MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
I think the media coverage has gone very easy on her, slipped very easily into the narrative that she is the victim. The comments from Williams also suggest that the "omerta" is live and well in tennis.
I always fancied her until I read that she's a six-toed freak!
It's worse than that. She has six feet!
MSP - MemberThe comments from Williams also suggest that the "omerta" is live and well in tennis.
Yup, Williams comments in a press conference certainly prove there's a code of silence.
Funny that trying to pre-empt and spin a media sh*t storm is hailed as a courageous act 🙂
At least Pat Cash is telling it like it is [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03lyp7y ]on 5 live[/url]. Also another pretty good [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35754677 ]summary from the beeb[/url].
Dr Bassindale said: "It's advertised as giving a mental focus, removing external stress so you feel sharper. There is a slight central nervous system effect, like with stimulants such as caffeine, which gives you a sharper edge.
that's the reason for taking it - right there...
Can you get it on the internet?
I have a race at the weekend.. 😀
Funny that trying to pre-empt and spin a media sh*t storm is hailed as a courageous actAt least Pat Cash is telling it like it is on 5 live. Also another pretty good summary from the beeb.
Naively I took the press conference on face value at first and almost gave her the benefit of the doubt - that beeb article certainly raises enough points to change my mind completely.
Maybe the Russian doctors didn't get the email saying it was now a banned substance as they were all struck off the list? 😉
Bikebuoy, yes you can. Apparently a pharmacy in Russia has had to employ extra staff to keep up with demand since Sharapova's announcement 🙂
It doesn't matter how she came by it or how much she used of it, up until the start of the year it was LEGAL.
I'm only disappointed that she tried to do the sob story smoke screen instead of just fessing up to the mistake of forgettting to stop taking it.
For me, it's a slap on the wrist mistake she's already paying dearly for through losing her sponsors.
It doesn't matter how she came by it or how much she used of it, up until the start of the year it was LEGAL.
Whilst it was legal last year it was on the WADA watch list so everyone taking it has had 12 months warning that it was likely to become banned, so continuing to take it was reckless.
continuing to take it was reckless
Blonde moment?
LEGAL and not illegal are 2 different things
yes it wasn't on the banned list, but was taken for a decade, and put on to the banned list precisely because it was a prescription-only drug that was either being abused, or because so many elite sportspersons seemed to be suffering from an heart complaint epidemic requiring prescribed therapeutic substances.
so no, not LEGAL, but bending the ethics of the rules as written on paper.
and certainly a moment of stupidity by either the athlete or her doctor or management team that arranges to get as close to that WADA paper line without crossing it.
Isn't caffeine on the watch list (it's also been banned in the past) and it isn't required for medical reasons but it's routinely used in endurance sports - are athletes that use it dodgy?
I totally agree she should be banned I just don't think she was knowingly cheating, she may have been pushing the boundaries (using a prescription drug when not required for health reasons) but again I imagine that's routine among professional athletes - look at all the issues with painkillers in the pro peloton. To me this is a case of her (and her team's) carelessness costing her dearly rather than someone deliberately trying to get away with doping and getting caught
LEGAL and not illegal are 2 different things
if illegal is not legal then legal is not illegal...
bending the ethics of the rules as written on paper.
Morals and ethics went out of sport as soon as people realised that any advantage was a good advantage.
Do you think GB cycling's past successes are ethically worthless because they had better technology / marginal gains programs, rather than just being the fastest riders?
As i said before - with it having known benefits, by the looks of it very few side effects, and being on the allowed list - you can almost argue that those athletes not taking it are guilty of a lack of professionalism.
[i]Speeder - Member
It doesn't matter how she came by it or how much she used of it, up until the start of the year it was LEGAL[/i]
Ah! I think I see my mistake now. I was assuming world class sport, was practised by naturally gifted, talented, dedicated sports Men and Women. Who pushed their natural abilities in competition to compete and win at whatever level, within the spirit of and up holding the highest levels of sportsmanship.
Apparently, I'm wrong (again) and actually, to be a top level athlete, all I needed to do was train as a solicitor in order to navigate my way through what is and isn't [i]legal[/i].
