Performance Enhancement is not necessarily Cheating

[gogo]

Poor Bartelby. Starting several different threads to distract from the fact that his beloved Maria broke the rules. (It's called cheating, I believe.)

Why so defensive?

 

[Chadillac]

Gonna need some pics if your not on topic

Is what im seeing

 

[Bartelby]

Sharapova did unintentionally break the rules in January, although the rule is based on a lie invented for political purposes - Meldonium is not a PED.

 

[Sentinel]

And the fact she may have taken it for a long time is irrelevant as are the reasons for it.

for you it may be irrelevant, but maybe not for the rest of us.

Sharapova in a strict sense only took a banned drug for less than a month.

Forget your "strictest sense". This is not a court of law. We are not interested in splitting hairs. Your idea of legal, allows people to get away with cheating just because the testers have not yet discovered a drug or a way of testing it.

You can say it was legal, but she cheated. Her intention was wrong. She did not have heart problems. Nor do those masses of children who were taking the drug. This is a systemic doping case. She can take advantage of the law, but in the eyes of lay people she will always be a cheater.

Dude why are you trying to convince us? You think we are the ITF board or something? Talk to guys upstairs if you really feel so strongly about this. I keep seeing these topics pop up time after time. What do you want us to do about it?

That's what I have been wondering a long time, too. Convincing us won't do a thing.

The fact is that the views expressed on this board prove the thesis that an athlete admitting that they took something to enhance performance will be seen by most as a cheat.

Well, she admitted to cheating, or to making a big mistake and letting down everyone. It's not everyday that one sees innocent people proclaiming their guilt. It's necessary to point this out since you liken her to Mother Teresa.

 

[Sentinel]

Something tells me our old Bart is just crying for attention, nothing more.

No intellect and bad taste in music! Do you have any redeeming features? Or is it 37k worth of verbiage?

Why not go back to randomly posting gifs of Michael Caine and other actors, Mr Good Taste.

 

[Bartelby]

Oddly enough, it's also '37k worth of verbiage' from you as well!

 

[Mr.Lob]

How many months until a decision on the appeal?

 

[Smasher08]

Why not go back to randomly posting gifs of Michael Caine and other actors, Mr Good Taste.

 

[Smasher08]

Something tells me our old Bart is just crying for attention, nothing more.

Actually he's clearly studied law, and regardless of whether or not he practices, he does stuff like this to stay sharp.

 

[Smasher08]

Poor Bartelby. Starting several different threads to distract from the fact that his beloved Maria broke the rules. (It's called cheating, I believe.)

Why so defensive?

He's the only one here who thinks like a lawyer.

 

[mandy01]

Give up, man. Just give up already.

 

[Sartorius]

 

[Bartelby]

 

[TheMusicLover]

Actually he's clearly studied law, and regardless of whether or not he practices, he does stuff like this to stay sharp.

A proper lawyer understands if there is in fact no case for the defence, and doesn't go on beating a dead horse eternally.

 

[Bartelby]

So lawyers ask money from a client and because they are 'proper lawyers' they offer no case for the defence!

The ITF lawyers wanted four years and she got two and now it goes to CAS where one year is the minimum so not bad given there is 'no case for the defence'.

 

[amorys90]

Sharapova's pre-2016 use of Meldonium to enhance performance was both perfectly legal and perfectly normal and what athletes do all of the time - enhance performance.

But as this article points out WADA is contributing to the 'demonisation' of performance enhancement and conflating it with cheating.

Sharapova's pre-2016 use of Meldonium formed in the tribunal's mind a pattern of 'regular use' which influenced their finding of fault, but this use was all perfectly legal and normal.

The high level of fault the Tribunal found in the Sharapova case might not survive appeal because it is a finding based on a pattern extending into the time when the drug was legal.

Sharapova in a strict sense only took a banned drug for less than a month.

And the fact she may have taken it for a long time is irrelevant as are the reasons for it.

