One year later the case of a positive doping test for Russian ice skater Kamila Valieva still has not been resolved. 

After a two month delay – the laboratory responsible for doing the testing cited Covid as a reason for the delay – it was revealed that a drug test for the then 15 year old had tested positive for a banned substance.  The news came after Valieva had skated as a part of the Russian team who had won the gold medal with the United States coming in second. 

Valieva was suspended from the competition while a decision on her status was made.  As a result, the skater missed a single day and no competition during the Bejing Olympics.  While favoured to win the gold in the individual competition, she had a bad routine and ended up coming in fourth place.

A year later, a Russian tribunal stated that she was not at fault.  The Russian tribunal who made the ruling stated that they showed no special treatment for Valieva in making their decision.  Adding, “RUSADA is convinced that there is a degree of fault for the athlete in the breach of the rules but that it is minimal and that a reasonable sanction could be issuing a reprimand.”

However, the World Anti-Doping Agency and the International Skating Union have filed appeals with the Court of Arbitration for Sport, WADA is asking that Valieva be banned for a period of four years; while the ISU is leaving the resulting punishment up to the court.

On February 24, the Russian Anti Doping Agency also filed an appeal with the CAS, but is asking only for a reprimand and that Valieva be allowed to keep her medal.

To date no medals in the team competition have been awarded, waiting for a final decision on the matter.

The CAS could combine all three appeals into a single case but the process could be complicated by the fact that each party may have a say in one or more of the judges on the three judge panel that will decide the case.  Valieva’s legal team, the three appealing parties, and the CAS itself all will have a say in which judges will sit on the court.

In a case that has already dragged on for a year, the CAS noted, “at this time, it is not possible to indicate a time frame for the issuance of the decision.”