Coup Droit wrote:

---

seagull wrote:

---

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 

---

That's exactly my point.

By keeping the reasons secret for doping absences and silently endorsing the 'story' the player puts forward, the ITF casts doubt on the absences of the top players (and others), allowing people to start rumours, and undermining their own product. It's ridiculous, unfair and shortsighted.

---

 Exactly - and that is where a lot of the Nadal stories emanate from, his various injury absences linked to lots of questioning about his physique (biceps etc) which seemed to go up and down over the seasons lead to rumours about the real reason for him being absent; whatever the truth and I personally like to think none of the top players take PED's, the conspiracy theorists only get fuel to add to their fire when the ITF/ATP stay silent on the real miscreants.    

Please forgive my rambling at considerable latitude:

The ITF in particular suffer the same problem of many sporting governing bodies around the world. As should be the case, it is the players that are famous and highly remunerated. The governing bodies are not.
At a certain threshold players can bring suit against a governing body that threatens them with financial ruination. Even if the governing body are completely sure that their case in things like doping charges is absolutely watertight, they face the invidious choice to gamble their very existence on the courts backing their version, and thus not having to bear the associated costs of the actions.
Given that choice, of principle or survival, well, principles lose; most every time.

Over time, that means that you almost actively enter a landscape where the best solution for all parties is to avoid the controversy or conflict in all cases, at all costs. A sort of shorthand arises in order to speed along the deals and the process in ordre to get things filed away as expeditiously as possible and return to projecting an outward face of seeming calm and normality.
It's just easier. If you are intransigent then alternative bodies will supplant you, which dilutes the authority and public unity of the sport, an outcome almost never to the overall benefit or wellbeing of whichever game is concerned - see boxing, darts, IPL/Test cricket etc.

The alternative is perhaps to have a ruthlessly capitalist governing body; one primarily concerned, first and foremost, with making itself money, and almost with a private sector styled fiduciary duty to do so. In that manner, if successfully rapacious, they at least have the financial resources to, in theory, defend themselves against potential lawsuits should they find it in their interest to do so.
The downsides are that they often then don't want to challenge the golden geese of the players for fear of impeding the flow of cash on which they depend.
This effectively makes you FIFA, or the IOC - both very cash and resource rich, but with... erm... other associated problems.

If you are someone trying to be a neutral arbiter for the good of the paying punter, or casual fan, like WADA, or CAS, you are hated on all sides. A grudging aacknowledgment of your existence as a necessity, but only because no one has yet found a way to make your removal profitable in all directions.

I wish this was as simple a process as it is to me. I call it cheating, and I would ban them all on a one strike basis. If you've ever encountered the nexus of finessing arguments of the morality of tax avoidance vs. tax efficiency then you'll understand how seemingly straightforward moral decisions are easily subverted by Mammon.

Slightly different one- alize cornet has missed 3 unannounced tests, last one in October and an anti doping case has been opened. She says she passed 17 other tests and has "valuable" reasons she missed these tests. Nonetheless rules are rules and you can't miss 3 tests so expect the itf to give her a ban.

Not tennis, and not transparently doping related, but fairly extraordinary that at the winter Olympics, GB in 16th position on the medal table, at time of writing after Yarnold's gold, are a place ahead of the Olympic Athletes of Russian origin.

They definitely went all out in Sochi, every nation experiences a bit of a dip the games after the hosting

The Brits were still on the programme!

Undoubtedly in marginal sports that arent quite professionally sustainable ie. hockey, equestrian, pentathlon, swimming, diving and the sitting down sports at which we excell rowing, sailing and cycling we are able to utilise the poor tax lottery funding to facilitate the mainly middle class and publicly school educated athletes success. I dont think the nation would tolerate such funding out of general taxation.

At least it is overt, although I love college sport in the US in general I feel the way it strips out what would be a whole day of professional sport with multi-million dollar contracts going to the universities who do not pay their athletes is the biggest scam of them all. If you are live to the nation playing in a stadium in front of 100,000 paying fans all eating in the stadium and wearing the merchandise you should get paid! I would have a salary cap at 40% of turnover for each institution and a flat salary fixed for the four or five years of eligibility, they can of course pay their own tuition fees who knows it may get discounted as part of the contract negotiations?

Apologises for my annual rant. Any lottery players or student footballers or basketball players not playing in the NFL feel free to comment.

Never got the memo 

I hope the guy's wife knew what he was supposedly up to or there could be a slight domestic! Was a husband and wife mixed curling pair.