Silent Ban Discussion

[cc0509]

Originally Posted by NamRanger

Even a mini-celebrity tennis player like Rusedski got caught and basically got away with it under some dubious circumstances. If Rusedski can get away with some dubious reasons, what makes you think Nadal, Djokovic, Federer, etc. couldn't get away with doping? The ITF/ATP would turn a blind eye no problem.

Of course the ATP/ITF would turn a blind eye with Nadal, Djokovic and Federer types. That is a no-brainer. People who say or think otherwise have no clue how the real corporate world works when billions of dollars are on the line. It is too ridiculous to try and argue with these people, they just don't get it.

[Bartelby]

They can't turn a blind eye very easily, but they can quite easily under-invest in a soft testing regime that won't really catch anyone cheating prudently.

[cc0509]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

They can't turn a blind eye very easily, but they can quite easily under-invest in a soft testing regime that won't really catch anyone cheating prudently.

They do both, they turn a blind eye and under-invest in a soft testing regime.

[Bartelby]

You get a sample, send it off to the lab, receive a positive result from the lab and then bury it?

Too many people and too much danger in such a bureaucratic process. And bureaucracies don't work that way.

If you don't want to find, you don't inquire. The problem that arises then is that if there is a scandal you're accused of laxness.

[cc0509]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

You get a sample, send it off to the lab, receive a positive result from the lab and then bury it?

Too many people and too much danger in such a bureaucratic process. And bureaucracies don't work that way.

If you don't want to find, you don't inquire. The problem that arises then is that if there is a scandal you're accused of laxness.

Yes. Lance Armstrong and Marion Jones(to name just two) both had positive test results buried, what are you talking about?

[Bartelby]

The Armstrong results were only half buried as there was evidence for a long while that the results were positive and that he bribed his way out of trouble, which is exactly the point I'm making.

You can't successfully turn a blind eye to positive results with so many people involved.

[Bartelby]

Jones was brought un-done by the Balco investigation and did not test positive before it although she did miss testing without significant penalty, so again officials did go soft in that instance.

But again officials don't want positive lab results as a cover-up is always difficult so under-testing is the best option even when an athlete is suspect.

[Bartelby]

There is the case of Williams's missed doping control because she supposedly felt threatened enough to retreat to the panic room.

This deserved some sort of suspension, but received none.

[NamRanger]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

You get a sample, send it off to the lab, receive a positive result from the lab and then bury it?

Too many people and too much danger in such a bureaucratic process. And bureaucracies don't work that way.

If you don't want to find, you don't inquire. The problem that arises then is that if there is a scandal you're accused of laxness.

Huh?


Rusedski blatantly tested positive for steroids, and got away with it under some dubious reasons (ATP had contaminated supplements or some ******** like that). That already blows your argument up.

[wy2sl0]

Look at the quotes here: http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blog...ut-doping.html

Most notably, which is obvious (cough Djokovic)

John McEnroe: "You can tell when someone has been on steroids… A guy bulks up, has a new body and never gets tired...You see these guys or girls who come onto the tour talking about their new training programs and their diets where they eat this or that new thing…but they’ll never tell you about the drugs they took."

Christophe Rochus: "There's a lot of cheating. Simply, people don't like to talk about it...I simply would like to stop the pretending. This hypocrisy is exasperating."

Fabrice Santoro: "I can't believe there is a real will to fight against doping...I don't know whether the testing is done to catch the guys or just for show. Sometimes, I ask myself the question, when I see what goes on."

[sbengte]

^^ Interesting quotes there. Assume they are all genuine. More :

Daniel Nestor: "We suspect that there’s always stuff going on. I mean, we watch some of these matches, the guys play five hours and come back the next day and do it again.”

Jim Courier: "EPO is the problem, I have pretty strong suspicions that guys are using it on the tour. I see guys who are out there week in and week out without taking rests. EPO can help you when it's the fifth set and you've been playing for four-and-a-half hours."

