Great Article about Gasquet

[BigServer1]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=4164293&name=tennis

I agree completely. Recreational drugs should be frowned upon and given a penalty that is in accordance with the law, but treating it like a performance enhancer is absurd. Coke would almost certainly hinder any player's game, which is maybe why we saw Richard never live up to his potential and drop in the rankings of late.

Go after steroids users and guys that cheat the game, but don't paint Gasquet a cheater for stupidly putting something in his body that doesn't belong there.

I assume some will flame me for "not having a problem with drug use", but I could care less. These guys don't need to be role models and they surely don't need to be held to a higher standard than anyone else.

Discuss...

 

[tacou]

I couldn't agree more OP. I really don't understand the logic. A large fine, sure. A 3-month ban, ok. But I don't see how a sentence can be given which is the same sentence to a far more severe offense.

There is no advantage to blowing dope, period.

Rules are rules, yes, but the rule is bad. Richard is 22 and should learn from his mistake. Now he will learn nothing but how ridiculous people are when they form official committees.

 

[BigServer1]

I'm actually surprised that there isn't more response to this...

 

[BorisBeckerFan]

I'm sorry for your failure. He should face the law. Nothing more nothing less. Cocaine is a helluva drug. I am sad Gasquet went down this road. The only people he cheated are himself, the atp, his fans. His friends and family. He certainly did not cheat in the performance enhancement sense but he's deprived many of watching him play.

 

[raygo]

If the government found a way to effectively tax recreational drugs, they'd be selling them at Wal-Mart already. Law for law's sake is naive. Alcohol is pretty destructive, but nobody's going to jail for having a drink. (I'm not talking about drinking and driving, I'm talking about just having a drink.)

 

[vtmike]

If the government found a way to effectively tax recreational drugs, they'd be selling them at Wal-Mart already. Law for law's sake is naive. Alcohol is pretty destructive, but nobody's going to jail for having a drink. (I'm not talking about drinking and driving, I'm talking about just having a drink.)

I agree...If cocaine was going to give him an advantage on the tennis courts then yes he should be heavily penalized...But anything else you consume which is not going to enhance your performance & give you an edge should not be made such a big deal out of...It is kinda similar to smoking a cigerratte, or drinking like raygo pointed out...

 

[cucio]

I'm actually surprised that there isn't more response to this...

There's already plenty of response, only you didn't look for it. It has been bashed to death here:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=260245

Besides those 350 posts there must be some other 200 that have been deleted by a moderator since anything loosely resembling any other thing than drug usage firm condemn is frowned upon, so don't put much effort into it.

 

[obsessedtennisfandisorder]

I'm actually surprised that there isn't more response to this...

there was....

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=260245

and it was hot on tuesday from what i hear, with many posts apparently
deleted by moderators(I'm only going on later posts) for fear of it turning
into another "drugs" debate...which is fair enuff...go to rants and raves.

I, myself, take the same position as the OP and realised a lot of it comes down to the contract the players sign and my argument was these contracts
do not stand up in a court of law...they are exploitative of ones privacy.

I was argued against(many making good points by the way) and interesting
thats for sure.

I'm totally against cocaine, have never taken it and don't intend to, I believe it can destroy ones life if not handled
properly...but no matter how much you despise this drug...The OP's article is actually centrally focusing the debate
on a players privacy...and the difference between performance enhance and recreational drug.
Interesting.

 

[split-step]

Where was all this outrage when Hingis was banned?

 

[mandy01]

Where was all this outrage when Hingis was banned?

Hingis took it during Wimbledon 07 when she was competing.

 

[obsessedtennisfandisorder]

Where was all this outrage when Hingis was banned?

I myself was not happy with what the WTA did there either.
neither was Jon Weirtheim...read his colomn? or Peter Bodo.

There was was on the other tennis sites I frequented, including tennis.com
and tennis-x...

part of the deal there was that Martina "pre-empted" everything by retiring
and she was on the downside of her career anyway. Had she not retired
and decided to fight more in the courts/serve sentence etc...would have been
more debate here.

 

[Stchamps]

Yea I thought the same thing. A two year ban for using cocaine is stupid. 2 years is a long time in any sport, but in tennis when players retire by age 30 that is way too long.

 

[veroniquem]

We need to keep drugs out of tennis, no matter what they're used for. The ban is very fair. I've also read that cocaine can be used to mask actual doping substances. Regardless, the tour will become a real mess if the no drug principle is not respected, notwithstanding the health risks for the player himself from exerting himself physically intensively while consuming drugs, great recipe for heart failure.

 

[obsessedtennisfandisorder]

We need to keep drugs out of tennis, no matter what they're used for. The ban is very fair. I've also read that cocaine can be used to mask actual doping substances. Regardless, the tour will become a real mess if the no drug principle is not respected, notwithstanding the health risks for the player himself from exerting himself physically intensively while consuming drugs, great recipe for heart failure.

veroniquem,

no ones saying "nothing" should be done....if they discover traces of cocaine
they could suggest rehab clinic or counselling for anything...

but the shouldN't have to power to dictate or punish him because at the
end of the day...it's his life.

