Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by papertank, Aug 15, 2012.
Fedace was but he reappeared
Because they can't do nothing, yet they can't go public because it would ruin professional tennis. We are talking hundreds of millions of lost revenue for ATP/ITF after their sport is branded a joke for letting a multi slam winner get away with it for so long.
So they find a middle ground.
Wasn't the Cilic case kind of a silent ban? His case was being looked at, and while this was going on he claimed injury as the reason for his non participation.
why would they let the hypothetical multi-slam doper play instead of sending him strait into retirement for whatever reason they could put?
Money. It's always about money.
I believe the reason of his withdrawal from Wimbledon is his loss in FO and his loss in the grass tuneup. If he were playing well he would not have.
I heard this about Nadal several years ago when he missed Wimbledon. My friend has a good friend that does something on the tour and he said it was common knowledge but not publicized because it was bad for the sport.
Jonas Bjorkman said, "I have heard of cases of the ITF covering up positive tests."
Marcelo Rios said, "If Agassi or Sampras ever tested positive, you guys in the media would never hear about it because they are too important to the tour."
Indeed, injured his knee was the reason.
Funny thing is, Cilic is not that popular and I believe that's why it wasn't a silent ban in the end, he was like the "perfect customer" to be caught, and same goes for Troicki.
anyone who doesnt see through nadal coloured glasses can clearly see whats going on.......it sticks out like the dogs proverbials.
If anyone had evidence of a top player being on a silent ban, they could take it to the press and earn themselves a lot of money.
All we've got is speculation, and lots of people who know because they've heard or read rumours, with no evidence ever presented.
I'm not saying there have never been any silent bans, but it's only rumour. I don't believe all of these people, not directly complicit in a silent ban could know for sure and also keep quiet.
When have public institutions ever been trustworthy? Anything that has the name 'public' attached to it can never be trustworthy-except transport for women because that is often the safest possible option. :lol:
Most public institutions are trustworthy simply because they are run on rules that are usually quite transparent.
We are not talking about politics here, but the administration of policy.
Institutions have strict protocols about things like drug testing and if they step out of line they can be sued.
So they don't usually carry on secretly except when some office holders are doing something manifestly wrong.
There are no silent bans but, as has been discussed many times, a tennis player who has a charge brought against him can choose to stop playing until his case is determined.
And if unsuccesful his suspension starts from the day he stopped playing.
Now this is a quasi-judicial process but it is not held in public because an innocent individual would be subject to financial loss otherwise.
Separate names with a comma.