Due to the demonisation of 'performance enhancement' athletes have become reluctant to admit that any of the substances they take is geared to this, whereas in fact as athletes all their actions are geared to it.


http://www.sportsintegrityinitiativ...rous-demonisation-of-performance-enhancement/


where we read the following:

Much of the tribunal’s ire is directed towards Sharapova’s ‘concealment’ of her meldonium use. Yet it made clear in setting out the contentious issues that it was to make findings of fact upon, that the question of whether Sharapova used meldonium to enhance her performance in competition was one of them.

The tribunal refers to Sharapova ‘regularly using’ meldonium in its summary. Throughout the full decision, ‘regular use’ is applied to Sharapova’s meldonium use from 2006 until 2016, the majority of which was pre-2016, so within the rules. To suggest that using a permissible performance enhancing drug is a violation of the rules is misleading.

“If the authorities wanted Mildronate to be banned [before 2016], it would have been,” observes Craig Pickering, a former Olympic sprinter who was part of the 4 × 100 m relay team which won the bronze medal at the 2007 World Championships. “There is nothing in the rules, as far as I am aware, to show that taking Mildronate prior to 2016 was not legal.”

“So, if the [tribunal’s] statement is in reference to the use of meldonium prior to 2016, then yes, I do believe the line is being blurred. It is precisely things like this that confuse the public, and even athletes, as to what is acceptable and what isn’t. It is imperative that rules are clear and unambiguous, which is not the case here at all.”

I agree with you. All athletes have certain aspects to their diet that help their performance. Diet is sopposed to help you. Eating your fruits and vegetables will improve your physical performance. Are we going to suspend people for eating those. All athletes, and even non athletes take legal vitamins and supplements, and before 2016, meldonium was a legal supplement, just as legal as Flintstones gummy vitamins. So Sharapova only cheated for one tournament, and it didn't make a difference against Serena anyways.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Bartelby]

According to the rules, she was a drug cheat for less than a month and someone who did not fully complete drug forms for several. The minimum sentence of one year is already harsh enough.

 

[TheMusicLover]

So lawyers ask money from a client and because they are 'proper lawyers' they offer no case for the defence!

The ITF lawyers wanted four years and she got two and now it goes to CAS where one year is the minimum so not bad given there is 'no case for the defence'.

No, a proper lawyer does not ask money from a client when there obviously is NO CASE. At the most, a low fee for the advice to suck-it-up, or - if one persists - go to some other 'lawyer' (aka a vulture) who will happily take up a totally nonsense claim, draw tons of money from said client, and leave him/her with nothing in the end.

I don't know how law practices work in your country, but in mine, it's regular practice to give the first 30 minutes of advice for free.

 

[Bartelby]

Thirty minutes for free - that's just a business practice useful in securing new business - so what's that got to do with Sharapova is beyond my comprehension!

She got two years when she could have got four, so that might be worth fifty million to her at least.

Not a bad outcome for someone with no case!

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

Is what im seeing

tough choice... option A is more sniffing-friendly but has 2x hems to deal with

 

[Deleted member 688153]

You think we are the ITF board or something?

Speak for yourself - I pretty much run tennis from this couch.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

 

[jm1980]

@Bartelby, what are you trying to do here? Everyone who doesn't live under rock already knows about this case and likely already has taken a side. Creating a trillion threads defending the doper is not going to change people's minds.

Specially when you come up with the most contrived explanations possible. I think the one where you claimed WADA "admitted" Meldonium is not a PED when they strongly suggested that it was one takes the cake

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Dude why are you trying to convince us? You think we are the ITF board or something? Talk to guys upstairs if you really feel so strongly about this. I keep seeing these topics pop up time after time. What do you want us to do about it?

He thinks a flood of pro-Sharapova propaganda will:

• Convince all to say she's innocent, when she is a guilty as one can imagine.
  
