlete ID numbers are associated with the sport of biathlon, and three additional mentions of biathletes which are not associated with any ID number. This means that they could belong to some of the 35 numbered athletes (the four named women plus the 31 unidentified, but numbered, athletes), or they could be completely separate cases.
Of those 31-34 other biathletes, here are the ones for whom positive tests for prohibited substances are explicitly mentioned in the documents.
A0241, female
Evidence of being a protected athlete? Maybe. This athlete was certainly competing internationally. By the time Russian anti-doping staff were discussing her case, she was in Ruhpolding, Germany, and then was set to travel to Antholz, Italy – consistent with the World Cup schedule – before checking into the Olympics. This plan does not seem to be jeopardized by her positive test, although the staff notes that she is at risk. After the positive test, Rodchenkov notes that “it is necessary to hide her immediately.”
Besides the four athletes named above, Shumilova competed in Sochi, along with Olga Podhufarova and Ekaterina Glazyrina. Several others were competing on the World Cup, but were unlikely to have been slated for Sochi participation because they did not have strong results so far in the season – the possible exception being Ekaterina Yurlova.
Evidence of positive tests? In EDP1166, this athlete’s sample (2866518) is shown as testing positive for methenolone, oxandrolone, and trenbolone, all anabolic steroids. The test was allegedly collected on 12.19.2013 in Izhevsk, Russia, at the biathlon championships.
How was the test handled? In the emails, which you can see in Russian here, this sample is given a “save” order, meaning that it should be reported as negative. And in EDP1166, the sample is shown as being negative in ADAMS. She may have additionally been quarantined: the anti-doping staff write in emails that if she was to be subjected to an international test (for instance, but the International Biathlon Union), she would certainly test positive and it would be “a very ugly situation for the lab if we ‘found nothing’ in such concentrations and for those substances.”
Other tests? In EDP1166, two of this athlete’s samples (2870746 and 2867708) are listed as being reported “negative” to the ADAMS database. But there is no substance or date listed for either sample, and they are not referred to in any other documents. Because EDP1166 was assembled to be a list of samples which were reported to the Ministry of Sport as being positive, it’s not clear what to conclude from this combination of facts. An additional blood test is listed in EDP1166 with no substances listed, and the test does not seem to have been entered into ADAMS.
Unnumbered Athlete, male
Evidence of being a protected athlete? No. The only other information about this athlete is that it was a man.
Evidence of positive tests? The emails refer to this athlete’s sample (2759623) being positive for 16a-hydroxyprednisolone (budesonide metabolite). Budesonide is a corticosteroid which is used in asthma medications such as Pulmicort inhalers, but it is also used in other forms: as pills, nasal sprays, and as a rectal foam to treat intestinal problems. The sample is written to have been collected on 11.1.2013 at in international competition in Ostrov, Russia. That day, IBU Cup sprints were held in Ostrov, with three Russian men (race winner Alexey Slepov, plus Sergey Korastylev and Sergey Klyachin) in the top six.
How was the test handled? There’s no information about how this test was handled. It is discussed in the email, but no conclusion is reached. It also does not appear in EDP1166.
Other tests? None listed.
A0028
Evidence of being a protected athlete? There’s no other information about this athlete.
Evidence of positive tests? In the emails, athlete A0028 is described as having tested positive for “methandienone circuit” at the Russian biathlon championships in Uvat on 31.07.2014. It’s unclear what “circuit” refers to – it may be an awkward translation – but methandienone is an anabolic steroid. In addition, the testosterone to epitestosterone ratio is listed as 6.2. A high ratio can indicate that an athlete was using exogenous testosterone, and a finding of a ratio above 4.0 triggers further investigation. The original email can be seen (in Russian) here.
How was the test handled? In the emails, the word “Quarantine” appears above the description of this athlete’s test results. This likely means that the athlete was kept in Russia until they could pass an anti-doping test. There’s no information about whether the test was reported to the ADAMS database or not.
Other tests? None listed.
A0179, female
Evidence of being a protected athlete? No. The only other information about this athlete is that it was a woman.
Evidence of positive tests? Document EDP1166 states that on 09.28.2014 at Russian biathlon championships in lzhevsk, a sample tested positive for isomers of amphetamines, which are banned stimulants. There is also discussion of the sample in the emails, with someone writing, “find out what she took!” The group seems to suspect that the substance came from a dietary supplement. The email (in Russian) can be seen here.
