Bob in Spain wrote:

---

Sally wrote:

---

RJA wrote:

---

Given the rumours coming out this evening it would seem that Cilic's availability for this tie must be in question.

---

 What's that rumour? I've been rooted to here most of the evening so I'm in the dark!

---

What Sally said !!  I am intrigued.

---

 Nothing more than rumours, taken twitter world by storm though and don't know when the 3 month ban would have started either.

Supposedly multiple Croatian sites are reporting that Cilic failed a doping test in Munich and is serving a 3 month silent ban. Nothing more out there as far as I know.

He can't be serving a silent ban because he played 5 tournaments after Munich.

I think the reasoning is that Cilic did not try to avoid a test, and claimed afterwards that he had taken glucose pills from a pharmacy, not knowing they contained a banned substance (I seem to have heard that one before. Surely all the players know now not to take anything not on the specific approved list? I remember Andy saying he didn't dare take anything for a headache). Troicki, by refusing to take a blood test at the time requested, COULD have been delaying matters because he knew that many PED's are clear of the blood stream by the next day. That's why the rules say they must give blood samples when requested. I'm not saying that was his reason, but not giving the mandatory ban could open the door for many others to avoid blood tests by saying they felt ill, and then the tests would be worthless.

I do have an opinion on the Troicki doping ban as I have time on my hands and am nerdy enough to have read the complete document http://www.itftennis.com/media/152389/152389.pdf

To summarise: Victor was feeling really rough and was probably unwise not to throw towel in during his match. He lost very quickly.  He gave the requisite urine test, but said he felt to unwell to give blood and is scared of needles. It is permissable to not give a blood sample in "extraordinary circumstances".  The Dr at the doping station followed procedures to the letter following the refusal, even helping Victor write a note of explanation.  Victor's coach was present for at least part of this doping control test.  Victor believed that this would make everything ok.  His coach didn't have a problem with it, and Victor was hearing what he wanted to hear from the Dr, and not what she was actually saying. I'm prepared to believe that his illness impared his judgement. 

Victor's defence was that the Dr said it would be ok if he wrote a note of explanation to the relevant authorities.  At the hearing, the Dr was adamant that she did not say this and produced their procedures document as part of her evidence. Clearly, Victor feeling unwell was not "extraordinary circumstances" and he committed a doping violation by not giving blood.

My opinion:   His coach an idiot. He said that he was not familiar with the doping regulations. A total, total idiot.  The procedures should  require the competitor to sign a document stating that they understand they face a lengthy ban if they do not give a blood sample as requested.  Also, I think Victor is a big girl's blouse for being scared of needles.  As for the length of the ban, I feel 18 months is harsh, but he is going to appeal.

Steve

Kyle got next to no chance unless he does something truely spectacular

Tennis36 wrote:

---

Kyle got next to no chance unless he does something truely spectacular

---

Yes, this has always been obvious. The reality has always been that the singles players will be Murray/Ward or far more likely Ward/Evans. The suggestion that Kyle could play a live singles rubber in this tie is palpably absurd.