Your quote above would be the equivalent of me saying:

"hey my fellow ATP officials, we've finally found some private dirt on that gasquet guy, lets ban him for two years and give no other help and so he becomes an addict and out of the tennis world"

ATP MARKETING TEAM: HOORAY...

"Now we can continue to market our players are perfect role models(me puking) and live like monks to continue our competitive advantage over other sports...we market our sports stars as upstanding beings" NODS from others"

"DOWN with Gasquet" chants ensue...

yes , i know it's an OTT example but I hope you catch my theory on all this.

PS: if cocaine can mask performing enhance, you may have a point

 

[sureshs]

If they really wanted players to be role models, JMac would have been banned a long time ago.

 

[veroniquem]

veroniquem,

no ones saying "nothing" should be done....if they discover traces of cocaine
they could suggest rehab clinic or counselling for anything...

but the shouldN't have to power to dictate or punish him because at the
end of the day...it's his life.

Your quote above would be the equivalent of me saying:

"hey my fellow ATP officials, we've finally found some private dirt on that gasquet guy, lets ban him for two years and give no other help and so he becomes an addict and out of the tennis world"

ATP MARKETING TEAM: HOORAY...

"Now we can continue to market our players are perfect role models(me puking) and live like monks to continue our competitive advantage over other sports...we market our sports stars as upstanding beings" NODS from others"

"DOWN with Gasquet" chants ensue...

yes , i know it's an OTT example but I hope you catch my theory on all this.

PS: if cocaine can mask performing enhance, you may have a point

I understand your point of view but I don't share it. It's up to Gasquet himself and his entourage to take the necessary recovery steps. The role of the ATP is to sanction the players and to protect tennis fans from drug infiltration in the tour.

 

[Dilettante]

but treating it like a performance enhancer is absurd.

No, it isn't.

 

[l_gonzalez]

Ok, what would happen if a player turned up to a match and was just off his face, clearly still drunk, maybe even throws up on court...

He'd be tarnishing the image of the game, letting down himself, fans, the tour, parents, coach etc... setting a bad example for the kids, not being a role model and all that.

Would he get a 2 year ban? No.

So if i'm getting this right, the only reason he gets a 2 year ban is because cocaine is illegal.

what a bunch of crap.

 

[RCizzle65]

I agree, I don't see why he should be banned for a couple of years for a drug that won't even enhance his playing abilities.

 

[skip1969]

well, as was mentioned in the other thread (by mt99):
"The International Tennis Federation, like so many other sports federations, is a participant of WADA, which sets the doping standards for all sports. In that context, cocaine is a stimulant which can enhance performance is some sports and is therefore in WADA's banned list. "

i also think it is important not to paint gasquet as some serial cocaine user or addict. we don't know that he is. if you stop at the pub every day after work to have a beer, it doesn't make you an alcoholic. many people are drawing too many conclusions about gasquet's positive results, using it as an explanation for his unfulfilled potential, etc. it is totally possible that he might actually not need rehab or recovery or anyone looking over his shoulder.

 

[skip1969]

i guess it is the length of the ban that is a bit troublesome. or rather, the potential length of the ban.

 

[bluetrain4]

I generally agree with a lot of posters that the consumption of coke by tennis players does not enhance performance and a 2-year ban, in many instances, would be absurd (though there probably could be instances where consumption should be harshly punished, such as a player showing up at a match coked-up out of his mind, which would reflect horribly on the sport. Probably not likely though).

But, as much as I agree with this general idea, I can't ignore the fact that at the time Gasquet allegedly consumed coke, it was a banned substance. It was on the banned substances list. It was the policy of the ATP, and Gasquet knew it. The "stupid rule" excuse seems lame when someone is aware of the rules and chooses to break them.

The rule may be stupid, but Gasquet is an adult and had fair notice of what could happen to him if he broke the rule. It was still his choice to break that "stupid rule."

Many laws, workplace rules and regulations, etc. are "stupid", yet we all have to go along. I have trouble feeling sorry for Gasquet.

 

[rafan]

It surprises me that atheletes who are in fantastic physical shape should need drugs. I mean us lesser mortals can get a high from good excercise and not need an artificial stimulant or downer - so they must feel this to a far greater extent than me

 

[l_gonzalez]

^^^ True about WADA, stupid archaic rules. it's more than likely that Gasquet is not a cokehead, he probably just made a mistake... he was a little drunk, someone offered and he thought: "screw it, i'm hardly taking the tennis world by storm right now so i'm not gonna get tested..."