How was the test handled? In the emails, this case is listed with a “save” order: that means that a positive test should be turned into a negative one. Indeed, document EDP1166 states that this test was reported as negative to the ADAMS database.
Other tests? None listed.
A0461, male
Evidence of being a protected athlete? No. The only other information about this athlete is that it was a man.
Evidence of positive tests? EDP1166 shows that one of this athlete’s samples (2867705) tested positive for tuaminoheptane, a prohibited stimulant which is used in nasal decongestants. The emails (here) show that this sample was collected on 12.21.2013 at a Russian Cup race in lzhevsk.
How was the test handled? The emails are unclear, with someone writing, “and this one still does not have a decision (or I missed it).” However, in EDP1166 the test is listed as having been reported to ADAMS as negative.
One staff member, perhaps assumed to be Rodchenkov, writes this regarding the sample: “Alex, come on, I’ll close the whole shop… They are imprudent beyond measure… and then I will go to other laboratories after February 2014.”
Other tests? In EDP1166, two of this athlete’s samples (2918636 and 2870699) are listed as being reported “negative” to the ADAMS database. But there is no substance or date listed for either sample, and they are not referred to in any other documents. Because EDP1166 was assembled to be a list of samples which were reported to the Ministry of Sport as being positive, it’s not clear what to conclude from this combination of facts.
A0751, female
Evidence of being a protected athlete? No. The only other information about this athlete is that it was a woman.
Evidence of positive tests? EDP1166 shows that one of this athlete’s samples (2945500) tested positive for pthalates, which are plasticizers. They are prohibited because they are thought to indicate the use of blood transfusions, with the plasticizers being used to soften the plastic in blood bags and then diffusing into the blood. The emails show that this sample was collected on 09.28.2014 at Russian biathlon championships in lzhevsk, That email (in Russian) can be seen here.
How was the test handled? EDP1166 shows that this test was reported as negative to ADAMS.
Other tests? None listed.
A1244, male
Evidence of being a protected athlete? No. The only other information about this athlete is that it was a man.
Evidence of positive tests? The sample (2868394) is not listed in EDP1166, but only discussed in the emails (in Russian here). The emails refer to a positive test for trimetazidine, a metabolic modulator which protects against angina and heart problems, much like meldonium. According to the emails the sample was collected in Uvat at Russian biathlon championships on 6 April (assumed to be 2014).
How was the test handled? There’s no information about how this test was handled.
Other tests? None listed.
Unnumbered Athlete, male
Evidence of being a protected athlete? No. The only other information about this athlete is that it was a man.
Evidence of positive tests? In the emails, one of this athlete’s samples (2689927) is written to contain methylhexanamine, a banned stimulant common in dietary supplements (it is in fact the same substance which German biathlete Evi Sachenbacher-Stehle tested positive for at the 2014 Olympics). The sample was collected on 2012-12-17 at all-Russia competitions in Ekaterinburg.
How was the test handled? There’s no information about how this test was handled. In the emails, it is clear that nothing was done about the test until the following year (2013), but the final action is not discussed. It also does not appear in EDP1166.
Other tests? None listed.
Unnumbered Athlete, male
Evidence of being a protected athlete? No. The only other information about this athlete is that it was a man.
Evidence of positive tests? One of this athlete’s samples (2746493) is discussed in the emails as having tested positive for furosemide, a diuretic and masking agent. The sample was collected on 01/09/2013 at all-Russia competitions in lzhevsk.
How was the test handled? There’s no information about how this test was handled. Other than reporting the sample, there is no discussion of the test in the emails, and also does not appear in EDP1166.
Other tests? None listed.
Other Athletes Mentioned in the Documents
For the rest of the biathletes, sample numbers are listed in EDP1166, but no substances are listed and positive tests are not discussed described in any of the other documents. Because EDP1166 was assembled to be a list of samples which were reported to the Ministry of Sport as being positive, it’s not clear what to conclude about the samples.
Here is what we know about them.
