Federer on Sharapova ban

dpli2010

Semi-Pro
From another thread:

Nature, the most respected science journal on the planet, on WADA's testing methods:
Nature believes that accepting 'legal limits' of specific metabolites without such rigorous verification goes against the foundational standards of modern science, and results in an arbitrary test for which the rate of false positives and false negatives can never be known. By leaving these rates unknown, and by not publishing and opening to broader scientific scrutiny the methods by which testing labs engage in study, it is Nature's view that the anti-doping authorities have fostered a sporting culture of suspicion, secrecy and fear.


Federer seems to be a guy with limited mental capabilities and a deeply prejudiced mind which is unable to appreciate shades of gray. Not surprising given that most top players like him are quite uneducated.
I can get a bit of sense how well you are educated with your making such a kind of statement...
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
Did you know that I would be caught by WADA if I entered the tour? Beta blockers for hypertension are on the doping list! Things like this are what keep me away from playing professional tennis.
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
My questions are broad-ranging and cannot be confined into small boxes. Look at the big picture: "the anti-doping authorities have fostered a sporting culture of suspicion, secrecy and fear."

Always look at intent rather than literal wording. Intent is what matters. It tells the true story which isolated facts cannot.
What was Sharapova's intent?

Who do we believe with respect to intent? Sharapova or the investigation?

How do the police and courts enforce speeding laws (your example) using this intent idea?
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
What was Sharapova's intent?

Who do we believe with respect to intent? Sharapova or the investigation?
The responsibility usually falls on the institution.

The intent of WADA behind banning this drug, and the dissemination of this decision through deeply buried email links under the medical name and not the common name, raises suspicions about whether the intent was genuine or just casting a net to further their funding and profile.

Bad intent of Sharapova is difficult to believe when she was taking the drug just before the AO. As far as taking it before matches and at a high frequency, it is not uncommon for people to take legal drugs due to some fear of what would happen if they didn't. Club players routinely take ibuprofen when their effort is ridiculously low, like standing like a statue in a doubles set. Travelers take large does of Vitamin C before flying even though there are studies that indicate that most of it will just be excreted. Once you believe it will help you, people will take it in a way which might appear to be unscientific. Heck, the entire system of homeopathy is regarded as a fraud but that does not prevent millions of people to rely on it.
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
The responsibility usually falls on the institution.

The intent of WADA behind banning this drug, and the dissemination of this decision through deeply buried email links under the medical name and not the common name, raises suspicions about whether the intent was genuine or just casting a net to further their funding and profile.

Bad intent of Sharapova is difficult to believe when she was taking the drug just before the AO. As far as taking it before matches and at a high frequency, it is not uncommon for people to take legal drugs due to some fear of what would happen if they didn't. Club players routinely take ibuprofen when their effort is ridiculously low, like standing like a statue in a doubles set. Travelers take large does of Vitamin C before flying even though there are studies that indicate that most of it will just be excreted. Once you believe it will help you, people will take it in a way which might appear to be unscientific. Heck, the entire system of homeopathy is regarded as a fraud but that does not prevent millions of people to rely on it.
So if I understand, the correct way to reason is to start with a conclusion, then reason backward to find facts and interpret them in such a way so as to support the conclusion?

So how will intent work for speeding laws (and everything else)? Or are we just going to forget that analogy for now?
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
So if I understand, the correct way to reason is to start with a conclusion, then reason backward to find facts and interpret them in such a way so as to support the conclusion?

So how will intent work for speeding laws (and everything else)? Or are we just going to forget that analogy for now?
The way it would work is that if a new law says that driving 0.1 mph above the speed limit will result in a 2-year driving ban, then people protest and get the law overturned or take it to court as an unnecessary hardship without rationale.

The way it works now is that an extra-constitutional body does whatever it wants and recommends punishment, and it is up to individual athletes to challenge it at considerable expense and detriment of their career. In this case, it appears that the decision was not supported by any medical study either, but only on anecdotes, which raises questions of whether the foundational science requirement was met (and according to Nature it was not).
 

Tcbtennis

Hall of Fame
Did you know that I would be caught by WADA if I entered the tour? Beta blockers for hypertension are on the doping list! Things like this are what keep me away from playing professional tennis.
No, you wouldn't be "caught" by WADA for taking a beta blocker for hypertension because you would have filled out a Therapeutic Use Exemption form where you would have listed the medication you were taking. Maria never listed Meldonium on her forms, ever. If indeed she was taking it for pre-diabetes, low magnesium and whatever else she made up she would have put it on the form. But she hid her usage. Her staff didn't know she was taking it. The only ones who knew were her father and her agent.

