Federer on Sharapova ban

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
I didn't say cocaine was either harmful or harmless. I said it should be of no concern to WADA.
 
Last edited:

Firstservingman

Talk Tennis Guru
I did't say cocaine was either harmful or harmless. I said it should be of no concern to WADA.
So if Stakhovsky gets hopped up on the good stuff before a match and goes out there with white powder under his nose, jittering about, and winning games easily due to operating at 140%, before yelling angrily that it's the umpire's turn to serve, that's just fine.
 

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
But isn't Federer planning to play mixed doubles with Hingis in the olympic games. Seems like double standards to me.
If he plays with Hingis then Federer scarcely has a 'zero tolerance' approach to drugs. He is playing the Olympics with a drug cheat. The poor boy really doesn't think to long and hard about things, does he?
Hingis has (I presume) done her time, right ? So it should be fine to partner with her. If she were still in her ban period I could understand.

Seems the only poor boy who "doesn't think too long and hard" is you !
 

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
It's one thing to say she's done her time, which is correct and fair. It's another thing to partner her in a tennis event at the Olympics when she has, according to the rules, cheated.

I don't really mind that Federer is partnering her, but it's not consistent with his purported stance of 'zero tolerance'. It is in effect both tolerant and forgiving.

So I just think he should just stop bleating about 'zero tolerance' when he clearly is both extremely tolerant and ignorant of the full effects of this disastrous concept.
 

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
It's one thing to say she's done her time, which is correct and fair. It's another thing to partner her in a tennis event at the Olympics when she has, according to the rules, cheated.

I don't really mind that Federer is partnering her, but it's not consistent with his purported stance of 'zero tolerance'. It is in effect both tolerant and forgiving.

So I just think he should just stop bleating about 'zero tolerance' when he clearly is both extremely tolerant and ignorant of the full effects of this disastrous concept.
Neither do you seem consistent when you say Meldonium is not a PED whereas you bring in Hingis who took cocaine which is recreational and not a PED.
 

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
What the ATP said about Nadal was the same they would say about any player. All communications are directly to the player concerned and they can release whatever they want.
 

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
From the point of view of WADA, they are simply banned substances.

Someone suggested they actually define cocaine as a stimulant and not a recreational drug.

So you have a bone to pick with WADA, not me. They don't recognise your categorisation.

As I said to Tshooter elsewhere, he simply mistakes policy documents as facts.

So you and I might agree that their classification of cocaine as a PED is a mistake.

It's a mistake however that got Hingis banned for as long as Sharapova and that's the point.

They were both unfairly penalised.

Auctoritas non veritas facit legem, as the saying goes.

Neither do you seem consistent when you say Meldonium is not a PED whereas you bring in Hingis who took cocaine which is recreational and not a PED.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
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.
I wonder if Barti would agree with you on this.

:cool:
 

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
Yes, I would. Tshooter is the one who sticks to the policy documents of WADA and accepts them as gospel.
 

Tshooter

Legend
...

As I said to Tshooter elsewhere, he simply mistakes policy documents as facts.

..
No, he mistakes findings of fact of the arbitrators as their findings of fact.

Stop sweating Bartie, you get a do-over at CAS. CAS can review both the law and facts. Though I believe they have discretion to exclude any new evidence if it could have been raised at the hearing.
 

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
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.
Wow ! That's a load of bull if i saw one.

Searching for a complex, convoluted motive, when there's a simple one staring you in the face.
 

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
The Latin means it is something long known and hints at the importance of the sovereign in European political theory.
 

Tshooter

Legend
Does something said in Latin make it more true or credible than English ?
BTC threw "ultra vires" at me once and I'm polite so I let it go. But then he chucked "de novo" at me in the context of ranting about CAS appeals and I took it as fighting words until I calmed down when I realized it must be an English school boy thing.
 

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
The reality is that there is no evidence that Meldonium is a PED, so the only question is why was it banned?
 

Firstservingman

Talk Tennis Guru
So what drugs are you doing down there in Canberra?
Panadol.
Call the police.

Anyway, Pova was taking dodgy banned sh*t in the hope of, and for the sole purpose of, getting a leg-up on her competition.

Why all the sympathy? If she was American you wouldn't care.
 

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
I don't care about Sharapova. I'm critical about the loss of freedom that institutions like WADA represent. They banned something because it was politically useful regardless of the consequences for individuals.
 

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
Another conformist arrives to tell us that if you don't do what you're told we don't want you to live.
 

chjtennis

G.O.A.T.
It's one thing to say she's done her time, which is correct and fair. It's another thing to partner her in a tennis event at the Olympics when she has, according to the rules, cheated.

I don't really mind that Federer is partnering her, but it's not consistent with his purported stance of 'zero tolerance'. It is in effect both tolerant and forgiving.

So I just think he should just stop bleating about 'zero tolerance' when he clearly is both extremely tolerant and ignorant of the full effects of this disastrous concept.
I don't see any inconsistency there. If Hingis gets caught again and Federer defends her, then tell me about it. If you ask Federer about Hingis' suspension, I'm sure he'll say that was a well deserved punishment and she has no excuse. That's what '0' tolerance is about. Don't defend a person's sin. However, Hingis is now free from any sins because she has completed her due suspension. There's nothing to talk about tolerance when it comes to Hingis' case anymore. Tolerance is about looking over a person's sin and not pushing him. Hingis has been punished so what is there to be tolerant with Hingis' case?
 

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
You do realise that it is the 'zero tolerance' remark that I'm condemning here. Federer went too far and made an idiot of himself, but he too is a conformist.

Although the master of diplomacy did also say that everyone has the right to defend themselves, but this is rarely highlighted.
 

Tshooter

Legend
I think another load of absolute crap was Sharapova claiming the Doctors never asked what she was taking. Every doctor I've ever been to has asked that, and I don't have any of the alleged "health problems" Sharapova does.
You're not the only one that found it a load.

From the tribunal decision or as the honorable clown poster Bart calls it policy positions of the ITF:

"The tribunal finds it hard to credit that no medical practitioner whom she consulted over a period of 3 years, with the exception of Dr. Yasnitsky, would, in accordance with standard medical practice, have asked her what medications she was taking..."

"Her evidence is that he [Yasnitsky] did not ask why she was taking this medication, nor give any advice or comment but just responded that it was OK" :cool:
 
Last edited:
C

Chadillac

Guest
Do the people hating on sharapova like women? I already know tshooters answer, how about the others
 

Tshooter

Legend
The real question is why drugs like Meldonium and Cocaine are the concern of WADA in the first place....
Who cares. They should randomly place drugs on and off the list.

Keep the players on their toes and make sure everyone checks the list each year.
 
Top