[merlinpinpin]

And there's of course Escudé, too, who was threatened with a life ban from the ATP for saying (in 2002) that doping was ripe in tennis and nothing was done to catch the cheaters:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/2027664.stm

[SLD76]

Originally Posted by merlinpinpin

And there's of course Escudé, too, who was threatened with a life ban from the ATP for saying (in 2002) that doping was ripe in tennis and nothing was done to catch the cheaters:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/2027664.stm

the peanut gallery here will still deny vehemently that there is no doping in tennis and that those caught would be duly punished, lol

[Netspirit]

I believe that the "silent ban" theory is complete and utter BS.

[batz]

Originally Posted by NamRanger

Huh?


Rusedski blatantly tested positive for steroids, and got away with it under some dubious reasons (ATP had contaminated supplements or some ******** like that). That already blows your argument up.

It would if the WADA code was in place in the 90s - but it wasn't.

Why do people consistently point at what happened 2 decades ago as evidence for things happening today? There is no relation between the anti-doping controls in place during the 90s the WADA based regimen of 2013.

[SLD76]

Originally Posted by batz

It would if the WADA code was in place in the 90s - but it wasn't.

Why do people consistently point at what happened 2 decades ago as evidence for things happening today? There is no relation between the anti-doping controls in place during the 90s the WADA based regimen of 2013.

ok..hows about wayne odesnik getting busted...and then getting a lighter sentence for "disclosing" and helping out the ITF, and then all of a sudden players are complaining about other players snitching?

Andy Murray " "You want to make sure that people who are fined and suspended aren't let off because they are telling on other players. That is snitching."

http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blog...ruth-lies.html

[batz]

Originally Posted by SLD76

ok..hows about wayne odesnik getting busted...and then getting a lighter sentence for "disclosing" and helping out the ITF, and then all of a sudden players are complaining about other players snitching?

Andy Murray " "You want to make sure that people who are fined and suspended aren't let off because they are telling on other players. That is snitching."

http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blog...ruth-lies.html

Is that tinfoil hatter blog supposed to have some kind of authority? Have a word with yourself mate.

You'll be telling me next that Elvis will be riding Shergar round his paddock on the moon.

[SLD76]

Originally Posted by batz

Is that tinfoil hatter blog supposed to have some kind of authority? Have a word with yourself mate.

You'll be telling me next that Elvis will be riding Shergar round his paddock on the moon next.

how about the murray quote is from an espn article.

but thanks for ducking the facts.

[batz]

Originally Posted by SLD76

how about the murray quote is from an espn article.

but thanks for ducking the facts.

Facts. Good one mate - from someone who posts tinfoilhatter.com as an appeal to authority.

Do I agree that people who cheat shouldn't receive lesser sentences because they implicate others? Yes - so does Murray.

Would it be reasonable to label someone who passed information on others solely to reduce the sanctions that they might face as a snitch? Probably - so does Murray.

Would it be correct to label someone who passed information on others but neither sought or derived any advantange for themselves as a snitch? In my view no - I suspect Murray might feel the same but I don't know.

It is the seeking and obtaining of some advantage in exchange for information that makes someone a snitch - not the exchange of information per se.

Now - given that you feel that posting selective quotes from tennis players is some kind of evidence for doping would you like me to post some quotes where Murray calls for more strenuous testing?

[Bartelby]

Odesnik was caught by ... Australian customs ... and not by drug testers.

Rusedski and a few others have been caught, but again given that very few are caught probably says more about the paucity of testing.

And as for him getting away with it, well, that took a lot of trouble and attracted criticism so better to have a weak testing system.

And this was my assertion and its hardly contradicted by one case.

Originally Posted by NamRanger

Huh?


Rusedski blatantly tested positive for steroids, and got away with it under some dubious reasons (ATP had contaminated supplements or some ******** like that). That already blows your argument up.