Saturday, July 8, 2017

The Curious and Complex Case of Alex Schwazer

"Do they realise they are part of the plot against AS and the potential consequences for them?"

This statement, by an IAAF official to a to an attorney representing the IAAF refers to an athlete  - Alex Schwazer, AS -- who WADA and IAAF are collaborating together to convict of a doping offense. The "them" that is being referred to here is the WADA laboratory in Cologne. The "plot against AS"?  Well, that is a curious phrasing.

This statement can be found in a tranche of emails involving the Schwazer case released by Fancy Bears earlier this week.

Even before the leaked emails, the Schwazer case has been much discussed as problematic in many respects.  Here I'll list some resources for this case as a starting point for discussion.  The case is complex, involves many personalities, agendas and accusations. It also has a history going back many years, centering on Schwazer's coach, Sandro Donati.

I don't understand all the ins and outs, but I'd sure like to.

What else should I list here?

1 comment:

  1. I don’t agree that “WADA and IAAF are collaborating together to convict of a doping offense [AS]”.
    They already did it in the sport area (8 years). Now, we are in the civil area. Since doping is a criminal offense in Italy, the Italian police is investigating Alex. AS says he did not dope (now, he admitted it in 2012... and spoke about a lot of things and peoples). The Italian judge requested the ‘proof’, that is: the positive urine. Wada and iaff know that without the proof the civil law cannot convict AS. Even more, I feel that denying the DNA text is to deny a basic human right in justice: to be sure that it is the incriminated people’urine. If wada & iaff are sure that the urine is positive, and that it is the one and only of AS, what is their problem in giving it? The police will find Alex’DNA profile and they won, the case and in credibility…
    In the e.mails they say that according to all the experts, it is impossible to say if it was an involuntary or voluntary assumption of the substance. For the sport laws, it is not necessary. The burden of the proof is with the athletes and AS did not explain how the prohibited substance entered his body (CAS sentence). But it is important in the criminal case. So, they write that will be very difficult to convict AS in the criminal case, and because of that the DNA text it is not even necessary… Are they really trying to help the Italian police to convict him, or what?
    And why 3 autonomous entities (Iaff, wada and laboratory) are ‘complotting together’ and not autonomous anymore? Why wada is not preoccupied that all the correct procedures have been duly followed by the iaff personal (there is a lot of complaining in tha CAS award…) and that the urine is the correct one? Should be his job: to oversee… And why the laboratory obey iaff orders and not judge’s orders? ...If it is complying now, in what else they summon together?