Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by marc45, Nov 14, 2013.
For national/rasist comments.
Maybe Novak was mad that now he might not win Davis Cup this year.
ikr Mainad is such a rasist! Gosh be more clear; I thought you were accusing him of racism. Okay seriously, what did he say that was racist?
Very true. However, giving blood samples on schedule really isn't much of an objectionable part of the system.
Geez, talk about being overly sensitive. There was nothing racist in that post. He did discuss Countries, but I don't see a problem with that.
The moment you say something like "all the Serbians involved", or "just because they are Serbian", you are prejudicing the people on nationality basis.
They are both Serbian, so it is logical to bring up the Country to add context and show the reason that Djokovic's view may be a bit biased in this case. It is reasonable to question whether or not Djokovic would defend the player if they were not from his same country. I think that if he found out Nadal had been requesting to postpone blood tests, he would not be happy.
That is not a fact. His illness is a claim made by Troicki.
He was asked whether he saw a doctor after his refusal to be tested and he said no as all he needed was to rest.
So Troicki had no objectively verified illness.
The most one can say is that he felt ill and wanted the test postponed.
He was told this was not possible and chose to believe otherwise.
These are the facts as ascertained by a tribunal.
The NSA is a problem for seven billion people. WADA for sveral hundred thousand. And the latter make a lot of money for being inconvenienced.
The doctor was the key witness, but not the only one to testify and you can go to jail for life in america for shoplifting so one witness can get you into jail if it's a reliable one.
A doctor is ethically bound not to perform any kind of procedure on someone who refuses it.
The moral of the story: Don't be stupid enough to let other people's mistakes ruin your future. And when in doubt, err on the side of caution.
ITF President Francesco Ricci Bitti said rules had to be applied strictly "to keep our sport clean."
"What is harder to accept is criticism of doping control officers who perform a difficult role," Ricci Bitti said in a statement.
I would have thought the moral was 'don't blame others for your own wilful mistakes'.
My point was that even if you were to side with Troicki and believe his side of the story, it is stupid to not follow the rules exactly and trust somebody else. Always err on the side of caution.
Yes, I understand your point better now but Troicki is still trying to argue that he followed the doctor's interpretation of the rules exactly and that she got it wrong.
I was given advice, early in my career, which was that while your mentors may be experts in the field and should know more than you, you face the consequences of your own decisions. It struck a chord, and I think it is something everyone should follow.
Whether it's your boss, your teacher, doctor, or even legal advisor, don't absolve yourself of responsibility. If you fail an exam, your teacher might be disappointed for you, and they might get a black mark on their record if it happens to too many pupils in the same class, but at the end of the day, you are the one who has to go through life without a pass in that subject.
If you are a tennis player, it is tempting to think there is something noble about concentrating on tennis, and not bothering with the boring, legal stuff. However, that's just immature, and shows a lack of respect for your sport as a profession. There is loads of money in tennis, and players are happy enough to take the cash that comes with a big money sport, so they need to accept some of the responsibility too.
The rules weren't secret. There was no excuse for not knowing that the test should be taken when asked. Even if the doctor came in and suggested postponing the test, he should have known to refuse.
Standard practice around here, tbh.
Great post and so true. At the end, you will ultimately be responsible for the choices that you made, and no one else.
I cannot believe that this is the first time that Troicki has been asked to give a blood sample after a match. Allegedly he is scared of needles but has he ever behaved with such reluctance to take a test before?
In any case, it is vital that in-competition tests are carried out as soon as possible after competition. The drugs that are likely to be of greatest benefit to an athlete in competition are stimulants and blood boosters. The body can remove all trace of some stimulants during a good night's sleep.
Testing the following day is utterly pointless. The Doctor would have known this and I find it very difficult to believe that Troicki was advised to "get well soon and come back when you are feeling better".