ID Number
Gender
Samples reported as negative
Samples with no information about reporting
A0023
Male
2869722
A0136
Male
2870692
A0157
Male
2867964
A0201
Female
2869837
A0232
Male
2870747
2889906, 2890603, 2890739, 2944467
A0282
Female
2866843
A0321
Female
2868243
A0491
Male
2870733
857444 (blood)
A0508
Male
2868236
A0521
Male
2870742
857581, 857105, 857600
A0548
Female
2869752
A0567
Female
2867862
A0576
Male
2866527
A0579
Female
2870697
A0598
Female
2847214
A0639
Female
2869643
A0640
Male
2869203
A0687
Male
2867881
A0795
Male
2870739
2944657, 2890878, 2890855, 2889922, 2889808
A0804
Male
2869859
A0808
Female
2870743
857613 (blood)
A0930
Male
2870744
857573, 857440 (blood)
A0950
Male
2870748
A1031
Male
2869912
In addition:
A0142, male
Mentioned in EDP1166: Sample 2916590 is listed as having been reported as negative in the ADAMS database. There is no information listed about substances in the sample.
Other mentions: The same sample is described in an email which does not seem to have been translated into English. The sample was collected on 2014-07-17 in Toksovo, outside of Saint Petersburg.
Kristina Smigun (in white and blue) passing the Czech Republic’s Katerina Neumannova on the way to gold at the 2006 Olympics. That medal may now be stripped, according to Norway’s TV2.
In an interview with Britain’s The Independent, Dick Pound warned that the revelations coming in the second part of his WADA Independent Commission report would shock the sports world.
“When we release this information to the world, there will be a wow factor,” Pound said. “I think people will say how on earth could this happen? It’s a complete betrayal of what the people in charge of the sport should be doing.”
Pound was referring to the investigation into the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), the international governing body for track and field. The Independent Commission looked at data from 15,000 blood samples which had been leaked by someone inside the organization.
Their findings led to criminal proceedings in France against the former IAAF President, Lamine Diack, and the suprises may not stop there.
He also suggests that other international federations take matters into their own hands because the problems are not limited to track and field athletes in Russia, but system-wide, and also not limited to Russia.
“This is the opportunity in certain executive committees to close their doors and say ‘as of today, the old system is gone, we’ll deal with those that need to be identified in due course but we’re going to level the playing field’,” he said. “I think the option is there but will it be taken? I don’t know. For some sports their actual credibility is at risk.”
Meanwhile, doping scandals in nordic sports continue to emerge in relation to past Winter Olympics.
Norway’s Nils Erik Ulset (right) with a Russian gold medalist at the 2014 Paralympic Games. (Photo: Matt Boulton / Wikimedia Commons)
On Monday, NRK ran an interview with Nils Erik Ulset, a Paralympic skier and biathlete who has medaled at four separate Olympics. In Sochi, the anti-doping procedure was unfamiliar, he said.
“I became gradually aware that foreign athletes were gathered into one room, and the Russians in another,” he told NRK. “I also noted that the Russian athletes only held for three to four minutes. It is not possible to conduct an inspection that quickly.”
When Ulset tried to enter the door the Russian athletes were going through, he was turned back.
The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) has denied that there was anything irregular in antidoping in Sochi.
“All doping tests during the Winter Paralympics in Sochi were conducted according to the international standard for testing,” wrote Craig Spence, the communications director for the IPC, in an email to NRK. “Independent observers from WADA and members of the IPC Anti-Doping Committee were also present to supervise. They have not notified about anything worrying.”
That’s a similar line to the official International Olympic Committee response to calls for re-testing of samples from the 2014 Olympics, after the WADA Independent Commission revealed that the Russian state security apparatus FSB had infiltrated the Olympic anti-doping laboratory.
Despite those allegations, the IOC released a statement saying that “the IOC has no reason to question the credibility of the results of the anti-doping tests carried out at the Olympic Winter Games 2014.”
In this case, Spence told NRK that “the IPC is an organization deeply committed to protecting the clean athletes and provide equal competitive conditions for all.”
Yet, damningly, when NRK tried to follow up with other Norwegian Paralympic athletes, they found that few others had ever been tested in Sochi.
Scandals from even further in the past are also rearing their ugly heads.
Last year it was reported by Germany’s ARD news service that samples from the 2006 Olympics had been re-tested using new methods and Estonian cross-country skier Kristina Smigun’s samples had been contained prohibited substances.
Norway’s TV2 picked up the story this week, reporting that Smigun’s case has been mired in the Court of Arbitration for sport, but that she could soon be stripped of her gold medals from the 10 k classic and the 15 k skiathlon.
