• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Tennis

Page 129 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
Re:

Red Rick said:
Good, I didn't think they had it in them
Maybe ITF saw that the Russians were getting a hard time for doping and to prove Tennis is tough on doping Sharapova got the bullet!

Wouldn't surprise me in the least if she was used as PR to show Tennis is 'tough' on doping.

It also deflects from the match fixing scandal.

Not a good time to be a Russian professional athlete in any sport right now.
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
Red Rick said:
Good, I didn't think they had it in them
Maybe ITF saw that the Russians were getting a hard time for doping and to prove Tennis is tough on doping Sharapova got the bullet!

Wouldn't surprise me in the least if she was used as PR to show Tennis is 'tough' on doping.

It also deflects from the match fixing scandal.

Not a good time to be a Russian professional athlete in any sport right now.
Obviously
They've never been a fan of giving bans of appropriate length. Now suddenly they are. Seems to be political, but otoh, finally some tennis player gets an appropriate ban
 
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
Re: Re:

Red Rick said:
Benotti69 said:
Red Rick said:
Good, I didn't think they had it in them
Maybe ITF saw that the Russians were getting a hard time for doping and to prove Tennis is tough on doping Sharapova got the bullet!

Wouldn't surprise me in the least if she was used as PR to show Tennis is 'tough' on doping.

It also deflects from the match fixing scandal.

Not a good time to be a Russian professional athlete in any sport right now.
Obviously
They've never been a fan of giving bans of appropriate length. Now suddenly they are. Seems to be political, but otoh, finally some tennis player gets an appropriate ban
Appropriate ban would be 4 years and a big fine.

*Beaten by Catwhoorg :D
 
Sep 25, 2009
6,983
0
0
quite frankly, i dont understand her ban NOW.

i mean i have said it before that maria, just like almost any pro in her league, would not be shy from using something ANYTHING they'd be told is/was legal to help them win. moreover, i doubt little she did not use the peds before. yet, it turns out, she was maladvised or behind the curve. does not mean the culprit, the still poorly understood mildronium, was giving her an unfair advantage.

if it unequivocally was the case, the wada would NOT drastically modify its own original stance and would NOT start the studies to learn more. btw, the studies have NOT been completed yet and that's why most international feds are still waiting to dispose of almost 200 mildronium cases.

that the itf had decided to run in front of the train may hint at the political nature of the ban..

i had previously resisted the political/conspiracy notion, but here i said it b/c the haste is obvious and questionable based on the actions of other feds considering wada's own backpedaling on meldonum.
 
Sep 8, 2015
120
0
0
Kevin Mitchell has a good article on the Guardian newspaper website on the Sharapova verdict. It turns out she wasn't warned about it coming onto the banned list by her medical advisers because..... none of them knew she was on it!

"[The tribunal] found that, whether legal or not, Sharapova had deliberately concealed her use of meldonium from the authorities, who require athletes to declare all frequently used medications, as well as from her own coaches and team"
 
Aug 6, 2011
630
0
0
Re:

jmdirt said:
Pam Shriver: "The most important administrative thing that you need to do as an athlete is to make sure that you test negative."
With making sure you don't pay taxes as a close second.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
...
Appropriate ban would be 4 years and a big fine.
imo as long as the antidoping system is as corrupt as it is, four year bans are weird, if not ridiculous.
it gives new meaning to the word scapegoat.
which self respecting athlete is gonna accept a four year ban, knowing that all his/her colleagues are doing the same?

the best thing i can say about it is that if we're lucky it might trigger some athletes who get popped to break omerta and blow the whistle on colleagues.
 
