Silent Ban Discussion

[Richie Rich]

if there is doping in other sports i'm pretty sure there is doping in tennis. i guess only the players and testers really know. maybe tennis is where cycling was 10 years ago?

[dominikk1985]

Originally Posted by DropShotArtist

Same reason as Nadal. Banned substance. Sod does hit one of the hardest balls on tour.

the question is not why a ban but why a SILENT ban. a silent ban is a violation against the anti doping code as the outing is and important part of the punishment and transparency is very important in anti doping.

the reason for doing it silent would be obvious: the don't want to hurt their priced superstars and lose sponsor money. if the kids stop idolizing their player and don't buy rafa shirts anymore or don't watch TV tennis loses money (that is also why those no name argentinian players were openly banned).

overall this would be a huge scandal if it came out that the ATP protects their stars by using silent bans. doping violaters must be outed publically.

[DropShotArtist]

Originally Posted by dominikk1985

the question is not why a ban but why a SILENT ban. a silent ban is a violation against the anti doping code as the outing is and important part of the punishment and transparency is very important in anti doping.

the reason for doing it silent would be obvious: the don't want to hurt their priced superstars and lose sponsor money. if the kids stop idolizing their player and don't buy rafa shirts anymore or don't watch TV tennis loses money (that is also why those no name argentinian players were openly banned).

overall this would be a huge scandal if it came out that the ATP protects their stars by using silent bans. doping violaters must be outed publically.

Yes, the reasons for a silent ban are pretty obvious, that's why I didn't mention that.

[Fearsome Forehand]

This is one of several WTF? Nadal threads. I can understand why people are skeptical. The AO Withdrawal weeks before the tourney, ostensibly due to a flu or similar virus, is strange to say the least.

I am not a believer in the silent ban theory. If RN and the ATP had agreed to such a ban that would last x months, RN would have said some time ago that he was rehabbing his knee until further notice. He would not enter then cancel on tournaments as that only draws attention and furthers suspicion that something strange is going on. For that matter, he could simply continue to blame his knees and not even bring up a virus. He is probably sick enough that it gave him an excuse to withdraw. Otherwise, why not just blame his knees again?

He will lose a lot of points by not playing the AO, no? He may blow off everything until the clay court season which he will probably rule again, bad knees, or not.

I think RN is enjoying his vacation at home and can simply afford to take more time off. The more time he takes off, the better for his knees. Traveling to Oz is a whole big thing. Maybe he is burnt out on the travel and prefers to wait until the clay season kicks in on the Continent to return to the tour full time? That happens in April? If he blows off Palm Springs and Miami then we know something weird is going on. I doubt he will do that though unless he had lost interest in being an elite tennis player on all surfaces. Maybe this is Borg II?

The bottom line is that people can speculate endlessly, but no one really knows what is going on except RN and his crew.

[wy2sl0]

Let's not get started on the Soderling bandwagon. Mononucleosis is a serious illness that could end anyone's career. Don't compare the 2.

[billnepill]

If the federation is so corrupt to be silent about positive results why don't they just allow him to play as if nothing happened. It wouldn't arise suspicion and they and also the sponsors wouldn't lose revenue.

[DropShotArtist]

Originally Posted by billnepill

If the federation is so corrupt to be silent about positive results why don't they just allow him to play as if nothing happened. It wouldn't arise suspicion and they and also the sponsors wouldn't lose revenue.

Because it would be unfair to other players having to play a guy doped up on steroids.

[billnepill]

Originally Posted by DropShotArtist

Because it would be unfair to other players having to play a guy doped up on steroids.

Hmm that's assuming anyone cares about that. Federations have known about abuse and it didn't bother them if it brings the cash and if it is a secret well kept.
If they can keep the secret for the silent ban, they certainly can make the other stuff disappear.

I am sure certain "never caught" players have doped and still dope. It's just the silent ban concept is built on too idealistic concepts for today's harsh realities. The whole testing thing is devised to bring credibility to the sport, not to actually catch superstars doping.

