The Tennis Thread
Discussion
Jarcy said:
Erm, so it's possible to accidentally cheat? What nonsense. As cmoose has pointed out, to cheat there must be intent.
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.
I think we're arguing semantics. Do you need "intent" to "cheat"? You and cmoose say yes, I and others say no. Maybe I'm just tired and jaded by hearing the same old lines from Sharapova as I've heard from countless cyclists and runners over the years. Maybe I should give her more benefit of the doubt. At least she's not trying to blame someone else. Maybe seeing so many people treat sport as a business and ignoring morals and ethics has made me too cynical.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.
In terms of your "measured approach" - there is one. The punishments are not all the same, mitigating circumstances are taken into account, intent matters in the severity of the punishment. Alan Baxter's case is unfortunate, but again that's why sportspeople need to check EVERYTHING - ignorance is no excuse and his case should be a case-study for all aspiring sportspeople. I'm fortunate, I've only been dope-tested once and I've never got good enough to be on the whereabouts system, but friends and training partners were and it is a right pain in the arse, especially if you're fitting training in around work and family. However every athlete knows that keeping up to date with their whereabouts and WADA lists is basic necessary admin regardless of whether they are earning millions a year or struggling to make the national team.
Edited by ewenm on Thursday 10th March 08:24
ewenm said:
I think we're arguing semantics. Do you need "intent" to "cheat"? You and cmoose say yes, I and others say no.
To be honest I do think cheating implies some form of intent; that certainly doesn't mean an unintentional breaking of the rules should go without punishment but to label someone a cheat I do think there needs to be some sort of intent on their behalf. Personally my money is on Sharapova being shown to be a cheat but in fairness that hasn't actually been proved at this stage; she's certainly broken the rules but if that's the innocent mistake she claims then her (and her team) are just grossly incompetent as opposed to cheats IMO!Edited by ewenm on Thursday 10th March 08:24
Surely as a professional with a professional team around her, the responsibility for being aware of what is banned lies solely with her/them?
You cant use ignorance of the rules as an excuse surely, or anyone could start taking whatever they want and go "I didnt realise it was banned, sorry", a professional in any field cant just plead ignorance in something that is so critical.
It'd be like a doctor subscribing banned medicines and then saying he didnt realise they had become banned, I cant see how that can be an excuse?
It's the typical "Im sorry, it's all my fault and I accept total responsibility......but here's some excuses which show I actually dont accept responsibility".
You cant use ignorance of the rules as an excuse surely, or anyone could start taking whatever they want and go "I didnt realise it was banned, sorry", a professional in any field cant just plead ignorance in something that is so critical.
It'd be like a doctor subscribing banned medicines and then saying he didnt realise they had become banned, I cant see how that can be an excuse?
It's the typical "Im sorry, it's all my fault and I accept total responsibility......but here's some excuses which show I actually dont accept responsibility".
anonymous said:
[redacted]
It's not biased, she has admitted doping. You must be confused about this, you're obviously not involved in any kind of competitive sport and do not understand the role of governing bodies and rule books.You are talking total nonsense and are ignoring the very obvious facts. She is a cheat by definition. Her ignorance and yours is no excuse.
JNW1 said:
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!
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!
If she's been taking prescribed medicine for 10 years to enhance her performance and not to combat a medical condition, then she is a cheat. I think the word fits such behaviour perfectly. However, up until the change to proscribed drugs, she could not be punished 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!
To continue with cycling, it is like Delgardo whose blood tested positive for a blocking/masking agent a fortnight before it was put on the banned list. The natural assumption is that because he didn't have kidney problems and the only function for the agent was to confuse testing, he was taking something that was proscribed. If so, then he was a cheat despite the fact that he could not be punished.
Working you way around the drugs regulations is cheating. But it is not doing something that is banned.
I take you point, well made, about her knowledge of the rules and regulations. My feeling is that she devolved the reading and assessment of the info from the regulatory body to someone in her team. Perhaps that person was not aware of her use of the substance so thought that the change was of no particular interest. They might even have been a fan of their boss and thought she would do nothing underhand.
There can be no 'genuine mistake' though. She was taking a performance enhancing drug, by her own admission. If she missed, for whatever reason, the notification, so what?
As for mitigation, I'm not sure how that will work. 'Please sir, I was taking this performance enhancing drug for 10 years and then all of a sudden you banned it without telling me personally.'
yonex said:
She is a cheat by definition. Her ignorance and yours is no excuse.
To be fair I don't think anyone is saying ignorance is a defence and it clearly isn't! The question is more whether breaking the rules unintentionally is cheating or just incompetence and for me a cheat is someone who takes a conscious decision and knows what they're doing. For the time being at least Sharapova and her team are claiming it's all a genuine oversight and mistake and if that proves to be the case she's incompetent, has broken the rules, should be punished but isn't (IMO) a cheat. However, if it emerges that her and her team did know what they were doing she's a cheat and the punishment should be more severe to reflect that; personally I really struggle to believe the "it's all a mistake" story but only time will tell... Derek Smith said:
If she's been taking prescribed medicine for 10 years to enhance her performance and not to combat a medical condition, then she is a cheat.
