Statement by Kyoko Ina [Archive]

FSO_Webmaster3

10-21-2002, 05:40 PM

http://www.figureskatersonline.com/ina-zimmerman/news_articles_003.html

Kyoko Ina has issued the following statement, in reply to the USADA's accusations of doping:

The action proposed to be taken against me by the United States Anti-Doping Agency ("USADA") is not about drugs. It is about a flawed process that needs fixing, so another innocent person is not punished and humiliated for doing nothing wrong.

I do not take drugs or any banned substances, and never have. I'm not a rule breaker. As a three-time Olympian who has been tested many times, all with negative results, I am a strong anti-drug advocate, and I support the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency's drug-free goal. But, now, after experiencing first-hand how USADA works, I understand all to well that its practices and procedures must be improved.

Through a series of breakdowns in the agency's systems and communications, I was told by the person who showed up unannounced at my home at 10:30 at night that I had to sign an "Athlete Refusal Form" when I was unable to produce a urine sample on demand by 11:15 P.M. I did not at any time "refuse" to take a drug test; I was simply unable to produce a sample at that time, very late at night. We discussed that I would give the sample at the ice rink where I train the very next morning; and I was very much surprised when she did not show up as I thought we had agreed.

I had and have nothing to hide, and did nothing wrong. Those who know and work with me know that I would not sacrifice my career for anything. Please, U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, if you insist on sending people to an athlete's home at bedtime to test an athlete for a urine sample, rather than to the athlete's training site, at least send an official who is properly credentialed and knows the rules. When questions arose that the person USADA sent could not answer, we both called the supposed-24-hour advice line to find out how to proceed, and no one answered. I signed the "refusal form" only when the supposed USADA official told me I had to. But I made it clear on the form that I was not refusing, and wanted to know from the 24-hour advice line (which did not answer) if I could give the sample the next morning.

Later, I found out that that the supposed USADA official had not had any training in over a year, and that her credentials to act on behalf of USADA had expired It is simply unreasonable and improper for USADA to send a person to an athlete's home late at night who not only is uninformed, but unlicensed -- accompanied by her boyfriend -- to observe me all night until I could perform a bodily function.

My only consolation is that, hopefully, my experience will save someone else from this kind of mistake by the USADA.

Ina & Zimmerman Online
http://www.figureskatersonline.com/ina-zimmerman/

danibellerika

10-21-2002, 05:59 PM

Kyoko is so right.

duane

10-21-2002, 07:01 PM

well, now that i have heard Ina's side of the story, i'll be more blunt.

there are ways to beat drug tests. when we were required to give drug tests in the army, i honestly knew that i wouldnt pass (hey, we partied big time!), and believe me, if i had known beforehand that drug tests would be administered, i definitely would have tried to beat them! this is why drug tests are usually given "unannounced" and "unexpectedly",--to reduce the chances of someone cheating. and, i was caught by surprise every time! i couldnt "refuse" to take the test, and the old, overly-used "i'm unable to urinate" story didnt pass the laugh test. so, i had to give my sample, and later suffer the circumstances once the results came back.

now, back to Ina...

once Ina realized that the USADA official didnt have proper credentials, she should have refused to give a urine sample for that reason. when she signed the refusal form, she should have written "i refuse to give a sample because the supposed USDA official does not have credentials proving that she is a USDA official. Also, she showed a lack or professionalism by showing up at my home late at night with her boyfriend". i think this explanation for refusing to provide a sample would be reasonable with most people.

however, the official's lack of proper credentials, lack of training, and lack of professionalism werent reason enough for Ina to refuse to give a sample. Ina apparently agreed to give a sample, but was "unable to produce a sample on demand by 11:15PM".

again, the "i'm unable to urinate" story is a frequently used explanation--one that drug testing officials dont take seriously. using this as the reason for refusing to give a sample wont pass muster, and is probably why Ina now finds herself with a possible suspension.

