Ich bin etwas spät, war eine Weile nicht online. Der Eislauf-Weltverband ISU (International Skating Union) hat heute Nachmittag eine Erklärung zum Fall Pechstein veröffentlicht. Das Original auf der ISU-Webseite, hier als pdf (3 Seiten) und hier zum Studieren und Diskutieren.
Was mir beim ersten Überfliegen auffällt: Die ISU zweifelt die Kugelzell-Anämie-Diagnose an:
All experts addressed by the ISU have independently of each other confirmed that no new scientific method for diagnosis of HS exists and that the method alleged by the German experts to be a diagnostic method has never been validated, even as a screening procedure, in any recognized scientific medical journal, subjected to “peer review” by medical experts in the same medical field, and, in the opinion of the experts consulted, has never been applied before, even as a screening tool, in actual medical practice. In addition, all these experts have also expressed the opinion that regardless of the non – existence of any new scientific method, the new tests did not bring evidence that C. Pechstein suffered HS.
Was mir negativ auffällt: Was hat so ein Franke-Zitat in einer offiziellen Stellungnahme zu suchen?
Dr. Franke is reported to have also stated: “How should the bone marrow know when she (Pechstein) has big competitions?”
In Deutschland hieß das vor etlichen Wochen: Wie soll ihr Knochenmark wissen, wann wichtige Wettkämpfe sind?
Die Erklärung im Wortlaut:
INTERNATIONAL SKATING UNION
ISU Position in the Pechstein Case
The International Skating Union (ISU) filed on Monday with the Swiss Federal Tribunal in Lausanne (the Swiss Supreme Court), its Reply to the Request of Claudia Pechstein for “Revisionsverfahren” (a Swiss law term for a “Revision Procedure”).
Ms Pechstein’s Request seeks:
- cancellation of the CAS Final Arbitration Award of November 25, 2009 and,
- return of the case to the CAS for retrial.
On February 10, 2010, a first judgment of the Swiss Federal Tribunal denied Ms. Pechstein’s Appeal against the CAS Final Arbitration Award of November 25, 2009. The CAS Award upheld a Decision of the ISU Disciplinary Commission (DC) of July 1, 2009, finding C. Pechstein to have committed an ISU Anti-doping rule violation and imposing the mandatory 2 year suspension.
Since the publication of the DC decision in July 2009, the ISU has not publicly reacted to the numerous media campaigns against the ISU which have been organized by C. Pechstein, her lawyer Dr. S. Bergmann and her management team. These campaigns consisted of TV talk shows, press conferences, interviews and commentary on C. Pechstein’s website, and often were the source of unjustified and sometimes incredible accusations against the ISU.
The above campaigns included allegations that the ISU data base of blood tests results was not reliable; that the anonymity bar-codes on blood samples were wrong; that wrong blood samples were used; that the dates of certain tests were wrong; and expanded into accusations that the ISU had suppressed evidence allegedly favorable of C. Pechstein; and that the panel of CAS arbitrators had been composed in violation of the applicable rules. Incredible accusations of improper interfering were made against the Secretary General of the CAS and even against the International Olympic Committee (IOC).
Up until today, the ISU has respected the principle that no public-relations-type Press Releases or comments should be made while a case is pending in the CAS and in the Swiss court.
The ISU has fought, with patience, within the Swiss legal system, against all accusations made by C. Pechstein in the arbitration and court proceedings. None of the allegations were proven to be justified and all have been disposed of by the CAS decision and also by the Decision of the Swiss Tribunal Federal dated February 10, 2010 dismissing the Appeal of C. Pechstein against the CAS award. The Court has also dismissed accusations that the CAS proceeding and decision violated Swiss law (Swiss public order) and that the rights of Ms. Pechstein to a fair trial and equal treatment have not been respected.
Ms. Pechstein filed the Request for “Revisionsverfahren” mentioned above on March 4, 2010 based on the Swiss law rules allowing such filing on the basis of an allegation that new evidence has been found that was not available during the CAS proceedings. The substance of her new claim is that a new scientific method to diagnose a blood disease called hereditary spherocytosis (HS) has been developed in 2009 but was not known and available to C. Pechstein, and that new tests using the new method conducted by German experts in hematology after the date of the CAS decision have revealed the presence of the above disease in her body.
When preparing a reply to the new Request, the ISU had to use a number of experts to review the opinions of the German experts and the test results obtained by them. Among these experts was also Prof. Alberto Zanella who is a well-known expert in blood disorders and the former Director of a Hematological Unit in the Milan University Hospital.
All experts addressed by the ISU have independently of each other confirmed that no new scientific method for diagnosis of HS exists and that the method alleged by the German experts to be a diagnostic method has never been validated, even as a screening procedure, in any recognized scientific medical journal, subjected to “peer review” by medical experts in the same medical field, and, in the opinion of the experts consulted, has never been applied before, even as a screening tool, in actual medical practice.