Yuliya Efimova Must Face FINA Doping Panel Before Any CAS Hearing, Says Intl Fed

Yuliya Efimova waved goodbye to racing for just over a year when after testing positive … and that would not be the end of it  - by Patrick B. Kraemer
Yuliya Efimova waved goodbye to racing for just over a year when after testing positive … and that would not be the end of it - by Patrick B. Kraemer

FINA has denied Russian reports that suggested this week that Yuliya Efimova’s latest doping case will go straight to a Court of Arbitration for Sport hearing, bypassing the FINA Doping Panel.

All SwimVortex articles are placed in our archive after five days, the library of content available to subscribers.
Log In Register

Comments

Ger

Back to square one then; maybe, possibly. A gold medal to anyone who has a clue what is going on.

Craig Lord

The clues are all in the copy Ger 🙂 Behind the scenes much to and fro – but due process will prevail.

aswimfan

I assume that during the suspension, Efimova has been training under her Russian coaches since March.
So, as soon as her suspension was lifted by FINA, she flew immediately back to LA in order NOT to train with Trojan Swim Club under coach Salo?

The mystery deepens. She decided to be separated from her Russian coaches only less than 3 months before the Olympics so she can train by herself in some non-descript local pool in LA area?

Hmmm…..

Craig, someone need to get to the bottom of this all.

Craig Lord

Yes, aswimfan… it won’t be long now…

clive rushton

Light at the end if the tunnel?

“This was mainly due to the sequence of testing results of Ms Efimova.”

That seems to support the negative in January followed by positive(s) which, of course, would make a mockery of any defense based on residual contamination from December.

And, yes, aswimfan, how logical to bail out of Russia into a nondescript LA suburb 🙂

Ger

So we’re waiting on WADA to determine how long it takes for meldonium to exit the system. Surely, this research should have been undertaken before the ban was implemented. WADA have made a bit of a mess with this and the 1mg loophole was seemingly introduced without sufficient knowledge on how long the drug stays in the system, as they are at present still doing the research to determine this. It seems like a strange decision to have made.

aswimfan

Ger,

Regardless of the threshold level, the fact:
Efimova tested negative in January
She tested positive twice in February.

How on earth will she be able to mount a defense based on that?

Ger

ASF,
I get your point and with that in mind, why do they need to await the results of further research if the evidence clearly indicates that she took the substance during, or after January? It seems open and shut. It doesn’t matter how long it takes to exit the system if she took it after January.

Yozhik

Asf, read article carefully and please don’t start rumors. Efimova was “… tested by FINA out-of-competition agents in January this year and it is believed that there was no adverse finding on that occasion…”. Look how careful Mr. Lord is – ” IT IS BELIEVED”.
I kindly suggest you to follow his example or to make direct references to documents. Thanks.

aswimfan

Yozhik,

I kindly you to read the full FINA statement before accusing someone else for spreading rumours:

“In mid-April, based on the scientific evidence made available by WADA at that time, FINA’s decision had been to maintain the suspension. This was mainly due to the sequence of testing results of Ms Efimova.”

http://fina.org/news/pr-46-fina-statement-ms-yulia-efimova-rus

Please read carefully and slowly the part:
This was mainly due to the sequence of testing results of Ms Efimova.

Yozhik

@asf:
So you are saying that this is the fact – there was no meldonium in Ms Efimova’s system in January. You can of course rush with this news to Mr. Lord to make him certain about the result of this test, but actually this news is actually a bad one. I meant it is a good news for Efimova and a bad news for those who don’t want to see her competing in Rio this summer. If WADA’s test in January was negative it means that either WADA’s testing technology is of poor quality and is inaccurate or Efimova didn’t take meldonium for at least since Kazan WC. But she stated that she stopped to use it in December 2015. So if January test cannot be trusted, then why should be trusted positive test in February?
What a conundrum, Asf. Try to read between lines.

Craig Lord

Yozhik, trust is indeed in play – but the test reliability is not the biggest player

Yozhik

@Craig Lord. I know very little about documented facts in Efimova’s case. I don’t know what her appeal will look like and what would be the line of defence. So whenever I see the carefully formulated statements like you made in your article then I believe there is a reason for that and suggested asf to follow this responsibility.

Yozhik

*reason not responsibility

aswimfan

Yozhik,

I asked you to read the FINA statement carefully and slowly and I suggested you to follow my advice.

“In mid-April, based on the scientific evidence made available by WADA at that time, FINA’s decision had been to maintain the suspension. This was mainly due to the sequence of testing results of Ms Efimova.”

Try to read between the lines. It means FINA is very sure that Efimova is guilty by maintaining suspension in mid-April based on the sequence of testing results of Efimova.

Why do you only conclude that WADA testing is unreliable if Efimova’s January test was negative and February two testing was positive?
Yes, Efimova *claimed* she didn’t take meldonium after January, so you would rather the word of a cheater?
You have completely dismissed the possibility that Efimova didn’t take meldoium in January and started taking it again in February?

aswimfan

Yozhik,

If you don’t trust me that Efimova’s January test was negative, here’s the news:

Now, the FINA doping statistics file for January 2016, appear to rule out that anything Efimova might have taken in December could still be detectable in February: Efimova was tested by out-of-competition agents in January – and returned a negative result.
http://www.swimvortex.com/yana-martynova-appeals-4-year-ban-as-january-test-questions-efimova-line/

Now, please read slowly and carefully so as not to go on smearing anyone for spreading rumours.

Please act responsibly.

aswimfan

Yozhik,

If you don’t believe me that Efimova was tested in January, then manybe you can trust FINA:

http://www.fina.org/sites/default/files/fina_testing_january_2016_v2.pdf

Do I need to tell how to find the name Efimova, Yuliya in that list?
It’s in the group of RUS swimmers, right after NZL.

So, I want you to retract your words that I spread rumours.

beachmouse

Meanwhile, there’s a partial black list of the 2008 Beijing retests that seems to be circulating in Russian media- 14 of the 31 are Russian; 10 in track & field.

aswimfan

beachmouse,
Will be interesting to see if this means that Russian track&field Olympics ban will stay. There’s more pressure now on IAAF and IOC to ensure that the ban remains in place.

gheko

Sun Yang, Yuliya Efimova Among Swimmers Entered in 2016 Arena Pro Swim Series Santa Clara

Leave a comment

Post a comment with your SwimVortex Account. Don't have a SwimVortex Account, Sign Up?

(*) Fields are required!
×