British Tennis Forum - Celebrating 20 Years!

wolf wrote:

---

The second one.

The purpose of doping would be to improve your fitness.

Tara's fitness is not very good.

And the fact her fitness is not good ties in with what she says about eating a lot of meat.

Isn't the answer obvious?

---

 Understand the logic - but presumably anyone caught doping (whether they deliberately did so or not) wouldnt continue to dope after being caught and whilst under ongoing appeal? That would be madness. So I cant imagine for one moment she was doping when at Ilkley, if she doped before. 

I think I also mentioned she appeared to be eating some sort of chicken curry wrap at Ilkley, the same as the lady with her (I think it was Sam Murray-Sharan, but dont know the players well enough to be sure) 

wolf wrote:

---

The second one.

The purpose of doping would be to improve your fitness.

Tara's fitness is not very good.

And the fact her fitness is not good ties in with what she says about eating a lot of meat.

Isn't the answer obvious?

---

 She was presumably not doping when Jon saw her!

I don't know when that was but wasn't it far removed from that Bogota tournament?

I don't think there is any obvious answer here on what we know.

wolf wrote:

---

I'm saying she's NOT doping.

Jeez.

---

 That's a bit unfair, Wolf. 

Per Indy, Ilkley was just weeks ago, and she didnt appear to be eating lots then. 

BTW, read your note again and understand the point better. But I do think saying jeez is a bit over the top; don't you? Perhaps you are just having a bad day!   

Anyway, what I am saying is clearly she isnt doping now, but that doesnt mean she wasnt doping around the time she got caught

wolf wrote:

---

I think I just misunderstood what you were saying about my post. Sorry. 

---

 no worries, we move on!

PaulM wrote:

---

She's just released a statement that she's suing the WTA and ITIA for failing to make her aware of the risks of eating contaminated meat.

Those being the same risks that are long-standing, well known about, and reinforced to players every year. I do feel really bad for her, and with how the case was handled, but this just feels a bit silly. Seems a bit of a last ditch desperate attempt to get some sort of private negotiated settlement to help with a bit of cash in the hope those organisations can't be bothered going through a full arbitration.

---

 I wonder if she's got a no-win no-fee deal for this

Because I can't see her having the money to pursue this otherwise

Because the WTA/ITIA won't cave straight off

And there's a big question about the duty of care in the first place, because of the exclusion clause in the contract

From the Tsurenko case: 

First, as Tsurenko acknowledges in her complaint, the WTA Tour membership agreement contains a waiver of recourse clausemeaning a clause that says as a condition of membership, the member agrees to not sue. The clause expansively states the members waive any and all claims or demands. 

In anticipation of this defense, Tsurenko argues the clause is unconscionable and unenforceable. She insists the WTA Tour is a virtual worldwide monopoly, and that players effectively have no choice but to accept whats offered. That type of contract is sometimes called a contract of adhesion or a take-it-or-leave-it deal. 

Tsurenko also underscores a recent antitrust lawsuit brought by 12 players, including Vasek Pospisil, Nick Kyrgios and Anastasia Rodionova against the WTA Tour, ATP Tour and others. The players argue the defendants have suppressed players earnings and other professional opportunities.

In rebuttal, expect the WTA Tour to point out that waiver of recourse clauses are standard measures in pro sports and that waivers, while often the subject of critique, are typically lawful when the contracting parties are adults.