Mayra

10-21-2002, 08:13 PM

Without knowing all to much about this whole thing, besides the information given, the situation looks like it was mishandled by both sides.

:??

thvudragon

10-21-2002, 08:23 PM

It makes me sick that the USADA would do something as careless as this. The fact that they risked Ina career just makes my blood boil. I feel like hitting someone. Well, that just goes to show that American organizations are very disorganized and can't get their jobs done. Uhhggggggg.

The only plus this week is that Michelle will be competing. I hope my anger right now doesn't interfere with the usual joy and agony I feel watching Michelle and Sasha skate.

TV

Rachel

10-21-2002, 08:40 PM

If you are going to try to beat a drug test, you usually can't cleanse your system of a drug within a few hours. Most drugs linger for quite a while. If you try to flush your system by drinking excessive water, that will show up in the test, too.

I would give Kyoko the benefit of the doubt in this case.

skaternum

10-21-2002, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by duane
once Ina realized that the USADA official didnt have proper credentials, she should have refused to give a urine sample for that reason. <snip>

however, the official's lack of proper credentials, lack of training, and lack of professionalism werent reason enough for Ina to refuse to give a sample. Ina apparently agreed to give a sample, but was "unable to produce a sample on demand by 11:15PM".

Unless I missed something, I didn't get the impression that Ina knew about the credentials at the time of the home visit. She might have known, but that isn't made clear by any of the reports I've read. I am appalled at the behavior of this USADA official! :x Surely this'll be tossed out.

conc

10-21-2002, 08:44 PM

again, the "i'm unable to urinate" story is a frequently used explanation--one that drug testing officials dont take seriously. using this as the reason for refusing to give a sample wont pass muster, and is probably why Ina now finds herself with a possible suspension.

If Ina had volunteered to provide a sample (under "supervision", intrusive as this may sound) the next morning, wouldn't any drugs/steroids/etc. been discovered at 8:00 am the next morning as well as at 10:15 the evening before?

Is there any difference in providing a sample 10 hours later if you can't at this moment? How fast does the telltale signs of illigal substance use wear off in a urine sample? (I was thinking it was 30 days, bit I may be wrong.)

Charis

10-21-2002, 08:57 PM

Well, if you're not taking drugs, why not just hand the person a jelly jar and send her on her way. What did Kyoko think? That she's an imposter trying to obtain a urine sample to sell on ebay?

Do athletes from all countries get tested this often and under the same conditions? How do we know it's not politics, like everything else in skating?

P.S. Thank you, duane, for destroying what little confidence I had left in our armed forces!

Mistyeyed

10-21-2002, 09:06 PM

Poor Kyoko! Now she's going to get slapped around. What won't happen next? Geez!:evil:

CMc

10-21-2002, 09:44 PM

The mere idea of a stranger coming into your home and telling you you have to pee at such and such a time or else you could be suspended is unsettling enough, credentials or not! This episode may have caught Kyoko off-guard and she didn't think to ask the USDSA official about her credentials, but who knows what this person actually said to her?
Again, I hope this gets cleared up. If Kyoko was completely and totally in the right on this, I hope she takes these people to court.

adrianchew

10-21-2002, 09:58 PM

This just in...

http://www.canoe.ca/Slam021021/ska_ina-ap.html

Possibility of a million dollar fine too?

maruko

10-21-2002, 10:16 PM

Adrian,

Thanks for bring that up. A million dollar fine????? I don't think the entire USFSA has half that amount in asset. They want to fine Kyoto for that? Totally ridiculous.

maruko

duane

10-21-2002, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by conc
If Ina had volunteered to provide a sample (under "supervision", intrusive as this may sound) the next morning, wouldn't any drugs/steroids/etc. been discovered at 8:00 am the next morning as well as at 10:15 the evening before?

supposedly, there are certain drugs/herbs that, if taken 10-12 hours before a test, will mask illicit drugs.

how long it actually takes a drug to clean out of your system depends on the drug. it takes 30 days for some, a couple of days for others.

these are reasons why, when a drug test is announced, one is expected to give a sample then and now. allowing a person to take the test hours later destroys the element of surprise, and allows the person to cheat, if he/she has reason to cheat. i dont know for sure if there are things a person can take to cheat a test, but i assume there must be some truth to the claim that the tests can be beaten.

was Ina trying to hide something? i have no idea. but again, even if a person is totally clean, if they are not able to produce a sample at the time a test is administered, 99% of the time it will be considered a failed test.

