Doping Again !

Drew · Dec 21, 2005

Doping Again !

VSandhi20 · Futures qualifying

well he will probably plunge back down into the low 70s and 80s, as they will only take of the the French Open rankinh points, which is a hell of a lot of points. have they actually confirmed it that he banned, and this ban of eight years is a lifetime ban, isn't that how they work it. if you failed a test depending on the circumstances if its serious like puerta was before he came back then he was banned for two years.

now, that he done it again it meant to be a lifetime ban, so puerta's career is finished. also, he didn't really do much in the game except getting to the FO final. i feel disgusted that he couldn't admit that he took it at least he would be honest about it! also, imagine the media ganging up on the argentinans now. i don't all the argentine players took performing enhancing drugs, but whats ironic is that the players from that country who have climb the rankings quickly, are the ones who desperate to achieve things quickly ie.puerta and canas. canas was winning title after title then he broke into the top 10 before he was banned.

i don't know how they doing this doping test thing, i mean do it after every grand slam, i wonder if they are hiding big name players, but then that would be a catastrophe for the game imagine if nadal was doing it, im not saying that he is but it wouldn't be nice.

Drew · Dec 21, 2005

Fuerther to the first BBC report.....

Mariano Puerta has described as "extraordinary" his eight-year ban for failing a doping test following this year's French Open final.

The 27-year-old Argentine has three weeks to appeal against the decision.

"I find it extraordinary that it could ever be thought satisfactory a person's livelihood can be terminated in circumstances such as these," he said.

"I will, of course, be considering an appeal with my lawyers but no decision will be taken until the New Year."

The ruling was announced by the International Tennis Federation on Wednesday.

Puerta avoided a life ban because an independent tribunal ruled that the positive result was "caused by an inadvertent administration of etilefrine".

In a statement released through his solicitors, Puerta said: "My position has always been that I did not deliberately or knowingly ingest any prohibited substance.

"The Tribunal's Decision and its reasoning upholds and confirms this to be the case."

He added: "The Tribunal found that it had no alternative but to apply strictly the rules which mandated an eight-year ban.

"The Tribunal, with a 'heavy heart', was 'very uncomfortable' about imposing the ban, which it described as 'particularly harsh', and expected and indicated that it would 'welcome' an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport."

Patrick Russell, solicitor to Puerta, said: "There are two stories here. One is the awful personal plight for Mariano facing the effective end to his talented career and the deprivation this will cause to his many fans and supporters.

"The second concerns a wider matter of public interest for sport: namely whether it is sensible for commercial interests to invest in the careers of sports people if they can be brought to nothing as a result of an incident such as this involving a trivial, minute and purely accidental ingestion of medicine which is available over the counter.

"There must be a real danger that this decision will, in the long term, undermine the battle against drug cheats in sport."

This doesnt seem a straight forward case....would not be surprised if the ban was overturned or cut back dramatically !

Sally · Grand Slam Champion

Puerta intends to appeal:

Puerta set to appeal against ban

Jamie Gardner
Thursday December 22, 2005

Mariano Puerta is considering an appeal against an eight-year ban imposed for a second drugs offence.

The 27-year-old Argentinian, world No12, tested positive for the banned stimulant etilefrine after he lost in the French Open final to Rafael Nadal in June. Unless any appeal is successful the suspension, imposed under the International Tennis Federation's anti-doping programme, will effectively end his career.

In a statement through his London solicitors, Puerta said: "My position has always been that I did not deliberately or knowingly ingest any prohibited substance. The tribunal's decision . . . confirms this to be the case. The tribunal accept that the substance, etilefrine, entered my system . . . as a result of accidental contamination by an over-the-counter medicine which my wife was taking. Accordingly it ruled that I bore 'no significant fault or negligence'.

The tribunal also accepted the etilefrine . . . was so low as to be incapable of enhancing my performance." Yet, his statement added, it "found no alternative but to apply strictly the rules which mandated an eight-year ban.

"The tribunal was 'very uncomfortable' about imposing the ban and indicated that it would 'welcome' an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport."

Puerta's 2005 French Open results are now null and void and he forfeits his £300,671 prize money at Roland Garros.

He served a nine-month ban after failing a test for the anabolic steroid clenbuterol in February 2003.

Sally · Grand Slam Champion

PUERTA LAWYER - VERDICT UNDERMINES BATTLE AGAINST DRUGS

A solicitor acting for Mariano Puerta believes the decision to ban the player for eight years for a second doping offence would "undermine the battle against drug cheats in sport".

The ban was imposed on the 27-year-old Argentinian by the International Tennis Federation in accordance with the guidelines set by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) after he tested positive for banned stimulant etilefrine after the French Open final in June.

That followed a nine-month suspension imposed after he failed a test for clenbuterol in February 2003.

The ITF accepted the player's defence of "no significant fault or negligence" for the presence of etilefrine, which was caused by "accidental contamination" by an over-the-counter medicine being taken by his wife.

Puerta is considering whether to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and solicitor Patrick Russell questioned the harshness of the punishment.

"There are two stories here. One is the awful personal plight for Mariano facing the effective end to his talented career and the deprivation this will cause to his many fans and supporters," Russell said.

"The second concerns a wider matter of public interest for sport, namely whether it is sensible for commercial interests to invest in the careers of sports people if they can be brought to nothing as a result of an incident such as this involving a trivial, minute and purely accidental ingestion of medicine which is available over-the-counter.

"There must be a real danger that this decision will, in the long term, undermine the battle against drug cheats in sport."

Puerta's appearance in the final at Roland Garros, which he lost to Rafael Nadal, marked a revival in his career following his initial drugs ban.

He has been forced to forfeit his results, ranking points and prize money of just over £300,000 from the tournament.

His fellow Argentinian players condemned the ITF's verdict, with close friend Gaston Gaudio saying: "It's lethal. Eight years is like a life punishment.

"After so much bad news, he had a wonderful 2005, winning a tournament (in Casablanca, Puerta's first tour title since March 2000) and reaching the French Open final, and now, what has happened is the worst sanction they could have given to him."

WADA chairman Dick Pound welcomed the ITF's sanction and told Sky Sports News: "Somebody who has tested positive twice in less than two years is someone who clearly doesn't think the rules apply to him.

"We were always worried about the secrecy and apparent laxity of the testing programmes when the responsibility was in the hands of the players' association.

"I know the International Tennis Federation have been working for a number of years in the interests of the sport and the process is now more transparent.

"The testing regimes will get better over time and the deterrent effect of these kind of sanctions where positive cases are discovered will, I hope, persuade players who might otherwise consider using these drugs not to do so.

"It is a big, big step forward. We're very pleased with (the Puerta verdict) and we will keep working with the ITF to help them make their sport even cleaner."

Sally · Grand Slam Champion

Paranoia concerning tennis doping appears to have gripped Argentina, where mitigation for testing positive for banned substances ranges from a baldness treatment to drinking from the glass of a wife who takes medication for hypertension. The glass was used by Mariano Puerta, 27, singles finalist at the French Open, who, none the less, was given a record eight-year ban because it was his second drugs offence.

It was accepted Puerta took the banned substance etilefrine inadvertently, otherwise he would have been banned for life.

The baldness treatment, finasteride, is alleged to have been taken by Mariano Hood, 32, who is under investigation after reportedly testing positive after playing doubles with the Czech Martin Damm in the French Open quarter-finals. Excluding Hood, five players from Argentina have been penalised in the past five years.

Prior to Puerta's ban on Wednesday - he has three weeks to lodge an appeal - Guillermo Canas was suspended for two years after testing positive for the prohibited diuretic hydrochlorothiazide; Guillermo Coria (seven months for nandrolone) and Juan Ignacio Chela (three months for methyltestosterone) also served suspensions; and in 2003 Martin Rodriguez was docked ranking points and prize-money. Puerta was previously banned for nine-months after testing positive for clenbuterol in 2003.

All this has created resentment among players from Argentina, who consider they have become universally perceived as drug cheats. And it would be misleading to assume that the use of performance-enhancing substances in tennis is confined to any one country or continent.

Not long ago, the tennis community described itself as a drug-free sport, a boast that proved to be nonsense. That is why, from New Year's Day, the International Tennis Federation will manage, administrate and enforce the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme at ATP Tour-sanctioned events, in compliance with the World Anti-Doping Agency code.

The ATP Tour's anti-doping programme was undermined by the farce of a catalogue of positive tests for the banned anabolic steroid nandrolone. Eight players were exonerated - Britain's Greg Rusedski, the Czech Bohdan Ulirach, plus six others who were never named because they adhered to a confidentiality clause. The ATP admitted that that their trainers may have been responsible for handing out contaminated supplements, though this was never proved.

In 2003, Andre Agassi described the Australian player Andrew Ilie as "irresponsible" for claiming the use of performance-enhancing drugs was widespread and that some players were prepared to "sacrifice their health for three years of fame." At the same time, Agassi, the only man to complete the Grand Slam since the Australian Open and the US Open changed from grass courts to rubberised concrete, is adamant it is impossible to perform at the highest level in the modern game without taking supplements.

Martina Navratilova believes that the players are terrified of taking anything. She recounts that she mistakenly drank from someone else's Evian water bottle in Melbourne, which "tasted sweet. "If I'd tested positive I would have been banned," she said.

Although female players are tested at International Tennis Federation events the women's tour has its own anti-drug programme.

Sally · Grand Slam Champion

Results to stand in Davis Cup ties
Margie McDonald
December 24, 2005

RESULTS in all Davis Cup ties would stand and would only be changed in the final if a player was found to have tested positive to an illegal drug, the International Tennis Federation said yesterday.