Mar 13, 2009
12,232
0
0
Re:

jmdirt said:
Pam Shriver: "The most important administrative thing that you need to do as an athlete is to make sure that you test negative."
she was martina navratolova's doubles partner, and i aint using that as a euphemism or idiom, she was her tennis doubles partner, she of the veined forearm, more veinous that any of those australian tennis champions of the 60s and 70s. explain that one.

and shriver is married to the Australian James Bond actor, or he is married to the other 90s tennis player with the hyphenation surname, Gonzalex or someone, she is the Fed Cup captain, but I think Shriver is married to the actor, and Shriver was prolly also a Fed Cup cap'n. I am talking not of the current Fed cup cap'n

#inscrutability[sic]
 
Jun 21, 2015
214
0
0
Tennis had to be seen to adopt a 'tough but fair' stance in this case, even if they'd prefer to see Sharapova back filling stadiums. Given her high profile and the current climate in terms of doping and issues relating to sport's governance, I was expecting an 18-24 month ban from IFT. Might have been different if Sharapova had been able to produce compelling evidence in her favour, which she couldn't). Moveng forward, though, I wouldn't be at all surprised if CAS mitigate the sentence to 12-18 months.

Several things struck me.
1] Lindsay Davenport met with Sharapova after her press conference and stated that Sharapova had included meldonium on her doping control forms. We know now that this was not the case. Id like to hear her comments on this.

2] Sharapova was working with the Russian Olympic team doctor for what appear to be minor medical ailments (!).

3] Commentators, including Pam Shriver, continue to assert that Sharapova would have been better to say nothing and plead that she "stopped the drug in 2015", but this would have have been an untenable defense, as her levels would have been far too high since she admits to talking the drug on competition days.
 
Mar 13, 2009
12,232
0
0
Re:

arcus said:
3] Commentators, including Pam Shriver, continue to assert that Sharapova would have been better to say nothing and plead that she "stopped the drug in 2015", but this would have have been an untenable defense, as her levels would have been far too high since she admits to talking the drug on competition days.
truth, tenability, untenabile/unatibility[sic], has zero to do with this doping anti-doping charade.
 
Re: Re:

blackcat said:
jmdirt said:
Pam Shriver: "The most important administrative thing that you need to do as an athlete is to make sure that you test negative."
she was martina navratolova's doubles partner, and i aint using that as a euphemism or idiom, she was her tennis doubles partner, she of the veined forearm, more veinous that any of those australian tennis champions of the 60s and 70s. explain that one.

and shriver is married to the Australian James Bond actor, or he is married to the other 90s tennis player with the hyphenation surname, Gonzalex or someone, she is the Fed Cup captain, but I think Shriver is married to the actor, and Shriver was prolly also a Fed Cup cap'n. I am talking not of the current Fed cup cap'n

#inscrutability[sic]
Lazenby and Shriver were divorced in 2008. I think Shriver was dating women before she met James Bond. Whatever.
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
Red Rick said:
Good, I didn't think they had it in them
Maybe ITF saw that the Russians were getting a hard time for doping and to prove Tennis is tough on doping Sharapova got the bullet!

Wouldn't surprise me in the least if she was used as PR to show Tennis is 'tough' on doping.

It also deflects from the match fixing scandal.

Not a good time to be a Russian professional athlete in any sport right now.
Suppose it does not help when Russian whistleblowers are claiming that the doping is government sanctioned and their drug testing facilities are corrupt. I read somewhere that Putin was calling for a lifetime ban for future Russian drug cheats in any sport. They banned South Park so I am hopeful !
 
python said:
quite frankly, i dont understand her ban NOW.

i mean i have said it before that maria, just like almost any pro in her league, would not be shy from using something ANYTHING they'd be told is/was legal to help them win. moreover, i doubt little she did not use the peds before. yet, it turns out, she was maladvised or behind the curve. does not mean the culprit, the still poorly understood mildronium, was giving her an unfair advantage.

if it unequivocally was the case, the wada would NOT drastically modify its own original stance and would NOT start the studies to learn more. btw, the studies have NOT been completed yet and that's why most international feds are still waiting to dispose of almost 200 mildronium cases.

that the itf had decided to run in front of the train may hint at the political nature of the ban..