The Estonian Olympic Committee confirmed to TV2 that they had been notified in December 2013 of a positive test.
The International Ski Federation, WADA, the Estonian Ski Federation, and the Estonian Anti-Doping Association all told TV2 that the matter was in the hands of the IOC. The television report stated that both Smigun’s ‘A’ and ‘B’ samples had tested positive, yet there has been no news or action for almost two years.
The IOC said that they could not comment on the matter other than that many lawyers were involved, and that they hoped a verdict would be announced in three to six months.
But the Court of Arbitration for Sport denied that the case had been brought to them.
“As stated earlier, there is not, and has never been, a case concerning the IOC and Kristina Smigun and / or retesting of samples from the Turin Olympics in CAS system,” the organization wrote in an email to TV2.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport frequently lists upcoming hearings on their website, but cannot provide information until after cases are settled. Therefore, it is not altogether surprising that there is no information about a Smigun case on their website, whether one exists or not.
Norway stands to benefit, a lot, should Smigun’s medals be stripped. It would mean another gold medal for Marit Bjørgen, in the 10 k classic, and silver rather than bronze for Hilde Gjermundshaug Pedersen in the same race. And for Kristin Størmer Steira, recently retired, it would mean moving up from fourth place to bronze in both races – ending long-running painful jokes about wooden medals.
There’s no evidence so far that other re-tested samples from skiers at the 2006 Olympics resulted in new anti-doping cases.
Some are speaking out to urge action by international federations. U.S. Biathlon Association President and CEO Max Cobb spoke to FasterSkier soon after the first part of the Independent Commission’s report dropped, urging investigation into all sports.
Tore Bøygard, the head of the Norwegian biathlon federation, has now spoken out to NRK, one of the main Norwegian broadcasting companies.
“It is suggested that there is doping in other sports,” he said, according to a translation. “The sport cannot survive with some shadow ofdoping hanging around. Therefore, you might as well get it scrutinized. Should there be something left there, so you might as well get it up and get it on the table…. We should not be so naive.”
Bøygard has sent a letter to Anti-Doping Norway asking them to pressure WADA to initiate further investigations.
Mikey Sinnott on the World Cup last December in Lillehammer, Norway. (Photo: Facebook/MWSC)
A freshman skier in Sun Valley, Idaho, Mikey Sinnott was literally a foot shorter than the rest of the guys on his team, or so his longtime coach Rick Kapala says. Small but mighty, Sinnott came up through the Sun Valley Ski Education Foundation (SVSEF) junior ranks, making it to the Idaho youth championships and eventually winning two Junior National titles, and reaching Junior World Championships in 2004 and 2005 and U23 World Championships in 2006, 2007 and 2008.
But before he was a globetrotter, Sinnott was a fighter — holding his own in a wrestling brawl with two dozen kids and a handful of coaches, an annual lighthearted tradition at the SVSEF. According to Kapala, who was always at the bottom of the pile, Sinnott was forever the last man standing. Everyone else would eventually give up, but not Mikey.
Mikey Sinnott at the 2011 U.S. nationals classic sprint, where he place second for a career best. He repeated the feat in 2012 with another silver in the classic sprint in Rumford, Maine. (Photo: FlyingPointRoad/flyingpointroad.com)
“You could never pin Mikey,” the SVSEF head coach and nordic program director said. “He was the definition of scrappy.”
As Kapala spoke those words on the phone Tuesday, he almost immediately retracted them. Sinnott would not want to be called scrappy, but that’s what he was. He didn’t tap out, Kapala said, he never quit.
Looking back, he was glad Sinnott didn’t get overlooked like some U16s that haven’t reached physical maturity do. While Sinnott’s results and performances were promising, an outside coach observing him at a glance might not have picked him to achieve what he later would.
But Sinnott understood the importance of grit, and paired with an academic gift that led him to study psychology and neuroscience at Dartmouth College, he had punched his ticket to success early on, Kapala said.
His timing was also ideal. By the time he finished up at Dartmouth, where he was an NCAA All-American and named to the association’s Division I Skiing Championships Team all four years, Sinnott was ready for the big leagues, and his choice to return to Sun Valley was simple.
They had started an Olympic development team (now the Gold Team) a few years earlier — an attractive option for a hometown skier looking to go pro.
