May I ask on what "expert" opinion are you basing your conclusion that she was doping? I said it on another thread and I am saying it again - Simona had had a nose job in September, before her doping accusation came out in October. Her anesthesiologist said to the press that because of that nose job, Simona had to take a "cocktail" of drugs over several weeks (hence her announcement that she would not play at all for the rest of the season). And that in combination with roxadustat, there was a high probability those drugs would have been very dangerous, even lethal for Simona, causing heavy bleeding. The operation went on without the slightest problem. Is that not evidence enough that she had not taken roxadustat over a long period of time?
Then what about the fact that the blood samples taken in the hospital before and during her nose job were not accepted as evidence by ITIA's "independent" sports tribunal? They were probably not consistent with the accusation, that's why.
And what's this thing that judges are "tired"? They could be tired and still uphold the ban if the proof had been solid. meaning that it wasn't. They suspended Valieva, the Russian skater. for 4 years, havent they? (Which is not correct in my opinion as she was 15 at the time, but that is another matter).
I have said it before, if I were Simona, I would sue ITIA and their "tribunal" the pants off in a civil lawsuit for loss of revenue, reputational damage and I guess there are other grounds. Deservedly so.
I am just sick and tired of all the "expert" opinions that of course she doped intentionally. If she had had, there wouldn't have been such a huge difference between the 2 sentences - 4 years versus 9 months. It means that she had solid proof for what she said.
