Week 32 - WTA 1000 - Toronto, Canada (outdoor hard)

9vicman · Satellite level

RE: Week 32 - WTA 1000 - Toronto, Canada (outdoor hard)

Julia Carrot · All-time great

Yes, I thought it was a bit harsh. And as you say Dan did 'knowingly' take a drug. On that point I presume drinking alcohol is Ok and it was because Cocaine is an illegal recreational drug that he was banned? What are the rules for Cannabis being traced I wonder, since legal in some countries and not in others?

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

My point was simply it's like a flow-chart

Firstly, for me, I ask did they take a performance-enhancing drug or not?

If not, then that goes down the OK route, no more questions to ask (I'm talking tennis here, not the law, not ethically, not whether alcohol is as bad as drugs, or wife-beating is worse, or any other question - just did you do something that is not allowed and that artificially enhanced your performance)

So, for me, Dan goes immediately down that route, the OK route

Tara and Beatriz don't go down that route, they go down the 'bad' route

BUT then you come to the next junction in the tree-chart, and that might be 'did you intend it' or it might be 'did it really make MUCH of a difference' or whatever.

I'm not 100% sure what the next junction is, I'd have to think about it more

I don't go with the 'they never meant to' as being a carte blanche get-out-of-jail-free card. There are tons of things people don't mean to do that are really bad. Reckless, negligence, all these things matter as well as direct intention.

However, it's well possible that Tara and Beatriz will be exonerated somewhere at this junction, or the next one.

But they're both still one step further along the culpability line than Dan in my view (because Dan gets kicked out at the very first question, for me)

-- Edited by Coup Droit on Saturday 10th of August 2024 11:42:36 AM

RainDelay · Pro player

I think given the number of people who have had "contaminated" supplements makes anyone now taking a supplement of any kind a risk taker. I have no sympathy for anyone then caught and using that defence.

indiana · Tennis legend

Julia Carrot wrote:
Yes, I thought it was a bit harsh. And as you say Dan did 'knowingly' take a drug. On that point I presume drinking alcohol is Ok and it was because Cocaine is an illegal recreational drug that he was banned? What are the rules for Cannabis being traced I wonder, since legal in some countries and not in others?

I assume Dan was banned because it was pretty clear that taking such a recreational drug would have consequences from the tennis authorities. They can set their own perameters for what they allow / will punish and that one is understandable from a tennis reputation standpoint.

So his ban was fair enough but nonsense to put him into any drug cheat category.

-- Edited by indiana on Saturday 10th of August 2024 01:09:46 PM

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

Coup Droit wrote:
My point was simply it's like a flow-chart

Firstly, for me, I ask did they take a performance-enhancing drug or not?

If not, then that goes down the OK route, no more questions to ask (I'm talking tennis here, not the law, not ethically, not whether alcohol is as bad as drugs, or wife-beating is worse, or any other question - just did you do something that is not allowed and that artificially enhanced your performance)

So, for me, Dan goes immediately down that route, the OK route

Tara and Beatriz don't go down that route, they go down the 'bad' route

BUT then you come to the next junction in the tree-chart, and that might be 'did you intend it' or it might be 'did it really make MUCH of a difference' or whatever.

I'm not 100% sure what the next junction is, I'd have to think about it more

I don't go with the 'they never meant to' as being a carte blanche get-out-of-jail-free card. There are tons of things people don't mean to do that are really bad. Reckless, negligence, all these things matter as well as direct intention.

However, it's well possible that Tara and Beatriz will be exonerated somewhere at this junction, or the next one.

But they're both still one step further along the culpability line than Dan in my view (because Dan gets kicked out at the very first question, for me)

-- Edited by Coup Droit on Saturday 10th of August 2024 11:42:36 AM

This is how my mind sees it as well. Same thought process. Dont know enough about haddad and her case to judge it further but certainly Dan isnt a drugs cheat whatever the ethics of what he did ( although I reckon a large proportion of people in his age bracket - Gen Z - take recreational drugs of various natures and i dont judge him badly for it, tbh)

Mervatron2 · Challenger qualifying

Dan is a millennial not gen z.

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

Mervatron2 wrote:
Dan is a millennial not gen z.

Whatever , wasnt really the main point. People of his age and thereabouts

Steve J · Lower Club Player

Julia Carrot wrote:
Yes, I thought it was a bit harsh. And as you say Dan did 'knowingly' take a drug. On that point I presume drinking alcohol is Ok and it was because Cocaine is an illegal recreational drug that he was banned?

Cocaine is on WADA's list as a stimulant and, IIRC, Evans got a heavy punishment because it was detected in competition.

9vicman · Satellite level

Ultimately Evans was banned for 1 year, Haddad Maia 10 months. Whether we think a drug is performance enhacing or not, players agree to abide by the WADA Code. I don't think either player is a drugs cheat, but they both committed doping offences.

christ · Futures level

Either way: punishment served, water under the bridge.

Lambda · Challenger level

the addict wrote:
seagull wrote:
the addict wrote:
Katie now live-ranked at 30, with only Mertens able to overtake her.

L16:- Katie Boulter (GBR) WR33 v Aryna Sabalenka (BLR) WR3 [2]
Live ranked 31
OER says 30 on 1706 points with Noscova below her at 31 and 1693 points - live.eu has Noscova on 1718 ponts and WR29. I think the difference is due to mndatory counters.

seagull wrote:
OK I imagine OER is right.

OER was wrong. I'm puzzled why Noskova doesn't have to carry a 0 point counter for Toronto. She's age 19 so its mandatory and has played in the last 8 weeks so isn't subject to the long term injury exemption.

the addict · Tennis legend

Lambda wrote:
the addict wrote:

seagull wrote:
the addict wrote:
Katie now live-ranked at 30, with only Mertens able to overtake her.

L16:- Katie Boulter (GBR) WR33 v Aryna Sabalenka (BLR) WR3 [2]
Live ranked 31
OER says 30 on 1706 points with Noscova below her at 31 and 1693 points - live.eu has Noscova on 1718 ponts and WR29. I think the difference is due to mndatory counters.

seagull wrote:
OK I imagine OER is right.

OER was wrong. I'm puzzled why Noskova doesn't have to carry a 0 point counter for Toronto. She's age 19 so its mandatory and has played in the last 8 weeks so isn't subject to the long term injury exemption.

It does seem rather odd. OER now showing 1718 points in line with the WTA. This includes 5 mandatory WTA1000 and two other WTA1000, but not Toronto. And it shows Cincinnati as standing by.

Anyway, Katie is in a seeding position for the USO, which is where this discussion started.