• He desires all to storm the gates of WADA, ITF, and other organizations...essentially a "revolution" to demand Sharpova's charges be dropped
• All organizations to dissolve and throw themselves in prison (but not before going on a global apology tour, begging to be forgiven by Sharapova)
• and for the trouble, grant her10 or more majors.
• Lift all PED punishments for every guilty-as-Hell Russian athlete, while the ITF pays Russian athletics programs an annual 100 million dollar "relation repair" fund.

That's the short list of what he wants you to set in motion.

 

[Bartelby]

“But I am for zero tolerance ... She of course has the right to defend herself, like anyone ... Whether it's intentional or not, I don't see too much difference."

Federer apparently sees no difference between being banned for only two years as opposed to four! I would have thought he could count.

 

[cknobman]

Maria Sharapova is a no good dirty lying cheat and deserves her ban plus more.

 

[Smasher08]

A proper lawyer understands if there is in fact no case for the defence

Perhaps a weak lawyer would fail to see options. A good lawyer would be too busy taking a sledgehammer to the prosecution's case.

 

[Smasher08]

“But I am for zero tolerance ... She of course has the right to defend herself, like anyone ... Whether it's intentional or not, I don't see too much difference."

Federer apparently sees no difference between being banned for only two years as opposed to four! I would have thought he could count.

Methinks he has his own agenda there: he just might believe he's had titles stolen from him by one or more cheats.

 

[Smasher08]

He thinks a flood of pro-Sharapova propaganda will:

• Convince all to say she's innocent, when she is a guilty as one can imagine.
  
• He desires all to storm the gates of WADA, ITF, and other organizations...essentially a "revolution" to demand Sharpova's charges be dropped
• All organizations to dissolve and throw themselves in prison (but not before going on a global apology tour, begging to be forgiven by Sharapova)
• and for the trouble, grant her10 or more majors.
• Lift all PED punishments for every guilty-as-Hell Russian athlete, while the ITF pays Russian athletics programs an annual 100 million dollar "relation repair" fund.

That's the short list of what he wants you to set in motion.

Not at all. He thinks like a lawyer.

He's already zeroed in on the weaknesses in the ITF's case and the Sharapova decision. Especially WADA's failure to meet its own three limb test for classifying something as a prohibited substance, and the free pass that the adjucators gave them.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Not at all. He thinks like a lawyer.

He's already zeroed in on the weaknesses in the ITF's case and the Sharapova decision. Especially WADA's failure to meet its own three limb test for classifying something as a prohibited substance, and the free pass that the adjucators gave them.

He is not a lawyer or his principal occupation is not as a lawyer.

 

[Smasher08]

Poor Bartelby. Starting several different threads to distract from the fact that his beloved Maria broke the rules. (It's called cheating, I believe.)

If merely breaking the rules is "cheating", then ipso facto Nadal "cheats" every time he takes longer than 20/25s between points.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

If merely breaking the rules is "cheating", then ipso facto Nadal "cheats" every time he takes longer than 20/25s between points.

Well, Nadal cheats.

I know, a shock.

 

[Backhanded Compliment]

Sharapova's pre-2016 use of Meldonium to enhance performance was both perfectly legal and perfectly normal and what athletes do all of the time - enhance performance.

But as this article points out WADA is contributing to the 'demonisation' of performance enhancement and conflating it with cheating.

Sharapova's pre-2016 use of Meldonium formed in the tribunal's mind a pattern of 'regular use' which influenced their finding of fault, but this use was all perfectly legal and normal.

The high level of fault the Tribunal found in the Sharapova case might not survive appeal because it is a finding based on a pattern extending into the time when the drug was legal.

Sharapova in a strict sense only took a banned drug for less than a month.

And the fact she may have taken it for a long time is irrelevant as are the reasons for it.