i had previously resisted the political/conspiracy notion, but here i said it b/c the haste is obvious and questionable based on the actions of other feds considering wada's own backpedaling on meldonum.
Ah - Somehow who understands the case - Once WADA got hundreds of AAF's for meldonium, they realised it was a problem - After consultation with scientists and manufacturers they realised meldonium was a slowly releasing substance. and it was conceivable some of the AAF's came from athletes who took the substance before the cut off date of 31 Dec - WADA then cobbled together a threshold amount of Meldonium which ALLEGEDLY proved an athlete could have taken the substance before December 31 - Many of the cases have been thrown out because the AAF is beneath the newly created threshold - You can bet your last dollar lawyers will argue in any Anti-Doping Tribunal that their athlete took Meldonium before December 31 - This did not apply to Sharapova because she unwittingly publically announced she took Meldonium after January 1 - Reckon Sharapova should fire her advisers and lawyers.
 
Re:

arcus said:
Tennis had to be seen to adopt a 'tough but fair' stance in this case, even if they'd prefer to see Sharapova back filling stadiums. Given her high profile and the current climate in terms of doping and issues relating to sport's governance, I was expecting an 18-24 month ban from IFT. Might have been different if Sharapova had been able to produce compelling evidence in her favour, which she couldn't). Moveng forward, though, I wouldn't be at all surprised if CAS mitigate the sentence to 12-18 months.

Several things struck me.
1] Lindsay Davenport met with Sharapova after her press conference and stated that Sharapova had included meldonium on her doping control forms. We know now that this was not the case. Id like to hear her comments on this.

2] Sharapova was working with the Russian Olympic team doctor for what appear to be minor medical ailments (!).

3] Commentators, including Pam Shriver, continue to assert that Sharapova would have been better to say nothing and plead that she "stopped the drug in 2015", but this would have have been an untenable defense, as her levels would have been far too high since she admits to talking the drug on competition days.
I strongly disagree with point 3 - Many of the meldonium AAF's have been thrown out because the substance has been found to be long acting in the body - Hence the cobbled together threshold put together by WADA - I can guarantee that any cases above the threshold that go to an Anti-Doping Tribunal, lawyers will strongly argue their athlete took meldonium before January 1 and will go hard at the lack of scientific rigour in showing how long Meldonium stays in the system - I can't see any athlete losing an Anti-Doping Tribunal - Sharapova should sack her advisers and lawyers.
 
Jun 21, 2015
214
0
0
Re: Re:

yaco said:
arcus said:
Tennis had to be seen to adopt a 'tough but fair' stance in this case, even if they'd prefer to see Sharapova back filling stadiums. Given her high profile and the current climate in terms of doping and issues relating to sport's governance, I was expecting an 18-24 month ban from IFT. Might have been different if Sharapova had been able to produce compelling evidence in her favour, which she couldn't). Moveng forward, though, I wouldn't be at all surprised if CAS mitigate the sentence to 12-18 months.

Several things struck me.
1] Lindsay Davenport met with Sharapova after her press conference and stated that Sharapova had included meldonium on her doping control forms. We know now that this was not the case. Id like to hear her comments on this.

2] Sharapova was working with the Russian Olympic team doctor for what appear to be minor medical ailments (!).

3] Commentators, including Pam Shriver, continue to assert that Sharapova would have been better to say nothing and plead that she "stopped the drug in 2015", but this would have have been an untenable defense, as her levels would have been far too high since she admits to talking the drug on competition days.
I strongly disagree with point 3 - Many of the meldonium AAF's have been thrown out because the substance has been found to be long acting in the body - Hence the cobbled together threshold put together by WADA - I can guarantee that any cases above the threshold that go to an Anti-Doping Tribunal, lawyers will strongly argue their athlete took meldonium before January 1 and will go hard at the lack of scientific rigour in showing how long Meldonium stays in the system - I can't see any athlete losing an Anti-Doping Tribunal - Sharapova should sack her advisers and lawyers.
The issue is that the drug has a two-phased excretion pattern; an initially rapid phase resulting in high urine levels, and a subsequent much much slower phase over weeks to months, resulting in low urine concentrations That is why WADA issued guidelines to IFs about exonerating players with very low levels and pursuing convictions in players who had high levels. Sharapova was taking 4 pills (double her normal dose) on the morning of big game days (the Williams match was certainly one such match) and had likely taken doses before her prior matches at the Oz open. She would certainly have had a very high level after that match that would not have been consistent with ingestion only in 2015. Ergo, that defense would not have worked, IMO.
 