Originally posted by Charis
Thank you, duane, for destroying what little confidence I had left in our armed forces!

you wont find any workforce in america where everyone is 100% drugfree--whether the armed forces, police force, or even the DEA.
and if it makes you feel any better, i was in the Army years ago (84-86), so perhaps things are more to your liking today. dont judge the entire armed forces on the actions of my friends and me. ;)

hydro

10-21-2002, 10:30 PM

even if Kyoko couldn't give the sample or didn't want to, etc, the official still didn't act in professional manner, whether or not she was creditted or not. Kyoko asked to speak to her supervisor, who was not available. if the 800 number is not working for assistance when its supposed to be, that in it of itself should get Kyoko out of any trouble. if someone can show up at your door at 10:30 at night, there better well be a number you can call to verify or ask for assistance, as their own policy dictates.

amethyst

10-21-2002, 11:57 PM

So... this is probably dumb, because I know nothing about drug testing. But if she couldn't "go" and they waited for 45 minutes while she tried, why couldn't she just chug back a glass of water? She shouldn't have had to do that considering the circumstances, but if it was either that or something as drastic as signing a refusal paper then I'd think the water would be a good idea if they would have let her. Then she could do her business and they could do theirs.

Halo girl

10-22-2002, 04:13 AM

Considering we don't know the whole story.....

Maybe the woman did act unprofessional in bringing along her boyfriend, but if I was going to someone's house that I didn't know at such a late hour, I'd bring someone along with me for safety reasons. However, we don't know the specifics about where the guy was or what he was doing, so I can't comment on that.

Even with the unprofessional manner, I'm sure Kyoko through the years has been made aware of drug testing and what the consequences of refusing a test would be. If she had nothing to hide, I don't see why she didn't ask them to wait for a while until she could relieve herself. This would have kept her out of trouble, and she still could have complained about any of the other problems at a later date.

I'm not saying she took drugs or didn't, I'm just saying she could have saved herself a lot of trouble, assuming she was clean, had she have just gone ahead and taken the test.

Mistyeyed

10-22-2002, 05:15 AM

Why is something not being done to the goofy,uncredentialed person that came to Ina's house at 10:30PM? Something is definately wrong here???? Money talks. Is someone in high places looking to do Ina and Zimmerman in??? Get a good lawyer I&Z and hold tight and ride out the wave. Best of Luck and this sure sounds like more Ice crap to me.:evil: More dirt comming out and it all began in SLC and went on with Ice dancing and so the saga continues:?: I hope that Ina and Z can rise above this. I hope this does not do them in. This really stinks:x

donnamarie

10-22-2002, 06:04 AM

I don't see any reason to go to Ina's house so late at night. The same surprise could have been achieved at 5:00, 6:00, or 7:00. There's no need to show up at 10:30 or to bring a boyfriend, and a person with a lapsed license had no business going in the first place.

Although, if I was Kyoko, I would have drank some water, coffee, tea, whatever, and made sure that person stayed until I could go, to avoid consequences later, and then I would have complained the next day about the way it was done, to cover all my bases. Because Duane's right, not being able to go is not an acceptable excuse. If it was, all potentially dirty testers would use it whenever they needed to.

