The Tennis Thread
Discussion
yonex said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
But I do. Breaking the rules to gain an advantage, in this case doping. I say she's a cheat. The same I said Armstrong was a cheat. I never understood then why so many people hung onto the idea that professional sport wasn't by its very nature 'dirty', this is another example. Football, rugby the list goes on and on. Let's skip the moral side and look solely at the consequences, both the possible ones and those that are in evidence.
Let's say a young lad, a personal trainer going to the gym every day, plays a physical sport at a fairly high level, wanting to go higher. Assume he is injured and the team doctor gives him an injection of vitamins he is told. He is aware of the effect of the injection and believes that the injection was a drug. He has a choice: continue with the injections, not knowing what the material is and whether it has side effects, or refuse the injection and be dropped from the team.
That's a big decision for someone of 21 who has lived and breathed his sport since the age of 14.
His place will be taken in the team by someone who has no objections to vitamins. The player then drops two divisions to play in a league that his abilities put him well above. Those he plays against in this physical sport will either have to take a pounding or else build up their body to his level. The simplest way, in the semi-professional league, is to take banned substances.
Say you are a 16-year-old and win a scholarship to a sports school. You are banned from taking part in any sports body regulated event, ostensibly to protect their investment. 18 months later a player emerges from the chrysalis who is much bulkier, and more energetic than possible for the hoi poloi. He plays for a division 1 team and is injured frequently. This ruins his chances of continuing in his position in his country's team because someone who took more drugs has replaced him.
As drugs are taken by the professionals at the top of their game, what can those in the division below wanting to get on the gravy train do when they find training doesn't produce anything like the results seen in the league above. The answer is obvious.
Those at the third level want to progress and we already know what someone in the fourth level is required to do to keep his place.
I know a player at a high level in a team sport who has never, ever, been tested for drugs. Never.
The problem with drug taking is if a person wants to compete at a high level, he has to get high in another way.
So let's look into the future.
We'll have teams with players who are all massive. We'll have players who are all hyped, serious injuries become the norm, and the fun goes out of it. Those who are talented become disillusioned. The sport becomes a travesty of itself.
If a top class player takes performance enhancing drugs, legal or proscribed, then everyone suffers, including the spectators. It becomes a sort of fantasy.
Not only that but we'll have heart attacks of those in the peak of physical fitness.
Let's say a young lad, a personal trainer going to the gym every day, plays a physical sport at a fairly high level, wanting to go higher. Assume he is injured and the team doctor gives him an injection of vitamins he is told. He is aware of the effect of the injection and believes that the injection was a drug. He has a choice: continue with the injections, not knowing what the material is and whether it has side effects, or refuse the injection and be dropped from the team.
That's a big decision for someone of 21 who has lived and breathed his sport since the age of 14.
His place will be taken in the team by someone who has no objections to vitamins. The player then drops two divisions to play in a league that his abilities put him well above. Those he plays against in this physical sport will either have to take a pounding or else build up their body to his level. The simplest way, in the semi-professional league, is to take banned substances.
Say you are a 16-year-old and win a scholarship to a sports school. You are banned from taking part in any sports body regulated event, ostensibly to protect their investment. 18 months later a player emerges from the chrysalis who is much bulkier, and more energetic than possible for the hoi poloi. He plays for a division 1 team and is injured frequently. This ruins his chances of continuing in his position in his country's team because someone who took more drugs has replaced him.
As drugs are taken by the professionals at the top of their game, what can those in the division below wanting to get on the gravy train do when they find training doesn't produce anything like the results seen in the league above. The answer is obvious.
Those at the third level want to progress and we already know what someone in the fourth level is required to do to keep his place.
I know a player at a high level in a team sport who has never, ever, been tested for drugs. Never.
The problem with drug taking is if a person wants to compete at a high level, he has to get high in another way.
So let's look into the future.
We'll have teams with players who are all massive. We'll have players who are all hyped, serious injuries become the norm, and the fun goes out of it. Those who are talented become disillusioned. The sport becomes a travesty of itself.
If a top class player takes performance enhancing drugs, legal or proscribed, then everyone suffers, including the spectators. It becomes a sort of fantasy.