“At that point, I wasn’t going to go to northern Maine, I wasn’t going to go to the Midwest, I wasn’t going to go to Alaska — there weren’t really any other teams,” Sinnott reflected on the phone two weeks ago. “When I went off to college, that was one of Rick’s goals … to make the Sun Valley Ski Education program one of the cradle-to-the-grave programs like in Europe.
“I think it’s been a very, very wonderful program,” he added after seven years on the team. “It’s been a model for how we need to start developing more in the U.S. Sun Valley was the model for what’s made the U.S. Ski Team [in the 1960s] … I think we continue to be that model and impress and improve.”
In five seasons, Sinnott, now 29, amassed more than 20 World Cup starts. He claimed the overall SuperTour title in 2013 to start last season in Europe, where he raced seven of those World Cups.
But last winter, starting in November, Sinnott didn’t feel anywhere close to on top of the world. He was fatigued and had been feeling that way since late October, yet he couldn’t pinpoint why. His legs lacked power, but he figured he could compensate with mental toughness, which some call ‘grit.’
“I just kept telling myself that I had to make it work,” he said. “I never really had a lot of explosive energy in my legs for whatever reason, but I kind of knew that was the year, if I was going to fight through any stupidity, that was the year I had to do it … It was an Olympic year.”
The Continental Cup leader who kicked his season off with the U.S. Ski Team (USST) in Kuusamo, Finland, Sinnott placed 74th in his first race (a classic sprint) and 113th in the 10 k classic the next day. By the end of the three-day series, he was 92nd overall.
A few weeks later in mid-December, he spoke openly about not being in top form. But he still wanted to perform well at U.S. nationals and give his best shot at making the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia.
At the same time, Sinnott, widely respected as a master of calculating points in the U.S., knew his domestic ranking wasn’t competitive enough to put him in the running for the Olympic team. If he wanted to make it to Sochi, his first Olympics in two Olympic cycles he’d been training through, he knew he needed a top 30 on the World Cup.
The closest he’d come after Kuusamo was 78th in the classic sprint at Asiago World Cup in Italy. In late December, he returned to the U.S. for nationals in Utah, where he placed fourth in the 30 k freestyle mass start and fifth in the classic sprint. Even if he’d won all of nationals, Sinnott didn’t expect to make the Olympics. At the same time, he said anyone’s best chance was to ski faster than lone USST male there: Erik Bjornsen.
“I knew how fast I was skiing and I knew I wasn’t going to beat him,” Sinnott said.
“The U.S. Ski Team wants to do everything they can to not take any non-U.S. Ski Team members to the Olympics,” he added. “So I knew the only opportunity I had was to get a top 30 on the World Cup … That’s why I stayed [in Europe].”
Mikey Sinnott (l), of the Sun Valley Ski Education Foundation (SVSEF), climbs up and over a hill in the 30 k freestyle mass start at 2014 U.S. nationals. (Photo: Bert Boyer/All proceeds from photo sales donated to NNF)
Olympic selections came and went, Sinnott wasn’t picked, and by the time February rolled around, he was back on the SuperTour circuit and feeling drained. He recalled one race in St. Paul, Minn., where he was skiing in the top three with four kilometers to go, and he was bored.
“I was like, ‘I don’t know, maybe I should just drop out because I don’t even care,’ and that was kind of pathetic,” he reflected.
He ended up third on the day, and later that month, placed 24th in the American Birkebeiner — an event, like nationals, he said he felt horrible in.
“I’ve never just been so sluggish through an entire season like that,” Sinnott said. “It wasn’t an overtraining thing, but I just never felt that I had the spark.”
He ended up eighth in the 2013/2014 SuperTour overall. Because he wasn’t among the closest contenders for an Olympic spot, he wasn’t crushed when he didn’t make the team. But his season did leave him with untied ends he would later have to reconcile.
“There was no sudden crash or hope lingering on that some people were affected with because I had a better understanding [of the criteria],” Sinnott said. “When I was younger I thought, race your hardest and things will turn out well, and I quickly realized that wasn’t the case. You have to make your own luck and work your hardest because nothing’s going to be given to you … you have to force your way onto a team or force your way into a start race because you earned your way.”
Change of Seasons, Change of Pace
A couple Fridays ago, Sinnott was hanging up a piñata midday in his Sun Valley home. He wasn’t recovering from the morning’s training session with the Gold Team, and he wasn’t gearing up for an afternoon workout, either.
