Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Doping Again !


Grand Slam Champion

Status: Offline
Posts: 4096
Date:
Doping Again !


As CD, I think Sharapova must get a ban; tennis would be a laughing stock if she got a retrospective TUE.

However, if MS has truly been taking this stuff as a background low dosage thing to stave off possible heart defect issues (a bit like the older general population in this country are often advised by their GPs to take half an aspirin a day) she could be given a TUE for the future. If their version of events is borne out, MS and her team have stuffed up big time by not previously applying for one in advance of the ban coming in. But a 12 month ban would be sufficient in my view. If it's a **** and bull story, though, throw the book at her.

At the time of the Alain Baxter case, I felt strongly that it was a basic injustice to sportspeople generally that they cannot have access to simple over-the-counter remedies to stave off a common cold; that they had to suffer for their sport in a way that the general population are not obliged to suffer. To catch the sports cheats the bona fide get caught up in the net; I felt Baxter was very hard done by :(

 

Haha, that's c0ck wink



-- Edited by vohor on Friday 11th of March 2016 10:21:14 AM

__________________


Hall of fame

Status: Offline
Posts: 9477
Date:

I would give her 12 months as well, unless the medical stuff is proven to be valid ( unlikely ). It's only been illegal for 2 months and it has a limited performance impact, otherwise they would have banned it much earlier.

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 53185
Date:

I don't agree with the reasoning, I'm afraid, Phil - re the limited performance impact.

There are many reasons they might have taken a long time to ban it (difficult to do tests because of lack of supply, secrecy from the countries in question with knowledge, pressure groups, etc.etc.)

The very fact that so many athletes (and other endurance professions) take it would also argue the opposite.

I'm not saying either way that it (a) has a lot of impact, or (b) doesn't - I'm no chemist (or whatever the best person would be to know).

But just because they've only just banned it certainly doesn't prove the (b) case.



__________________


Hall of fame

Status: Offline
Posts: 9477
Date:

Coup Droit wrote:

I don't agree with the reasoning, I'm afraid, Phil - re the limited performance impact.

There are many reasons they might have taken a long time to ban it (difficult to do tests because of lack of supply, secrecy from the countries in question with knowledge, pressure groups, etc.etc.)

The very fact that so many athletes (and other endurance professions) take it would also argue the opposite.

I'm not saying either way that it (a) has a lot of impact, or (b) doesn't - I'm no chemist (or whatever the best person would be to know).

But just because they've only just banned it certainly doesn't prove the (b) case.


 I think it was also mentioned in a piece that its performance enhancing effects weren't huge, even the maker said, it will help recovery but not in a dramatic way. I see it as a lower grade PED. The obvious reason why so many athletes took it I would say, is because it was legal and because you could use the medical excuse. I'm no chemist either lol, so probably take this argument with a pinch of salt, this is just my hunch feeling.



__________________


Club Coach

Status: Offline
Posts: 616
Date:

I am very entertained by the way Head have now waded into this debate and started questioning the banning of the substance in the first place. They seem to think that a dosage limit should have been introduced instead and the piece on the Beeb even had the inventor of the drug quoted saying that he thinks athletes may be risking their lives if they can't take this stuff!

Rather begs the question why there haven't been fatalities amongst the thousands of non eastern European athletes who did not even know it existed? If it had been a minor player from the region like our friend Tim Gabashvilli testing positive I am pretty sure there would be none of this Jedi mind trick defense from the corporate spin team and he would be hung out to dry with no sympathy and certainly with no opportunity for a carefully staged press conference to break the news in the best possible light.

__________________


Futures level

Status: Offline
Posts: 2016
Date:

This story has really grrr me.

The drug in question, whilst it can be obtained in most nations with a prescription, should not be taken for more than 3 weeks. No MD would allow this.

This girl has not been taking this drug because of a possible family genetic pre-disposition to diabetes et al, (what cobblers), she has been taking it for gain on the court.

My issue is not so much, she has been caught now it has been banned, it is the fact she was obv taking it for the last 10 years and may or may not have gained an advantage. Do not believe for 1 min she was taking this because of genuine family health problems.

I wonder, if Anna Ivanovic had this same family diabetes problem, she may have won 10 slams by now.

And the announcement, dear me... it was the most manufactured well rehearsed speech I have ever heard, that black dress, was like a funeral.

I hope she is banned for the maximum 4 years.



__________________

World renowned expert in Nordic tennis. 



Futures level

Status: Offline
Posts: 2016
Date:

philwrig wrote:

I would give her 12 months as well, unless the medical stuff is proven to be valid ( unlikely ). It's only been illegal for 2 months and it has a limited performance impact, otherwise they would have banned it much earlier.


 

Again, not 100% true re the limited impact.

In vitro studies have shown it may have the potential to give a massive advantage, however the in vivo work is limited, but mark by word, it will gain pace.