🙄
Silly girl got caught ... 😆
Others are much more clever to evade detection ...
She should fire the person who prescribed her the "drugs" without knowing the tricks of the trade.
Learn from the Merican coz they are better at avoiding detection due to being part of the people that set up the rules ... 😛
Merican clean? 😆
Mr Armstrong managed to evade detection for so long they know the way to avoid detection. 😆
[i] theotherjonv - MemberÂ
Do you think GB cycling's past successes are ethically worthless because they had better technology / marginal gains programs, rather than just being the fastest riders?[/i]
Advancement of equipment for safety or performance purposes is ethical because all competitors are free to find and employ those advances.
Messing with the very physiology of an athlete is another issue altogether and I pity anyone who fails to distinguish between doping and technological advancement.
Already I'm detecting echoes of the Armstrong thread with folk seemingly convinced that being a cheat and a Bast*rd as Armstrong was. Is [i]the[/i] only way to win.
Pharmaceutical products all have side effects and some can be harmful. Therefore, how could any sport's governing body support or allow its athletes to take something that's potentially harmful purely to enhance performance, with no medical benefits?
Some people say that training at altitude is equivalent to taking EPO. Well it isn't: training at altitude isn't going to kill you, whereas messing with EPO could.
I like Armstrong coz he is good. 😛
Pharmaceutical products all have side effects and some can be harmful. Therefore, how could any sport's governing body support or allow its athletes to take something that's potentially harmful purely to enhance performance, with no medical benefits?
Sry if I'm missing the joke here - I mean what could the governing body of tennis possibly gain by having vastly elevated performance from its top stars?
They expect them to cheat, vickypea, and the fanbase tacitly endorses that expectation.
The message on day one of the tennis tour is
1. PEDs are illegal, just so you know.
2. Just so you also know, we have no interest or commitment in pursuing a drug-testing regime of any seriousness.
3. We'd like you to become really successful for our mutual benefit.
Any intelligent person is going to rapidly triangulate those three points and draw one very obvious conclusion. Doesn't mean everyone goes down that path of course - just those that win.
Garry, sadly your 3 points appear to apply (or have applied) to most sports.
I want to see mutant sports! 😆
Advancement of equipment for safety or performance purposes is ethical because all competitors are free to find and employ those advances.
Don't misunderstand - I'm as aghast by the ethics of sport as anyone, but I'm also long enough in the tooth to realise that the days of fairness disappeared long ago and that top level sportspeople will do pretty much anything they can to get an advantage over their opponents. Whether that's legal, barely legal or illegal; technical or chemical - depends entirely on their risk mentality.
Hence why - devil's advocate mode on - whatever the ethics, if it's legal, to some if not many that's all they want to know. And anyone could get hold of Meldonium, so why not? I'd like to criticise her but I can't - it was legal.
WAS. Isn't now, and as a consequence she's now broken the rules. Whether by accident or design, matters not really.
It was only legal until WADA discovered that athletes were taking it left, right, and centre!
@vicky left right and centre ? Less than 2% I believe
FWIW I can't believe the World #1 tennis player doesn't have a doctor/manager who reads her WADA emails
Apparently, I'm wrong (again) and actually, to be a top level athlete, all I needed to do was train as a solicitor in order to navigate my way through what is and isn't legal.
even the difference bewteen injecting EPO and boosting it via altitude training is only one of degree IMO
Garry Lager - you're suggesting I'm thick and naive? Perhaps you are just older and more cynical?
Apologies in advance - I've been away from the thread for a while so doing a cut and post quote frenzy:
[quote=FuzzyWuzzy ]Isn't caffeine on the watch list (it's also been banned in the past)
I'm fairly sure it has never been banned - there was once a legal limit to the amount you were allowed to have, but that's not the same thing at all. IIRC the limit was set so that you'd have to drink a lot of cups of very strong coffee to fail. I'd be surprised if it was on the watch list - what would be the point, as they're not going to enforce a limit again. I'll admit to sometimes having a coffee before competing (or a flat coke during) despite not being a regular drinker - does that make me a doper?
