Originally Posted by Clarky21
I don't think it's weak at all. It proves that they will cover up for players if necessary. What makes you think they won't do it again, or haven't done it again since then? I believe they most likely have covered up for other players after Andre. The fact that they did it once is enough to prove their dishonesty.
It was one case, and the way it went it doesn't look like it was a common thing. Andre lied to them and was terrified of what would happen, so he himself wasn't confident at all they'd cover him up.
And it wasn't a PEDs case.
Their budget, the lack of blood testing, the fact that they didn't start testing for EPO until only a few years ago, the lack of OOC testing, the lack of IC testing, the lack of testing winners after matches, the lack of boosting testing for players who have a sudden increase in performance, the fact that players can miss 3 OOC tests in a year's time before anything is done about it, etc... I could go on all day about this. If they really want to catch these people they have got to make changes and get more stringent testing policies.
They have also got to spend a whole lot more money than they do now, which is only a little over a million a year last I heard. Compare that to the testing in Cycling where they spent nearly 5 million on anti-doping last year.
Also, just last year the ITF only conducted 21 OOC blood tests. Only 21 for all those players. That is not even close to being good enough to catch anyone. It's far too easy to get away with doping yourself as much as you like with pathetic testing like that. They only conducted 2,150 tests altogether on a total of 642 players, which the majority of were urine tests. 510 of them weren't tested OOC at all last year. Do you really think that's good enough to catch anyone? Each player had less than 4 tests all of last year. Not good enough by a landslide.
That means it could improve, like most if not all things, but not that they don't want to catch dopers.
I agree about some things here with you, especially there should be more blood testing, not the least because it seems considerable less intrusive for players as well.
Isn't it two OOC tests that they can miss?. Considering the consequences if they miss more (this without testing positive), it seems reasonable to me.
I'm thinking those tests aren't evenly distributed, so top players must get tested more often than 4 times a year.
I think it's good enough to catch some, and that should be already a good deterrent. It's the randomness more than the frequency that should make this work.
Two things: are you sure they don't test winners, not even after the final?. And what is IC testing?, cannot seem to find anything about it.