irishnadalfan1983
Hall of Fame
Icarus?
Documentary?
where can it be found on streaming services?
thanks
Netflix.
Icarus?
Documentary?
where can it be found on streaming services?
thanks
Ask for a big suspension, get a small one, but it looks like you were tough and you still have the power.If WADA favours a slap on the wrist for Sinner why did WADA even bother appealing the Sinner case to CAS?
WADA is asking CAS for a one year ban on Sinner.
It is all very odd.
Each looking for an edge when their natural abilities would never live up to the demand. They were not doped without their knowledge.Sharapova, Halep and now Iga .
Unfortunately probably true, I remember Ana Ivanovic battling Sharapova in long rally's gasping for air and Maria was just taking short breath pause and I thought something is off here.Each looking for an edge when their natural abilities would never live up to the demand. They were not doped without their knowledge.
How presumptuous of you. Maria was very hard working and so physically fit which may I further presume may not have been the same with Ana with her two handsome sidekicks.Unfortunately probably true, I remember Ana Ivanovic battling Sharapova in long rally's gasping for air and Maria was just taking short breath pause and I thought something is off here.
money's justifying.Wada agreed CJ Ujah had taken a contaminated supplement, but he was still banned for 22 months and the team were stripped of relay silver. So how can they justify giving Sinner no ban and Swiatek one month with no titles removing?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/63198904
Oh I agree, it's all about money. There's no money in athletics, so they are harder on doping. The likes of adidas, nike, Rolex, Porsche etc won't want their stars banned for doping, so they pay to keep it hush hush.money's justifying. top players in tennis are well sponsored.
Wada agreed CJ Ujah had taken a contaminated supplement, but he was still banned for 22 months and the team were stripped of relay silver. So how can they justify giving Sinner no ban and Swiatek one month with no titles removing?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/63198904
"In this case, after a thorough examination of the facts, we were satisfied that Mr Ujah did indeed ingest a contaminated supplement, but he was unable to demonstrate that he was entitled to any reduction in the applicable period of ineligibility based on his level of fault," said AIU Head Brett Clothier.
Clothier added: "Taking supplements is risky for athletes as they can be contaminated or even adulterated with prohibited substances.
"Athletes owe it to their fellow competitors to be 100 per cent certain before putting anything into their body. If there's the slightest doubt, leave it out."
It gets better. The same doctor who found the "contamination" also found it for.... Halep. One Jean-Claude Alvarez. Is he on the WTA payroll?
"Elle n’a eu aucun effet grâce au produit ». Le professeur Jean-Claude Alvarez, directeur du laboratoire de toxicologie du CHU de Garches, persiste et signe, Iga Swiatek ne s’est pas dopée. Testée positive le 12 septembre dernier à la trimétazidine, la Polonaise a été suspendue pour un mois. Une sanction qu’elle a déjà purgée en partie mais que le spécialiste, qui avait déjà défendu Simona Halep et a réalisé les analyses pour trouver la source de la contamination dans le cas de la numéro 2 mondiale, trouve démesurée au vu de la faible concentration de produit et des preuves de contamination qu’il a trouvées."
It had no effect thanks to the product." Professor Jean-Claude Alvarez, director of the toxicology laboratory at the Garches University Hospital, persists and signs that Iga Swiatek did not dope. Tested positive on September 12 for trimetazidine, the Polish player was suspended for one month. A sanction that she has already served in part but that the specialist, who had already defended Simona Halep and carried out the analyses to find the source of the contamination in the case of the world number 2, finds disproportionate in view of the low concentration of the product and the evidence of contamination he found.
He also says the previous lab found no contamination:
Did you find the source of the contamination easily?
No, it was complicated because there was a first analysis elsewhere, they didn't find it, and she came to us because she knows we were the only ones to find it the Simona Halep Affair. The check dates back to September, it took us a little time to search because they are very small concentrations. What is certain is that it did nothing to him, it is not doping.
Basically, Iga initially went to another lab and they found no contamination.
Then Iga decided to go to the same doctor Halep worked with and he found the TMZ.
The problem was Maria was taking enhancing drugs from the start of hers career . QuoteHow presumptuous of you. Maria was very hard working and so physically fit which may I further presume may not have been the same with Ana with her two handsome sidekicks.
The problem was Maria was taking enhancing drugs from the start of hers career . Quote
But why take meldonium?
When she made the failed test public in March, Sharapova claimed that she was prescribed meldonium by her doctor in 2006 to deal with health issues such as an irregular heartbeat and a family history of diabetes. But the tribunal found emails to Sharapova from Dr Anatoly Skalny – who began treating her in 2004, when she was 17, and continued until 2012 – that advised upping her dosage before key matches. Skalny said: “During games of special importance you can increase your Mildronate [the trade name for meldonium] dose to 3-4 pills (1hr before the match).”