Since last spring, he had been a working man in a different sense: marketing and writing for the Sun Valley Harvest Festival, one of the top 10 fall festivals in the country. And with the September festival in the rearview, he was prepping for a party at his place.
Mikey Sinnott (lower r, facing camera in green) at Sun Valley’s annual Baldy Hill Climb, while Darlene Young (with poles, in blue) pushes on. (Photo: Facebook/Jon Engan)
He’d certainly been working out — just not in the traditional sense that he’d been accustomed to for the last seven years. He’d done the unofficial Ultimate Man.Ultimate Woman series, the brainchild of former Sun Valley coach Chris Mallory and a compilation of four local offroad endurance events: the Boulder Mountain Tour (30-kilometer ski race), Backcountry Run (16-mile trail run), Double Galena Grinder (45-mile mountain-bike race), and the Cheeso Double Baldy Hill Climb.
The series ended Sept. 27 at the top of the 9,020-foot Bald Mountain, where Sinnott placed eighth on the day and fourth overall.
Rather than run more than 3,000 meters to the summit, the ultimate men and women had to ascend it twice: biking up Baldy, riding the gondola down and running/hiking back up. Twenty-five people started the series, four finished, and among them, Sinnott skied the fastest time in the Boulder Mountain Tour (BMT) and notched the second-fastest time in another event. He lost an hour in the mountain-bike race and was down to fourth — last — by the end of the series.
“Running after you bike is awful,” he said. “Eleven months ago, I signed up for [this] race series … I know I’m not going to do it again.”
Meanwhile, after the BMT in February and before the Backcountry Run in July, Sinnott decided whether to continue ski racing through 2014/2015. Still unsure exactly what went wrong last winter — he tried to rest more; he tried to train more — he reasoned it was worth stepping back and trying to put everything back together, and started training again in May.
Sinnott and Miles Havlick during an August 2013 training run through the sagebrush in the Upper Salmon River Valley, Idaho. (Photo: Facebook/Miles Havlick)
It didn’t take long until he realized he wasn’t having fun anymore.
“I just wasn’t enjoying getting out the door anymore,” he said. “If there wasn’t someone waiting for me, then I wasn’t motivated to go exercise on my own.”
Reasoning he was “fighting an uphill battle in an uphill sport,” Sinnott said it wasn’t worth wasting his time or his coaches’. Kapala said they sat down and talked about it.
“We sort of sensed it was coming,” Kapala explained. “There’s a natural lifespan to cross-country careers. Mike was certainly of the caliber that he could’ve chosen to ski another year or two years — I don’t think we would’ve seen any drop off in his production … but I think he looked at it like he was trying to make this Olympic squad …
“I said, ‘You’ve had an exceptional career in ski racing,’ ” he added. “ ‘You really think the experiences in total that you’ve had in ski racing would be that much enhanced by slugging it out for another four years?’ He was already like, yeah, I think it’s time for some new challenges.”
Sinnott said conversations with Gold Team head coach Colin Rodgers also helped open his eyes to where he stood mentally.
Last season’s Gold Team, with former skiers Mikey Sinnott (retired, third from r) Chelsea Holmes (now at APU, second from r), and Rose Kemp (retired, second from l). (Photo: Facebook/SVSEF Gold Team)
“He’s been saying for the last year I just didn’t have the same personality with skiing,” Sinnott said. “And I saw him recently and he thought I’d recovered into my old self. Rick’s super supportive … and they all just care so much. All my coaches just want what’s best for me.”
Sinnott’s Favorite Moments:
(as written in an email)
“A few highlights for myself were the Dartmouth College National Championship, winning the Boulder Mountain Tour, my first European World Cup in Milan, and racing the Holmenkollen. Lots of memories, but those were special for a variety of reasons:I loved collegiate racing. It is the best domestic race series we have. Such comaraderie, and racing for something bigger than yourself. I loved how much of a team we were, and how meaningful it was to so many people to bring home the National Championship. Our school, our alums, the East Coast. I even remember heading straight to U23s while they were still tabulating the scores, and upon arrival getting a hearty cheer from Pat Casey. He was so proud to see a group of Americans, all under 23, be the top team. It showed US skiing was on the rise, and we didn’t have to look up to the Euros anymore. It was a pretty cool feat, and an incredible group of people to be a part of. I think there were three or four future Olympians, and two future World Championship runners.