Seriously, even if you are feeling sick, how difficult is it to lie down on a bed while someone takes a blood sample? Millions of people do it in hospitals every day and I daresay, many of them are scared of needles.
I have zero sympathy for him.
Excellent post, we need to take responsibility for ourselves. Ultimately, he should have known that the test cannot be postponed for any reason and he should not have even asked for it to be.
because he knows he and another could be next
Three strike laws I guess.
Yeah, you got it!
There have been people with life sentences for stealing a bycicle and smaller offenses. I think the judge has some discretion on sentencing.
Me, I think it's a ridiculous concept that's not only inhuman but very expensive to the tax payers.
How about buying an small archipelago somewhere and relocate these offenders instead? Let them steal a bycicle from the locals.
Pros work really hard at hitting the ball great and consistently.
Not at being PED-scientists, astrophysicists, or historians.
It's not just ridiculous, it's outrageous and a complete insult to justice. Between that and those other laws where you're guilty too of whatever your accomplice does (what are those called?) and the state of prisons there...
Oh yeah, and the blackmail that are plea bargains too.
Three strikes applies to felonies. Shoplifting is a misdemeanor.
I've not heard of anyone getting a legitimate life sentence for shoplifting in the USA. It may have happened way in the past sometime.
It doesn't matter if Troicki is the cleanest athlete ever to play any sport, he is responsible for upholding his own drug testing obligations.
It defies belief how many people are defending him here saying the doctor said he could take the test the following day. Troicki knew, or ought to have known as part of his obligations, that the testing doctor - who is only a technician administering the collection - can't alter the rules or make allowances such as a 24 hour delays for him or anyone else for that matter (in theory).
These player have access to and are told about their obligation with regards to drug tests - if Troicki chose not to be informed or plain forgot how the system works - then he should lump a lot of the blame for what happened on his own door step.
The drug testing system is not a *natural justice* process like a court as some people seem hell bent on viewing this situation as, it is an *agreement by participation* system: If you chose to play on the tennis tour you automatically acknowledge that you accept the rules as they are and that you accept the responsibility is 100% yours to be aware of every single rule, clause and situation with regards to the drug rules. Most people of course wont know the minutiae of every rule but the notion of an expectation to submit to a test when a tester shows up will be one of the very most obvious ones.
Troicki's defence is, in effect, saying he was too stupid to read (or forgot about) the obligations he has already automatically agreed to by participating in a tour event. That sort of line of defence cannot be accepted for a myriad of reasons, the primary one being it is one of the most obvious tactics you would pull if you were taking banned substances. Again, to be clear, the person administering the collection is not the rule-maker, they won't even conduct the testing nor have any power to change the rules the players are expected to follow.
Is it unfair for Troicki? Yes. Does the punishment seem harsh given he wasn't actually caught using anything? Yes. Does he deserve a get out of jail card? Probably not. He knew and playing the goat now only appeals to people who think of it in terms of normal legal situations which, basically, don't apply to drug testing in sports.
We often disagree, but you are spot on. Any random testing system that contains the option to 'come back tomorrow' is no longer a random testing system.
'At about 12.40pm on 2 January 1996, Timothy Jackson took a jacket from the Maison Blanche department store in New Orleans, draped it over his arm, and walked out of the store without paying for it. When he was accosted by a security guard, Jackson said: “I just needed another jacket, man.”
A few months later Jackson was convicted of shoplifting and sent to Angola prison in Louisiana. That was 16 years ago. Today he is still incarcerated in Angola, and will stay there for the rest of his natural life having been condemned to die in jail. All for the theft of a jacket, worth $159.
Jackson, 53, is one of 3,281 prisoners in America serving life sentences with no chance of parole for non-violent crimes. Some, like him, were given the most extreme punishment short of execution for shoplifting; one was condemned to die in prison for siphoning petrol from a truck; another for stealing tools from a tool shed; yet another for attempting to cash a stolen cheque.'
