L64: (24) Katie Boulter WR 30 vs Brenda Fruhvirtova (CZE) WR 105 (age 16)

Neil Gee wrote:

---

Watching Simona Halep's comeback from her drug ban I was expecting her to struggle with her serve and sharpness at the beginning of the match (as Emma Raducanu generally does when she's been out for a few months) 

---

 I'm not sure that Ms Raducanu is yet comparable to Ms Halep.

paulisi wrote:

---

I agree with Caroline Wozniacki that drug cheats shout not be given preferential treatment.

---

 Yes me too. I had to stop watching Halep's match last night because of the commentator spouting nauseating bilge about how great it was to see her back!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/68612597

Coup Droit wrote:

---

paulisi wrote:

---

I agree with Caroline Wozniacki that drug cheats shout not be given preferential treatment.

---

 Yes, me too

---

 agreed. Im trying to recall what happened to Dan? I think he did get a challenger wild card soon after his return, at Surbiton? But I guess his drug of choice was social as opposed to performance enhancing, so that never bothered me as much. 

paulisi wrote:

---

I agree with Caroline Wozniacki that drug cheats shout not be given preferential treatment.

---

 The CAS ban was reduced from 4 years to 9 months because the appeal panel judgement found that Simone Halep ''did not bear significant fault for the violation.''

The panel found that she had taken legal supplements which had been contaminated and therefore she was not at fault.

I think that these investigations essentially cleared Simone of wrongdoing, so you have to look at what they said and therefore assume that the panel got it right and she is innocent, as none of us here are sat with the full evidence in front of us.

On a wider note, I think it is quite scary how growth hormones are being added in meat and egg production and then causing athletes to fail drugs tests. I had a colleague whose husband recently developed female type boobs and the investigation by doctors suggested that hormones from chicken production in cheap supermarket chickens, was the likely cause, as it had been found to be the cause in other people where this had happened and a particular supermarket's supplies of chickens were using a type of growth hormone which was known to produce these side effects if enough of the product was eaten.

Because of the risk of libel, the doctors who investigated asked where he bought the chicken he ate from, how often he ate it and then told him that they had found this connection many times, but could not put it in writing as they would risk being sued by the major retailer. I think there are numerous stories like this and often athletes take a lot of a particular supplement or food, if they believe it is helping them do better, and so if there is a contamination, the levels are then much higher than in an ordinary person who takes less of the product.

I think one of the things that is perhaps not appreciated by all is that a lot of sports people are so dedicated to their sports that they work out which foods and supplements are good for them and so stick very rigidly to having almost the same things to eat and drink every day, because they think it gives them a competitive advantage and it stops them having to worry about whether they are getting the right amounts of protein, fat, carbohydrate, vitamin etc. 

Coup Droit wrote:

---

'Innocent' is the wrong word

She was banned for 9 months for a doping infringement - that's not 'innocent'

She was at fault for having taken those supplements - hence the 9 month ban

Of course it was a far less serious one than the one that led to a 4 year ban but it's still a ban and still an offence

---

 The finding though said that 'she did not bear significant fault for the violation'' - in other words that she had taken a supplement that had been contaminated without her knowledge. If you take something that you believe is legal and OK and later find out that it has been contaminated, then yes you are guilty of taking a contaminated substance, but you are not knowingly guilty - so for me that makes you innocent of any attempt to break the rules.

The CAS verdict also said that the balance of probabilities was that she had not taken the substance intentionally.

She was given the 9 month ban because the judges said she should have taken more care over the supplements, which actually I think is a bit of a cop out, because if they believe that she did not know the supplements were contaminated, then what should she have done differently?

-- Edited by Andy Parker on Wednesday 20th of March 2024 11:57:22 PM