Winning the Boulder Mountain Tour was special because it was my first real professional title, and it was in my home town, in front of family and friends. Wow. Such a special moment to represent them. My home town is beyond supportive, and it feels great to show them what they are supporting.
Of course skiing in Milan was all together unreal, and a wonderful new persepective on what could be achieved through skiing. I remember seeing Kikkan on the podium, and seeing her mobbed for autographs. I remember seeing lots of the U.S. team being mobbed for autographs. Riding the bus with all the world elites, joking with them (okay, Simi joked with them, I gawked a little), being in such a world center and to have it lined with fans of nordic skiing. Wow. I thought it couldnt get any better… But oh did it.
Finally, racing the Holmenkollen. I had a terrible race that day, and was well out the back from the get go. It was slushy and slow. I loved every minute of that suffer slog. The course was lined by thousands of fans who had camped out for days. They were chanting my name around every corner, before I was even in sight. There was such energy and appreciation and excitement, it was beyond contagious. They willed me onwards no matter how tired I became. I cannot express what that felt like, to be among the worst in the race, and still have this wall of humanity urging you and screaming for you. Wow. Those Norwegians do it right.
A lot of my best memories come from the people I met, and the people I shared my career with. I could list a multitude more stories, but they mostly center around the people and how their interactions left an imprint on me. I stayed and raced for a week with a Norwegian racing team — so generous, so kind. Erik Stange took me for a ski tour outside Lillehammer that ended at a waffle house, only available via skiing. Last season, a friend came to watch me race in Davos and brought a huge poster that had personal remarks from a dozen or so close college friends encouraging, and cajoling me. It was great.”
Looking back, Sinnott had a long list of career highlights: Dartmouth’s national championship, winning the 2008 BMT, his first European World Cup in Milan in 2012, and racing at Holmenkollen that same season.
“I loved collegiate racing,” he explained. “It is the best domestic race series we have. Such camaraderie, and racing for something bigger than yourself. I loved how much of a team we were, and how meaningful it was to so many people to bring home the National Championship.
“Winning the Boulder Mountain Tour was special because it was my first real professional title, and it was in my home town, in front of family and friends,” he added. “Such a special moment to represent them. My hometown is beyond supportive, and it feels great to show them what they are supporting.”
And that’s why he planned to stick around town and help out while he plans his next move. Throughout the offseason, Sinnott has been working with U18 skiers and younger on the SVSEF Comp Team, shadowing them during workouts to push and motivate them a few times a week.
“He’s getting ready to transition to the next phase of his life … [and] he’s taking this year to give back to our program,” Kapala said. “We’ve got this group of ten kick-ass U18 guys — think of that workout when they’re going out for this hour-and-a-half roll and Mike is embedded in that workout with them. … That’s huge.”
Kapala said his program reserves some money for guest coaching, and while it’s not much, he knew Sinnott would do it for free.
“I’ve been blessed with the coaching that I’ve had over the years … [with Kapala, Ruff Patterson in college, Travis Jones and Rodgers on the Gold Team],” Sinnott said. “I know that I don’t have some of those characteristics especially at a youth level … I don’t have the consistency day in and out required of a quality coach.”
So he doesn’t necessarily envision himself as a full-time coach one day, but he’s happy to jump in as needed.
In the meantime, he said he’ll be taking the next year to figure out his new career path and will continue to work with the Sun Valley Harvest Festival through the winter. He started the job in May as a means of keeping him mentally stimulated while training. When he stepped away from skiing in late May/early June, he began to call it his career.
Sinnott spent the next several months focusing on the leadup to the festival and coaching on the side. He create a life plan beyond that, but he has a few ideas.
“I thought I was going to map [it] out this summer — that never happened,” he said. “I want to know exactly what I want to do before I start looking into grad school. Since I graduated, neuroscience has become a more popular field among the smarty pants of the world, and my brain has atrophied…”
He has yet to find out what that field holds for him, but above all, Sinnott remembers enjoying school, the curriculum, “the knowledge, and the horizon they presented with some of the unknown,” he said.
He has a Sun Valley mountain pass this winter, so he figured he’d take some downhill runs on powder days to sort it out. This month, he headed east for 10 days for a wedding in New Hampshire.
“I’ll bring running shoes, but I don’t have to bring rollerskis, so that’s a plus,” he noted.