I understand your sentiment but a) she hasn't admitted to taking the drug for 10 years to enhance her performance and b) if the substance was not on the banned list she's been working within the rules - ethically it whiffs a bit (stinks!) but can you really call someone a cheat if they've played by the rules and done nothing illegal? Obviously her and her team have screwed-up with the rule change at the end of the year but was that the oversight they claim or a conscious decision to continue to use what had become a banned substance? Massive incompetence if the former, cheating if the latter (all IMHO of course!).Her lawyers are publicly pushing the medical reason defence and arguing for the shortest ban possible.
Her team of advisers are applying as much pressure as possible on the Tennis Authorities. In the system of doping control, the structure of sporting authority is the weak point. WADA have made it clear that if she's given a short ban, they will appeal.
I suspect her team believe they have enough separate medical evidence to muddy the waters. It will most likely be circumstantial without any hard declaratory proof that she was using the drug innocently. This ultimately is about money. Damage limitation allows her brand to be salvaged. Social media posts thanking supporters for their messages is just the beginning.
It has nothing to do with the sport, ethics or integrity. Which is what saddens me the most and makes me fear for the next generation of sportsmen and sportswomen. We can debate the semantics of what is cheating and what isn't, but her coterie of Jerry Maguires are unlikely to care less about such details.
Perhaps I'm wrong, and she has innocently been taking the drug in question for proper medical reasons and never really understood what Section 3 of the control form is for. All the evidence presented so far would suggest not.
Her team of advisers are applying as much pressure as possible on the Tennis Authorities. In the system of doping control, the structure of sporting authority is the weak point. WADA have made it clear that if she's given a short ban, they will appeal.
I suspect her team believe they have enough separate medical evidence to muddy the waters. It will most likely be circumstantial without any hard declaratory proof that she was using the drug innocently. This ultimately is about money. Damage limitation allows her brand to be salvaged. Social media posts thanking supporters for their messages is just the beginning.
It has nothing to do with the sport, ethics or integrity. Which is what saddens me the most and makes me fear for the next generation of sportsmen and sportswomen. We can debate the semantics of what is cheating and what isn't, but her coterie of Jerry Maguires are unlikely to care less about such details.
Perhaps I'm wrong, and she has innocently been taking the drug in question for proper medical reasons and never really understood what Section 3 of the control form is for. All the evidence presented so far would suggest not.
JNW1 said:
personally I really struggle to believe the "it's all a mistake" story but only time will tell...
It's either "it's all a mistake", or "I knew it is now banned, but continued to take it anyway in the hope of getting away with it (and then being caught at the first opportunity)".I struggle to believe that either are possible with a top level professional team, but for me the latter seems even more improbable. Hence at this stage I give her the benefit of the doubt. Others are already lighting the pyre. Some want a bonfire regardless. I may yet be sent collecting kindling though..
Must be difficult since she's been using it so long, and she's now at the stage of her career where any performance enhancement would be most required.
As she has stated she was using this throughout her prime can you imagine what it would feel like having to come off it now, and not have the benefits?
Maybe they tried her off it but her performance suffered to the extent they thought it best to just have her on it, would be a tough one to explain why since a drug she has been using has been banned her performance has dropped off so badly, would taint all of her achievements.
End of the day I think you'd have to be pretty naive to think she wasnt aware it had been banned, and only by switching off your common sense could you believe it is simply incompetence at play here, not at this level.
As she has stated she was using this throughout her prime can you imagine what it would feel like having to come off it now, and not have the benefits?
Maybe they tried her off it but her performance suffered to the extent they thought it best to just have her on it, would be a tough one to explain why since a drug she has been using has been banned her performance has dropped off so badly, would taint all of her achievements.
End of the day I think you'd have to be pretty naive to think she wasnt aware it had been banned, and only by switching off your common sense could you believe it is simply incompetence at play here, not at this level.
Leithen said:
Her lawyers are publicly pushing the medical reason defence and arguing for the shortest ban possible.
Her team of advisers are applying as much pressure as possible on the Tennis Authorities. In the system of doping control, the structure of sporting authority is the weak point. WADA have made it clear that if she's given a short ban, they will appeal.
I suspect her team believe they have enough separate medical evidence to muddy the waters. It will most likely be circumstantial without any hard declaratory proof that she was using the drug innocently. This ultimately is about money. Damage limitation allows her brand to be salvaged. Social media posts thanking supporters for their messages is just the beginning.
It has nothing to do with the sport, ethics or integrity. Which is what saddens me the most and makes me fear for the next generation of sportsmen and sportswomen. We can debate the semantics of what is cheating and what isn't, but her coterie of Jerry Maguires are unlikely to care less about such details.
Perhaps I'm wrong, and she has innocently been taking the drug in question for proper medical reasons and never really understood what Section 3 of the control form is for. All the evidence presented so far would suggest not.