Tennis Australia had queried the ITF, headquartered in London, as to why match results from Argentina's Mariano Puerta in the Davis Cup quarter-final in Sydney last July were not reversed after he tested positive to a banned stimulant six weeks earlier.

Puerta, 27, and the world's No.13 player was given an eight-year ban by the ITF, which will run until 2013, effectively ending his career. It was his second offence after he received a nine-month ban in February 2003.

Puerta tested positive after this year's French Open final on June 5. He lost to Spain's Rafael Nadal in that match but came to Australia for the July 15-17 quarter-final and won the doubles with David Nalbandian on the way to the South Americans winning the tie 4-1.

Puerta also played for Argentina in the semi-final against the Slovak Republic, where Argentina lost 4-1.

Since the ITF in its judgment released on Thursday (AEDT) said that all Puerta's results since June 5 would be reversed, TA queried where this left Australia.

Reports about Puerta testing positive at the French Open did not surface until October, three months after the quarter-final and four weeks after the semi-final.

Australia still would have lost the quarter-final 3-2 if Puerta's doubles win had been made void.

But the ITF contacted TA to let it know Davis Cup results stand, even in the case of a player who has committed a doping offence, for every occasion except the final.

Sheddie · administrator

That sounds a sensible decision regarding Davis Cup ties, it would create utter chaos if the results of quarter-finals or rd1 matches were changed because a player was revealed too had tested positive for drugs 6 months later !!!

I wonder why Argentina has such a problem with drugs regarding it's own players, I suppose that players are coming from a poor background and will do anything to succeed. However, I don't understand it with players like Coria and Canas. They were already entrenched in the top 100 - why risk disgrace, a ban, losing prize money etc especially when the testing procedures are now so stringent, you're almost certain to be caught.

kundalini · Specialist Reporter + Intermediate Club Player

I fear that a lot of players have been using banned substances and that we are in a transitional period in which the players are still learning that they might get caught and punished.

For many years there have been rumours about some star names being performance enhanced and yet never any positive tests to prove it. The suspicion has been that the game simply couldn't afford to lose a top draw player.

Even the Rusedski case suggests that a lot of players were taking substances - the claim that it was the tour trainers that were the source of the problem no longer seems credible.

The impression I get from reading the verdicts of the Puerta and Canas cases (both fascinating by the way) is that the players left this aspect of the game to people they thought would take care of them.

When the drug results leaked they seemed clueless and struggled for a couple of months to even come up with a version of events. The rules of the game are quite simple - the players have to be sufficiently vigilant to make sure that no banned substances enters their body. In practice this means they have to be extremely careful what they eat and drink, nevermind accepting supplements or over the counter medicine.

And yet at least in the Puerta and Canas cases, both players have tried to explain away their positive test by saying they weren't that vigilant, they were happy to drink from cups that might have belonged to others or in Canas' case to accept medicine from the a tournament doctor without asking what was in it (who by the way can't recall ever giving it to Canas and never made any notes that mentioned it)

We may start to see some strange patterns of results over the next couple of years as previously performance enhanced players have to compete unaided.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

A link to the results of the ITF's 2015 drug-testing regime:

www.itftennis.com/antidoping/statistics/data.aspx

wimdledont · Challenger level

Sharapova's important announcement turns out to be that she's failed a drugs test - after a prescribed drug she's taken for a decqade was reclassified.

Etienne · Club Coach

The highest paid female athlete in the word for each of the last 11 years should be able to afford to pay someone to check things like that for her. I'm astonished she doesn't.

RBBOT · Futures qualifying

wimdledont wrote:

Sharapova's important announcement turns out to be that she's failed a drugs test - after a prescribed drug she's taken for a decqade was reclassified.

She's not the only one caught by the change - an ice dancer and two bi-atheletes have also tested positive for it.

However, what I really want to know is if there is any sort of list somewhere that details the types of announcement one may have to make in life, and specifies the appropriate level of carpet ugliness.

https://t.co/TXmmcNEvuN

paulisi · Tennis legend

Guilty as sin - she has been taking this for years with little medical reasoning.

Arewagi the Swedish 1500m is another facing a suspension for this drug.

It is prevalent in sport and more will get caught.

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

This whole Sharapova situation reminds me very much of the incident surrounding Scottish Skier, Alain Baxter who lost an Olympic Bronze Medal down to a similar "administrative oversight". Agree with Etienne's comment above the someone like Sharapova should have systems in place to avoid such situations, but I refuse to believe for one second that this was a deliberate attempt on her part to cheat.

But as Steven mentioned on Twitter, how do low ranked players go about checking every thing with zero resources - and I am thinking of all those drug tests in Faro at the Futures last week. For me, the easiest solution (and I don't know if this is already the case) is that WADA themselves should provide all registered players with an contact email address. If any player is prescribed a medication of any kind, they can simply email WADA and say, "I have been prescribed "X". Is it OK to take?" This would make life much easier for players, especially those without resources, and at the same time, remove any excuse for not checking.