And while he might travel a bit, and give races like the Birkie another try (at a more leisurely pace), he’ll continue to call Sun Valley his home.
“I’ve traveled around and looked at various places and there’s nothing compared to here,” he said. “The Norwegian national team, they [came] here before the Olympics in Salt Lake and Vancouver, and they say this is the perfect training place.”
And the team has been an integral part of his experiences.
“It’s always been, the team I want to hang out with on the [domestic] circuit is Sun Valley,” he said. “They’re good people that I have fun with.”
Leaving the Gold Team, which includes Miles Havlick, Matt Gelso, Ben Lustgarten, Mary Rose, Makayla Cappel, and Paige Schember, Sinnott said it’s in a good place.
“[That’s] the best team in the country this year. They’re unbelievable,” he said. “There’s definitely times where I’ll see time trials and I’ll say, ‘Oh man, I wish I could be out there.’ If I wanted to be out there, I would be. It’s not like anyone told me no, I just don’t want to be out there anymore. It’s been really good to be more social and adventure with friends. I haven’t really second-guessed it.”
Kapala said Sinnott could be the poster child of how to have a great life ski racing, which is why it’s so valuable having him around.
“I’ve learned way more as a coach from Mike than Mike has learned from me,” he said. “I never got the sense that Mikey was just in it for results. Because of that, you get the kind of guy who’s perspective on the sport is really helpful and powerful and now he’s out there training with our juniors. … That’s another piece of us really getting somewhere.”
![Kristina Smigun (in white and blue) on the way to gold at the 2006 Olympics. That medal may now be stripped, according to Norway's TV2.](http://fasterskier.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2009/10/smigun.jpg")
![Norway's Nils Erik Ulset (right) with a Russian gold medalist at the 2014 Paralympic Games. (Photo: Matt Boulton / Wikimedia Commons)](http://fasterskier.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2015/11/320px-2010_Winter_Paralympics_Mens_Biathlon_pursuit_st_medalists.jpg")
![Kristina Smigun in 2007. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)](http://fasterskier.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2015/11/Kristina_Šmigun_2007.jpg")
![Mikey Sinnott on the World Cup last December in Lillehammer, Norway. (Photo: Facebook/MWSC) https://www.facebook.com/maine.Winter.Sports.Center/photos/t.1309153346/10152451352903312/?type=3&theater](http://fasterskier.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2014/10/996997_10152451352903312_1032363334_n.jpg")
![Mikey Sinnott at the 2011 U.S. nationals classic sprint. (Photo: FlyingPointRoad/flyingpointroad.com)](http://fasterskier.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2014/10/Sinnott.jpg")
![Mikey Sinnott (l), of the Sun Valley Ski Education Foundation (SVSEF), climbs up and over a hill in the 30 k freestyle mass start at 2014 U.S. nationals. (Photo: Bert Boer - http://bertboyer.zenfolio.com) All proceeds from photo sales will be directly donated to NNF. Sinnott's former Sun Valley teammate Miles Havlick (5) leads the chase pack during the U.S. Nationals 30 k freestyle mass start while Sinnott (second from l) gets tangled on the way up. (Photo: Bert Boyer/All proceeds from photo sales donated to NNF)](http://fasterskier.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2014/01/sinnott-start-of-lap-4.jpg")
![Mikey Sinnott (lower r, in green) at the Sun Valley's annual Baldy Hill Climb, while Darlene Young (with poles, in blue) pushes on. (Photo: Facebook/Jon Engan) https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10203960529367676&set=a.2885261424722.135136.1655738374&type=1&theater](http://fasterskier.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2014/10/10698531_10203960529367676_2132184619576859090_n.jpg")
![Sinnott and Miles Havlick during an August 2013 training run through the sagebrush in the Upper Salmon River Valley, Idaho. (Photo: Facebook/Miles Havlick) https://www.facebook.com/mileshavlickxcskier/photos/t.1309153346/565991460102601/?type=3&theater](http://fasterskier.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2014/10/1097083_565991460102601_1067815160_o.jpg")
![Last season's Gold Team, with former skiers Sinnott (third from r) Chelsea Holmes (now at APU, second from r), and Rose Kemp (retired). (Photo: Facebook/SVSEF Gold Team) https://www.facebook.com/SVSEFXCGold](http://fasterskier.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2014/10/1049203_407696976008895_904010771_o.jpg")