Her failure to ever list Meldonium on her forms prior to it being banned is what makes me know that she was trying to be deceptive. If it was legal before 2016 why did she never declare it? Athletes are supposed to report every aspirin, every vitamin, every cough drop, etc. that goes into their bodies. She used it to try to gain an edge over her competitors. What other explanation can her apologists come up with?
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
The way it would work is that if a new law says that driving 0.1 mph above the speed limit will result in a 2-year driving ban, then people protest and get the law overturned or take it to court as an unnecessary hardship without rationale.

The way it works now is that an extra-constitutional body does whatever it wants and recommends punishment, and it is up to individual athletes to challenge it at considerable expense and detriment of their career. In this case, it appears that the decision was not supported by any medical study either, but only on anecdotes, which raises questions of whether the foundational science requirement was met (and according to Nature it was not).
I thought this was about intent, not literal wording.

Always look at intent rather than literal wording. Intent is what matters. It tells the true story which isolated facts cannot.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
Her failure to ever list Meldonium on her forms prior to it being banned is what makes me know that she was trying to be deceptive. If it was legal before 2016 why did she never declare it? Athletes are supposed to report every aspirin, every vitamin, every cough drop, etc. that goes into their bodies. She used it to try to gain an edge over her competitors. What other explanation can her apologists come up with?
You bring up some well thought-out arguments. The only reason I can think of is that she knew that the drug was not available in the US (and I think is banned in Canada) but widely available in Europe and Russia. Once she started taking it, she would have heard rumors that it might be a PED since lots of Russians were using it. Her team seems to be based in the US. She might have feared that they would ask her to stop taking it if she told them and declared it on her forms. They would have asked her to see a doctor in Florida for whatever problem she claimed she had, while she had already become OCD about taking the drug before matches. It is a complex bit of psychology, but why else would she not declare a legal drug she was taking? She had everything to gain and nothing to lose. If it was a PED, then it was a legal PED for 10 years, and she could always claim everyone else was also taking it secretly and she stopped when it became illegal. Some players would accuse her but nothing could be done legally.

The other aspect of this is that you seem to take it for granted that the requirement of reporting every single thing that goes into your body is reasonable. Henman has said how the multivitamins that he was not allowed to take resulted in a magnesium deficiency that caused him lot of grief (situation was rectified later). Sharapova is young. Young people need to lead their lives with happiness and pleasure without too many restrictions. Asking them to behave like an old CEO with a legal team behind him while also expecting them to be "spontaneous" and provide entertainment all the time is a double standard.
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
The other aspect of this is that you seem to take it for granted that the requirement of reporting every single thing that goes into your body is reasonable. Henman has said how the multivitamins that he was not allowed to take resulted in a magnesium deficiency that caused him lot of grief (situation was rectified later). Sharapova is young. Young people need to lead their lives with happiness and pleasure without too many restrictions. Asking them to behave like an old CEO with a legal team behind him while also expecting them to be "spontaneous" and provide entertainment all the time is a double standard.
Some solid stupid in this paragraph. The 'spontaneous' defense - why didn't the Menendez Brothers think of that one! Happiness and pleasure - that's fine - do it outside of Pro Tennis if you can't live with the rules.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Sharapova, like Hingis, will be back with the top and on the top, and sooner than Hingis was once the appeal comes down.




Some solid stupid in this paragraph. The 'spontaneous' defense - why didn't the Menendez Brothers think of that one! Happiness and pleasure - that's fine - do it outside of Pro Tennis if you can't live with the rules.
 

stringertom

Bionic Poster
I am not talking about steroids for muscle growth. I am talking about the kind of stuff Lance was taking without it being detected in countless tests when he won all his 7 Tour de France. I am talking about the stuff that increases your red blood cell count and increases endurance which is what you need in that 4th and 5th set on clay. I am pretty sure when Toni saw Nadal all exhausted by the end of that (2 hours shorter than 2005 Rome btw) 2005 Miami final he said "Never again!"
You do realize you're getting worked up about a calendar of events that did not happen...the two MS1000 Fedal finals you are referring to happened 14 months apart, not two months (Miami'05 and Rome'06).
 