However I get pretty grouchy by 10:30 at night and I might not have wanted to cooperate with anyone either who invaded my privacy at bedtime. I find it hard to believe that this is standard procedure for the USFSA.

conc

10-22-2002, 06:18 AM

I find it hard to believe that this is standard procedure for the USFSA.

I think the procedure belongs to the USADA (the US Anti-Doping Agency)... not the USFSA.

loveskating

10-22-2002, 07:49 AM

I am just as APPALLED by this as I was by the way Volchkova was treated at Worlds a few years back...and IMHO the "letter" of the law was used to break the spirit of the law in prosecuting B&S for Barezhnaya innocently taking an over the counter caugh medicine.

Something is surely wrong with the law itself, as written, and needs to be changed if the American Arbitration Association can uphold the USADA on this!

How can it POSSIBLY be that the USADA is so "precious" that they could not come back a few weeks later at any hour of the day or night they pleased? Why would ANYONE want to ruin the life and career of a great skater on PURELY procedural grounds?

This is among a long line of so-called "anti-doping" incidents which, IMHO, can be easily construed as more political than legal.

Tessa

10-22-2002, 08:07 AM

I have a friend who just can't ......uh.....produce a urine sample on command. When he goes to the doctor, he literally doesn't pee for the previous 12 hours. His body just works differently and he is very healthy. I wish I was like that. And he drinks lots of water.

Scott

10-22-2002, 08:07 AM

Ina should have booted this person out the door. Who lets a stranger into their house at that hour of the night. I simply would not have answered the door. No credentials? call the police. This is an unreasonable appraoch to getting testing done. Good Lord, almost sounds like storm troopers banging on doors. wjat next??

PAskate

10-22-2002, 08:34 AM

How ironic...

You can cheat and cut deals but not get a lifetime ban. In a couple of years, you can be back judging GP level events.

You get caught in a mire of fumbles and incompence, and you face a lifetime ban and $1 million fine.

What's happening here?

10-22-2002, 09:04 AM

lots of things disturb me here.

1. conducting a drug test at 10:30 at night. Funny, seems to me lots of skaters have early bedtimes. Since when were drug tests done at peoples homes at bedtime, no less?

2. Bringing a boyfriend. Ok, safety, I'll buy that. But a government agency and their officials has an oath of confidentiality. A boyfriend did not take an oath. If she needed protection, my opinion is that she should have brought another agent.

3. I would not have taken the test either. They show up at the door at 10:30 at night -with one person not a government agent. Are they headed directly back to the agency with the sample? I don't know too many government agencies open at 10:30 pm except for police related entities. Forget calling the 1-800 number, I would have called my lawyer.

4. I can't go to the bathroom at night. Bizarre, but thats the way I am. It doesn't really matter what I drink-even beer. No bathroom after about 9. But I am ready at 6 am-clockwork.

5. Reality is, she was between a rock and a hard place. If she took it and failed it, improper procedure would be a huge question, but unfortunately, she would not get over the stigma. And not taking it makes her look like she's hiding something.

My opinion, she was smart enough not to take the test. Particularly when no one is at the 1-800 number. Particularly when one of the people at your door has not taken any oath. Particularly when too much can go wrong. Kudos to the girl for being smart. Now her lawyer better be working his butt off.

Hannahclear

10-22-2002, 09:13 AM

Ina did nothing wrong. Even if she only found out about the credentials later, the person should have presented them at the door. There is no reason to show up in such an unprofessional manner, and demand a sample. The next morning would have been fine. I understand the element of surprise was an issue, but they could have surprised her at 830pm, not that big a deal. I'm sorry, this whole thing sounds like alot BS. No credentials, no answer at a 24 hour hotline, the whole thing just smells really bad.

ClevelandDancer

10-22-2002, 10:19 AM

What an awful situation! There are a *LOT* of people that cannot urinate on command with someone standing there watching. Personally, I always "go" right before I go to bed and it's quite possible Ina had "just gone" too! In either case, on a surprise visit I would think a couple HOURS would be a reasonable time for the agent to expect to wait. A trained agent (this one was not) should have also suggested she drink some water

As for the psuedo-USADA agent bringing her boyfriend "for safety", what about Ina's safety?

