Doping Again !

the addict · Tennis legend

Doping Again !

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

Michael D wrote:
More detail here on Haddad-Maia if you are wondering what SARMs are.

https://tennis.life/2019/07/23/haddad-maia-gets-provisional-doping-suspension

-- Edited by Michael D on Tuesday 23rd of July 2019 09:24:50 PM

And she gets a 10 month ban - but as it started from July 2019 when she was suspended, she will be free to play again in May, in time for the FO, just, although not sure whether she will have any sort of ranking left to get into it.

https://antidoping.itftennis.com/news/315865.aspx

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

www.telegraph.co.uk/tennis/2020/01/20/revealed-leading-coaches-doping-pasts/

Apologies if this was posted before but I thought the Telegraph shone quite a good light on the complete refusal of the authorities to realise there is a problem....

emmsie69 · Top national player

Absolute joke. So Dan gets a years ban for testing positive for cocaine and holding his hand up with no bull**** excuse yet anyone else taking a substance that is performance enhancing can come up with a pathetic reason and get banned for under a year which significantly will usually mean they don't drop out of the rankings completely. That years ban Dan got cost him nearly 2 years of opportunities which would be fair enough if others were getting similar bans but they're not and their infractions are worse.

-- Edited by emmsie69 on Monday 10th of February 2020 07:15:47 PM

-- Edited by emmsie69 on Monday 10th of February 2020 07:37:35 PM

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

emmsie69 wrote:
Absolute joke. So Dan gets a years ban for testing positive for cocaine and holding his hand up with no bull**** excuse yet anyone else taking a substance that is performance enhancing can come up with a pathetic reason and get banned for under a year which significantly will usually mean they don't drop out of the rankings completely. That years ban Dan got cost him nearly 2 years of opportunities which would be fair enough if others were getting similar bans but they're not and they're infractions are worse.

-- Edited by emmsie69 on Monday 10th of February 2020 07:15:47 PM

Hear , hear.

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

emmsie69 wrote:
Absolute joke. So Dan gets a years ban for testing positive for cocaine and holding his hand up with no bull**** excuse yet anyone else taking a substance that is performance enhancing can come up with a pathetic reason and get banned for under a year which significantly will usually mean they don't drop out of the rankings completely. That years ban Dan got cost him nearly 2 years of opportunities which would be fair enough if others were getting similar bans but they're not and their infractions are worse.

Can't argue with your logic there.

Status Quo · Intermediate Club Player

Bob in Spain wrote:
emmsie69 wrote:
Absolute joke. So Dan gets a years ban for testing positive for cocaine and holding his hand up with no bull**** excuse yet anyone else taking a substance that is performance enhancing can come up with a pathetic reason and get banned for under a year which significantly will usually mean they don't drop out of the rankings completely. That years ban Dan got cost him nearly 2 years of opportunities which would be fair enough if others were getting similar bans but they're not and their infractions are worse.

Can't argue with your logic there.

I can. Evans absolutely deserved the ban. Farah just deserves much much more.

Oakland2002 · All-time great

A 2yr ban minimum, arguably 4. Effectively anabolic steroid use. Agreed Dan deserved one but this much more as actively trying to deceive and gain a competitive advantage. As opposed to being a chopper! A rank of 100-120 must be the point at which it is most tempting right on the cusp of direct entrance to slams and decent prize money for turning up.

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

Status Quo wrote:
Bob in Spain wrote:
emmsie69 wrote:
Absolute joke. So Dan gets a years ban for testing positive for cocaine and holding his hand up with no bull**** excuse yet anyone else taking a substance that is performance enhancing can come up with a pathetic reason and get banned for under a year which significantly will usually mean they don't drop out of the rankings completely. That years ban Dan got cost him nearly 2 years of opportunities which would be fair enough if others were getting similar bans but they're not and their infractions are worse.

Can't argue with your logic there.
I can. Evans absolutely deserved the ban. Farah just deserves much much more.

Actually, I think we agree. Emmsie's logic was that Dan's ban "would be fair enough if others were getting similar bans but they're not and their infractions are worse". Your comment suggests that you agree with that, as do I.

Status Quo · Intermediate Club Player

Bob in Spain wrote:
Status Quo wrote:
Bob in Spain wrote:
emmsie69 wrote:
Absolute joke. So Dan gets a years ban for testing positive for cocaine and holding his hand up with no bull**** excuse yet anyone else taking a substance that is performance enhancing can come up with a pathetic reason and get banned for under a year which significantly will usually mean they don't drop out of the rankings completely. That years ban Dan got cost him nearly 2 years of opportunities which would be fair enough if others were getting similar bans but they're not and their infractions are worse.

Can't argue with your logic there.
I can. Evans absolutely deserved the ban. Farah just deserves much much more.
Actually, I think we agree. Emmsie's logic was that Dan's ban "would be fair enough if others were getting similar bans but they're not and their infractions are worse". Your comment suggests that you agree with that, as do I.

Sort of. To mu imnd the argument is this:
Evans case was proportionate in all procedural dimensions and the outcome of the ban. It was necessary, proportional and sufficient.

I see no way to retrospectively litigate it in light of other unrelated bans and usefully argue that his ban should therefore have been different in any aspect. The cases are not related beyond the loose similarity that each dealt with tennis players. To do so would make the Evans ban either Disproportional or insufficient to the offense.

What is true is that the likes of Farah & Sharapova should have has even stiffer sanctions for their graver offenses.
That they did not has no bearing at all on the gravity, nature or outcome of Evans transgression.
It simply means that those other two were not sufficiently sanctioned, and focus should be put on the deficiencies of those latter cases alone.

Suggestion that we should trassess Evans ban strijes me as probably motivated by his familiarity and standing within GB tennis fans rather than a cold assessment of the cases.

I am reminded of the case of GB skier Alain Baxter in the 2002 Winter Olympics. I punched the air and danced around the room when he won his bronze medal. It fair broke my heart to see him stripped of it on such a technicality. But, it was the right decision. Subsequent lassitude of sanctions against other skiers offences haven't changed my mind that, no matter how desperately I wanted to reinstate that medal, to do so would be the wrong outcome for the sport.

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

When I read the name Farah, I must admit I do have to double take for a mo or two.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

"Suggestion that we should trassess Evans ban strijes me as probably motivated by his familiarity and standing within GB tennis fans rather than a cold assessment of the cases."

I know we've been here before, and I know most people disagree, but, no, my feeling has nothing to do with familiarity or wanting any special treatment for Dan: I simply feel that purely recreational drug taking should not be a sporting offence, for anyone.

People have argued, very eloquently, about the harm that all drug taking causes. And I don't deny it, for one instant.

But, to me, recreational drug taking is (in essence) no different from drunk driving, from assault and battery, from fiddling your taxes, from a whole heap of crimes which cause harm to society. Either they are all part of sport's concern, or none.

So, Farah et al should have the book thrown at them - it's cheating, it's deliberately creating and supporting a larger chain and group of cheats to dupe the sport... Dan's offence (and others) is a crime (maybe more serious, maybe not) but which should be dealt with as such by the authorities, along with all other crimes.

Status Quo · Intermediate Club Player

To me though, this is a post hoc ergo propter hoc rationalisation.
At the time of the offense, the recreational drug abuse disqualification was fully understood, documented and legally bindingly enumerated into the rules of the sport in which Evans chose to make his living.
There is no reasonable way to argue that a player would not know about those clause(s), or the consequences and penalties of said clause(s) (though Sharapova did successfully have Eisenbud argue something like this on her behalf, effectively blamming WADA for not babysitting her on a daily basis through every one of it's schedule notifications). Even then, ignorance of the rules is no defense.
You broke the rules, you pay the price.
If you want to argue that something should not be a rule or law, the time to campaign or petition for the change is not after you have been found rightfully in breach of those rules, and at such time as you will thus benefit from the abolition of such rules and their attendant sanctions. The principle is either right or wrong, and worth your time or not whether you will benefit from the amendment or not. It is not a flag of convenience to be raised to protect yourself to some degree.
Evans, at least, did not attempt to do that.

This line of post-hoc rationalisation allows the room that the Sharapova and Farahs of the world exploit, in saying that well, yes, drug X was in my system, and it wsa obviously banned, but I don't think it should be banned, and so I did nothing wrong. Or, drug X was in my system and was banned, but I didn't put it there, it was (((extraordinbary serious of coincidences/acts of God))) that put it there, so I'm not guilty.
I'm not for giving any latitude to such mendacious legalistic arguments.

-- Edited by Status Quo on Tuesday 11th of February 2020 09:35:29 AM

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Status Quo, I agree completely.

I'm not trying to say he (or others) should be let off the hook - the rules were/are the rules. He knowingly flouted them.

I'm simply saying I would change the rules. Would have done ten years ago. Would still do now.

emmsie69 · Top national player

Dans ban was clearly disproportionate to his crime when compared to other bans. A years ban for a player that holds his hands up, makes no excuse for what he did and takes his punishment for taking a recreational drug that is in no way performance enhancing against a less than 1 year ban for drugs that are taken to improve performance and come with a bull**** sob story refelcts badly on tennis. I'm with Coup Droi that recreational drugs with no performance benefit should be frowned upon and discouraged but should carry no more than a 3 month slap on the wrist ban. Performance enhancing drugs should be an absolute minimum of 1 year. Farah knew the alleged issues wth Colombian beef but still ate it!!!