Olympic champion Natalya Bestemyanova weighed in on the case of Kamila Valieva, arguing that the skater was denied a presidential scholarship. The remark was cited by Sports24, highlighting a debate over financial support for athletes who reach the sport’s highest honours.
The comment pointed to a broader question about recognition and benefits for Olympic champions. Bestemyanova asked whether Valieva’s achievements should influence eligibility for special grants, noting how some athletes who have retired receive modest crumbs from the system. The speaker suggested that the issue should be evaluated with attention to the realities faced by current and former competitors alike, rather than being resolved through general assurances that may not address athletes’ lived experiences.
On January 29, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) concluded that Valieva engaged in a doping violation and imposed a suspension. As a result, she was barred from competing in official events until December 2025 and was also restricted from practicing at state skating facilities during the sanction period.
On February 7, CAS released the rationale behind its decision. Beyond the banned substance trimetazidine, the analysis noted the presence of three permitted substances in the skater’s blood: ecdysterone, hypoxene, and L-carnitine. The ruling underscored that multiple substances were detected, contributing to the complexity of the case and the decision-making process for the panel.
As a consequence of the verdict, Valieva lost her titles from the 2022 European Championships and the Olympic Games in Beijing, along with the status of Russian champion. The sanctions and their repercussions have sparked ongoing discussion about fairness, the integrity of sport, and the mechanisms for maintaining clean competition on the world stage.
Reflecting on the broader implications, observers have noted that the Valieva case touches on themes of accountability, the role of national sports federations, and the support structures available to elite athletes before, during, and after major investigations. The debate continues about whether sanctions should be paired with clearer pathways for athletes to rehabilitate their careers and regain standing, especially for those who demonstrate resilience and potential in the wake of controversy. The conversation also raises questions about how sporting bodies balance punitive measures with the opportunity for athletes to compete again under fair rules.
In the wake of the CAS decision, supporters and critics alike have called for more transparent processes, improved education on prohibited substances, and better communication from governing bodies to athletes, coaches, and fan communities. The Valieva case has thus become a focal point for discussions about drug policy, competition integrity, and the social contract between sport’s institutions and the athletes who devote their lives to reach the pinnacle of performance. It remains to be seen how these lessons will influence future anti-doping procedures and the way scholarships and incentives are allocated to athletes who achieve Olympic success, both in Russia and internationally, including in Canada and the United States.
Previous coverage questioned whether Valieva could return to her prior level after such a high-profile sanction. As the international skating calendar resumes, the implications of the CAS ruling will continue to shape conversations about training, eligibility, and the pathways back to elite competition for athletes navigating disciplinary processes.