View Single Post
Old 02-05-2013, 03:28 PM   #65
*Sparkle*
Semi-Pro
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 677
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vrad View Post
Federer has consistently been in favor of more testing and has never complained about it. Murray OTOH has complained about it often in the past.

For what it's worth, I do think Murray is clean, and his complaints stemmed more from his actual annoyance with the procedure than an attempt to hide PEDs. However, his change of heart (at least publicly) is undeniable, unless your grasp of English is so poor you cannot understand what he actually said in those interviews.
I half agree. IMO, it's a weak grasp of English and/or logic if you don't understand that his comments now are contradicting his previous ones. As you say, that complaints about the procedures themselves do not equate to having a problem with doping controls as a concept.

To be fair to those jumping to conclusions, many of his comments, along with most players' comments on doping are frequently taken out of context and twisted to try to create more drama than actually exists. So his complaint about a player getting a reduced ban for providing information to the authorities became him complaining about players providing information, which paints a very different picture.

He's made no secret of his new concerns being in light of the Armstrong scandal, so I suppose you could say that is a change of heart, but more that he's realised what could have been going on around him, rather than him suddenly claiming that doping is bad.

IMO, getting bogged down by which players have moaned publicly about the inconvenience of the whereabouts form or feeling like it's an invasion of privacy is a red herring. As far as I can tell, no sane person would enjoy the process, so I fully expect all of them have griped at some point in time. The only difference is that some of them did it more publicly than others.

The question isn't whether or not filling in the forms, and letting strangers into your home to watch you wee is an invasion of privacy, because it is. The question is whether or not that invasion of privacy is justified. To be justified, two requirements must be met. The first that there is a reason to do it like that, which I think has now been demonstrated. The second is that they get useful data and do something with it, which has not yet been demonstrated. Obviously, urine testing is better than nothing, and I'm sure limits doping, but we all now know that testing could be a lot better.

Think of it as being like random road-side checks. We've all driven past them, and we all hope we won't get called in, but if we are called in, we'd like to be sure they are doing something useful. If the police are doing random breathalyser tests, the machine had better be working, and if they find someone over the limit, they need to take action. If they spend time inspecting our cars to check it is roadworthy, I'd want them to be doing proper checks, not just going through the motions for five minutes so they can tick a box. If they want to search my car, I'd want them to be looking for illegal items, not just rifling through my bags, paying special attention to my underwear or other personal, but perfectly legal items.

On top of that, I'd want the officers to be polite, to acknowledge that it is an inconvenience, but to explain to me why they are doing it and what they hope to achieve. If they did that, most people would accept it with reasonable grace at the time, perhaps even be thankful that these things are being done to keep us all safer on the roads, but I bet a decent proportion would still have a bit of a moan when they got to wherever they were going ten minutes late.
*Sparkle* is offline   Reply With Quote