Not only that but we'll have heart attacks of those in the peak of physical fitness.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
you are making it complicated she admits she failed to open the link so has taken full responsibility for her actions. Judge her by her actions not her words, well constructed words at that. There is no such thing in professional sport as mistakenly taking a banned Drug.Did she enter Mildronate in section 3 of the doping control form at the Australian Open?
If she did, then she might be able to cling to her unintentional cock up defence. If she didn't, the cheating label will stick.
If she did, then she might be able to cling to her unintentional cock up defence. If she didn't, the cheating label will stick.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Which, as I said is pretty irrelevant as...anonymous said:
[redacted]
Yes, she is guilty.anonymous said:
[redacted]
It is until they can prove otherwise. You are looking at it with a view that this is a transgression, I am saying she is not only guilty for breaking the rules but she is also a cheat as she has taken the substance to seek advantage. I do not buy, or find it in any way feasible that there are margins for error when it comes to administering the correct advice to a professional athlete using freely available WADA information. It is actually worse than this because the information would not only have been published, for all, but sent to all athletes, in this case a very valuable one at the peak of her sport. If you are suggesting an oversight think about the layers of staff involved and the work involved with putting menus and supplements together. 'They' knew, I absolutely guarantee it.anonymous said:
[redacted]
It would seem I have understood everything far better than the entire Sharapova team who, as a group, have cost their athlete millions of dollars, are facing a competition ban and have raised questions about the state of tennis 
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The press conference was a farce, damage limitation. The only reason some other players have come out in support is in case Sharapova gets thrown to the wolves they hope they wont follow. It's a pattern.
Leithen said:
Did she enter Mildronate in section 3 of the doping control form at the Australian Open?
If she did, then she might be able to cling to her unintentional cock up defence. If she didn't, the cheating label will stick.
Makes sense.If she did, then she might be able to cling to her unintentional cock up defence. If she didn't, the cheating label will stick.
johnxjsc1985 said:
speaking of heart attacks there are a lot of cyclist from the 1960's no longer with us because of doping there is a price to pay.
A price they seem willing to pay though.I recall a survey done amongst elite athletes when Flo-Jo died. It was a simple question.
"If you could provide a PED which was undetectable but would shorten your life significantly, would you take it?"
I was amazed that something like 75% said they would.
DocJock said:
A price they seem willing to pay though.
I recall a survey done amongst elite athletes when Flo-Jo died. It was a simple question.
"If you could provide a PED which was undetectable but would shorten your life significantly, would you take it?"
I was amazed that something like 75% said they would.
I'm not surprised, human nature. The trouble is in this PC world of ours we can't just call people cheats, which is what they are. Soon enough the medical reports will surface and we'll see about the 'family history' etc. Anyway, on the upside we've found a new 'head of spin' for her I recall a survey done amongst elite athletes when Flo-Jo died. It was a simple question.
"If you could provide a PED which was undetectable but would shorten your life significantly, would you take it?"
I was amazed that something like 75% said they would.
ewenm said:
I disagree - cheating is breaking the rules. If it's inadvertent, then the punishment may be mild. If it's deliberate then the punishment may be harsh.
Maybe there's a difference between "she cheated" and "she's a cheat". Just reading that, I see "she's a cheat" as more damning than "she cheated" as it implies an ongoing mindset rather than a single infraction.
Maybe "she broke the rules" (or "she cheated") is an accurate statement but "she's a cheat" is yet to be determined.
Erm, so it's possible to accidentally cheat? What nonsense. As cmoose has pointed out, to cheat there must be intent.Maybe there's a difference between "she cheated" and "she's a cheat". Just reading that, I see "she's a cheat" as more damning than "she cheated" as it implies an ongoing mindset rather than a single infraction.
Maybe "she broke the rules" (or "she cheated") is an accurate statement but "she's a cheat" is yet to be determined.
She broke the rules, but we don't know yet whether she cheated.
Either:
1. There's been an almighty cock-up and a mistake was made, or
2. She knew that the drug is now banned, yet made the decision to continue using it.
Only 2. is cheating.
I advocate letting the punishment fit the crime and I hate the mentality of 'making an example of..'