Re: Re:

arcus said:
yaco said:
arcus said:
Tennis had to be seen to adopt a 'tough but fair' stance in this case, even if they'd prefer to see Sharapova back filling stadiums. Given her high profile and the current climate in terms of doping and issues relating to sport's governance, I was expecting an 18-24 month ban from IFT. Might have been different if Sharapova had been able to produce compelling evidence in her favour, which she couldn't). Moveng forward, though, I wouldn't be at all surprised if CAS mitigate the sentence to 12-18 months.

Several things struck me.
1] Lindsay Davenport met with Sharapova after her press conference and stated that Sharapova had included meldonium on her doping control forms. We know now that this was not the case. Id like to hear her comments on this.

2] Sharapova was working with the Russian Olympic team doctor for what appear to be minor medical ailments (!).

3] Commentators, including Pam Shriver, continue to assert that Sharapova would have been better to say nothing and plead that she "stopped the drug in 2015", but this would have have been an untenable defense, as her levels would have been far too high since she admits to talking the drug on competition days.
I strongly disagree with point 3 - Many of the meldonium AAF's have been thrown out because the substance has been found to be long acting in the body - Hence the cobbled together threshold put together by WADA - I can guarantee that any cases above the threshold that go to an Anti-Doping Tribunal, lawyers will strongly argue their athlete took meldonium before January 1 and will go hard at the lack of scientific rigour in showing how long Meldonium stays in the system - I can't see any athlete losing an Anti-Doping Tribunal - Sharapova should sack her advisers and lawyers.
The issue is that the drug has a two-phased excretion pattern; an initially rapid phase resulting in high urine levels, and a subsequent much much slower phase over weeks to months, resulting in low urine concentrations That is why WADA issued guidelines to IFs about exonerating players with very low levels and pursuing convictions in players who had high levels. Sharapova was taking 4 pills (double her normal dose) on the morning of big game days (the Williams match was certainly one such match) and had likely taken doses before her prior matches at the Oz open. She would certainly have had a very high level after that match that would not have been consistent with ingestion only in 2015. Ergo, that defense would not have worked, IMO.
Which begs the question, what the heck has Williams been on all these years?
 
Mar 13, 2009
12,232
0
0
Re: Re:

BullsFan22 said:
arcus said:
yaco said:
arcus said:
Tennis had to be seen to adopt a 'tough but fair' stance in this case, even if they'd prefer to see Sharapova back filling stadiums. Given her high profile and the current climate in terms of doping and issues relating to sport's governance, I was expecting an 18-24 month ban from IFT. Might have been different if Sharapova had been able to produce compelling evidence in her favour, which she couldn't). Moveng forward, though, I wouldn't be at all surprised if CAS mitigate the sentence to 12-18 months.

Several things struck me.
1] Lindsay Davenport met with Sharapova after her press conference and stated that Sharapova had included meldonium on her doping control forms. We know now that this was not the case. Id like to hear her comments on this.

2] Sharapova was working with the Russian Olympic team doctor for what appear to be minor medical ailments (!).

