In a conversation with a Japanese broadcaster, the renowned Russian coach Eteri Tutberidze spoke about the Kamila Valieva case, insisting that the coaching staff did not see any justification for supplying substances to the skater during the Russian Championships. He argued that Valieva had the capability to prevail on the strength of her own performance, without any doping assistance, and that the team did not understand how a different outcome could be imagined. Tutberidze raised questions about the origins of the issue, expressing confusion over why the topic had surfaced and why certain conclusions were drawn without clear thinking. He emphasized that, initially, the competition appeared clean, suggesting that a doping suspension at the Russian Championships would be illogical given Valieva’s demonstrated success throughout the season. In his view, a suspension under those circumstances would imply that the team had taken deliberate steps to advantage a skater who had already proven herself with consistent results, which did not align with what he had observed.
On January 29, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling finding Valieva guilty of doping and imposing a ban that would prevent participation in competitions until December 2025. The decision also restricted her access to training facilities, including state skating rinks. This ruling marked a severe turning point in the athlete’s competitive trajectory and affected the broader team’s standing and preparation across international events. The CAS verdict prompted widespread discussion about the implications for future events, athlete welfare, and the responsibilities of national programs in safeguarding fair competition while supporting elite performance. The consequences extended beyond the individual, touching on the reputations of teams and coaching groups involved in the sport’s high-stakes environment.
On February 7, CAS provided a detailed rationale for Valieva’s case. Beyond the prohibited substance trimetazidine, the report noted the presence of three permitted substances in the skater’s blood: ecdysterone, hypoxene, and L-carnitine. The document also highlighted that the athlete had reportedly used a substantial number of medications and supplements during the 2020–2021 period, with estimates around sixty items. The explanation outlined the complexities of differentiating between prohibited substances and accepted supplements, underscoring the careful analysis required to interpret metabolic and pharmacological data within the context of high-level sport. The narrative underscored the balancing act between ensuring safe, fair competition and recognizing the realities of modern training regimens and nutritional strategies employed by athletes and their medical teams.
Following the disqualification, the International Skating Union (ISU) adjusted the event results for the 2022 Olympic Games. The team event saw Russia placed third, while the United States captured the gold medal. The action reflected the ISU’s approach to awards that recognize team performances while accounting for the impact of individual sanctions on the overall medal table. This situation highlighted how administrative decisions can shape the historical record of major competitions and influence the public perception of national teams and their coaching staffs. The episode also spurred ongoing dialogue about how governing bodies manage post-competition sanctions and the paths athletes and teams take in the wake of such rulings.
Earlier remarks from Tutberidze acknowledged the difficulties surrounding Valieva’s problems, addressing the broader pressures faced by athletes, coaches, and support personnel in the sport. His observations pointed to the tense interplay between performance pressures, regulatory frameworks, and ethical standards that govern elite figure skating. The discussion underscored the need for clarity in procedures, consistent enforcement of rules, and transparent communication to help fans, athletes, and national programs navigate a sport where success is intensely scrutinized and privacy concerns are often weighed against public accountability.