Due to the demonisation of 'performance enhancement' athletes have become reluctant to admit that any of the substances they take is geared to this, whereas in fact as athletes all their actions are geared to it.


http://www.sportsintegrityinitiativ...rous-demonisation-of-performance-enhancement/


where we read the following:

Much of the tribunal’s ire is directed towards Sharapova’s ‘concealment’ of her meldonium use. Yet it made clear in setting out the contentious issues that it was to make findings of fact upon, that the question of whether Sharapova used meldonium to enhance her performance in competition was one of them.

The tribunal refers to Sharapova ‘regularly using’ meldonium in its summary. Throughout the full decision, ‘regular use’ is applied to Sharapova’s meldonium use from 2006 until 2016, the majority of which was pre-2016, so within the rules. To suggest that using a permissible performance enhancing drug is a violation of the rules is misleading.

“If the authorities wanted Mildronate to be banned [before 2016], it would have been,” observes Craig Pickering, a former Olympic sprinter who was part of the 4 × 100 m relay team which won the bronze medal at the 2007 World Championships. “There is nothing in the rules, as far as I am aware, to show that taking Mildronate prior to 2016 was not legal.”

“So, if the [tribunal’s] statement is in reference to the use of meldonium prior to 2016, then yes, I do believe the line is being blurred. It is precisely things like this that confuse the public, and even athletes, as to what is acceptable and what isn’t. It is imperative that rules are clear and unambiguous, which is not the case here at all.”

Yup, Boris Becker used to drink a shot of espresso before wimbledon finals... is that banned now? Im pretty sure the Olympics dont allow it.

I drink esspresso before I play early on weekend mornings... because Id be a zombie without it...

 

[TheMusicLover]

Perhaps a weak lawyer would fail to see options. A good lawyer would be too busy taking a sledgehammer to the prosecution's case.

I guess it depends on what you regard as being a 'good' lawyer.

Sharapova, and their ilk, have TONS on cash to get whoever they want, not so much the 'weak lawyer-category who fail to see options'.
Unfotunately, it's quite different for the usual Tom, Dick and Harry out there on the streets, who might well do better with a sensible advice to just leave it be, and get on with their lives.


That said, Sharapova and her bunch are of course free to do as they like. How about hiring Bartelby? He appears to know a thing or two, or...

 

[Smasher08]

@Bartelby, what are you trying to do here? Everyone who doesn't live under rock already knows about this case and likely already has taken a side. Creating a trillion threads defending the doper is not going to change people's minds.

Specially when you come up with the most contrived explanations possible. I think the one where you claimed WADA "admitted" Meldonium is not a PED when they strongly suggested that it was one takes the cake

Actually his reasoning is spot-on. If WADA fails to prove a substance is not performance enhancing by cherry-picking one supportive study out of many inconclusive or unsupportive ones, then as far as WADA is concerned it is not performance enhancing.

Accordingly, anyone who believes that a substance which is not performance enhancing does improve their performance has met the definition of a placebo.

 

[Smasher08]

I guess it depends on what you regard as being a 'good' lawyer.

Sharapova, and their ilk, have TONS on cash to get whoever they want, not so much the 'weak lawyer-category who fail to see options'.
Unfotunately, it's quite different for the usual Tom, Dick and Harry out there on the streets, who might well do better with a sensible advice to just leave it be, and get on with their lives.


That said, Sharapova and her bunch are of course free to do as they like. How about hiring Bartelby? He appears to know a thing or two, or...

Are you suggesting that a "good" lawyer puts aside their duty to advocate for their client, adopts the role of the judge, and throws their case whenever you don't like it?

 

[Tennisanity]

Someone needs a temporary timeout.

 

[TheMusicLover]

Are you suggesting that a "good" lawyer puts aside their duty to advocate for their client, adopts the role of the judge, and throws their case whenever you don't like it?

It depends on whatever case, and whatever possibilities, including financially.
Don't put words in my mouth.

I've been on the bar for about 20 years by now, I damn well know what I'm talking about. At least, in a civilized country.

 

[Smasher08]

It depends on whatever case, and whatever possibilities, including financially.
Don't put words in my mouth.

I've been on the bar for about 20 years by now, I damn well know what I'm talking about. At least, in a civilized country.

Then don't be so thin-skinned: your views on Sharapova are clearly very emotional. And your views regarding the merits are rather curious, but I'll leave it at that.

Imo anyone who cares about the integrity of law (and administrative law) should be marvelling at the free passes that the ITF and WADA got away with in this affair.

For the avoidance of any doubt, no one is suggesting that Sharapova is without fault. But it's not like she was taking EPO, HGH, or steroids.

 

[Luka888]

Yes, IMO, your suggestion may be true to some extent. I'm not sure it's all on WADA though.

This issue of taking legal PEDs was discussed elsewhere in the context of Murray's comments, paraphrasing, about it being wrong to take a substance you know you don't need medically or something along those lines. Posters had various opinions.

As far as what people think generally, you can't go by a board of tennis nuts. You'd have to poll the general public or whatever group you are concerned with. However, I did not find your suggestion unreasonable.

I'd ask if you bought her story about why she didn't disclose but you can't tell me if you didn't so I won't put you on the spot. I don't want to have any part in sending someone to The Gulag.

AND DO NOT ATTACK THE GOAT.

If they ever went near The GOAT I would demand the heads of the heads of WADA.

What? He didn't mention Djokovic at all ... are you nuts?

 

[Bartelby]

Then why is it you don't realise that we are not dealing with the court system when we're looking of an ITF hearing?

It depends on whatever case, and whatever possibilities, including financially.
Don't put words in my mouth.

I've been on the bar for about 20 years by now, I damn well know what I'm talking about. At least, in a civilized country.

 

[Bartelby]

WADA basically sets the rules and at the moment caffeine is legal, but caffeine pills will probably be targeted next year.

Yup, Boris Becker used to drink a shot of espresso before wimbledon finals... is that banned now? Im pretty sure the Olympics dont allow it.

I drink esspresso before I play early on weekend mornings... because Id be a zombie without it...

 

[70後]

I look at it this way; guys like the OP are needed if only to keep things on a slightly even keel. Somebody has to argue for Maria. Or else everybody will be just endlessly ripping Maria and high fiving each other. And you will get posters calling for her imprisonment, life imprisonment! Hard Labour! Etc.

Like everybody else, Pova deserves fair treatment, even though I do not consider her a fair player anymore.

 

[jm1980]

I look at it this way; guys like the OP are needed if only to keep things on a slightly even keel. Somebody's has to play the devil's advocate, even Maria's advocate. Or else everybody will be just endlessly ripping Maria and high fiving each other. And you will get posters calling for her imprisonment, life imprisonment! Hard Labour! Etc.

Like everybody else, Pova deserves fair treatment, even though I do not consider her a fair player anymore.

We don't have dozens of threads attacking Sharapova, but this guy pollutes this forum posting a new thread every other day defending her with the same rehashed arguments

This is worse than the endless weak era threads certain members keep creating

 

[jm1980]

If merely breaking the rules is "cheating", then ipso facto Nadal "cheats" every time he takes longer than 20/25s between points.

You don't see anything wrong with taking an illegal drug with potential performance enhancing properties without medical supervision?

 

[nolefam_2024]

Dude why are you trying to convince us? You think we are the ITF board or something? Talk to guys upstairs if you really feel so strongly about this. I keep seeing these topics pop up time after time. What do you want us to do about it?

lol. Agreed.

 

[jm1980]

Not at all. He thinks like a lawyer.

He's already zeroed in on the weaknesses in the ITF's case and the Sharapova decision. Especially WADA's failure to meet its own three limb test for classifying something as a prohibited substance, and the free pass that the adjucators gave them.