Sartorius

Hall of Fame
The other aspect of this is that you seem to take it for granted that the requirement of reporting every single thing that goes into your body is reasonable. Henman has said how the multivitamins that he was not allowed to take resulted in a magnesium deficiency that caused him lot of grief (situation was rectified later). Sharapova is young. Young people need to lead their lives with happiness and pleasure without too many restrictions. Asking them to behave like an old CEO with a legal team behind him while also expecting them to be "spontaneous" and provide entertainment all the time is a double standard.
Forget the forms. One of the glaring problems in Sharapova's account is that while this drug is supposed to be taken for health reasons (like she has claimed in that press conference), she has not disclosed it to any medical practitioner or the like other than a select few, one being the doctor who prescribed it in 2006. Her "but no one asked" explanation has an unmistakable stench of BS on it.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
You do realize you're getting worked up about a calendar of events that did not happen...the two MS1000 Fedal finals you are referring to happened 14 months apart, not two months (Miami'05 and Rome'06).
dudeski was talking about the rome 2005 final vs coria, which was a titanic 5-setter ...
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
So what? The only thing that means is that she alone was left with the task to monitor banned substances. She failed at that, obviously.

Forget the forms. One of the glaring problems in Sharapova's account is that while this drug is supposed to be taken for health reasons (like she has claimed in that press conference), she has not disclosed it to any medical practitioner or the like other than a select few, one being the doctor who prescribed it in 2006. Her "but no one asked" explanation has an unmistakable stench of BS on it.
 

stringertom

Bionic Poster
dudeski was talking about the rome 2005 final vs coria, which was a titanic 5-setter ...
Sorry to @dudeski then but he was non-specific about the Rome opponent and I had my Fedal blinders on remembering what I consider their best head-to-head encounter ever. Yes, better than Wimby'08 final but with a bit less on the line.
 
L

Laurie

Guest
I SLIGHTLY feel bad for her, because even if she's doping trash, she was just chosen as the scapegoat to show that the ITF doesn't care what your status is, if you're doping they'd expose you. But we all know that's not the case so... (both in ATP and WTA).
Still happy she got what she deserves.
I hope I am not being too over the top here but even if Sharapova appeals and there may be a bit of delusion in her mind going on, I often wonder whether the authorities have done her a favour without her reailsing.

Sharapova had every intention to continue to take these pills especially before big matches, it appears she is (was) addicted to them. Now, we saw what happened to Florence Griffith Joiner in 1999 after years of speculation, she died suddenly of a heart attack at the age of 39? Then of course there has been Prince recently. Sharapova took the pills for a good ten years even though it was only intended by the Doctor for a few months? It stands to reason she would have taken it for another five to ten years or however long her career would have lasted normally. It could have been doing damage to her health without her realising.

I think the authorities did a good job here saving Sharapova from herself.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
I think 'zero-tolerance Federer' needs to put his money where his mouth is and replace Hingis as his mixed doubles partner at the Rio Olympics or withdraw if necessary on principle.
 
Last edited:

Soianka

Hall of Fame
Did you know that I would be caught by WADA if I entered the tour? Beta blockers for hypertension are on the doping list! Things like this are what keep me away from playing professional tennis.
I'm going to give you some life-changing news - you can get a medical exemption. Now you can go forth with your pro career, hurray!
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
I hope I am not being too over the top here but even if Sharapova appeals and there may be a bit of delusion in her mind going on, I often wonder whether the authorities have done her a favour without her reailsing.

Sharapova had every intention to continue to take these pills especially before big matches, it appears she is (was) addicted to them. Now, we saw what happened to Florence Griffith Joiner in 1999 after years of speculation, she died suddenly of a heart attack at the age of 39? Then of course there has been Prince recently. Sharapova took the pills for a good ten years even though it was only intended by the Doctor for a few months? It stands to reason she would have taken it for another five to ten years or however long her career would have lasted normally. It could have been doing damage to her health without her realising.

I think the authorities did a good job here saving Sharapova from herself.
How many death by meldonium cases are you aware of?
 

dpli2010

Semi-Pro
You bring up some well thought-out arguments. The only reason I can think of is that she knew that the drug was not available in the US (and I think is banned in Canada) but widely available in Europe and Russia. Once she started taking it, she would have heard rumors that it might be a PED since lots of Russians were using it. Her team seems to be based in the US. She might have feared that they would ask her to stop taking it if she told them and declared it on her forms. They would have asked her to see a doctor in Florida for whatever problem she claimed she had, while she had already become OCD about taking the drug before matches. It is a complex bit of psychology, but why else would she not declare a legal drug she was taking? She had everything to gain and nothing to lose. If it was a PED, then it was a legal PED for 10 years, and she could always claim everyone else was also taking it secretly and she stopped when it became illegal. Some players would accuse her but nothing could be done legally.