'According to statistics from the California Department of Corrections, thousands of individuals are serving life sentences under California's three strikes law for nonviolent third strikes—in fact, 360 individuals in California are serving life sentences for shoplifting small amounts of merchandise. California is one of twenty-six states nationally with a three strikes law, but California's is the harshest in that the third strike need not be a serious or violent felony-any felony, even shoplifting, can be the basis for a life sentence.'
"I`m not going to call him because I know more than he thinks that I know."
What a less than subtle analogy, Bartelby. Whilst I assume you're defending Nole and Victor (I might be wrong), the analogy works the other way. Now laws can be unfair, that's undoubtedly true and it's up to the bureaucracy or influential lobbyists like Fed or other top players to fix. I've read some articles about the case now and it does certainly seem unfair and it's quite clear that the doctor was negligent and ignorant and you could definitely argue that Victor was unfairly treated in that way. But just as in your example, the rules might be unfair, but it's up to you as a player or a citizen to understand them and abide by them; you can't complain if you don't. Now Nole if he was so upset about this case should go up to WADA and try to change the rules in some way so that something like this doesn't happen, not whinge about it and pronounce that Victor is innocent (which he might well be) just because they are friends.
I only introduced the life imprisonment issue because someone naively argued that Troicki could not possibly be suspended simply on the basis of one witness, which is patently ridiculous.
If you can go to jail for life on the basis of one witness to your act of shoplifting you can certainly get suspended from competition.
My view is that the doctor acted perfectly properly and that Troicki simply tried to talk his way out of a test.
That's what the tribunal found and the penalty was harsh because if people who are drugged they will simply refuse a test if they know the penalty will be trivial.
Troicki is not innocent of the charge of avoiding a drug test.
Whoops, sorry bout that. I thought you were defending what he did/WADA's response
I distictly remember a 60 Minutes segment where some cases like that were shown. They may have gotten it wrong. Perhaps repeated shoflifting is a felony in some jurisdictions?
Ah, so that's why. Thank you for the info.
I don't know who passes those laws. But it's just unbelievable. Funny that keeping a prisoner in jail in California costs over $100 a day. How does that even make any sense?
If you own or run a private prison harsh laws give you more clients and bigger profits.
Right. Just as if you own a corporation, you want the U.S. to sell its soul and deal with a Communist dictatorial regime spitting on the face of American ideals, just to get cheap slave labor. It's all a joke really.
It's absolutely outrageous. And the US Supreme Court is a joke to uphold laws like that.
The 3 strikes rules have slowly changed over the years. I think judges have more flexibility now.
Well articulated comment on the issue. I would only push back a little bit: We don't really know what the rules, customs, or nuances are in this type of relationship. Many players have expressed frustration, confusion, and disappointment with the system. So we don't really know what it is like to deal with these different levels of scrutiny: reporting your locations, becoming ill, unexpected travels, etc ...
Troicki screwed up, but it definitely appears like there was a breakdown in the system's intended functionality.
Djoker is just ****ed because he lost the Davis Cup because Troicki could not play.
We will miss Troicki
There was a case when some agency kept sending letters to a WTA pro's home address and then tried to harass her for not complying. It turned out she was traveling and playing during the entire period and there was no one at home. But do you think an agency will take accountability for not contacting her by email or phone? No. They will just say that they followed their rules and the player is guilty. That is how bureaucracy works. They will not dare to do it to a Serena or Sharapova though. So it is stupid to think that some quasi-government body can make whatever rules they want and those who don't follow it to the letter are "guilty." "Rules" are often just a synonym for authoritarianism.
The policy issues you're describing are not necessarily related to a bureaucracy. A bureaucracy is just an organizational system. The same or worse issues could easily present in another type of organization.
I think by definition a rule, or law, is an authority, but; a well written and enforced policy will have an appeal process, checks, and balances to avoid the authoritarian type of system you're alluding to.
Who is that?
Separate names with a comma.