3] Commentators, including Pam Shriver, continue to assert that Sharapova would have been better to say nothing and plead that she "stopped the drug in 2015", but this would have have been an untenable defense, as her levels would have been far too high since she admits to talking the drug on competition days.
I strongly disagree with point 3 - Many of the meldonium AAF's have been thrown out because the substance has been found to be long acting in the body - Hence the cobbled together threshold put together by WADA - I can guarantee that any cases above the threshold that go to an Anti-Doping Tribunal, lawyers will strongly argue their athlete took meldonium before January 1 and will go hard at the lack of scientific rigour in showing how long Meldonium stays in the system - I can't see any athlete losing an Anti-Doping Tribunal - Sharapova should sack her advisers and lawyers.
The issue is that the drug has a two-phased excretion pattern; an initially rapid phase resulting in high urine levels, and a subsequent much much slower phase over weeks to months, resulting in low urine concentrations That is why WADA issued guidelines to IFs about exonerating players with very low levels and pursuing convictions in players who had high levels. Sharapova was taking 4 pills (double her normal dose) on the morning of big game days (the Williams match was certainly one such match) and had likely taken doses before her prior matches at the Oz open. She would certainly have had a very high level after that match that would not have been consistent with ingestion only in 2015. Ergo, that defense would not have worked, IMO.
Which begs the question, what the heck has Williams been on all these years?
her safe room?

or was that a trick question...

 
La Venus de Milo :) .

I very seldom watch tennis these days. It's a joke-ovic (I couldn't help it :rolleyes: ). I like the guy btw. But what a joke that is. Get Sharapova, the Russian, forget the others. Make a stand. What a joke. And btw, I'd be surprised if she does two years. Money will talk.

I so miss Borg and McEnroe. Tanner, Gerulaitis, Connors, Panatta, and Vilas, or even the kids: Becker, Edberg, Stich, Noah and his weed, Lendl-Drago. Those were the golden years. Chrissie and Martina, Andrea and Tracy.

Was a large racket some sort of mechanical doping that became legal and changed the game? When the soft spot is bigger, skills are less important and physical attributes become everything? Johnny Mac made many innuendos.
 
Re: Re:

arcus said:
yaco said:
arcus said:
Tennis had to be seen to adopt a 'tough but fair' stance in this case, even if they'd prefer to see Sharapova back filling stadiums. Given her high profile and the current climate in terms of doping and issues relating to sport's governance, I was expecting an 18-24 month ban from IFT. Might have been different if Sharapova had been able to produce compelling evidence in her favour, which she couldn't). Moveng forward, though, I wouldn't be at all surprised if CAS mitigate the sentence to 12-18 months.

Several things struck me.
1] Lindsay Davenport met with Sharapova after her press conference and stated that Sharapova had included meldonium on her doping control forms. We know now that this was not the case. Id like to hear her comments on this.

2] Sharapova was working with the Russian Olympic team doctor for what appear to be minor medical ailments (!).

3] Commentators, including Pam Shriver, continue to assert that Sharapova would have been better to say nothing and plead that she "stopped the drug in 2015", but this would have have been an untenable defense, as her levels would have been far too high since she admits to talking the drug on competition days.
I strongly disagree with point 3 - Many of the meldonium AAF's have been thrown out because the substance has been found to be long acting in the body - Hence the cobbled together threshold put together by WADA - I can guarantee that any cases above the threshold that go to an Anti-Doping Tribunal, lawyers will strongly argue their athlete took meldonium before January 1 and will go hard at the lack of scientific rigour in showing how long Meldonium stays in the system - I can't see any athlete losing an Anti-Doping Tribunal - Sharapova should sack her advisers and lawyers.
The issue is that the drug has a two-phased excretion pattern; an initially rapid phase resulting in high urine levels, and a subsequent much much slower phase over weeks to months, resulting in low urine concentrations That is why WADA issued guidelines to IFs about exonerating players with very low levels and pursuing convictions in players who had high levels. Sharapova was taking 4 pills (double her normal dose) on the morning of big game days (the Williams match was certainly one such match) and had likely taken doses before her prior matches at the Oz open. She would certainly have had a very high level after that match that would not have been consistent with ingestion only in 2015. Ergo, that defense would not have worked, IMO.
There was actually three levels of meldonium use

- Level less than one has been thrown out
- Level 1+ to around 15 allows athletes to still compete subject to further testing.
- Level 15+ must go to an Anti-Doping Tribunal

Any case in the last group that goes to a tribunal will be strongly fought by legal representatives as the science behind meldonium is still being investigated - Sharapova's case is different because she admitted to taking meldonium in 2016 - She received poor advice.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts