If you are well enough to give a urine sample you are well enough to give a blood sample.

The two show up completely different things and of course substances last longer in your blood than in urine. It doesn't need to be performance enhancing, he might have been having too much fun out in Monte Carlo...

On the basis the ITF have handed out 2 years bans to players who have had substances go into their system from a muscle rub which the player was advised did not contain any prohibited substances and the ITF confirmed gave no performing enhancing effects whatsoever, they need to come down hard in the first instance (they did reduce the ban by 6 months, and if it's backdates he's already served some of it).

If VT does appeal, it will all come out in the wash. I agree something doesn't feel right though - it is possible that what the drug's officer said was correct and that VT misunderstood. That seems to be what the ITF are saying:-"the tribunal concluded that the DCO told Mr Troicki that she could not advise him as to whether his reason for not providing a blood sample was valid, and that no such assurances were given by her."

 Either way, I'm not sure it will help his cause much to say the person is lying and trying to cover their own back.

-- Edited by PaulM on Friday 26th of July 2013 10:50:15 AM

I too was completed baffled by this until I read the full transcript of the tribunal's decision this morning, which is at http://bit.ly/13h92Xq

I have a similar extreme needle phobia and can imagine (especially if I was already feeling ill) rational thought completely going out the window in the blind panic such things induce in me (even writing about this now is making me feel a bit nauseous), leading me to wishfully clutch at any hint that it might be ok to avoid the test even if it was far from a complete assurance, or even if the hint was not really any kind of assurance at all.

So I suspect the tribunal's best guess as to what really occurred may be right and it's hard to see how they could have let him off without creating loopholes for real cheats to exploit. But I also feel desperately sorry for Viktor.

Feeling sorry for him does of course assume that he wasn't doping and trying to avoid the test for that reason, but the phobia coupled with illness are enough to explain the panic/irrationality aspect in my opinion.

I sort of agree with everyone that he was stupid. At the end of the day, if he was indeed clean, why even muddy the waters.....however ill you may have felt.

And it's true that half a day might be enough for drugs to exit the system, so for me, if he did ask (naively) for a postponement, the response should simply be NO....and then the matter is dealt with. The fact that the tester clearly did NOT simply say "no" is baffling IMO. 

The bit that concerns me is that some sort of conversation clearly DID happen (as opposed to "No you can't Mr T"), and that he DID give his blood to the same tester the next morning.....so clearly that arrangement must have been part of the discussion......why would either VT or the tester have gone to the trouble of giving/taking his blood the next morning, when the "crime" had already been committed.

If the tester just says NO, all of this is avoided.....and he's either guilty or innocent. 

I realise that seems a bit suspect, but I also know from experience that circumstances can feed the phobia (and associated panic/irrationality) sometimes and lessen it just about enough at other times so I didn't find myself struggling to understand that at all. Yet I can see why someone who hadn't experienced it themselves would find it suspect.

One other thought - if the doctor was as experienced as is claimed, surely she should have been aware of the way people with an extreme phobia can react and made it absolutely clear to him that it wasn't acceptable to miss the test rather than leaving any room at all for doubt, however irrational that doubt might have been. I'm not saying she had a responsibility to do this and it's the kind of thing you might expect an inexperienced doctor to fail to understand, but after 15 years, you would think she would have known what might be going on in his head and acted accordingly.

I also read the full transcript. I'm amazed at the coach - not fully knowing the rules? Really???

I was wondering if, as he was feeling ill, he took some medicine that he was not sure was allowed and put off the blood test for that reason.

Whatever the truth of it all, I don't see how the tribunal could come to any other decision. It would be setting too great a precedent for the future to allow him to refuse the test. I can understand ones like the Belgian cases who were not there to take the test because of possible misunderstandings, but he was actually there and would not take the test. He may well have a genuine phobia but it would be too easy surely for other players to claim they have such a problem when they hadn't. If such a test is part of your job you have to bite the bullet and get on with it. Or find another job.

This is a really disappointing story on so many levels.

Troicki has to be prepared to give blood and urine as requested - he might not like it but it's part of his job.
I'm sure he finds the money, fame and success that his career brings him pleasurable this is the 'downside'.

The ability of the Doctor to deal with the situation and the advice of Troicki's team is certainly debatable.
But this means the tribunal had no choice in the matter.

A very unsavoury and disappointing incident whatever way you choose to interpret it.

There are rumours going round that Cilic failed a drugs test in Munich