Image Credits: @vytautas_dranginis_vee on Unsplash (Unsplash License)

The Valieva Case

Following the Figure Skating Team Competition at the Beijing Olympics in February 2022, Kamila Valieva, a 15-year-old from the Russian Olympic Committee (ROC), was anticipated to reign victorious in her individual event. However, when reports began to arise that Valieva tested positive for a banned substance before the Olympics, a storm of controversy erupted and the fate of both the team and individual events were called into question. Many debated whether the ROC should receive its gold medal, as Valieva had participated in this competition. In addition, many argued that Valieva should not be allowed to compete in the upcoming women’s individual event. This situation put the Olympic Committee in a difficult position. The Chair of the U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee, Susanne Lyons, stated that “the reality is that the whole credibility of the Olympic Movement and the Paralympic Movement stands teetering on the edge.” 

As the scandal unfolded, more and more details about the situation emerged. For one, the International Testing Agency (ITA), the leading agency on anti-doping, revealed that the drug sample was taken on December 25th during the Russian Figure Skating Championships; however, it was not until February 8th that a laboratory in Sweden reported that it detected a banned substance. The substance, called trimetazidine, had been on the World Anti-Doping Agency’s (WADA) banned list since 2014, as it can increase blood flow and improve endurance. Following the initial report of the failed test, Valieva was given a provisional suspension by the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA). However, Valieva challenged the suspension on February 9th and the ban was subsequently removed. Thus, at the time, she could continue competing. 

Although the Russian anti-doping agency had lifted the suspension, the issue was far from being resolved. Instead, the case went on to be heard by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which was expected to make a decision before February 15th, the beginning of the women’s individual competition. Essentially, this case involved the International Olympic Committee (IOC) posing a challenge to RUSADA’s decision. The International Skating Union (ISU) and WADA also joined this appeal on the side of the IOC. 

On February 14th, the CAS released its decision. Valieva would be allowed to compete in the women’s competition on the basis that she did not need to be provisionally suspended ahead of a full investigation and that she was a “protected person” under the World Anti-Doping Code. Furthermore, CAS Director-General Matthieu Reeb stated that “the panel considered that preventing the athlete to compete at the Olympics would cause her irreparable harm in the circumstances.” Along with this came the IOC’s decision that there would not be a medal ceremony if Valieva placed in the top three. Unsurprisingly, allowing Valieva to compete only heightened the controversy, as many expressed disappointment and frustration given Russia’s history of state-sponsored doping and because of the expectation of a clean, drug-free sport.

Although Valieva finished in fourth place overall in the competition, meaning that the top three athletes appeared in a medal ceremony, the investigation of whether Valieva violated the World Anti-Doping Code is still ongoing. Thus, questions of what exactly Valieva took, whether it was intentional, and what purpose it was taken for are still unclear. That said, it is known that Valieva also had two other heart medications (not banned) in her system in addition to trimetazidine. As mentioned earlier, an important aspect of this investigation is that Valieva is a “protected person” as a minor under 16 years of age. Consequently, she is unlikely to be held fully responsible for taking the banned substance. Instead, investigators are likely to focus on her team, including coaches, doctors, and other officials considered relevant to the case. In other words, Valieva is unlikely to receive the level of penalty that an adult would, and, if punishment is given, it is more likely to fall on adults who possibly either knew about the drug use or provided her with the drug itself.

International Sporting Policies and Potential Changes 

In the interim, the scandal has prompted the resurgence of many important conversations surrounding the protection of athletes, especially those who are minors, and the protection of fair sport. First, this situation has sparked challenges to the minimum age for Olympic figure skaters, which is currently set at 15 years old. Interestingly, each sport’s governing body is responsible for setting age limits, which is the ISU in this case, and not the overarching IOC. As a result, allowing 15-year-olds to compete in figure skating creates a loophole in policy that can potentially be exploited. Accordingly, there have been reports that a proposal to raise the minimum age for Olympic-level (senior) competitions from 15 to 17 will be on the ISU agenda during the upcoming summer. If this change does occur, the new policy would have a considerable, but perhaps necessary, impact on the sport. How so? Since 1994, the majority of women’s figure skating Olympic champions were under 17. This is because female figure skaters tend to peak before their bodies are fully mature, which is often in their mid-teens. Because of this, some oppose the idea of raising the age limit because it could penalize athletes who peak at a younger age and who are competing fairly without the use of illegal substances. 

At the same time, young athletes are particularly vulnerable to mistreatment by authority figures. Therefore, raising the minimum age to avoid issues surrounding “protected persons” and to promote more longevity in the sport may not be sufficient. As stated by Rachael Denhollander, a former gymnast who was the first athlete to publicly accuse Larry Nassar of sexual abuse, athletes do not suddenly change their perception of authority figures when they turn seventeen and, for that reason, “We need to be on guard for individuals and entities who are going to make raising the age minimum sound like an easy fix because they don’t want to dismantle the system and get rid of the people in power who are feeding the system. That requires much more work and complete restructuring and people don’t want to do that work.” Similarly, former figure skater Polina Edmunds noted that “if you raise the age limit and not do anything about what this coaching team is doing, corruption is still going to happen,” referring to Valieva’s coaching team led by Eteri Tutberidze. According to Edmunds, Tutberidze’s skaters have consistently been overscored by ISU judges, which has encouraged her questionable coaching practices. In other words, Tutberidze continues to successfully coach numerous skaters despite scrutiny regarding the fact that many of her athletes retire after a couple of senior seasons due to injuries, a phenomenon known amongst figure skating fans as the “Eteri expiration date.”

Finally, this scandal has highlighted the decentralized nature of anti-doping regulations and punishment. As described earlier, RUSADA initiated Valieva’s provisional suspension only to lift it upon challenge, which was then appealed by the IOC, WADA, and ISU. In other words, each country’s anti-doping agency has some sovereignty over cases, meaning that Russian athletes are not necessarily held to the same standards as American athletes, for example. Thus, it is the responsibility of CAS, the prominent legal body in global sports, to ensure fairness at the international level. This is precisely what many believe the CAS failed to do. 

All things considered, the 2022 Beijing Olympics underscored how legal ambiguity can lead to serious problems, which should not be acceptable given the potential for exploitation. The lack of consistency and punishment in the existing system created and maintained by adults undoubtedly played a role in enabling the Valieva case and yet she, a 15-year-old, has been the only one to suffer international humiliation for it so far. Hopefully, this unfortunate scandal will be enough to provoke changes to the system and pave the way for a future that rewards fair and healthy sports rather than enabling injustices.