The whole thing reminds me of an exam room where the teacher checks for cheating once or twice during the whole exam and would close an eye if the A graders cheat because he will receive a good paycheck if people perform well

[DropShotArtist]

Originally Posted by billnepill

Hmm that's assuming anyone cares about that. Federations have known about abuse and it didn't bother them if it brings the cash and if it is a secret well kept.
If they can keep the secret for the silent ban, they certainly can make the other stuff disappear.

I am sure certain "never caught" players have doped and still dope. It's just the silent ban concept is built on too idealistic concepts for today's harsh realities. The whole testing thing is devised to bring credibility to the sport, not to actually catch superstars doping.

The whole thing reminds me of an exam room where the teacher checks for cheating once or twice during the whole exam and would close an eye if the A graders cheat because he will receive a good paycheck if people perform well

I agree there are some holes. But how about Agassi's meth use in the 90s, no one knew about that.

[jonnythan]

Originally Posted by billnepill

If the federation is so corrupt to be silent about positive results why don't they just allow him to play as if nothing happened. It wouldn't arise suspicion and they and also the sponsors wouldn't lose revenue.

Because they don't want doped players on tour?

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by DropShotArtist

I agree there are some holes. But how about Agassi's meth use in the 90s, no one knew about that.

That was like 15 years ago in an era that was much, much less computerized than now, before facebook or twitter and all those social networks that exist now. Much, much easier to hide anything then.

[Gonzo_style]

Originally Posted by joeri888

Don't think it's real, but I don't blame people for starting to believe it.

This

Some time ago I was annoyed when people talked about it, but now even I'm starting to believe it...

[cc0509]

Originally Posted by qindarka

Or one who believes in the importance of actual proof.

This is all speculation at the moment. There might be enough info that this issue is worth discussing but certainly nowhere near enough evidence to make serious accusations.

Oh really? That is what they said about Armstrong. Nobody wanted to believe Armstrong doped but the rumors kept coming. Where there is smoke there is fire, unfortunately.

[topsltennis]

It was also widely rumored that Micheal Jordan received a 'silent ban' for gambling from the NBA and that's why he did the whole baseball thing.

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by wy2sl0

Let's not get started on the Soderling bandwagon. Mononucleosis is a serious illness that could end anyone's career. Don't compare the 2.

Mononucleosis is a serious illness that could end anyone's career, and for this reason it could be a good story to cover a silent ban. However I agree that the ATP could afford to publicly ban Soderling.

[DropShotArtist]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

That was like 15 years ago in an era that was much, much less computerized than now, before facebook or twitter and all those social networks that exist now. Much, much easier to hide anything then.

Harder today, agreed, but not impossible. Lance did it for the longest time until his fellow teammates turned on him. Nadal's team is very tight, very beneficial, let's see how that plays out in time.

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

That was like 15 years ago in an era that was much, much less computerized than now, before facebook or twitter and all those social networks that exist now. Much, much easier to hide anything then.

Internet as nothing to do with it. If someone privy to Agassi's drug abuse wanted to leak it, he could have done it just as easily as today. Newspapers existed already.

[cc0509]

Originally Posted by billnepill

If the federation is so corrupt to be silent about positive results why don't they just allow him to play as if nothing happened. It wouldn't arise suspicion and they and also the sponsors wouldn't lose revenue.

Because they have to have some sort of punishment system in place at the same time. They are caught between wanting to protect its biggest stars and making sure the sport of tennis is not tainted and trying to maintain some degree of vigilance especially with cases like Lance Armstrong looming over their shoulders. You think it is a coincidence that this is happening just as the full details of the Armstrong case have come out?

[cc0509]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

That was like 15 years ago in an era that was much, much less computerized than now, before facebook or twitter and all those social networks that exist now. Much, much easier to hide anything then.

It is just as easy now especially when you have the governing bodies of the sport and sponsors protecting their star players. Don't be naive. The only thing is they have to be careful now that the Armstrong case has just come to light and there is also the Operación Puerto trial which is supposedly taking place early in 2013. Wasn't Nadal's name supposedly on that list which was buried, meaning the Fuentes patient list?

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

Internet as nothing to do with it. If someone privy to Agassi's drug abuse wanted to leak it, he could have done it just as easily as today. Newspapers existed already.

Much harder to do through traditional media outlets.