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jun/10/how-serious-was-tennis-player-maria-sharapova-doping
Missing a whole lot of detailsSharapova's career was effectively over following her 15 month meldonium ban.
Likewise, if Iga is banned for 1 year, it will be extremely difficult for Iga to come back.
It gets better. The same doctor who found the "contamination" also found it for.... Halep. One Jean-Claude Alvarez. Is he on the WTA payroll?
"Elle n’a eu aucun effet grâce au produit ». Le professeur Jean-Claude Alvarez, directeur du laboratoire de toxicologie du CHU de Garches, persiste et signe, Iga Swiatek ne s’est pas dopée. Testée positive le 12 septembre dernier à la trimétazidine, la Polonaise a été suspendue pour un mois. Une sanction qu’elle a déjà purgée en partie mais que le spécialiste, qui avait déjà défendu Simona Halep et a réalisé les analyses pour trouver la source de la contamination dans le cas de la numéro 2 mondiale, trouve démesurée au vu de la faible concentration de produit et des preuves de contamination qu’il a trouvées."
It had no effect thanks to the product." Professor Jean-Claude Alvarez, director of the toxicology laboratory at the Garches University Hospital, persists and signs that Iga Swiatek did not dope. Tested positive on September 12 for trimetazidine, the Polish player was suspended for one month. A sanction that she has already served in part but that the specialist, who had already defended Simona Halep and carried out the analyses to find the source of the contamination in the case of the world number 2, finds disproportionate in view of the low concentration of the product and the evidence of contamination he found.
He also says the previous lab found no contamination:
Did you find the source of the contamination easily?
No, it was complicated because there was a first analysis elsewhere, they didn't find it, and she came to us because she knows we were the only ones to find it the Simona Halep Affair. The check dates back to September, it took us a little time to search because they are very small concentrations. What is certain is that it did nothing to him, it is not doping.
The truth is in the results , with the medication and without it.This is not what CAS found. It found Sharapova was advised to take it as a teenager due to her "run-down" condition because of her jet-setting tennis lifestyle.
The Tribunal wanted to rub out Sharapova for four years and many of its so-called findings were overturned on appeal, including this one.
The truth is in the results , with the medication and without it.
As I see the woman tour is taking a loot of stuff for a 3 sets matches.Sharapova was already on the skids before the suspension and any hope of a rebound was killed off by the suspension.
Meldonium is not a super drug, as American propaganda suggested.
Funny how Sharapova only became "Russian" once she was banned. Before then, everyone classed her as being American.Sharapova was already on the skids before the suspension and any hope of a rebound was killed off by the suspension.
Meldonium is not a super drug, as American propaganda suggested.
Sharapova always represented Russia, despite her long time US residence. There was clearly resentment about her continuing to be represented by Russia rather than switching to the USA, especially as political relations between those two countries headed in the wrong direction.Funny how Sharapova only became "Russian" once she was banned. Before then, everyone classed her as being American.
One thing I don't quite understand though is why for a young player, such as Iga and Jannik, a one year ban would be detrimental to their future performance. In my total ignorance of the game, I would think they would take that chance to practice and improve their game way more than what they can do while touring for a whole season, and would come back even stronger?Sharapova's career was effectively over following her 15 month meldonium ban.
Her results after serving the ban were poor.
Likewise, if Iga is banned for 1 year, it will be extremely difficult for Iga to come back.
It has happened though. See Coria (nandrolone in a multivitamin without it being listed on the label, winning millions in compensation) and Canas (given medicine with a banned diuretic in it by an ATP trainer, during a tennis match at 2005 Acapulco).I don't believe any of these athletes when they claim that they accidentally ingested something in a supplement that wasn't supposed to contain it.
Sharapova always represented Russia, despite her long time US residence. There was clearly resentment about her continuing to be represented by Russia rather than switching to the USA, especially as political relations between those two countries headed in the wrong direction.
There's no doubt in my mind that the initial 2-year ban, reduced to 15 months on appeal, was motivated by her representing Russia. She'd have gotten a Swiatek/Sinner style slap on the wrist had she switched to representing the US years earlier.
Yeah I don't believe it.It has happened though. See Coria (nandrolone in a multivitamin without it being listed on the label, winning millions in compensation) and Canas (given medicine with a banned diuretic in it by an ATP trainer, during a tennis match at 2005 Acapulco).
Follow the money.
It's been proven. Millions in compensation.Yeah I don't believe it.
Good question. Why wasn't it listed on the label? Yet there it was, in the multivitamin.Why would a supplements company also be processing nandrolone? How would the nandrolone end up in the supplements?
