--- In Speed_skating@yahoogroups.com, "Marcel Warnaar" <mwarnaar@...> wrote:


> She assured that she had never taken doping and she apologized for lying
> about her illness for withdrawing in Hamar.
>

> - She knew about the friday blood test on Saturday. On Saturday evening,
> team leader Helge Jasch aksed her to come and gave her the outcomes.
> Together with an ISU-proposal: Or to withdraw because of illness with the
> promise to settle it later out of the publicity or to have an immediate,
> preventive suspension (publicly announced of course). Being so overwhelmed,
> they chose for the first option.

> - The DESG-president, who was also interviewed, spoke of another proposal in
> the course of the process. If Pechstein would end her career, the case could
> be closed.


Considering what has obviously happened in this case - how it has all been
handled, I simply can't avoid asking myself the following question: What is
REALLY going on in the corridors and behind closed doors in general. What is
there that the public never gets to know anything about? To what extent can
explanations from skaters, federations or medical personnel as to withdrawals -
or retirements for that matter - be trusted?
At first it may seem that "offering" Claudia the opportunity to withdraw "due
to illness" was an initiative taken to protect HER. However, I would say that
the ISU, DESG and the Hamar arrangement committee had their own interests to
take care of - business interests. It would not be good for the sport - neither
the business part of it nor the general publicity - having cases of doping or
doping suspicions revaled in front of crowded stands and during TV-coverage from
a major event. There IS indeed a parallell to the Anzhelika Kotyuga case some
years ago - as to the way things were done. Her positive test was from a world
cup event in Heerenveen. But the announcement and verdict from the ISU weren't
presented until about half a year later. Is it a deliberate strategy to publish
information on doping cases in speed skating in summer simply to minimize the
general attention to it from the public?
Andrew Jennings, long time IOC critic, has claimed that the committee isn't
really interested in fighing against doping - simply because actual cases would
destroy the image of the Olympic Games and of a "pure, ideal and clean" sport.
In one of his books Jennings even says that the IOC didn't really want to
publish the positive test result of Ben Johnson back in -88. But, allegedly, a
laboratory assistant had given the information to the press, so there was no way
it could be held back.


> - Pechstein's lawyer talked about the defense they will be using: - there
> will be a medical check; is it possible to suspend someone on indices only?;
> is it OK that a skater should prove his innocence, instead of the ISU having
> to prove the guilt?
>
> So, IMO, a very juridical point of view. Suppose they win that and Pechstein
> is released on such a minor detail. Could we be happy about that? How would
> we look at her during the Vancouver Olympics? The DESG is right behind her.
> It takes the risk that the supsicion on Pechstein will be transferred to the
> whole German federation. Bad as it is, a lot of parallels with cycling a
> couple of years ago come into my mind....
>
> Marcel
>
>


What I would like to say is that any doping case - alleged or confirmed - is
casting long shadows, both backwards and sideways. Unfortunately.




Greetings
Sveinung.