The Optimist wrote:

---

   She has had innumerable negative blood and urine tests of a long career, including recently.  

---

Absolutely meaningless. Lance Armstrong sailed through several hundred.

Interestingly, the panel failed to confront the matter of her mother being a pharmacist. They neatly avoided this by allowing themselves to be so utterly convinced about the mother's propensity for dropping cancer pills into food she was preparing and the emotional sincerity of her appeal, that they conveniently 'forgot' the obvious. . 

The biggest pointer to Errani doping was her association with Lance Armstrong's notorious doping doctor, a medical mainstay of the academy where she trained (why would an Italian chose to train in Spain when they have such good facilities, weather and players in their own patch?) and the fact she rose to World No 4 under his tutelage.

Not convinced personally.

 

Thanks, that was a good read.

The main thing that bugs me about her case is that the drug underwrote her whole pro career and that wasn't factored in during the disciplinary procedure. She knew to keep the testing authorities blinded to its existance and therefore use, by not stating its consumption of the forms an athelete fills in when completing a drug test.

Her penalty was for failing one drugs test. No penalty for her concealing its use from authorities and her team members in a calculated way for her whole adult life in tennis. All her achievements in tennis, including winning Wimbledon at 17yrs are now tainted. I understand she was taking it even then.

The fact that she hid its use is the difference. Had it been an drug that the authorites knew she was taking and eventually changed their mind on its legality, then fair enough. Whoops if you didn't check the updated laws. But she hid it because she knew there would be a good chance it would be prohibited if they became aware of its use by elite athletes.

And then if that wasn't bad enough, we have then been greeted by the dubious moral integrity of parts of the tennis world, not least the WTA itself in unashamedly continually promoting her to serve its own commercial interest. One of the reasons I like tennis is because for me it didn't have the ugly commercial realities of football, a sport i once followed closely. For me, tennis is now uglier than it used to be. Maybe for others, it showed nothing they didn't already know. but for me it chamged my perception. I still enjoy watching ITF and Challenger level tennis. But I have less time for the WTA as a professional body, and it was part of me not going to any of the WTA events this summer.

I know this topic is old stuff but found myself belatedly wishing to have my say.

Sounds like he just couldn't be bothered.

An interesting blog in The Guardian, including why the ITF do not even test for the two illegal drugs thought most likely to give the players an unfair advantage

www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2017/sep/13/tennis-drug-cheats-anti-doping


NB Curious, too, that when Maria is asked what new drug she is taking to replace Melodonium, which was needed - of course - for health reasons, she sidesteps this question each time.

She is amazing, any moral authority should be long gone and she still just marches on regardless, even making out she's been somehow wronged. How dare journalists ask awkward questions, how dare other players comment. And the WTA fling out the welcome back mat.

Skibbarriz sets out well the almost undoubted reasons why she kept her use of meldonium such a secret from even her team - basically don't let it all be spoiled by the authorities wondering why such an athlete would be taking such a drug and maybe have banned it many years ago.

It is maybe debatable what the authorities could additionally have done about the in theory technical offense of a non declaration of an in the past non banned drug, but they know what you were about for so many years and so do we, Maria!

-- Edited by indiana on Monday 18th of September 2017 09:34:50 PM

Looks like he's actually served the ban and returns Feb 1. I hate when they do that, name and shame is my view, don't let it go away quietly

Coup Droit wrote:

---

Yes. It also casts aspersion (quite unfairly in most cases) on all other players who are out because they are 'injured' - you can't help but ask the question....

---

Thats about half of the top 20!!

 

Iknew there was something dodgy about Novak, and Kei and Stan and that Murray bloke