They employed a private lab to test the multivitamin for all ingredients. Nandrolone was in there.Coria's family employed a private lab to find what they wanted to find.
- Company sets up melatonin sales as a cover for the PED
- Markets "melatonin" to athletic trainers and teams
- Nice, ready-made cover story.
Sinner situation:
Italian trainers might use the product to boost their clients' performance. Whether Sinner knew or not is impossible to tell. But someone - either Sinner or his trainers or both - did it intentionally. No accident.
I've just found some court proceedings of an athlete who tried the same thing, got a private lab to find the substance in a supplement made by same company. Didn't work.It's been proven. Millions in compensation.
Good question. Why wasn't it listed on the label? Yet there it was, in the multivitamin.
They employed a private lab to test the multivitamin for all ingredients. Nandrolone was in there.
Coria admitted that it still pissed him off years later, and even claimed that it added pressure in the 2004 French Open final.
The company messed up in the Coria case by not listing nandrolone on the label. It's not likely that the same company would make the same (or similar) mistake that cost them so much money.I've just found some court proceedings of an athlete who tried the same thing, got a private lab to find the substance in a supplement made by same company. Didn't work.
First, her one month suspension covered the Asian swing when she was not allowed to play, so it is incorrect to say that suspension did not cost her any tournaments.Why do you think she got only one symbolic month that's got no tournaments and it dragged for September? Sharapova wasn't so lucky.
Why would the company list an illegal steroid on the label? Why would an illegal steroid be in the supplement?The company messed up in the Coria case by not listing nandrolone on the label. It's not likely that the same company would make the same (or similar) mistake that cost them so much money.
First, her one month suspension covered the Asian swing when she was not allowed to play, so it is incorrect to say that suspension did not cost her any tournaments.
Second, she got one month not because she did not declare melatonin but because they found:
direct quote from the ITIA statement:
"
the player’s level of fault was considered to be at the lowest end of the range for ‘No Significant Fault or Negligence’.
"
Meaning - there is a fault here. I presume because they reasoned she should have been extra extra careful and only get her supplements/whatever from a more reputable/approved source to limit the possibility of contamination.
Third, the Sharapova case is indeed very interesting. Per the letter of the law she took illegal substance (and of course it can be, and it is being, argued if that substance should be on the banned list), it was not an accident/contamination so there has to be a punishment per the existing rules. Per the circumstances of her case it is clear she was not 'doping' in a regular sense of that word. She got originally suspended 24 months for:
"
In precis, the tribunal ruled that taking the substance regularly at the Australian Open effectively proved that she did not know it had been banned. But it found that she was at “very significant fault” by failing to ascertain whether the drug was on the prohibited list.
"
Then,, when the above was appealed, the CAS ruled that:
"
3.7 Conclusion 103. Based on the foregoing, the Panel, based upon its de novo review of this entire matter, finds that the appeal is to be partially granted, and the period of ineligibility reduced to fifteen (15) months. The starting date of the ineligibility period remains 26 January 2016, set by the Decision and unchallenged in this arbitration.
"
meaning CAS found that Sharapova was somewhat in the middle of lowest to highest range of being at “very significant fault". I'm not sure if saying 'she wasn't so lucky' is appropriate then. She was judged to be _more_ at fault then Swiatek, thus bigger punishment. Could it be that Swiatek should have got let's say 5 months and Sharapova 12? Sure. Which is why there's a process where all circumstances are looked at, and people that are experts make the ruling, and they have some flexibility as to what punishment should be given.
In which countries? There will be different rules.Why would the company list an illegal steroid on the label? Why would an illegal steroid be in the supplement?
You need a prescription from a doctor to get nandrolone for legitimate use. It won't just be in a supplement.
sure, that's fair. Maybe they will.The Swiatek case should be appealed by WADA. The ITIA is handing out early Christmas presents.
True; the idea of Sharapova's game declining before her known usage is absurd; users know when they sense trouble in their physical performance and will use long before a decline is visible to observers.The truth is in the results , with the medication and without it.
True; the idea of Sharapova's game declining before her known usage is absurd; users know when they sense trouble in their physical performance and will use long before a decline is visible to observers.
Nowadays, I "accidentally" get my supplements and PEDs by doing the following.I bet many of us eat foods that'd trigger red flags; Meats are nowadays full of all sorts of substances.
^ Good story. Thankfully, no legitimate source who investigated the drug ever reached your defensive conclusion designed to absolve a corrupt country of guilt with its generations-long PED program.
What is "enhancing drugs"? There are a lot of substances players, some from very young age, take. Djoker's addicted to plants, Zverev to reducing his diabetes, Rafa and some other players to stimulants that reduce allergies (for which you need the exemption from registered doctor). Take a note of the fact that Meldonium was also an allowed drug prior to that unfortunate AO when Sharapova got banned. You are right to point to Maria's guilt taking the drug but inconsiderate when degrading her how doped she was when playing a match. Scores of tennis players have conditions beyond our understanding. The stress of traveling huge distances away from their homes to varieties of places (climates, time zones) may take its toll on their well being of players whom we most ought to respect.The problem was Maria was taking enhancing drugs from the start of hers career . Quote
But why take meldonium?
When she made the failed test public in March, Sharapova claimed that she was prescribed meldonium by her doctor in 2006 to deal with health issues such as an irregular heartbeat and a family history of diabetes. But the tribunal found emails to Sharapova from Dr Anatoly Skalny – who began treating her in 2004, when she was 17, and continued until 2012 – that advised upping her dosage before key matches. Skalny said: “During games of special importance you can increase your Mildronate [the trade name for meldonium] dose to 3-4 pills (1hr before the match).”
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jun/10/how-serious-was-tennis-player-maria-sharapova-doping
Sometimes, the more detailed people are, the more bewildering they become. The so much he said, she said, rules state and experts conclude ends up being subjective. When the anti-doping rules adjust and add a substance that players have been taking, the powers may have more ways to deal with it.First, her one month suspension covered the Asian swing when she was not allowed to play, so it is incorrect to say that suspension did not cost her any tournaments.
Second, she got one month not because she did not declare melatonin but because they found:
direct quote from the ITIA statement:
"
the player’s level of fault was considered to be at the lowest end of the range for ‘No Significant Fault or Negligence’.
"
Meaning - there is a fault here. I presume because they reasoned she should have been extra extra careful and only get her supplements/whatever from a more reputable/approved source to limit the possibility of contamination.
Third, the Sharapova case is indeed very interesting. Per the letter of the law she took illegal substance (and of course it can be, and it is being, argued if that substance should be on the banned list), it was not an accident/contamination so there has to be a punishment per the existing rules. Per the circumstances of her case it is clear she was not 'doping' in a regular sense of that word. She got originally suspended 24 months for:
"
In precis, the tribunal ruled that taking the substance regularly at the Australian Open effectively proved that she did not know it had been banned. But it found that she was at “very significant fault” by failing to ascertain whether the drug was on the prohibited list.
"
Then,, when the above was appealed, the CAS ruled that:
"
3.7 Conclusion 103. Based on the foregoing, the Panel, based upon its de novo review of this entire matter, finds that the appeal is to be partially granted, and the period of ineligibility reduced to fifteen (15) months. The starting date of the ineligibility period remains 26 January 2016, set by the Decision and unchallenged in this arbitration.
"
meaning CAS found that Sharapova was somewhat in the middle of lowest to highest range of being at “very significant fault". I'm not sure if saying 'she wasn't so lucky' is appropriate then. She was judged to be _more_ at fault then Swiatek, thus bigger punishment. Could it be that Swiatek should have got let's say 5 months and Sharapova 12? Sure. Which is why there's a process where all circumstances are looked at, and people that are experts make the ruling, and they have some flexibility as to what punishment should be given.
Sounds like you've never eaten meat, been to a farm, partied or kissed before.Nowadays, I "accidentally" get my supplements and PEDs by doing the following.
- Growth Hormones and zeranol: eat regular, non-free range chicken and meat
(eg the chickens that somehow grew to gigantic sizes despite living in a tiny cage where they can't move)
- Clostebol: get massages
- Coke-aine: kiss random girls at bars
- Nandrolone: Tinder and Bumble. method description NSFW (see Daniel Plaza)
I could provide you with sources, but they would be wasted on you.
The problem was Maria was taking enhancing drugs from the start of hers career . Quote
But why take meldonium?
When she made the failed test public in March, Sharapova claimed that she was prescribed meldonium by her doctor in 2006 to deal with health issues such as an irregular heartbeat and a family history of diabetes. But the tribunal found emails to Sharapova from Dr Anatoly Skalny – who began treating her in 2004, when she was 17, and continued until 2012 – that advised upping her dosage before key matches. Skalny said: “During games of special importance you can increase your Mildronate [the trade name for meldonium] dose to 3-4 pills (1hr before the match).”
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jun/10/how-serious-was-tennis-player-maria-sharapova-doping
Dopapova is as Russian as a hot dog. Nothing about her doping changed that.Funny how Sharapova only became "Russian" once she was banned. Before then, everyone classed her as being American.
Dopapova is as Russian as a hot dog. Nothing about her doping changed that.
Sharapova is too naturally beautiful and slim to be American.Dopapova is as Russian as a hot dog. Nothing about her doping changed that.