Really, this boils down to an unauthorized stranger coming to your door late at night, demanding urine and refusing to leave until you sign a piece of paper. In this case, as the agent's training and credentials had lapsed, it would be no different than you or I walking up to Ina's door and demanding a urine sample or refusal signature. It is totally and completely assinine.

As for the fine ... since when would an athlete be fined for refusing (and I for one don't believe Ina did refuse) a drug test ON TOP OF a sanction? Duh...

If I were Ina, I would make sure I had a good lawyer. I would then not only fight this ridiculous situation, I would sue the USADA for harassment and non-compliance with their own procedures. I would also sue the agent and her boyfriend for trespass, along with filing criminal trespassing charges.

duane

10-22-2002, 02:28 PM

based on what information we have, Ina faces a serious uphill battle. When this comes to a hearing, the main issue will be that Ina didnt produce a sample on demand.

Many of you continue to say that "the next day would have been fine". again, that's not how it works when it comes to drug testing. you have no say in the matter. when you are requested to give a sample, you must give a sample at that time. if you are one who cant "pee on demand", you'd better force yourself, because if you cannot provide a sample, you have failed the test. if you are an athlete, you will be sanctioned; if you are an employee, you suffer whatever punishment the employer administers for failed drug tests; if you are applying for a job (and here in California, most potential employees must submit to a drug test), you will not be hired.

i agree with everyone that it was outrageous for the USADA to send an official without proper credentials, and i also agree that it was totally unprofessional for the official to bring a boyfriend (for safety reasons, a fellow USADA official should have been the escort). however, i dont think this will be seen as much of an issue at hearing. it's kind of like a police officer showing up at your door--without a search warrant--to search for drugs. if you grant access and agree to a search, the officer not having a search warrant is no longer an issue. you allowed access, and even without a search warrant, if drugs are found, you will find yourself in big trouble.

adrianchew

10-22-2002, 03:09 PM

duane - I understand totally about drug testing, zero tolerance, and the outcomes that usually occur out of the arbitration process.

There somehow is a problem though with the fairness here - even people charged of heinous crimes are given trials and a jury. Yet atheletes are forced into arbitration (often times binding) and punished at times undeservingly.

At this point, I'm beginning to question if the value of drug testing and zero tolerance - what was initially intended to protect atheletes is now a minefield of legalities. Yet there are no laws of consequence that govern the officials of agencies or sporting bodies acting irresponsibly, that are nearly as harsh. If people can be caught intentionally cheating and be given lesser sentences, than an athelete who fails a drug test once due to legal red tape, something is totally wrong with the whole system.

hydro

10-22-2002, 03:44 PM

originally posted by duane:
i agree with everyone that it was outrageous for the USADA to send an official without proper credentials, and i also agree that it was totally unprofessional for the official to bring a boyfriend (for safety reasons, a fellow USADA official should have been the escort). however, i dont think this will be seen as much of an issue at hearing. it's kind of like a police officer showing up at your door--without a search warrant--to search for drugs. if you grant access and agree to a search, the officer not having a search warrant is no longer an issue. you allowed access, and even without a search warrant, if drugs are found, you will find yourself in big trouble.

i'm not sure about the differences in state to state laws, but if an officer shows up without a search warrant asking permission to invesitage an area, and subsequently finds something amiss, that evidence can be and often is thrown out, because the officer did not have a search warrant. also, if an officer doesn't show up dressed in proper uniform (badge, hat, vest, etc), that is a serious legal issue, and usually in favor of individual, not the officer.

in Kyoko's case, she wanted to ask for additional information which should have been readily available to her. if an agent can show up at you door at 10:30 at night, there better be a number that someone can call to make sure everything is in proper order. clearly, there wasn't, and Kyoko was left without assistance.

and i agree with adrian, these policies are in place to protect the athletes, but in seems they are doing more harm than good. especially in times if high risk security such as these, forcing admitance to an unknown because they are a drug-tester seems very very unreasonable.

duane

10-22-2002, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by adrianchew
There somehow is a problem though with the fairness here - even people charged of heinous crimes are given trials and a jury. Yet atheletes are forced into arbitration (often times binding) and punished at times undeservingly.