If he's setting a bad example because he made a mistake, then what kind of example is the ATP setting for kids when it's message is: "make ONE mistake and you'll be screwed forever"

Why hasn't the ATP made an announcement like: "this clearly must be a tough time for Richard and while he must face the consequences of his actions we would also like to make it clear that should he have a substance abuse problem then we are 100% committed to offering him all the help and support that he needs..."

 

[skip1969]

i agree with blue. it's not like i feel bad for him. i said in the other thread that you can't cry ignorance after the fact. basically, that implies that either you didn't do your homework, or you did . . . and you took your chances anyway. the only exception would be if your ingestion of the banned substance was accidental and completely unknown to you. but that's the excuse that everyone whips out once they are busted, and no one really buys it off the bat.

however unfair it is, in this day and age, athletes who come up with a positive test are guilty until proven innocent. it stinks, sure. but it is what it is. that would be reason enough for me to be extra vigilant, if i were in his shoes.

 

[danb]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=4164293&name=tennis

I agree completely. Recreational drugs should be frowned upon and given a penalty that is in accordance with the law, but treating it like a performance enhancer is absurd. Coke would almost certainly hinder any player's game, which is maybe why we saw Richard never live up to his potential and drop in the rankings of late.

Go after steroids users and guys that cheat the game, but don't paint Gasquet a cheater for stupidly putting something in his body that doesn't belong there.

I assume some will flame me for "not having a problem with drug use", but I could care less. These guys don't need to be role models and they surely don't need to be held to a higher standard than anyone else.

Discuss...

He should be given community service (let's say 30 days) and fined a symbolic amount (like 5k$). He did not get any advantage from using drugs- actually they hurt his game (given his talent).
Or you know what? Make the drugs legal and let's get over it. At least the state would make some money out of taxes; people buy drugs anyway.
Now flame me.

 

[BigServer1]

There's already plenty of response, only you didn't look for it. It has been bashed to death here:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=260245

Besides those 350 posts there must be some other 200 that have been deleted by a moderator since anything loosely resembling any other thing than drug usage firm condemn is frowned upon, so don't put much effort into it.

Yeah, I saw the thread, I'm not a moron.

At the time, I meant more response to the specific article, which attacks the punishment of the positive test...

If this article was included in the 350+ post thread, then forgive me for not wanting to waft through the crap to get to it. I am more interested in how the ATP handles this than I am about Gasquet's use of cocaine, hence this thread.

 

[CCNM]

He should be given community service (let's say 30 days) and fined a symbolic amount (like 5k$). He did not get any advantage from using drugs- actually they hurt his game (given his talent).
Or you know what? Make the drugs legal and let's get over it. At least the state would make some money out of taxes; people buy drugs anyway.
Now flame me.

^^that makes sense. Also I've read that racehorses & greyhounds are sometimes injected with cocaine. It's all sad....

 

[marcl65]

but the shouldN't have to power to dictate or punish him because at the end of the day...it's his life.

It isn't really. To some extent the ATP/WTA "own" the players. They have to play a certain amount of events, they are subject to fines, they have to do interviews (even if they don't want to) or photo ops…and they have to adhere to a certain code of conduct IF THEY WANT TO PLAY ON THE TOUR.

It's hard for me to feel too sorry for these guys. I mean really, how hard is it to keep your nose clean (har har) for the 10 years or so that you can be competitive in the sport all the while making a more than decent wage? And it's not like he didn't have other vices he could partake of (drinking, tobacco). For me, they have to draw the line somewhere and if that somewhere is all illicit drugs then so be it.

Still, I think it's a bit absurd that Gasquet suspension for use of a recreational drug is the same as Canas' for using a performance enhancer.

 

[BigServer1]

It isn't really. To some extent the ATP/WTA "own" the players. They have to play a certain amount of events, they are subject to fines, they have to do interviews (even if they don't want to) or photo ops…and they have to adhere to a certain code of conduct IF THEY WANT TO PLAY ON THE TOUR.

It's hard for me to feel too sorry for these guys. I mean really, how hard is it to keep your nose clean (har har) for the 10 years or so that you can be competitive in the sport all the while making a more than decent wage? And it's not like he didn't have other vices he could partake of (drinking, tobacco). For me, they have to draw the line somewhere and if that somewhere is all illicit drugs then so be it.

Still, I think it's a bit absurd that Gasquet suspension for use of a recreational drug is the same as Canas' for using a performance enhancer.

And Canas' sentence was shortened to just 15 months, so it makes it even more ridiculous.

 

[tacou]

The "stupid rule" excuse seems lame when someone is aware of the rules and chooses to break them.

The rule may be stupid, but Gasquet is an adult and had fair notice of what could happen to him if he broke the rule. It was still his choice to break that "stupid rule."

How is it lame? did you know it's illegal to sit on a crate on any New York side walk. so if you were arrested for doing that you would not complain about the law being stupid, you'd gladly serve your jail time?

the point is the rule does not make sense. the WADA thing is true and sucks, but no one has provided a reason to why this ban would be FAIR.

the only other argument has been Gasquet is "tarningishing" ATP image by doing this. so, would he get a ban for dancing shirtless like a stripper at some crazy night club? because that's not a great role model for little kids.
oh wait, he did that and no one cared because no one should look up to a tennis player for moral guidance.

 

[raygo]

How is it lame? did you know it's illegal to sit on a crate on any New York side walk. so if you were arrested for doing that you would not complain about the law being stupid, you'd gladly serve your jail time?

the point is the rule does not make sense. the WADA thing is true and sucks, but no one has provided a reason to why this ban would be FAIR.

thank you. there are all sorts of laws like this. in charleston, SC, you can beat your wife, but only on Sundays, on the steps of city hall, and only with an object equal to or smaller than your thumb. you can also announce your arrival at an intersection by discharging a firearm.

how about crossing the street against a 'Don't Walk' sign when it's 2am and there's no one on the road? is there something morally outrageous about doing that?

whatever happened to having real role models? these people play sports for a living, for crying out loud. i wonder about the education level of most professional athletes, actors, celebrities in general. College sports have already cheapened the meaning of a degree already.

 

[Shaolin]

It should be a one year ban. Long enough to teach a big lesson, not destroy his career. 2 years in pro tennis is eternity.

 

[Deuce]

no one should look up to a tennis player for moral guidance.

What planet do you live on?

It is very easy to simply say that people SHOULD or SHOULDN'T do this or that, and then walk away.
It's much more difficult to face the REALITY of the situation and discuss it intelligently.
I guess that's why you didn't.

The FACT is that children DO look up to these tennis pros as role models. Inherent in that is the moral guidance you speak of.
'Should' children be so influenced by these strangers? Of course not. Their parents should be by far their main - if not their sole - influence. Sadly, the parental influence is not always positive. Neither is the role model influence.
But the fact is that children DO look up to these tennis players. Regardless of whether they should or shouldn't - they DO. And so, THAT REALITY is what we must deal with - not the easy and comfortable illusion that they 'shouldn't'.

By saying that no-one should look to these tennis pros for moral guidance, what you are saying in effect is that those who do so deserve their fate. In other words, if children look up to a particular tennis pro who displays unhealthy behaviour, and the child is influenced by that behaviour to copy the player's unhealthy actions... then to hell with the kid.
But we can't be saying that about children. The issue is so much more complex than just saying that no-one should be 'morally influenced' by these players, and washing our hands of it.

For once, let's deal with the reality of life. And the reality is that these players ARE role models for kids in the world as it is currently constructed. Whether they should be role models or not; whether the kids should be influenced or not - that is all completely irrelevant, because it is not addressing the reality.

So... they ARE role models. They know that going in - it comes with the territory - it is absolutely inherent and unavoidable. They therefore have a responsibility to behave in a healthy fashion.
If they don't want to accept that responsibility, they should have taken a different career route - one where they are not in the position of a role model. They didn't - therefore they must accept the responsibility. When they don't, they should be punished.

It is the same with parents. Parents are in the position of being a role model. They therefore have a responsibility to handle that role in a way which reflects positively on their children. When they don't, they are punished.
Yes, parents enter this role voluntarily. But so do tennis pros.

And yes, Gasquet should be helped, as well, if indeed the test results are legitimate.

 

[bluetrain4]

How is it lame? did you know it's illegal to sit on a crate on any New York side walk. so if you were arrested for doing that you would not complain about the law being stupid, you'd gladly serve your jail time?

the point is the rule does not make sense. the WADA thing is true and sucks, but no one has provided a reason to why this ban would be FAIR.

the only other argument has been Gasquet is "tarningishing" ATP image by doing this. so, would he get a ban for dancing shirtless like a stripper at some crazy night club? because that's not a great role model for little kids.
oh wait, he did that and no one cared because no one should look up to a tennis player for moral guidance.

Let me be clear. I really don't want to see Gasquet get banned for two years. And, as previously stated, I do agree that a 2-year ban is a harsh punishment for what is not a performance enhancing drug.

But, since he knew beforehand that this could happen, I just don't think it's the greatest injustice ever if he does gets banned as some posters seem to think.

 

[obsessedtennisfandisorder]

The FACT is that children DO look up to these tennis pros as role models. Inherent in that is the moral guidance you speak of.
'Should' children be so influenced by these strangers? Of course not. Their parents should be by far their main - if not their sole - influence. Sadly, the parental influence is not always positive. Neither is the role model influence.
But the fact is that children DO look up to these tennis players. Regardless of whether they should or shouldn't - they DO. And so, THAT REALITY is what we must deal with - not the easy and comfortable illusion that they 'shouldn't'.

For once, let's deal with the reality of life. And the reality is that these players ARE role models for kids in the world as it is currently constructed. Whether they should be role models or not; whether the kids should be influenced or not - that is all completely irrelevant, because it is not addressing the reality.

So... they ARE role models. They know that going in - it comes with the territory - it is absolutely inherent and unavoidable. They therefore have a responsibility to behave in a healthy fashion.
If they don't want to accept that responsibility, they should have taken a different career route - one where they are not in the position of a role model. They didn't - therefore they must accept the responsibility. When they don't, they should be punished.

It is the same with parents. Parents are in the position of being a role model. They therefore have a responsibility to handle that role in a way which reflects positively on their children. When they don't, they are punished.
Yes, parents enter this role voluntarily. But so do tennis pros.

And yes, Gasquet should be helped, as well, if indeed the test results are legitimate.

the end of this quote you argue against yourself....that's right parents
are the role model...and if they can't do that job...MAYBE it's the responsiblity
of the country govt or EXtendedfamily....it is not my problem, gasquets
or yours if little johhny isn't getting decent parenting....sounds harsh...but
it's the way it is....by your reasoning...when adverts for charity come on tv
we must donate immediately because...hey, it's our problem right? If we do
help i often do,it's goodwill...nobody Owes another a free lunch.

And gasquets fans were accused of going off topic...looks like this threads
turning into a rolemodeldebate KK.

the reality is they aren't rolemodels....parents are ..whether you like it ornot. Is britney spears a rolemodel?..answer that question yourself...how is she different from fed?

 

[Deuce]

the end of this quote you argue against yourself

^ Not in the least.

....that's right parents
are the role model...and if they can't do that job...MAYBE it's the responsiblity
of the country govt or EXtendedfamily....it is not my problem, gasquets
or yours if little johhny isn't getting decent parenting....sounds harsh...but
it's the way it is

^ We all have a responsibility to help in such circumstances - no matter how inconvenient it may be - because the alternative is to say "To hell with the kids". And that is simply not acceptable.

....by your reasoning...when adverts for charity come on tv
we must donate immediately because...hey, it's our problem right? If we do
help i often do,it's goodwill...nobody Owes another a free lunch.

^ You don't get it at all...
By "my reasoning", there would be fewer and fewer reasons for the existence of these "charities" - because we would accept much more of our social responsibilities as individuals.
Charities exist only because the populace doesn't give a damn.

Donating money to a charity is not the answer. Getting off your ass and helping directly is the answer.

the reality is they aren't rolemodels....parents are ..whether you like it ornot. Is britney spears a rolemodel?..answer that question yourself...how is she different from fed?

^ Again, you are totally, absolutely, 100% wrong.
The facts very clearly show you to be totally wrong... because the facts clearly reveal that these athletes/singers, etc., etc. are role models to children. That is what our society - sick as it is - has decided. The proof of this is in virtually every child under, say, 15 years old. They look up to these 'stars'. They are influenced by them. Kids see them as role models - that cannot possibly be argued against, as it is clear as day.
What you are saying is that they SHOULD NOT be role models - which is an entirely irrelevant and separate topic.

The FACT is that they ARE role models - and, for the sake of the children, at least, they should behave responsibly. (And behaving responsibly would be good for them, too.)

 

[tacou]

What planet do you live on?

It is very easy to simply say that people SHOULD or SHOULDN'T do this or that, and then walk away.
It's much more difficult to face the REALITY of the situation and discuss it intelligently.
I guess that's why you didn't.

The FACT is that children DO look up to these tennis pros as role models. Inherent in that is the moral guidance you speak of.
'Should' children be so influenced by these strangers? Of course not. Their parents should be by far their main - if not their sole - influence. Sadly, the parental influence is not always positive. Neither is the role model influence.
But the fact is that children DO look up to these tennis players. Regardless of whether they should or shouldn't - they DO. And so, THAT REALITY is what we must deal with - not the easy and comfortable illusion that they 'shouldn't'.

By saying that no-one should look to these tennis pros for moral guidance, what you are saying in effect is that those who do so deserve their fate. In other words, if children look up to a particular tennis pro who displays unhealthy behaviour, and the child is influenced by that behaviour to copy the player's unhealthy actions... then to hell with the kid.
But we can't be saying that about children. The issue is so much more complex than just saying that no-one should be 'morally influenced' by these players, and washing our hands of it.

For once, let's deal with the reality of life. And the reality is that these players ARE role models for kids in the world as it is currently constructed. Whether they should be role models or not; whether the kids should be influenced or not - that is all completely irrelevant, because it is not addressing the reality.

So... they ARE role models. They know that going in - it comes with the territory - it is absolutely inherent and unavoidable. They therefore have a responsibility to behave in a healthy fashion.
If they don't want to accept that responsibility, they should have taken a different career route - one where they are not in the position of a role model. They didn't - therefore they must accept the responsibility. When they don't, they should be punished.

It is the same with parents. Parents are in the position of being a role model. They therefore have a responsibility to handle that role in a way which reflects positively on their children. When they don't, they are punished.
Yes, parents enter this role voluntarily. But so do tennis pros.

And yes, Gasquet should be helped, as well, if indeed the test results are legitimate.

I don't know where your attitude is coming from sir or madam. I am an intelligent person and come from the planet earth.

you said it yourself, athletes SHOULD NOT be role models. it doesn't matter if they are. obviously they are. 90% of the young children I see are wearing sports jerseys of some sort.

It doesn't change the fact that athletes are humans. Richard is 22, he is still a kid himself. he did not ask to be idolized by a bunch of little french kids, he just wanted to play tennis.

to a statement like that you keep talking about the reality of the situation and how complex it is, but all you've done is taken the opposite stance from me. do the the children deserve the fate-- what fate?? the fate of their favorite tennis player doing cocaine? that doesn't make sense and that's what I'm saying; drawing a parallel between one random person's behavior and another random person's behavior is useless, even if one of them is on TV playing tennis maybe once a week (let's face it, Gasquet was slowly disappearing, or so it seemed)

call me delusional or unintelligent or accuse me of being from some other planet but I stand by the fact that if a 12yr old kid idolized Richie Gasquet and last week decided to become a coke-head to be more like Richard, yes, to hell with that kid. get him help, counseling, whatever, but someone who is so easily influenced by a person they've likely never seen in real life has all sorts of problems.

 

[tacou]

The FACT is that they ARE role models - and, for the sake of the children, at least, they should behave responsibly. (And behaving responsibly would be good for them, too.)

I'm assuming you have children?

you are saying the fact that they SHOULD NOT be role models is a separate topic and that is not true. we are talking about the role of a specific person (Richard Gasquet) in his younger fans life.

what I'm saying, and I believe some agree with me, is that athletes/singers/actors were kids like everyone else. they decided they wanted to be tennis player/pop signer/actor and pursued that dream, much like one would want to be a lawyer and pursue that dream.

by achieving their goals and reaching the upper echelons of their profession, they for some reason must forfeit their personalities and act differently because they've made the magical transition to role model? no. that is silly.

I frown on cocaine, but if Richard wants to do it he should be able to, it is his choice. straight up. a true separate topic is how this decision fits into WADA and ITF rules, but no decision in any celebrity/athletes life should be based on how little kids will react to it.

 

[veroniquem]

I'm assuming you have children?

you are saying the fact that they SHOULD NOT be role models is a separate topic and that is not true. we are talking about the role of a specific person (Richard Gasquet) in his younger fans life.

what I'm saying, and I believe some agree with me, is that athletes/singers/actors were kids like everyone else. they decided they wanted to be tennis player/pop signer/actor and pursued that dream, much like one would want to be a lawyer and pursue that dream.

by achieving their goals and reaching the upper echelons of their profession, they for some reason must forfeit their personalities and act differently because they've made the magical transition to role model? no. that is silly.

I frown on cocaine, but if Richard wants to do it he should be able to, it is his choice. straight up. a true separate topic is how this decision fits into WADA and ITF rules, but no decision in any celebrity/athletes life should be based on how little kids will react to it.

"If Richard wants to do cocaine, he should be able to". Are you out of your mind? What if he wants to do heroin, is that OK too?
You're way out of line, those are illegal drugs and they are for good reasons because they're dangerous. The players have a contract with the ATP like any employee with an employer and the contract clearly stipulates "no drugs".
If you break that contract, you'll have to deal with the consequences.
Socially, in general, if you do cocaine, you're breaking the law, possession of illegal drugs is a crime and you'll also have to deal with harsh consequences if you get caught.
Saying that anyone should be able to do hard drugs is really crazy. Everyone should be able to stay away from them and avoid wrecking their own life and other people's as well (a big part of crime: theft and prostitution are drug related).

 

[obsessedtennisfandisorder]

"If Richard wants to do cocaine, he should be able to". Are you out of your mind? What if he wants to do heroin, is that OK too?
You're way out of line, those are illegal drugs and they are for good reasons because they're dangerous. The players have a contract with the ATP like any employee with an employer and the contract clearly stipulates "no drugs".
If you break that contract, you'll have to deal with the consequences.
Socially, in general, if you do cocaine, you're breaking the law, possession of illegal drugs is a crime and you'll also have to deal with harsh consequences if you get caught.
Saying that anyone should be able to do hard drugs is really crazy. Everyone should be able to stay away from them and avoid wrecking their own life and other people's as well (a big part of crime: theft and prostitution are drug related).

No , I think you're missing the point,no ones telling richard to "do" anything.


We are just saying he is his own person, making his own stupid mistakes.

I think you're trying to either turn this thread into a drugs debate...or a
role model debate.(like deuce, and BTW they aren't))..in order to get the mods onto us again..
when many of us are asking simple questions such as:

why no name suppression?

7 athletes tested positive for nandrolone in 2004 and we still don't know who they are....if it's coke...you're names out there before the sun is up.

Why is a ban for cocaine possibly even greater than that of performance enhancing drugs?

Coria and canas and Korda may could serve bans shorter
than gasquet if he's found guilty.

Was gasquet in competition or not? I'd love this question answered clearly.

YES yes yes...we all no gasquet was stupid, especially as it was on his contract...we all know that...we(well I at least) are not arguing against that..... I'm arguing against stupid, anti privacy things in That contract.
the contract is unfair....and a 2 year ban is unfair.

Ok i can see a flame war coming....I can reply to all deuces stuff too...but it's not worth it belongs in rants and raves section.

my last word on this is about bodo's (spot on) article except they "inevitably get caught part"....here's after retirement:

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22337373-5001021,00.html

 

[stormholloway]

What planet do you live on?

It is very easy to simply say that people SHOULD or SHOULDN'T do this or that, and then walk away.
It's much more difficult to face the REALITY of the situation and discuss it intelligently.
I guess that's why you didn't.

The FACT is that children DO look up to these tennis pros as role models. Inherent in that is the moral guidance you speak of.
'Should' children be so influenced by these strangers? Of course not. Their parents should be by far their main - if not their sole - influence. Sadly, the parental influence is not always positive. Neither is the role model influence.
But the fact is that children DO look up to these tennis players. Regardless of whether they should or shouldn't - they DO. And so, THAT REALITY is what we must deal with - not the easy and comfortable illusion that they 'shouldn't'.

By saying that no-one should look to these tennis pros for moral guidance, what you are saying in effect is that those who do so deserve their fate. In other words, if children look up to a particular tennis pro who displays unhealthy behaviour, and the child is influenced by that behaviour to copy the player's unhealthy actions... then to hell with the kid.
But we can't be saying that about children. The issue is so much more complex than just saying that no-one should be 'morally influenced' by these players, and washing our hands of it.

For once, let's deal with the reality of life. And the reality is that these players ARE role models for kids in the world as it is currently constructed. Whether they should be role models or not; whether the kids should be influenced or not - that is all completely irrelevant, because it is not addressing the reality.

So... they ARE role models. They know that going in - it comes with the territory - it is absolutely inherent and unavoidable. They therefore have a responsibility to behave in a healthy fashion.
If they don't want to accept that responsibility, they should have taken a different career route - one where they are not in the position of a role model. They didn't - therefore they must accept the responsibility. When they don't, they should be punished.

It is the same with parents. Parents are in the position of being a role model. They therefore have a responsibility to handle that role in a way which reflects positively on their children. When they don't, they are punished.
Yes, parents enter this role voluntarily. But so do tennis pros.

And yes, Gasquet should be helped, as well, if indeed the test results are legitimate.

And yet, ironically, it is the drug rule itself which has led to Gasquet's image as a role model being negatively affected. If cocaine weren't a banned substance in the ATP, we would never have heard about his using it and all the little kiddies wouldn't be crying that their tennis hero is a drug user.

If Gasquet used cocaine once or twice at a party it's nobody's business. There are plenty of actor and musician role models who remain role models because their privacy is protected, i.e. they do "bad" things in private but since they aren't tested for drugs their business remains just that: their business. And since you admit that athletes being role models is farce, the illusion would be far better served if these athlete's weren't tested for recreational drugs.

The drug rules of the ATP should exist only to make tennis fair. That's the whole point of them in the first place. Rather than hearing about how McEnroe and Borg snorted coke at parties in the late 70s, we think of them as great ambassadors to the game. Why? Because rules then didn't expose them for what they were: successful people who occasionally took drugs in their own privacy. Tennis is better because McEnroe et al weren't exposed, as they would have been today, for taking drugs during their time. I don't hear anyone complaining about the leniency of the rules then.

You say Gasquet "displayed unhealthy behavior". How so? By putting something in his body, allegedly? Where is the display beyond the invasive drug test?

 

[tacou]

"If Richard wants to do cocaine, he should be able to". Are you out of your mind? What if he wants to do heroin, is that OK too?
You're way out of line, those are illegal drugs and they are for good reasons because they're dangerous. The players have a contract with the ATP like any employee with an employer and the contract clearly stipulates "no drugs".
If you break that contract, you'll have to deal with the consequences.
Socially, in general, if you do cocaine, you're breaking the law, possession of illegal drugs is a crime and you'll also have to deal with harsh consequences if you get caught.
Saying that anyone should be able to do hard drugs is really crazy. Everyone should be able to stay away from them and avoid wrecking their own life and other people's as well (a big part of crime: theft and prostitution are drug related).