I'll say it again, it will only hurt the next generation looking for sponsors, it's just a shame for sport in general but no surprise. On your point of her team using the angle of an ongoing medical condition this would be really easy for them, if true. Every drugs test, every medical and examination form would have had a declaration of drugs used to treat medical conditions. Her team of advisers are applying as much pressure as possible on the Tennis Authorities. In the system of doping control, the structure of sporting authority is the weak point. WADA have made it clear that if she's given a short ban, they will appeal.
I suspect her team believe they have enough separate medical evidence to muddy the waters. It will most likely be circumstantial without any hard declaratory proof that she was using the drug innocently. This ultimately is about money. Damage limitation allows her brand to be salvaged. Social media posts thanking supporters for their messages is just the beginning.
It has nothing to do with the sport, ethics or integrity. Which is what saddens me the most and makes me fear for the next generation of sportsmen and sportswomen. We can debate the semantics of what is cheating and what isn't, but her coterie of Jerry Maguires are unlikely to care less about such details.
Perhaps I'm wrong, and she has innocently been taking the drug in question for proper medical reasons and never really understood what Section 3 of the control form is for. All the evidence presented so far would suggest not.
yonex said:
On your point of her team using the angle of an ongoing medical condition this would be really easy for them, if true. Every drugs test, every medical and examination form would have had a declaration of drugs used to treat medical conditions.
Exactly. Conspicuously absent at the moment. No doubt confidential and something the Tennis Authorities are not in the position to comment on, let alone release evidence of....anonymous said:
[redacted]
I call breaking the rules "cheating", you call deliberately breaking the rules "cheating". For me the "deliberate" bit is relevant to the punishment, not the definition of cheating. For you it is relevant to both.In track racing I've occasionally stepped off the inside of the track mid-race. I cheated. I didn't do it deliberately or regularly and gained no measurable advantage, so wasn't punished for it, but I still did it. I don't believe I'm known in track and field circles as "a cheat", but I've definitely cheated in races by my definition but not by yours.
I guess I see a bigger separation between the verb "to cheat" and the noun "a cheat" than you do. Maybe I should be separating my definition of "cheating" into "transgressing" and "cheating".
I don't know if Sharapova deliberately broke the rules or accidentally broke the rules. By my definition she still "cheated", by yours she definitely "transgressed" but may not have "cheated". As you say, neither of the possible explanations seem very plausible; I guess we'll see how the governing body feel about it in due course.
ewenm said:
I call breaking the rules "cheating", you call deliberately breaking the rules "cheating". For me the "deliberate" bit is relevant to the punishment, not the definition of cheating. For you it is relevant to both.
In track racing I've occasionally stepped off the inside of the track mid-race. I cheated. I didn't do it deliberately or regularly and gained no measurable advantage, so wasn't punished for it, but I still did it. I don't believe I'm known in track and field circles as "a cheat", but I've definitely cheated in races by my definition but not by yours.
I guess I see a bigger separation between the verb "to cheat" and the noun "a cheat" than you do. Maybe I should be separating my definition of "cheating" into "transgressing" and "cheating".
I don't know if Sharapova deliberately broke the rules or accidentally broke the rules. By my definition she still "cheated", by yours she definitely "transgressed" but may not have "cheated". As you say, neither of the possible explanations seem very plausible; I guess we'll see how the governing body feel about it in due course.
For what it's worth the Wikipedia definition of cheating in sport is "the intentional breaking of rules in order to obtain an advantage over the other teams or players". I daresay you could find different definitions elsewhere but personally I do think there has to be an element of intent for an action to be labelled as cheating. I see Head have announced that they will continue to support Sharapova and think she's displayed "honesty and courage" in the way she'd handled this......In track racing I've occasionally stepped off the inside of the track mid-race. I cheated. I didn't do it deliberately or regularly and gained no measurable advantage, so wasn't punished for it, but I still did it. I don't believe I'm known in track and field circles as "a cheat", but I've definitely cheated in races by my definition but not by yours.
I guess I see a bigger separation between the verb "to cheat" and the noun "a cheat" than you do. Maybe I should be separating my definition of "cheating" into "transgressing" and "cheating".
I don't know if Sharapova deliberately broke the rules or accidentally broke the rules. By my definition she still "cheated", by yours she definitely "transgressed" but may not have "cheated". As you say, neither of the possible explanations seem very plausible; I guess we'll see how the governing body feel about it in due course.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
In your opinion, which isn't that of WADA or the ITF can I hasten to add. You are no more correct that anybody else, FYI a quick straw poll of responses in this thread shows that more people believe it was probably intentional, for some of the reasons that I have already given you. She's a cheat /end.JNW1 said:
For what it's worth the Wikipedia definition of cheating in sport is "the intentional breaking of rules in order to obtain an advantage over the other teams or players". I daresay you could find different definitions elsewhere but personally I do think there has to be an element of intent for an action to be labelled as cheating. I see Head have announced that they will continue to support Sharapova and think she's displayed "honesty and courage" in the way she'd handled this......
I may just be tired, old, jaded and cynical. It's quite likely in fact.anonymous said:
[redacted]
Thanks for that.Edited by ewenm on Thursday 10th March 11:47
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff