The thing I had with Sharapova is legal as it was, her use was all a bit murky in that having no medical need for it and keeping it such a secret from so many around her, which helped none of them warning her of the ban coming in.

It was as if this is a great unfair loophole but let's not be letting it be known about all in such a way that questions may be asked and it get banned ( much sooner than it eventually was ), and Sharapova's use of medonium was much more likely to raise questions than Joe Bloggs. Just put it down on the form each year and move on. The wider open omissions were post it being openly known about.

So as for what CD is saying, different situation, but .. ...

I was a wee bit surprised she got the ban she did ( as she clearly was, thinking she could smooth talk her way out of it ) but I had very little sympathy.

Marcel du Coudray
@MarcelduCoudray
Having recently gone through this process with ITIA, I can unequivocally state that the processes are flawed & the organisation is unfit for purpose. I wont comment on anyones case, because I dont have info, but the organisation & processes need to change urgently. #watershed


Du Coudray was the coach of JoMo (and possibly of Neal Skupski for a short while?) I believe

Seems he's pretty hot and bothered about the ITIA.

As are Cornet, Cilic and host of others.

I find it rather ironic that Cornet, say, is effectively attacking Serena for being the 'lowest of the low' in making a slightly snide comment about Halep

Er, Alizé, wouldn't you call Halep the lowest of the low?

(Never have liked Cornet )

-- Edited by Coup Droit on Thursday 14th of September 2023 07:22:48 AM

I don't think so, Var

And, frankly, I'm fine with that

I don't think you can take away trophies won when the player was testing clean - you have to go by the tests - if they're clean, they're clean

It would be different for a test directly after a grand slam win, for instance, but that isn't the case here.

As others have said, the problem with tennis is that it's not a straight race, it's not 8 runners, first across the line. There's two sides to the draw. So if the 'cheater' makes the final, you can't just give it to the other player from the other side of the draw, because what about all the players in the 'cheater's' side? One of those would have been in the final and the other finalist might not have won.

Grachka wrote:

---

Does it change anything that Halep's biological passport supposedly showed irregularities (other than the extended sentence)? Not sure what timeframe that referred to, but in other sports where they've identified those, their achievements when the irregularities occurred are usually reclaimed...but I've seen no suggestion of that here.

---

 Yes, but again, the blood irregularity was only first noted in 2022, wasn't it? 

So you can't really backtrack it - if so, to when? 

Although I do also see people stating she'd never had blood work done before, just urine tests

However, overall, although it pains me a bit, I think trying to take away achievements when there is no clear evidence of cheating (i.e. they tested negative) is a problem (do you take away a Junior Grand Slam?). And I definitely wouldn't award it to another player.

But am very happy to throw the book at them now. And fines would be equally valid, in my view, for bringing the sport into disrepute.  

Coup Droit wrote:

---

The report has now been published. With a lot of detail for those who like it.
And a few gossipy bits for those who prefer those bits

https://www.itia.tennis/media/bb0i20p5/230911-itia-v-simona-halep-decision-redacted-pp.pdf

---

 Gossipy bits for me!

I hadnt seen this before but it appears that experts suspected Halep was blood doping as far back as Wimbledon 2022. Is that before PM became her coach?

From the Guardian:

The independent tribunal that banned Simona Halep for four years for doping had strong grounds for suspicion that the Romanian was also blood doping at last years Wimbledon, its newly published 125-page decision reveals. However, it could not be comfortably satisfied that was the case as the 31-year-old did not have any blood tests between April and September 2022.

On Tuesday the former world No 1 was found to have intentionally taken the banned blooddoping agent roxadustat after a test at the 2022 US Open in August. Separately, an expert panel also found that Halep had abnormalities in her athlete biological passport after an analysis of 51 of her blood samples.

Haleps doping ban is fall from grace but ruling bodies can make process fairer
Read more
However the full decision, released on Thursday, reveals that the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) pushed for a more severe punishment and believed that she had blood-doped from at least March 2022 in preparation for Wimbledon and the US Open that year.

In response the panel stated: A key allegation by the ITIA on aggravating circumstances is that the player must have been using one prohibited substance or prohibited method from March 2022 at the latest. However, although there are strong grounds for suspicion we are not comfortably satisfied that this is so.