The other aspect of this is that you seem to take it for granted that the requirement of reporting every single thing that goes into your body is reasonable. Henman has said how the multivitamins that he was not allowed to take resulted in a magnesium deficiency that caused him lot of grief (situation was rectified later). Sharapova is young. Young people need to lead their lives with happiness and pleasure without too many restrictions. Asking them to behave like an old CEO with a legal team behind him while also expecting them to be "spontaneous" and provide entertainment all the time is a double standard.
All these so called thoughts can be simplified as - you do it, you take consequences, or "It doesn’t matter if they did it on purpose or not — I don’t really see the difference. You need to know what goes into your body, you have to be 100 per cent sure of what’s going on, if you’re not, you’re going to be damned."
 

dpli2010

Semi-Pro
From another thread:

Nature, the most respected science journal on the planet, on WADA's testing methods:
Nature believes that accepting 'legal limits' of specific metabolites without such rigorous verification goes against the foundational standards of modern science, and results in an arbitrary test for which the rate of false positives and false negatives can never be known. By leaving these rates unknown, and by not publishing and opening to broader scientific scrutiny the methods by which testing labs engage in study, it is Nature's view that the anti-doping authorities have fostered a sporting culture of suspicion, secrecy and fear.


Federer seems to be a guy with limited mental capabilities and a deeply prejudiced mind which is unable to appreciate shades of gray. Not surprising given that most top players like him are quite uneducated.
Please provide the page/volume/year of this Nature article/view so that we can take a look into it...
 
L

Laurie

Guest
How many death by meldonium cases are you aware of?
I was thinking of the cumulative effect of anyone who takes pills for a long period, the side effects and consequences to their health, regardless of what the pills are. Sharapova did not have to take those pills for a ten year period, and she would have continued to take those pills for years to come if this didn't happen.

The basis of her appeal is intriguing, it will be interesting to see if she gets any success with it.
 

Tshooter

Legend
So what? The only thing that means is that she alone was left with the task to monitor banned substances. She failed at that, obviously.
From the decision it's not obvious she failed.

She presented no explanation in her written submissions why she was not informed it was banned. Her testimony surrounding the issue they found vague and parts "untenable." She did not produce a sample of the packaging for the substance and did not identify the source of the substance to back up her story that she did not know the ingredients of mildronate.

We learn nothing from her testimony that answers the question why she was not informed the substance was banned other then her blanket statement that she didn't know which we new she said from the press conference.

She presented one witness to explain how it worked for her in terms of knowing what was banned - her agent. His entire evidence was dismissed as implausible.

If a player simply stating I didn't know makes it "obvious" then, yes, it's obvious.

I think it would be great if both Pova and WADA appeal and see how that plays. :cool:
 

Tcbtennis

Hall of Fame
Federer says: 'Things go better with Coke, um, Hingis'.
You keep harping on Federer and Hingis but you fail to acknowledge that Hingis accepted her punishment and was banned. She's paid her debt and was free to come back to the WTA. She did her crime and did her time so Fed has no qualms playing with her. He's all about second chances. I'm sure he'll be willing to play mixed doubles with Maria after her 2 year ban is over.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
HIngis didn't accept her punishment. She retired ahead of it. But was represented at the hearing where she argued that the sample taken wasn't even hers. So no she did not accept her punishment.

The reality is that Federer set too high a bar with his 'zero tolerance' utterance and made a hypocritical fool of himself in the process.
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
Why are Suresh and Bartles and James nattering on about Hingis?


Last I checked cocaine, while banned, isnt a performance enhancer.
 
Last edited:

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
You are of course not actually reading her testimony, but someone's assessment of it.

.

We learn nothing from her testimony that answers the question why she was not informed the substance was banned other then her blanket statement that she didn't know which we new she said from the press conference.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
And neither is Meldonium a performance enhancer, but for most here what WADA says is the word of God so if they accept God on Sharapova they must accept his judgement on Hingis.

Why are Suresh and Bartles and James nattering on about Hingis


Last I checked.cocaine, while banned, isnt a performance enhancer.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
The real question is why drugs like Meldonium and Cocaine are the concern of WADA in the first place. The definition of drug used by this body is expanding faster than the universe.
 

chjtennis

G.O.A.T.
Possibly because those substances can possibly destroy a player's life and hence career? Also, we want players to be sober on the court.
 
Top