I'm not out of my mind...I think you're just a little too narrow minded.
I'm not advocating drug use and I personally don't and have never done hard drugs (or what I consider hard drugs).
I know several people who have tried cocaine 1-2 times. I don't think they are horrible people, they are my friends. Cocaine addiction is very serious and a terrible thing but there is nothing wrong with experimenting.
Just because you don't want to do something does not make it wrong for everyone else.

 

[veroniquem]

I'm not out of my mind...I think you're just a little too narrow minded.
I'm not advocating drug use and I personally don't and have never done hard drugs (or what I consider hard drugs).
I know several people who have tried cocaine 1-2 times. I don't think they are horrible people, they are my friends. Cocaine addiction is very serious and a terrible thing but there is nothing wrong with experimenting.
Just because you don't want to do something does not make it wrong for everyone else.

It does if it's illegal and punishable by law. About your friends, I hope it won't ruin their lives if they ever get caught. To me once or twice is not fine, once or twice is already a big risk and you have to know what it entails.
Sure there are a lot of drugs going around in show biz where their use has been banalized extensively: you want a list of actors and musicians who died because of that? For whatever reason that list doesn't amuse me especially since a lot of people on that list were extremely young.

 

[veroniquem]

No , I think you're missing the point,no ones telling richard to "do" anything.


We are just saying he is his own person, making his own stupid mistakes.

I think you're trying to either turn this thread into a drugs debate...or a
role model debate.(like deuce, and BTW they aren't))..in order to get the mods onto us again..
when many of us are asking simple questions such as:

why no name suppression?

7 athletes tested positive for nandrolone in 2004 and we still don't know who they are....if it's coke...you're names out there before the sun is up.

Why is a ban for cocaine possibly even greater than that of performance enhancing drugs?

Coria and canas and Korda may could serve bans shorter
than gasquet if he's found guilty.

Was gasquet in competition or not? I'd love this question answered clearly.

YES yes yes...we all no gasquet was stupid, especially as it was on his contract...we all know that...we(well I at least) are not arguing against that..... I'm arguing against stupid, anti privacy things in That contract.
the contract is unfair....and a 2 year ban is unfair.

Ok i can see a flame war coming....I can reply to all deuces stuff too...but it's not worth it belongs in rants and raves section.

my last word on this is about bodo's (spot on) article except they "inevitably get caught part"....here's after retirement:

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22337373-5001021,00.html

Edifying article. There's no doubt a lot of people have gone through the net over the years. They're trying to improve the detection process now but obviously it will never be perfect. That doesn't mean that those who get caught should get away with it.

 

[BigServer1]

Edifying article. There's no doubt a lot of people have gone through the net over the years. They're trying to improve the detection process now but obviously it will never be perfect. That doesn't mean that those who get caught should get away with it.

I'm not even saying that he should get away with it, I'm just saying that he should be punished in accordance with US law (if indeed this was a positive test in the US). To treat this like a performance enhancer doesn't make any sense to me, and if we go back and say, "all these PED users in tennis were given an 8 to 15 month ban from the sport, but wow, that Gasquet guy got 24 for coke use", it will be a massive injustice to the sport, and to Richard's chances at future success (because he already appears to be getting in his own way plenty...).

I agree with a lot of the posters who say that the sport shouldn't test for recreational drugs...Keep it to performance enhancers and that's it. Because man, if we see a legacy like Hingis' and now a young career like Gasquet's ruined by the idea of positive tests for a drug that a substantial part of the population has at least tried a time or two, it will be really too bad.

I don't condone the use of cocaine, but it seems like your personal life is your personal life, and Richard's recent fall from the rankings and lack of performace on court has been punishment enough for his alleged actions...If he's using and destroying his own career, it will show in the rankings, as it already is. I don't feel bad for Gasquet, per se, but I do hope that his situation is one that maybe forces a second look at the testing policy and how they handle rec. drug suspensions in the future.

 

[CyBorg]

Tennis is a business. It's smart for them to severely punish Gasquet and thus distance themselves from him.

 

[tacou]

It does if it's illegal and punishable by law. About your friends, I hope it won't ruin their lives if they ever get caught. To me once or twice is not fine, once or twice is already a big risk and you have to know what it entails.
Sure there are a lot of drugs going around in show biz where their use has been banalized extensively: you want a list of actors and musicians who died because of that? For whatever reason that list doesn't amuse me especially since a lot of people on that list were extremely young.

not to offend but how old are you? my friends are fine. they did not become addicted immediately and start selling their furniture to support their habit.

p.s. have you ever drank alcohol? the argument has been beaten to death but just curious

 

[fastdunn]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=4164293&name=tennis

I agree completely. Recreational drugs should be frowned upon and given a penalty that is in accordance with the law, but treating it like a performance enhancer is absurd.

I agree completely.

But how long should be the ban ? Should it be more serious or lighter than a performance enhancer ban ?

 

[tacou]

I agree completely.

But how long should be the ban ? Should it be more serious or lighter than a performance enhancer ban ?

why would it be more serious? or even as. that's my only issue