At this point, I'm beginning to question if the value of drug testing and zero tolerance - what was initially intended to protect atheletes is now a minefield of legalities. Yet there are no laws of consequence that govern the officials of agencies or sporting bodies acting irresponsibly, that are nearly as harsh. If people can be caught intentionally cheating and be given lesser sentences, than an athelete who fails a drug test once due to legal red tape, something is totally wrong with the whole system.

you wont find any disagreement here with your post.

Trillian

10-22-2002, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by duane
[it's kind of like a police officer showing up at your door--without a search warrant--to search for drugs.

Actually, as far as I can tell, it's more like having a police officer who hasn't been employed by the police force for several months show up. If a person doesn't have valid credentials, they can't act as a representative of the organization. Period. It's not that she was missing one piece of paperwork, it's that she was missing the thing that gave her authority to act in an official capacity.

Personally, I tend to be suspicious in some cases, but I tend to think Ina has nothing to hide in this case, and that the "official" parties acting in the situation have really screwed up. However, I'm also not subscribing to the conspiracy theories suggesting that Ina has been targeted intentionally--a U.S. organization is unlikely to target a U.S. athlete, and in fact, I'd be inclined to guess that if a U.S. athlete who could contend for medals on the world level has a reputation as a drug user (the Bowman type), they'd make an effort NOT to catch that person. Athletes do tend to get preferential treatment.

I'd imagine the USADA didn't want to stir up trouble here; now they feel they have a legitimate case and it's something they have to follow through with. And I'd also imagine Kyoko is an athlete who's been programmed to do what she can to comply with this sort of screening in order to retain eligibility (she has, after all, been taking drug tests for a VERY long time). She didn't know the rules, the person who attempted to give her the test didn't know the rules, she was given misleading info (she was told she could do it the next morning) which led to a very unfortunate result. Still, the fact that the test wasn't actually being administered by someone who was qualified to do so is enough to make it null in my view.

This is all really too bad since I suspect it won't be an easy battle for Ina whether she wins or loses. I hate to see it happen to anyone, but especially someone who's been such a fine representative of the U.S. in so many years of international competition. This would be a sad way for such a long and rewarding eligible career to end.

rack

10-22-2002, 05:27 PM

I want all of you on my jury (except for duane).

Do keep in mind the only version of the story we've been getting is Kyoko Ina's and her lawyer's. And that is the version that for whatever reason the American Arbitration Association ruled against.

I'm not saying Kyoko's statement is in any way untrue- just that it's a statement and not evidence and should be regarded as such.

flippet

10-22-2002, 07:56 PM

Something definitely smells fishy here. I agree with those who say, surprise is surprise, why not at 8pm instead of 10 or later? I also agree with the poster who questioned what these 'officials' were going to immediately do with the sample---take it to the lab? Which is of course open for normal, non-criminal, non-emergency business at all hours of the night. :roll: Who's to say that this improperly credentialed 'official' wasn't going to contaminate the sample, then submit it the next day?

Yes, drug tests need surprise. Yes, one needs to be able to produce on command, or the officials need to wait until they can. Past 11pm, at an athlete's PRIVATE residence, when that athlete needs to sleep in order to practice the next morning, borders on harassment, in my book. (The only time I'd re-consider that, is if there's a competition result being questioned, such as at the Olympics, when a sample is needed pretty much immediately. I don't see that that kind of thing was in any way the case.)

I hope Ina kicks their self-important little butts.