British Tennis Forum - Celebrating 20 Years!

JonH · Tennis legend

RE: Doping Again !

indiana · Tennis legend

emmsie69 wrote:
I haven't read the article but if he tested positive during a competition then surely it's a 1 year ban no matter the circumstances. It could only be a 3 month ban if it was an out of competition test where the tester turned up at the players designated place for their 1 hour whereabouts test or just a random test at home.

The BBC folk are saying that he could test positive during competition for cocaine taken pre-competition and if he can prove this it would be the reduced ban. So just repeating that and I'm not sure how he could prove that. That he did and then he didn't?? I don't know how big the reading was.

Madadman · Grand Slam Champion

Just a one month ban for Kyrgios. I dont know if the rules have changed or the circumstances are drastically different but 9/10 years ago didnt Evo get 12 months?

christ · Challenger qualifying

Madadman wrote:
Just a one month ban for Kyrgios. I dont know if the rules have changed or the circumstances are drastically different but 9/10 years ago didnt Evo get 12 months?

Apparently both: the rules have changed, and the circumstances are slightly different.

brittak · Satellite level

Tara Moores claim against the WTA dismissed. That must be the end of her road?

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/articles/c9x2z652v86no

JonH · Tennis legend

Thing is, the Colombian meat doping thing has been known for a long, long, time. This case never had legs for me. And Tara really had little defence against what I think was naivety at best, stupidity more likely.

emmsie69 · Grand Slam Champion

JonH wrote:
Thing is, the Colombian meat doping thing has been known for a long, long, time. This case never had legs for me. And Tara really had little defence against what I think was naivety at best, stupidity more likely.

Yep I have no sympathy at all. I knew about it and I'm just a middle aged Woman so I find it hard to believe that a professional Tennis player had no idea.

Lambda_ · Lower Club Player

The lawsuit was puzzling. The decision of the tribunal to completely exonerate her of fault for the substance she tested positive for with others because in the tribunal's opinion it came from contaminated meat stands. That wasn't appealed by the ITIA. The other substance she tested positive for, which was appealed and she is suspended for, CAS ruled the threshold for the likelihood of it coming from contaminated meat wasn't met because the evidence presented was that it is rarely used in farming in Columbia. She its puzzling why she pursued the contaminated meat angle when that her decision behind her suspension is deemed to be unlikely to have been caused by that, even if it was.

But it should be remembered it is not proven - because the ITIA do not have to prove - that there was any intent. In the absence of Tara presenting any other defence than contaminated meat, CAS had to impose the default 4 year suspension.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

I have a certain sympathy

People are often stupid (sorry, Tara), way too often really, and stupidity is not as culpable as bad intent

And she did get found by the independent tribunal to be not at fault - so there's certainly been one set of judges who found in her favour

She was never going to win this one though - it's extremely hard to overturn an arbitral decision - it's not a question of right or wrong - you don't review the facts - it's simply a question of procedural matters

As the New Yor Times says:

"......with U.S. District Judge Andrew Carter finding that there was no legal basis for Moores claims that the arbitrator had deprived Moore of a fair hearing or exceeded their powers."

christ · Challenger qualifying

So if I understand it the outcome is that the correct procedures have been applied correctly to destroy her career, even though she wasn't at fault.

Sounds fair.

It's a real shame that she didn't have a paid lackey to fall on their sword and take the blame (although being ranked world number one would doubtless have helped).

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

christ wrote:
So if I understand it the outcome is that the correct procedures have been applied correctly to destroy her career, even though she wasn't at fault.

Sounds fair.

It's a real shame that she didn't have a paid lackey to fall on their sword and take the blame (although being ranked world number one would doubtless have helped).

Completely agree with the last bit - which is another reason why I have some sympathy for her

The outcome where she was 'shafted' is not this one but when ITIA appealed the independent tribunal's finding that she wasn't at fault

This one had no choice, really

If you sign up to the arbitration system (which she did and all tennis players do), then you go through the tribunal and the appeals process for that arbitration system, etc.

Which it was happened - with the ITIA coming in at the last minute (as they were allowed to do) and getting the final decision in their favour - which is the one that is worthy of scrutiny

The court can only interfere if the tribunal has acted outside its powers or there's been bribery, no lawyer allowed, etc etc