[quote=Solo ]Ah! I think I see my mistake now. I was assuming world class sport, was practised by naturally gifted, talented, dedicated sports Men and Women. Who pushed their natural abilities in competition to compete and win at whatever level, within the spirit of and up holding the highest levels of sportsmanship.
Apparently, I'm wrong (again) and actually, to be a top level athlete, all I needed to do was train as a solicitor in order to navigate my way through what is and isn't legal.
You reckon you could be a pro if you took the right legal supplements? I think you'll find world class athletes are all naturally gifted sportspeople who push their natural abilities - some of them taking perfectly legal substances to gain a slight edge doesn't change that.
[quote=vickypea ]Pharmaceutical products all have side effects and some can be harmful. Therefore, how could any sport's governing body support or allow its athletes to take something that's potentially harmful purely to enhance performance, with no medical benefits?
If only it was black and white. NSAIDs or other stuff which normal people take to enhance recovery - should they be banned? Training at a high level often leaves you with a depressed immune system and prone to illness - is taking normal drugs to help get over that and get back to training (or even to compete whilst ill) unacceptable? All performance enhancing.
When chocolate milkshake is a banned substance we're all DOOMED!!!!
No to both, what I'm meaning is that it's never a case of an athlete cheating in isolation, and I'm not just talking about the team around them. It's their relationship between the governing body, the media, the fans etc which can create an environment where there's little incentive to stop cheating and plenty to encourage it (on the quiet).vickypea - MemberGarry Lager - you're suggesting I'm thick and naive? Perhaps you are just older and more cynical?
We have the most advanced, strict and well-implemented drugs testing of any sport. And the reward for this is what? Stop 100 people on the street and ask them to name a sport where people take drugs to cheat, 95 say cycling. So what's the incentive for others to follow our lead, when preserving the sport's integrity is simultaneously eroding it?
Quite a good article by Kimmage...
They expect them to cheat, vickypea, and the fanbase tacitly endorses that expectation.
the tennis fanbase expects them to be cheating ?
where is your evidence for that ? You are talking BS.
How long before we see athletes with GM haemoglobin in their red cells, enhanced to carry more oxygen by volume than 'normal/natural' blood..?
Theoretically, the technology already exists to achieve this so it is just a matter of quietly financing the research, then implementing the additions on an individual, tailored level. As far as I know it's not banned yet but is clearly far beyond the current moral, sporting line and would be seen by anyone as cheating. But no doubt fair game to some. I wonder what organisations might have sufficient resources to back such a programme?
Sharapova must know that she's been on the wrong side of the moral line all these years, taking this drug for the wrong reasons and enjoying its benefits. Considering the value of the export market to Latvia (the country's most valuable export), there must be a lot of people taking this stuff. Some may even be using it for its therapeutic purposes.
Aaaaand [url= http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/mar/30/russian-track-cyclists-test-positive-meldonium ]another[/url] case of Meldonium test failure. Regardless of the nationality of these athletes I must admit I am getting more and more disillusioned with elite sports and what they might be using for performance improvements. It's not even things like protein supplements or vitamin supplements that bother me, but substances that have been developed for use to combat health and medical problems which, by happy coincidence, allow faster recovery / muscle strengthening etc. Are we honestly meant to believe all of these Meldonium users (for example) have heart problems?
I know we live in a world where, essentially, policing it is nigh on impossible, but I like the rose tinted view that these athletes achieve what they do through hard work. How naive am I?!
Seems rather harsh to me for a drug that was legal until Jan 1, 2016. BBC says the Tennis Federation asked for a 4 year ban.
Seems pretty fair to me.
And it wasn't that it had been sanctioned before, just not added to the prohibitive list. The authorities will always be playing catchup with new drugs, that doesn't mean they are in anyway approved.
And she knew exactly what she was doing, living in the US for 20 years, and with the best doctors money can buy available to her for quite some time. Yet this drug, supposedly essential for her welfare was prescribed by a Russian "family" doctor for an ailment her US doctors knew nothing about.
