Week 12/13 - WTA1000 - Miami, USA - Hard

dodrade · Futures qualifying

Week 12/13 - WTA1000 - Miami, USA - Hard

Peter too · Tennis legend

There are 35 harmful insecticides that have been banned by the EU but not in the UK. Some affect fertility and some affect hormone balances. There is also a new Neonicotinoid insecticide that is now prevalent in most of the population in North America. There are stringent tests that medicinal products have to pass before they are released for general use, the same does not apply to pesticides and some can be ingested through our food. We really need tighter control of chemicals before they are released.

emmsie69 · Top national player

I'm more concerned with the abnormalities in her biological passport. I wonder if there will be any changes in that if she was systematically doping and has now had to stop. Ironically 'getting away with it' may come back and bit her on her arse.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Andy Parker wrote:
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?

There are plenty of offences that are strict liability offences.

Speeding is the most commonly quoted.

It doesn't matter why you do it i.e it was a medical emergency. It doesn't matter if it's completely unintentional (i.e. your speedometer was broken so you didn't know), the offence is 'strict liability'

And that's the same with the doping offence

I'm not saying she's the devil incarnate for (unintentionally) taking contaminated supplements (and I'm not going down the rabbit hole of 'I don't believe her' - although.....)

But she's not 'innocent'

Lambda · Challenger level

Andy Parker wrote:
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?

The simple answer to that is to not have been taking supplements. Players know the ITIA position is that players do not need to take supplements and that if they do there is a substantial risk that they may be contaminated. If a player still chooses to take supplements then the ITIA suggest that players should take supplements from a batch that have been batch tested by one of three named organisations as they carry the least risk. Even then there is no guarantee that the supplement will not be contaminated.

the addict · Tennis legend

Article by Stuart Fraser in yesterday's Times about the whole saga of Wozniacki v Halep and wild cards.

One paragraph reads:-

"Halep was among several players who were critical of the wild cards that Sharapova received. Similar to this case, CAS had also ruled that Sharapova was not considered to be an intentional doper because of a mix-up over the addition of Meldonium to the list of banned sbstances."

BTW, I'm agreeing with Wozniacki.

markymc1983 · Club Coach

Yes but Halep was banned for a more lengthy time than Sharapova was for the same crime so Im of the mindset of not minding wild cards for Halep. I also think Halep handled the situation quite graciously unlike Ugly Carpets Sharapova.

On a side note, Katie is first on court 2 at 3pm UK time

markymc1983 · Club Coach

Not a good start from Boulter, spraying forehands and missing some sitters 4-5* with Brenda having an MTO seemingly heat related

Doonan · Intermediate Club Player

Would be surprised if Fruhvirtova doesnt retire at some point soon.

Jan · Hall of fame

Doonan wrote:
Would be surprised if Fruhvirtova doesnt retire at some point soon.

She did indeed retire after one game of the second set. I'd just started watching!

miriam abc · Strong Club Player

Doonan wrote:
Would be surprised if Fruhvirtova doesnt retire at some point soon.

She does after 1st game of 2nd set, after Katie won that and the first set tie break.

Neil Gee · Club Coach

Fruhvirtova looks such a promising player at 16yo though clearly unwell and not fully match fit but what a talent.

GAMEOVER · Satellite level

For the 2nd tournament running our players have benefited by their opponent retiring . However in both cases Katie and Emma would most likely have won if their matches had been completed.

s

markymc1983 · Club Coach

Yes it looked like Katie won have won ugly there anyway. Will have to play much better to beat Haddad Maia (again) or Parry. Off to the practice courts I think. Conditions look tough and humid and not everyone is built for it

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

Katie , of course, beat Haddad-Mia in San Diego just a few weeks back. Got a decent shout.