Appropriate measures (IMHO):
1. Perhaps a financial penalty and a suspended ban for breaking the rules. Results of that competition stand.
2. A ban from that competition, results voided. And ban for a further year.
An earlier poster briefly mentioned Alan Baxter. I'm a keen skier and a big fan of watching the sport. And I was over the moon when Alan won Britain's only ever Alpine medal (Slalom - Bronze) at the Salt Lake City winter Olympics in 2002. But Alan failed a drugs test. He knew his regular Vicks nasal inhaler was on the safe list. Alan developed a cold during the Olympics, so bought the same brand inhaler. But the US version had different ingredients which meant it was banned.
He was stripped of his medal. Did he cheat? No. Was his performance enhanced? No. Was the punishment proportional? No. It didn't only rob Alan of the medal, it also robbed our nation of this achievement.
I have since been totally disillusioned by the whole drugs testing and punishment regime, and it's totalitarian approach to enforcement. Mistakes can be made, and allowance and leniency needs to be applied. Innocent mistakes get punished, when genuine cheats get away with it. Until there is a measured approach, I have no respect for the enforcers.
At least Cmoose isn't on a witch-hunt.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The evidence is clear, refer to it, especially the part about taking a banned substance. The only thing that bothers me is the cheating. I'm sure if you were England's foremost women's challenger and had lost on sudden death you'd be as pragmatic as you are right now? The standards aren't 'unworkable' they need managing, if one cannot decipher things then you have someone who can. As I have said she is either solely guilty or complicit, both carry the same ban. I do not believe in mistakes over many months, not when this much is at stake and not with the people behind her. Have you actually seen her staff and who she calls upon? The more you challenge me for not 'understanding' the more I feel you would justify anything. Read the statements, read what other informed commentators are saying. Sharapova herself has admitted there's no excuse, still you are looking for the magic bullet. At the end of the day the only ones who suffer will be the amateurs chasing a pro deal. Sponsors don't tend to come back and if they do its with less money. Meanwhile this cheat has earntbseveral lifetimes worth of cash, it really doesn't matter, two or three seasons it'd be all over for her anyway. So let the cheat have her sympathisers, not me. Everything will unfold, plenty more hasn't been said and I'm betting the pre-emotive 'brave' (really) press conference was one last spin of the dice to muster support. It, erm, It's a duck. Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 9th March 21:14
The evidence she knew it was banned?
Why would we need that? Its the athletes job to make sure they are not taking any banned substances. As a pro she should have been more careful and had professionals deal with this for her.
No excuses.
That she has been taking this for 10 years whilst it was quasi legal is not a surprise, but she should have stopped when it was proscribed specifically.
Why would we need that? Its the athletes job to make sure they are not taking any banned substances. As a pro she should have been more careful and had professionals deal with this for her.
No excuses.
That she has been taking this for 10 years whilst it was quasi legal is not a surprise, but she should have stopped when it was proscribed specifically.
RobDickinson said:
Its damned clear to any professional spots person they need to be 100% up on these rules.
many many athletes have made far simpler mistakes than this one and been banned for it.
In fairness to cmoose I think all he's trying to say is that for what Sharapova did to be classified as cheating she needed to know what she was doing (i.e. she made a conscious decision to take a banned substance); however, at the moment she's not admitting to that and is sticking to the line "I've used it for years and wasn't aware it had been added to the list of banned substances". If that's the reality then her and her team are guilty of massive incompetence but not cheating as there was no intent; so yes she still gets a ban (because she broke the rules) but probably not as severe as if she'd knowingly taken a banned substance. Do I believe her and her expensive team when they say they didn't know what they were doing? No I don't but at this stage that's not proven and I think that's the point cmoose has been trying to make!many many athletes have made far simpler mistakes than this one and been banned for it.
However, even if continuing to take the drug after it was added to the banned list does prove to be a genuine mistake, it would still leave questions in my mind around Sharapova's ethics. She has been taking this drug for 10 years when as I far as I can tell there's no medical reason to continue to take it for more than 6 weeks; however, it's known to be potentially performance enhancing and apparently its use is not uncommon amongst Russian athletes. All suggests to me that she's been seeking to gain an advantage through using a PED and, while that's not been illegal until the end of 2015 (because it wasn't banned until then), IMO it speaks volumes about a person's character if they're prepared to act like that. It also makes me think that a player and her team that's up to that sort of thing would be all over the rules which is why I struggle to believe Sharapova when she says it was all a genuine mistake; however, cmoose is right when he says that's still to be proved one way or the other!
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff