Gears of the Beast Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 On 3/7/2016 at 9:07 AM, Gears of the Beast said: Initial thoughts; I find it hard to believe that an athlete like her would somehow be unaware of WADA banning a substance she was using. Looks like my doubt was justified. Hopefully she gets a lengthy ban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balvinder Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 leander pace and rohan boppanna can win for india bikram singh majithia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baxus Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 8 hours ago, Gears of the Beast said: Looks like my doubt was justified. Hopefully she gets a lengthy ban. That's a whole other story. Missing it on the list is one thing and, though incredibly naive, could be used to reduce sentence. Willfully ignoring WADA is another thing. She should definitely be banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mladen Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 10 hours ago, Gears of the Beast said: Looks like my doubt was justified. Hopefully she gets a lengthy ban. 1 hour ago, baxus said: That's a whole other story. Missing it on the list is one thing and, though incredibly naive, could be used to reduce sentence. Willfully ignoring WADA is another thing. She should definitely be banned. Well, I don't know. It would seem reasonable, even before her admission of guilt to assume that WADA informed the players about the drug. I mean the title itself is a bit reaching. No one contacted Sharapowa specifically and told her, it was just the usual announcement. So, while the usual announcements are more than likely to happen, it is still the question whether someone on her team acknowledged the change. IDK, I am not huge fan of Sharapowa, and in general, not highly invested in women's tennis, but there is something genuine about her admission. Athletes are rarely that good of actors and when I just remember Tyger Woods, I know there is a huge difference in the level of sincerity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calibandar Posted March 10, 2016 Author Share Posted March 10, 2016 Indian Wells begins today. Looking forward to it, though very sad about the fact that Federer cancelled this tournament as well. He's not playing in Miami either even though he could. Apparently he hasn't been in Miami for a few years and wont be there next year either. That leaves very little competition for the Djoker at Indian Wells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jen'ari Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 So I guess Serena is going to finally manage to be the highest paid now then..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baxus Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 7 hours ago, Risto said: Well, I don't know. It would seem reasonable, even before her admission of guilt to assume that WADA informed the players about the drug. I mean the title itself is a bit reaching. No one contacted Sharapowa specifically and told her, it was just the usual announcement. So, while the usual announcements are more than likely to happen, it is still the question whether someone on her team acknowledged the change. IDK, I am not huge fan of Sharapowa, and in general, not highly invested in women's tennis, but there is something genuine about her admission. Athletes are rarely that good of actors and when I just remember Tyger Woods, I know there is a huge difference in the level of sincerity. Well, ignorance doesn't relieve one of responsibility, you know? She is a professional athlete and one part of her job is to keep track of banned substances list or have someone do it for her and act accordingly. I'm sympathetic to her health issues, and if she can provide proper medical records she should get a reduced sentence, but still get a sentence nonetheless. Her failure to keep track of changes on banned substance list is equal to Troicki's failure to provide a sample for testing and should be treated similarly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mladen Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 2 minutes ago, baxus said: Well, ignorance doesn't relieve one of responsibility, you know? She is a professional athlete and one part of her job is to keep track of banned substances list or have someone do it for her and act accordingly. I'm sympathetic to her health issues, and if she can provide proper medical records she should get a reduced sentence, but still get a sentence nonetheless. Her failure to keep track of changes on banned substance list is equal to Troicki's failure to provide a sample for testing and should be treated similarly. No, I agree that it doesn't relieve her of responsibility, I just want to point out that the article itself was reaching in its conclusion. Sharapowa wasn't specifically and personally informed. It isn't like someone (yet) has any proof of personally telling someone from her team. The thing about Troicki was that you could see he was making some s*it up. You could sense the lie in his tone. For some reason, I was never fully convinced by his story which is something I can say for Shawapowa. At the end I do believe that this is just a symptom of the larger problems. You spoke about the medications players are taking. And the fluidity of the regulations is what is even worse here. This drug is now banned, but wasn't years prior to it. So, she was using doping according to new rules for the past 10 years? The problem is that perhaps in 5 years, the regulations will be made that no athlete today would pass it. That is why I insist on the intent and whether Sharapowa was truly just mistaken (and prior to that whether she really needed it) or whether she was consciously using it to get the advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williamjm Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 13 minutes ago, baxus said: Well, ignorance doesn't relieve one of responsibility, you know? She is a professional athlete and one part of her job is to keep track of banned substances list or have someone do it for her and act accordingly. One of the articles I was reading stated that Sharapova's annual earnings are greater than the entire budget of WADA, so you would think she could afford to employ someone to keep track of minor details like whether the performance-enhancing drugs she's taking are on the banned list or not. She may have had legitimate reasons for taking it but it's also straining credulity to think that a top-level athlete who will have every tiny detail of her diet or training scrutinised for what impact it might have on their fitness would be unaware that meldonium could have beneficial side-effects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baxus Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 10 hours ago, Risto said: No, I agree that it doesn't relieve her of responsibility, I just want to point out that the article itself was reaching in its conclusion. Sharapowa wasn't specifically and personally informed. It isn't like someone (yet) has any proof of personally telling someone from her team. The thing about Troicki was that you could see he was making some s*it up. You could sense the lie in his tone. For some reason, I was never fully convinced by his story which is something I can say for Shawapowa. At the end I do believe that this is just a symptom of the larger problems. You spoke about the medications players are taking. And the fluidity of the regulations is what is even worse here. This drug is now banned, but wasn't years prior to it. So, she was using doping according to new rules for the past 10 years? The problem is that perhaps in 5 years, the regulations will be made that no athlete today would pass it. That is why I insist on the intent and whether Sharapowa was truly just mistaken (and prior to that whether she really needed it) or whether she was consciously using it to get the advantage. I'm not so sure Sharapova didn't know meldonium got on a banned substances list. Even if she didn't know, she should've known since it's part of her job and one of the conditions for making millions of dollars/euros/pounds. Troicki's story deed seem full of it, but then again, Sharapova's doesn't sound much better either. "Oh, I didn't know I had to give both urine and blood sample for testing" is not more hard to believe than "Oh, I didn't know I shouldn't use it anymore". Ever expanding and evolving banned substance list is not a problem, it's the only way to go to keep up with the ever expanding and evolving doping methods. Sharapova won't be facing any problems for using meldonium in the period before it was banned and, I'm guessing, for the time it would take for meldonium to get out of her system. If regulations were to change so much that no athlete today would pass it, then I'd say the problem is with all the stuff athletes are using today, wouldn't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mladen Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 1 hour ago, baxus said: I'm not so sure Sharapova didn't know meldonium got on a banned substances list. Even if she didn't know, she should've known since it's part of her job and one of the conditions for making millions of dollars/euros/pounds. Yes, she should have known it. But, the question here is whether she did know it. The difference is in the intent. And the intent is here crucial. Because, at the end, the intent is what separates someone's mistake from criminal activity. 1 hour ago, baxus said: Ever expanding and evolving banned substance list is not a problem, it's the only way to go to keep up with the ever expanding and evolving doping methods. Sharapova won't be facing any problems for using meldonium in the period before it was banned and, I'm guessing, for the time it would take for meldonium to get out of her system. If regulations were to change so much that no athlete today would pass it, then I'd say the problem is with all the stuff athletes are using today, wouldn't you? Yes, I do think that is the problem. We can't possibly just rely on legalities here. The thing is that if she provides a proper medical documentation, with the proof that she was truly unaware of the change, at least for me, it exonerates her, to say, morally. But if she doesn't have documentation, if she consciously used it to get the advantage, it's very simple, hasta la vista, Masha For me, whether someone consciously used a medication to get advantage and whether someone was mistaken is a huge difference. I know WADA works on different principle and that positive result is the positive result, but I do think that whatever strange thing they found in any athlete's body should not be investigated solely on what the certain compound does, but the reason athlete took it. Basically, I would treat them just as any court of law would treat any accused. You need to prove both the act and the intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jen'ari Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Out of interest is it only performance enhancing drugs that get athletes disqualified?, what would happen if someone tested positive for a recreational one?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gears of the Beast Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 15 minutes ago, Lord Sidious said: Out of interest is it only performance enhancing drugs that get athletes disqualified?, what would happen if someone tested positive for a recreational one?. depends if the test is done* 'in completion' or 'out of competition'. If you test positive for cocaine in a test done during a tournament you'll be banned like Hingis was. But tests done out of competition (like random drug tests where they show up at your house at 6am) aren't meant to even test for recreational drugs, it is none of their concern and you cannot be banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Desmond Wine's Bane Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 1 hour ago, Gears of the Beast said: depends if the test is done* 'in completion' or 'out of competition'. If you test positive for cocaine in a test done during a tournament you'll be banned like Hingis was. But tests done out of competition (like random drug tests where they show up at your house at 6am) aren't meant to even test for recreational drugs, it is none of their concern and you cannot be banned. It might depend on the sport. Some sports definitely have banned athletes for out of competition recreational drug use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gears of the Beast Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 19 minutes ago, Ser Desmond Wine's Bane said: It might depend on the sport. Some sports definitely have banned athletes for out of competition recreational drug use. Which ones? That would be beyond sanctimonious. It's not even ethical to test for recreational use out of competition.... Unless you're referring to some kind of discretionary ban for behavior which involved recreational drug use, that would be a completely separate issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lessthanluke Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 It's not ethical to test for loads of the stuff they test for but it still happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jen'ari Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 3 hours ago, Ser Desmond Wine's Bane said: It might depend on the sport. Some sports definitely have banned athletes for out of competition recreational drug use. Banning someone for testing positive for a non performance enhancing recreational drug like cocaine or mdma is extremely unfair in my opinion, ok if they were high while they're performing that's a no no, but what someone takes off the court/track/pitch is their own business if it isn't performance enhancing imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gears of the Beast Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 6 hours ago, lessthanluke said: It's not ethical to test for loads of the stuff they test for but it still happens. I don't know what drugs you're referring to and what agencies you're referring to but WADA and USADA don't test for recreational drugs out of competition and they pretty much set the standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baxus Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 On 3/11/2016 at 0:56 PM, Lord Sidious said: Out of interest is it only performance enhancing drugs that get athletes disqualified?, what would happen if someone tested positive for a recreational one?. Athletes have definitely been banned for being positive on recreational drugs. Maradona and Mutu have been banned for cocaine use, a bunch of snowboarders were disqualified for testing positive on marijuana in Nagano '98 Winter Olympics... And those are just off the top of my head. On 3/11/2016 at 1:06 PM, Gears of the Beast said: depends if the test is done* 'in completion' or 'out of competition'. If you test positive for cocaine in a test done during a tournament you'll be banned like Hingis was. But tests done out of competition (like random drug tests where they show up at your house at 6am) aren't meant to even test for recreational drugs, it is none of their concern and you cannot be banned. In Europe, football club competitions end by the end of May, then best players get a month of national team duty for World or Continental Championships and then the club pre-season starts beginning-mid July. When would this "out of competition" be exactly? It's even worse in tennis, with players getting a vacation only in December. On 3/11/2016 at 3:03 PM, Gears of the Beast said: Which ones? That would be beyond sanctimonious. It's not even ethical to test for recreational use out of competition.... Unless you're referring to some kind of discretionary ban for behavior which involved recreational drug use, that would be a completely separate issue. Athletes have been both tested and banned for recreational drug use. And I'm wondering why would testing for recreational drugs be unethical? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lessthanluke Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 10 minutes ago, baxus said: Athletes have definitely been banned for being positive on recreational drugs. Maradona and Mutu have been banned for cocaine use, a bunch of snowboarders were disqualified for testing positive on marijuana in Nagano '98 Winter Olympics... And those are just off the top of my head. In Europe, football club competitions end by the end of May, then best players get a month of national team duty for World or Continental Championships and then the club pre-season starts beginning-mid July. When would this "out of competition" be exactly? It's even worse in tennis, with players getting a vacation only in December. Athletes have been both tested and banned for recreational drug use. And I'm wondering why would testing for recreational drugs be unethical? Because what athletes do in their private time is no one's business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.