 

If the girl has a genuine reason for taking it, (even though no MD would really let you for more than 4 weeks), the  she should not be a prof sports person, end of.  If a person is not good enough at basal level, for whatever reason, that sorry tough..



__________________

World renowned expert in Nordic tennis. 



All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 5131
Date:

As an elite athlete and role model to junior players there is a way to live your life, my expectations of what an athlete should eat echo that described by Andy which is consistent with a healthy balanced diet.

Systematic doping using a prescription drug when a healthy elite athlete is not be an activity a major equipment manufacture should condone by actively supporting such athletes, indeed as a major sponsor of junior tennis selling rackets through coaches Head should think twice.

Definitely not where I will be spending my next £200 quid or looking for equipment for the kids. Artengo all the way from here on in.

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 53185
Date:

Well, Kiki M didn't hold back !

(the English translation)

theyellowballcorner.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/mladenovic-on-sharapova-here-we-all.html

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 53185
Date:

But some see a conspiracy:

www.rt.com/op-edge/335370-russian-tennis-maria-sharapova/

__________________


Grand Slam Champion

Status: Offline
Posts: 4096
Date:

Thanks for those links CD; food for thought!

__________________


Challenger level

Status: Offline
Posts: 2478
Date:

The latest episode of 'No Challenges Remaining' discusses this in a half hour roundtable, with French doyenne of tennis journalism, Carole Bouchard; Jon Wertheim, of Tennis Channel (briefly); and Guardian journalist, Simon Cambers joining Ben Rothenberg - Courtney Nguyen having recused herself because of her official position with the tour.
Ben Rothenberg, in particular, actively defends Ms. Sharapova's part at every turn, and casts aspersions on everything from WADA to Russophobic conspiracy, cultural differences and 'contribution to the tour' as mitigation.
Perhaps I don't understand the full nuance of their arguments, particularly those made against WADA.
Listeners can draw their own conclusions.

They were all generally very sympathetic and of a like mind, suggesting 6 months to a year ban at most. For the purpose of properly examining the arguments, I would have preferred a voice of counterpoint to have also have been represented.



__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Online
Posts: 39705
Date:

All very interesting contributions that I have been catching up with re the Sharapova case, having gone off on holiday in the middle of the to and fro.

I personally certainly agree with these that think that the maximum punishment should be about a year. The offence is failing a doping test for the Australian Open, no more no less. And I have little doubt that it is pretty useful - as said that's surely why so many took it.

One can considerably doubt much of her stuff about medical need, indeed think it a load of bull****, and think less of her for that 'explanation' and also think ( as Andy and some others ) taking PEDs, for no medical reason but purely for the sporting endurance etc, benefits is just wrong and indeed think her a bad person as Mladenovic. But thousands upon thousands of sports people choose to do that and where it is legal in the sport, well it is legal. So one can think much much less of Sharapova, but still her only relevant offense is failing that one drugs test and that does not merit being banned for anything really more than a year, especially when ( her one bit that may be true if strange ) they maybe missed the email.

PS: Having subsequently also listened to the "No Challenges Remaining" podcast (and thanks for the link ), while I agree with ISF that they certainly looked at many mitigating circumstances, I didn't personally think they were OTT in supporting her, with generally reasonable points made. It is interesting that apparently a lot of sportspeople have already failed a meldonium test this year, apparently getting caught quite smartish, so they have not been being clever / shady but walked into it, which is all very strange as has been said about Sharapova, so I do at least think it legitimate to look at how WADA publicised the change re meldonium. As said big numbers of failers may help her here if WADA are looked at as not having got the message across as well as they might have.

I remain thinking that a ban should be no more than a year, and I will be surprised if it is otherwise. It is for her lawyers to work on making that less.



-- Edited by indiana on Tuesday 29th of March 2016 05:51:51 PM

__________________


Club Coach

Status: Offline
Posts: 685
Date:

I don't believe that a mass of athletes all didn't read their emails and know that Meldonium was now on the banned list>
I wonder whether
a) Meldonium stays in the body longer than athletes had suspected
b) more likely they didn't think that WADA had an effective test for it
or
c) they reckoned they had an effective way to mask it

__________________


Challenger level

Status: Offline
Posts: 2546
Date:

Seeing the Sunday Times headlines about 150 sports stars doping via the doctor, I see tennis players get mentioned. I just cant see British ones being included though? I would be staggered if any of our recent top 100 players have gone that route and, I dont see those outside the top 100 being of the level required to look at that route.

I think doping in the nature of what Sharapova is accused of is rife in sport but, when it comes to British tennis players......I just cant see it! Head in sand?

__________________

 Its really not as bad as they say :)

«First  <  15 6 7 8 935  >  Last»  | Page of 35  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard