British Tennis Forum - Celebrating 20 Years!

JonH comes home wrote:

---

Coup Droit wrote:

---

Yes. Not talking specifically about Tara, but about player responsibility, it's obvious that players have little control about the cooking process and food sourcing in restaurants, as you say, christ

But we're not talking here about the cook's heart medication falling into the soup or whatever it was for the Chinese athletes - supposedly

That's bad luck, out of your control, etc (and very likely not true)

It is not the same as going to a country where you know full well that their Ministry of Ag allows farmers to use steroids in the raising of their meat

And where steroids/drugs/controls are a key part of your professional career (i.e. it's not the same as a bus driver who eats three poppy seed bagels and then fails a drug test for their new company)

---

 wasnt that Errani's Mum cancer in the Ragu sauce?! and yes, mmm...

---

 Not talking about her - talking about the Chinese athletes (all 23 or them) who tested positive due - supposedly - the heart medication of the cook  

JonH comes home wrote:

---

---

 Not talking about her - talking about the Chinese athletes (all 23 or them) who tested positive due - supposedly - the heart medication of the cook  

---

 Cool, hadnt spotted that one - the Errani Mum's cancer medication in the ragu sauce seemed a similar story, albeit one person versus a whole squad

-- Edited by JonH comes home on Thursday 17th of July 2025 11:41:48 AM

---

 It was a very big story in the Olympics re swimming, and part of several other very similar claims 

It's quite different from Errani not because of the one person versus a squad really but in that it's a question of state-sponsorship, state-support and the state procedural system whereas the Italian tennis federation had nothing to do with Errani's situation (as far as we know, and given the individual nature of tennis and her age, that would be very likely, even IF there were actual doping going on) 

JonH comes home wrote:

---

Vaguely recall it now- I do remember the Russians doing doping on a state scale recently and getting suspended from the Olympic movement as a result, athletes only able to take part as individuals (which I think is still in place?)

---

 No one was suspended in the swimming case

Hence the controversy - and questions re WADA's acceptance of the chef's heart stuff story

PS What Russian incident do you mean? Drugs? Isn't the Russian nation banned because of the invasion? 

If Tara ate the meat because the situation was rather muddied and some folk did get off, and the ITF didn't have "Don't eat meat in South America" up in flashing lights then Tara was very foolish.

Very clearly there were potential issues which could prove problematic, particularly for a lower ranked player like herself ( and yes, it is very wrong that it is liable to be more problematic due to resources but still ... )

Anyway, seems to be all down to that level.of Nandrolone, indeed Nandrolone at all (?). The CAS written verdict will make very interesting reading but essentially appears to be them saying we don't see it as bring contaminated meat and no alternative cause has been raised.

PS: I realise reading back that I have really repeated much of what Paul said but they do remain big issues whatever other tangents may be explored.

christ wrote:

---

PaulM wrote:

---

I think though christ that's a bit of a rabbit hole as the contaminated meat argument was seemingly accepted for the boldenone, as the ITIA didn't appeal that finding of the tribunal.

The issue is that the concentration of nandrolone could not, based on scientific advice presented to CAS, have come from contaminated meat (or from it alone).

We need to see the full judgement but as I understand it the argument is not that they are saying Tara didn't potentially eat contaminated meat - it's that even if she did it could not have produced the levels in her positive result.

But ultimately, if I was a professional athlete at an event in a country where there was an established history of drug test issues caused by eating contaminated meat, and the sporting authorities make very clear warnings about the risks of eating meat in that country for that reason - I would simply not eat meat that one week.

---

 So the tribunal took nearly two years, but only - according to CAS - addressed a part of the issue, and the part that they addressed was the wrong part. Why was the scientific evidence apparently presented to CAS but not the tribunal? Or do CAS have access to different analyses? This is a huge problem for me, as at the very least it indicates that no-one really has any interest in processing the drug test results for poorer people in anything like a responsible manner or timeframe. It also appears that - for the lesser folk - CAS are really interested in demonstrating their ability to administer draconian punishments, presumably "pour encourager les autres" (or at least les pauvres autres).

The problem with the last bit is that the authorities have muddied the water by allowing appeals, and allowing appeals to succeed, in countries where there was an established history of drug test issues caused by eating contaminated meat. If the authorities said "failed test = ban, don't eat the meat" then this is the obvious route, but they don't, they seem to say "if you eat the meat you may fail a drugs test, but that's OK, the appeals process will sort that out for you". And then it is a lottery as to how the "justice" system works.

All of this seems to indicate that the system is broken, perhaps irreparably.

The upshot of all of this is simply that Ms Moore should have found a patsy that was happy to say that they might have dropped their medicinal nandrolone in the spaghetti sauce, as this type of excuse seems much more readily acceptable than scientific ones (or at least it does for the players that can afford expensive lawyers)

---

Lambda wrote:

---

indiana wrote:

---

 

If Tara ate the meat because the situation was rather muddied and some folk did get off, and the ITF didn't have "Don't eat meat in South America" up in flashing lights then Tara was very foolish.

Very clearly there were potential issues which could prove problematic, particularly for a lower ranked player like herself ( and yes, it is very wrong that it is liable to be more problematic due to resources but still ... )

Anyway, seems to be all down to that level.of Nandrolone, indeed Nandrolone at all (?). The CAS written verdict will make very interesting reading but essentially appears to be them saying we don't see it as bring contaminated meat and no alternative cause has been raised.

 

PS: I realise reading back that I have really repeated much of what Paul said but they do remain big issues whatever other tangents may be explored.

-- Edited by indiana on Thursday 17th of July 2025 02:53:59 PM

---

 

Tara ate meat at the tournament venue and restaurants recommended by the Tournament Director. She wasn't foolish in just going to any restaurant and eating meat. She followed the guidelines in only going to restaurants recommended by the tournament and therefore could have reasonably have expected them to be safe.

---

 If that is the case, then that makes her defence harder - the nandrolone cant be explained by eating the meat if it was most likely safe? Putting aside volume of nandrolone as per discussions above