A substance or method shall be considered for inclusion on the Prohibited list if Wada, in its sole discretion, determines that the substance or method meets any two of the following three criteria:

4.3.1.1 Medical or other scientific evidence, pharmacological effect or experience that the substance or method, alone or in combination with other substances or methods, has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance;

4.3.1.2 Medical or other scientific evidence, pharmacological effect or experience that the use of the substance or method represents an actual or potential health risk to the athlete;

4.3.1.3 Wada’s determination that the use of the substance or method violates the spirit of sport described in the introduction to the Code.

 

[JSZ]

Meldonium is not a PED

Ha ha, be careful, the Latvian manufacturers might sue you.

 

[Bartelby]

'in its sole discretion' - in other words, WADA could ban Oreos if they wanted to!

'has the potential' - yes, and now they think a cup of coffee has potential!

Everyone knows the immense and arbitrary power that WADA exerts, but some place that under scrutiny.

You obviously don't so you might as well stop posting here because you have no critical faculties.

And I'm not in the business of remaining at a legal level.

It's a public policy issue with great significance at many levels.

A substance or method shall be considered for inclusion on the Prohibited list if Wada, in its sole discretion, determines that the substance or method meets any two of the following three criteria:

4.3.1.1 Medical or other scientific evidence, pharmacological effect or experience that the substance or method, alone or in combination with other substances or methods, has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance;

4.3.1.2 Medical or other scientific evidence, pharmacological effect or experience that the use of the substance or method represents an actual or potential health risk to the athlete;

4.3.1.3 Wada’s determination that the use of the substance or method violates the spirit of sport described in the introduction to the Code.

 

[Backhanded Compliment]

Sharapova's pre-2016 use of Meldonium to enhance performance was both perfectly legal and perfectly normal and what athletes do all of the time - enhance performance.

But as this article points out WADA is contributing to the 'demonisation' of performance enhancement and conflating it with cheating.

Sharapova's pre-2016 use of Meldonium formed in the tribunal's mind a pattern of 'regular use' which influenced their finding of fault, but this use was all perfectly legal and normal.

The high level of fault the Tribunal found in the Sharapova case might not survive appeal because it is a finding based on a pattern extending into the time when the drug was legal.

Sharapova in a strict sense only took a banned drug for less than a month.

And the fact she may have taken it for a long time is irrelevant as are the reasons for it.

Due to the demonisation of 'performance enhancement' athletes have become reluctant to admit that any of the substances they take is geared to this, whereas in fact as athletes all their actions are geared to it.


http://www.sportsintegrityinitiativ...rous-demonisation-of-performance-enhancement/


where we read the following:

Much of the tribunal’s ire is directed towards Sharapova’s ‘concealment’ of her meldonium use. Yet it made clear in setting out the contentious issues that it was to make findings of fact upon, that the question of whether Sharapova used meldonium to enhance her performance in competition was one of them.

The tribunal refers to Sharapova ‘regularly using’ meldonium in its summary. Throughout the full decision, ‘regular use’ is applied to Sharapova’s meldonium use from 2006 until 2016, the majority of which was pre-2016, so within the rules. To suggest that using a permissible performance enhancing drug is a violation of the rules is misleading.

“If the authorities wanted Mildronate to be banned [before 2016], it would have been,” observes Craig Pickering, a former Olympic sprinter who was part of the 4 × 100 m relay team which won the bronze medal at the 2007 World Championships. “There is nothing in the rules, as far as I am aware, to show that taking Mildronate prior to 2016 was not legal.”

“So, if the [tribunal’s] statement is in reference to the use of meldonium prior to 2016, then yes, I do believe the line is being blurred. It is precisely things like this that confuse the public, and even athletes, as to what is acceptable and what isn’t. It is imperative that rules are clear and unambiguous, which is not the case here at all.”

Yup, Boris Becker used to drink a shot of espresso before wimbledon finals... is that banned now? Im pretty sure the Olympics dont allow it.

WADA basically sets the rules and at the moment caffeine is legal, but caffeine pills will probably be targeted next year.

yay im not cheating!