Seems rather harsh to me
Worth reading the full decision [url= http://www.itftennis.com/media/231178/231178.pdf ]here[/url]. Is quite interesting reading.
Reading that, I am surprised she got off so lightly.
It seems to clearly state that she was taking it as a PED before it was banned, then sentence on the basis that she is just a dopey blonde and how was she meant to know the authorities had caught up with her PED of choice.
To summarise, she's been using the drug as a PED for years and it says in big print on the box what the active ingredient is. It's a shame they didnt give her the full 4 years.
From this:
FWIW I can't believe the World #1 tennis player doesn't have a doctor/manager who reads her WADA email
To this:
Seems rather harsh to me for a drug that was legal until Jan 1, 2016. BBC says the Tennis Federation asked for a 4 year ban.
One moment you're having a go at her & the next you're supporting her??
Make your mind up...!
Personally I think she deserves all she gets - I've no time for cheats & liars.
She claims to have taken it for magnesium deficiency and family history of diabetes? Wouldn't a doctor in the US prescribe a magnesium supplement and a diabetes medication rather than an unlicensed drug?
I'd not be prescribing diabetes medication for someone on family history alone, unless they actually had diabetes.
Sharapova's excuse is a lame one for taking something she should have known not to take. It's the athlete's responsibility to make sure they don't break the rules; wasn't that the justification for banning Contador for the clenbuterol positive?
She is pretty though. Maybe they should let her off.
And she knew exactly what she was doing, living in the US for 20 years, and with the best doctors money can buy available to her for quite some time. Yet this drug, supposedly essential for her welfare was prescribed by a Russian "family" doctor for an ailment her US doctors knew nothing about
This.
She got popped and now has to deal with the consequences. She'll fight it, obviously, but 2 years seems very reasonable to me.
All l want is the same scrutiny and media coverage for other sports that cycling has been subject to, in respect to doping.
So we should be in for another 12 years of finger pointing 🙄
She is pretty though, so we should be leanient 🙄
ratherbeintobago- if I was a doctor, I couldn't see why it would be necessary to medicate based on family history alone. Seems a bit bonkers.
ratherbeintobago- if I was a doctor, I couldn't see why it would be necessary to medicate based on family history alone. Seems a bit bonkers.
That was my point. If someone has a strong family history, then surveillance is probably worthwhile, but that's not the same as starting treatment, especially starting treatment for a completely different and unrelated condition that just [i]happens[/i] to have performance enhancing benefits.
And she knew exactly what she was doing, living in the US for 20 years, and with the best doctors money can buy available to her for quite some time. Yet this drug, supposedly essential for her welfare was prescribed by a Russian "family" doctor for an ailment her US doctors knew nothing about
Nail/head.
especially starting treatment for a completely different and unrelated condition that just happens to have performance enhancing benefits.
... and then continuing the treatment for years after you've stopped working with that doctor, not disclosing it to your new team (doctors, nutritionists, agents), and not disclosing it on any of the drug testing paperwork despite being required to do so. I think she got off lightly.
I think she got off lightly
Yep. Does anyone know why she didn't get [b]four[/b] years, which I thought was the going rate for a first offence these days?
It's quite amazing that she got off with it given the very dubious nature of the defence. I wonder if she is taking a risk contesting it in that they might then change their minds as do the 4yr instead
Amazingly Nike and Head are standing by her. Wonder what strings they are pulling behind the scenes to get her back on court shortly.
Big money sport = take chances = take risky banned substance = win money.
Loads of money!
You lose!
😆
Amazingly Nike and Head are standing by her. Wonder what strings they are pulling behind the scenes to get her back on court shortly.
Could it be that certain mr. P has some weight behind the case, small hint about Nike import licences or taxes in Russia should do the trick..
Amazingly Nike and Head are standing by her.
No surprise there...
http://www.athleticsweekly.com/featured/justin-gatlin-in-new-sponsorship-deal-with-nike-20144/
http://www.runnersworld.com/elite-runners/guide-to-the-doping-allegations-against-the-nike-oregon-project
I'm actually surprised they didn't stick with Armstrong.