pova just posted some new info

  • Thread starter Deleted member 3771
  • Start date

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
..then are they seriously saying there wasn't a member of her huge team who couldn't keep on top of this information for her?.

Implicitly yes (because I don't think she said a word about her team).

Doesn't pass the laugh test for you ?
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
Sharapova should know that ignorance of the law is no excuse.

No one is aware of everything that is illegal but that is NOT a defense if you break the law.

Genius, that isn't part of the actual defense. She has already admitted she used a banned drug and is not using her failure to click on an email as an excuse. The case is only about whether or not she had a medical reason to use the banned drug and can prove it.
 

Chicharito

Hall of Fame
Or maybe she is talking about Marin Cilic, the guy we all know did have a 'silent' provisional ban, while his case was being heard. The ITF's rules allow this.

The Croatian media found out of course, so it became public before he was properly banned.



Sharapova taking a shot at Nadal? And maybe even Federer?
Wow....since she hinted that silent bans are real, I wonder who she is referring to?
I won’t pretend to be injured so I can hide the truth about my testing.

OMG, OMG. What is going on? What is she hinting at?
"I won’t pretend to be injured so I can hide the truth about my testing."

Wow, doesn't this imply there are players who would pretend to be injured to hide positive tests? Then again Pova did annouce her injury first then his test result.
 

clayqueen

Talk Tennis Guru
I make no excuses for not knowing about the ban. I already told you about the December 22, 2015 email I received. Its subject line was “Main Changes to the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme for 2016.” I should have paid more attention to it.
But the other “communications”? They were buried in newsletters, websites, or handouts.

Genius, that isn't part of the actual defense. She has already admitted she used a banned drug and is not using her failure to click on an email as an excuse. The case is only about whether or not she had a medical reason to use the banned drug and can prove it.
She says communications were buried in newsletters etc. and she did not pay enough attention to the "Main Changes to the doping programme for 2016. To me that's her defence.
 

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
The case is only about whether or not she had a medical reason to use the banned drug and can prove it.

Pretty please have her lawyer open with that line on the appeal. I'd probably laugh out loud if I were on the panel.

Best case it's a "mitigating factor" but I appreciate framing the case in that manner. I tip my hat to you, sir.
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
She says the main changes were buried in "communications" and she did not pay enough attention to them.

But she then goes onto say she makes no excuses for not knowing about the ban. That is not part of her actual defense in this case. It's only about whether or not she can prove she used the banned drug for other health issues.
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
Pretty please have her lawyer open with that line on the appeal. I'd probably laugh out loud if I were on the panel.

I don't understand. That is the only thing that is open for question in her case, i.e. whether or not she can prove that she used the banned drug for other health issues and show mitigating circumstances. Otherwise it's a strict liability case. She's guilty of using the banned substance and of not being aware of it's banned status. She's already admitted that.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Her letter is about disputing newspaper reports and not a defence at a hearing, but it is an issue that could come back in the appeal if not the hearing.

The idea of five communications comes indirectly from WADA, so they also recognise that the question of proper notification is important.

If the case ever reached a proper court that would certainly be an issue, so she's right to make it.
 

clayqueen

Talk Tennis Guru
But she then goes onto say she makes no excuses for not knowing about the ban. That is not part of her actual defense in this case. It's only about whether or not she can prove she used the banned drug for other health issues.
The drug is for treating a heart condition and no one with a known heart condition would play competitive sport at her level for so long.
 
D

Deleted member 3771

Guest
She says communications were buried in newsletters etc. and she did not pay enough attention to the "Main Changes to the doping programme for 2016. To me that's her defence.

the classic 'the dog ate my homework defense" :D
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Proper notification is essential. It's so important that WADA is leaking the story of the five communications to the newspapers. Sharapova's lawyers were correct to put her side.
 
D

Deleted member 3771

Guest
The drug is for treating a heart condition and no one with a known heart condition would play competitive sport at her level for so long.


So far in her press conference she only said she had an irregular ekg, and low magnesium etc 10 years ago and that the med has kept those conditions under control. I don't know if that means she can take that drug forever to keep that condition under control based on an irregular ekg from 10 years ago.

I would expect that her detailed medical records show regular/yearly irregular ekg's, signs of diabetes, and low magnesium levels etc which would demonstrate her need to continue taking this med throughout the last 10 years.
 

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
I don't understand. That is the only thing that is open for question in her case, i.e. whether or not she can prove that she used the banned drug for other health issues and show mitigating circumstances. Otherwise it's a strict liability case. She's guilty of using the banned substance and of not being aware of it's banned status. She's already admitted that.

Not being aware of the banned status of a substance is not an infraction. Taking a banned substance is and it's strict liability.

As I understand it (I'm very casually reading the rules as I go) if she can get a TUE after the fact, it's a complete defense. No suspension. Because it's permission to use a banned substance. I'm uncertain whether her knowledge of the list is an issue in issuing a retroactive TUE but it may in fact be.

If she can't get a TUE I think she can still argue for a lower penalty if she can convince WADA she took it innocently but that raises the issue of what she knew.

If she is going to argue she took it because it was medically necessary it raises the issue of why she didn't request a TUE, which is what you are supposed to do. I assume the answer is because it was legal in 2015 and she didn't know it was placed on the banned list for 2016, again, raising the issue of what she knew.

I don't see how they don't address the issue of what she knew for some of these mitigating circumstances arguments and possibly the TUE as well if they go for that. I think her lawyer was quoted as saying there were quite a few mitigating circumstance so we'll have to see what else she has.
 
Last edited:

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
I wonder if the other 20% of Russian athletes that have this stuff in their systems also have detailed medical records proving they needed it? Lots of heart problems in Russia, even among the healthiest.

Yes...curious that so many Russian athletes all need the same drug for a condition one might guess would prevent anyone from pursuing careers that bring regular stress to the heart.
 

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
The idea of five communications comes indirectly from WADA, so they also recognise that the question of proper notification is important. If the case ever reached a proper court that would certainly be an issue, so she's right to make it.

It's an interesting point but I see it as more of the PR game. It's certainly not part of the WADA rules (quite the contrary) and unless you can find any case from a "proper court" to support the proposition that irrespective of the plain language of WADA rules some "proper notification" is required I'd bet it will have zero impact on the case.

If it did the precedent would require completely redoing the process and who has the burden of how athletes are informed which, frankly, a "proper court" isn't likely to meddle into.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
The reality is that tribunals tend to fold rather than allow for their failures to be tested in open court, but it actually depends on how far the paintiff wants to take it.

I don't think this involves WADA as the actual process goes through the ITF and the CAS, although WADA's banning of the drug could become an issue especially if the manufacturer acts in a court of law.

But there is also a PR war already so this case could be a watershed.
 
Last edited:

mistik

Hall of Fame
She clearly mentions Fed. After all for most of the general public Rafa even out of form still playing tournaments unlike Fed. Only die hard fans remember Rafas 7 month break couple of years ago.
 

Krish872007

Talk Tennis Guru
She clearly mentions Fed. After all for most of the general public Rafa even out of form still playing tournaments unlike Fed. Only die hard fans remember Rafas 7 month break couple of years ago.

She has not mentioned or referenced anyone in particular. She may have implied something, that is all. People are free to draw their own conclusions and exaggerate stories to fit their agendas, as usual (which is what several posters are doing).
 

vive le beau jeu !

Talk Tennis Guru
Bull down. I repeat, bull down.
... back to base !
hoover_cat_2.gif

This isnt going to end well for waFa.
(typo corrected) ;)
What I don't get is why don't they make the latest updated list of banned substances available on a website accessible to all ? They can just say that it is updated monthly/quarterly and it is the job of the players to keep themselves informed by checking that website. Why send email with buried links and then require a login/pwd to access that information ? What is so confidential about it ?
you'd think it would be in everybody's interest (minus the lawyers ?) :p to make it as straightforward as possible... o_O
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
She mentions no one and silent bans do not exist. What exists is confidential provisional suspensions pending a hearing. If you lose your name is published.

She clearly mentions Fed. After all for most of the general public Rafa even out of form still playing tournaments unlike Fed. Only die hard fans remember Rafas 7 month break couple of years ago.
 

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
The reality is that tribunals tend to fold rather than allow for their failures to be tested in open court, but it actually depends on how far the paintiff wants to take it. I don't think this involves WADA as the actual process goes through the ITF and the CAS, although WADA's banning of the drug could become an issue especially if the manufacturer acts in a court of law.But there is also a PR war already so this case could be a watershed.

My recollection from way back during the VT "I don't do needles" case is the ITF administers the tribunal in compliance with WADA rules and if you don't like the result you can appeal to CAS. And that's it. Players accept CAS as the only course for and final appeal as a result of their agreement to be part of the ATP Tour.

I do not understand the ins and outs of the jurisdictional issues but I guess you are suggesting the drug manufacturer can challenge WADA's list in court ? And if it prevails then Maria is off the hook. Have any drugs on the list ever been successfully challenged in this manner ? Would it really help Maria if the case drags out ? I would guess knowing nothing more then what we know from the press so far is her lawyers will try to either get a TUE (and fail) and/or just try to settle for something along the lines of Cilic post-appeal length ban which would be a victory because they have her dead to rights. :p
 
Last edited:

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
That's basically right, but how many players have had the money in the bank to think outside these parameters? There are other parties that could involve themselves.

The drug manufacturer and Russian authorities spring to mind. The case could raise novelties. It has a huge political subtext as WADA has banned Russian athletics.

When exactly was the last time that the Foreign Minister of a great power made a tennis player a political issue?

Whether it does is another matter.
 
Last edited:

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
That's basically right, but how many players have had the money in the bank to think outside these parameters? There are other parties that could involve themselves.

The drug manufacturer and Russian authorities spring to mind. The case could raise novelties. It has a huge political subtext as WADA has banned Russian athletics.

Whether it does is another matter.

I certainly heard you from other posts on the political angle. I just don't have any opinion on it because I don't have knowledge of the players or issues.

But I do feel in this case, it's a waste of time and potentially harmful to settling on terms she could live with and the better strategy is to try for a settlement she can live with.

As I said in another post, to challenge the system I think the time to do it (in concert with others) is before you test positive and are wrapped up in a case yourself. And while in theory every case should stand or fall on its own merits she unfortunately for her has been busted at a time when people are focused on tennis and perceived problems with drug testing in tennis (and betting for that matter). She's a big fish and a lot of people will watch how it plays when it's a big fish.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
You can only challenge something legally if you have standing, which of course she now has. I can't see Sharapova doing anything political ever. But other actors may.

The more noise that happens around the case, the better her settlement will be. A retrospective medical exemption has been one speculation.

It could certainly make the issue go away for her and for the authorities, but the hearing transcripts are made public and will be great reading.
 

clayqueen

Talk Tennis Guru
Her letter is about disputing newspaper reports and not a defence at a hearing, but it is an issue that could come back in the appeal if not the hearing.

The idea of five communications comes indirectly from WADA, so they also recognise that the question of proper notification is important.

If the case ever reached a proper court that would certainly be an issue, so she's right to make it.
So far in her press conference she only said she had an irregular ekg, and low magnesium etc 10 years ago and that the med has kept those conditions under control. I don't know if that means she can take that drug forever to keep that condition under control based on an irregular ekg from 10 years ago.

I would expect that her detailed medical records show regular/yearly irregular ekg's, signs of diabetes, and low magnesium levels etc which would demonstrate her need to continue taking this med throughout the last 10 years.

Maria taking this drug for almost her entire career for dubious medical reasons and many other athletes taking it as PED is more than just a coincidence. As a resident in the USA where this drug is banned, any right thinking sports pro would give it a wide berth and seek alternatives for her condition.
 
D

Deleted member 3771

Guest
Maria taking this drug for almost her entire career for dubious medical reasons and many other athletes taking it as PED is more than just a coincidence. As a resident in the USA where this drug is banned, any right thinking sports pro would give it a wide berth and seek alternatives for her condition.

She has said a few dubious things. Who will believe her claim that after 10 years of use, she didn't even know that her drug also had the name meldonium.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
The drug is not banned in America. It's just that the manufacturer never saw the need to have it approved for sale there. So it's not approved for use.

Maria taking this drug for almost her entire career for dubious medical reasons and many other athletes taking it as PED is more than just a coincidence. As a resident in the USA where this drug is banned, any right thinking sports pro would give it a wide berth and seek alternatives for her condition.
 

Bender

G.O.A.T.
Wow....since she hinted that silent bans are real, I wonder who she is referring to?
Wow....since she hinted that silent bans are real, I wonder who she is referring to?
Yeah, no, she's most likely referring to the fact that she pulled out of Indian Wells citing injury. Basically she's saying she's genuinely injured and was not using that as an excuse to try hide her ban. Please, your tin foil hats.
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
Pretty please have her lawyer open with that line on the appeal. I'd probably laugh out loud if I were on the panel.

Best case it's a "mitigating factor" but I appreciate framing the case in that manner. I tip my hat to you, sir.
Especially since there are other drugs, not on the list, to treat her heart issue. And the 'diabetes runs in the family' is silly. So monitor your sugar intake and readings - no mess required.

When this 1st broke I really wanted to believe her. But the fact that other Eastern Europeans in other sports had this in their tests is just too coincidental. A exNFL player said players are always looking for drugs that have legit uses but also improve performance. They use it as long as they can - until it gets banned.

The one thing I wonder: since this started as a teen was dear old dad, Yuri, remember him, really behind it?
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
PS - having said what I did and now believing Sharapova knew this drug improved endurance and that's why she's been using it:

WADA and the sports authorities should make the future announcements very straightforward- no links in emails that lead to sites one has to log into, then navigate to another location: just an email with a clear Subject (i.e. 'Important Information : new banned drugs as of dd/mm/yy'). Not every player has a team and a full time lawyer to review things. And send the complete list to new players once they make a certain ranking or first appear in a tour level/major event.
 

Mr.Lob

G.O.A.T.
I would expect that her detailed medical records show regular/yearly irregular ekg's, signs of diabetes, and low magnesium levels etc which would demonstrate her need to continue taking this med throughout the last 10 years.

Yes. But it will obviously be a BIG problem if Sharapova does not have yearly records of those flow up ekgs and magnesium levels. Seems this would be fairly important. And its something she has not mentioned in her press conference or letter to her fans.
 

gogo

Legend
PR battle! For the hearts and soul of the public and tennis fans. The saga continues...

Yup.

This case and Maria's approach, had me thinking back to other PR crises. Such as:

"
‘Be the first one to tell the story’: A look at the PR powerhouse that has reportedly come to Jian Ghomeshi’s aid
...Then again, the firm that Mr. Ghomeshi has reportedly hired to guide him through his public relations crisis is known to move quickly, urging clients to get ahead of a bad news story and set a useful narrative before potential adversaries can present their own versions of a story.

<snip>

....Mr. Ghomeshi sought to avoid more harm to his reputation by coming out forcefully with his 1,500-word Facebook statement on Sunday,...."


--
I have found her comments generally disingenuous and self-serving. That's not to say that she doesn't have a right to defend her reputation, but this is far from classy and wreaks of desperation.

I am not buying her story. She has a large team around her. She isn't the one that has to "click through documents" (horror of horrors!) and, regardless of that she received other communications specific to the topic. There is absolutely no excuse for her not to have known the the drug was added to the banned list. She was caught. If she wasn't such a big name it would be the end of the story. Her recent FB post creates an enemy for her fans to get behind...the big bad media who are distorting the story. Regardless of the excuses she (her PR firm) makes in FB post, the crux of the story remains.
 

clayqueen

Talk Tennis Guru
Her letter is about disputing newspaper reports and not a defence at a hearing, but it is an issue that could come back in the appeal if not the hearing.

The idea of five communications comes indirectly from WADA, so they also recognise that the question of proper notification is important.

If the case ever reached a proper court that would certainly be an issue, so she's right to make it.
How much more proper should the information be?

World Anti-Doping Agency
16 September 2015

2016 Prohibited List Summary of Major Modifications and Explanatory Notes
SUBSTANCES AND METHODS PROHIBITED AT ALL TIMES (IN- AND OUT-OF COMPETITION)

PROHIBITED SUBSTANCES

S2: Peptide hormones, Growth Factors, Related Substances and Mimetics  Leuprorelin replaced triptorelin as a more universal example of a chorionic gonadotrophin and luteinizing hormone-releasing factor.

S4. Hormone and Metabolic Modulators  Insulin-mimetics were added to the List to include all insulin-receptor agonists.  Meldonium (Mildronate) was added because of evidence of its use by athletes with the intention of enhancing performance.

S5. Diuretics and Masking Agents  It was clarified that the ophthalmic use of carbonic anhydrase inhibitors is permitted. SUBSTANCES AND METHODS PROHIBITED IN-COMPETITION

S6. Stimulants:  It was clarified that clonidine is permitted.

SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED IN PARTICULAR SPORTS

P1: Alcohol:  After consideration of the Federation International de Motocyclisme (FIM)’s request, their Federation was removed from the list of sports prohibiting alcohol as a doping agent. WADA understands that FIM will address the use of alcohol using their own regulations.

MONITORING PROGRAM 
Meldonium was removed from the Monitoring Program and added to the Prohibited List.  Hydrocodone, morphine/codeine ratio and tapentadol were removed from the Monitoring Program.

http://www.itftennis.com/media/220473/220473.pdf
 

gogo

Legend
PS - having said what I did and now believing Sharapova knew this drug improved endurance and that's why she's been using it:

WADA and the sports authorities should make the future announcements very straightforward- no links in emails that lead to sites one has to log into, then navigate to another location: just an email with a clear Subject (i.e. 'Important Information : new banned drugs as of dd/mm/yy'). Not every player has a team and a full time lawyer to review things. And send the complete list to new players once they make a certain ranking or first appear in a tour level/major event.

Maria didn't say she didn't receive a straightforward announcement, her post was about numerous other announcements that the media was referring to. She actually admitted that she did receive an announcement and just didn't look at it.
 

tacou

G.O.A.T.
This is awesome. The one question I had is whether or not she could prove her story, and she said she's looking forward to the ITF hearing where she will bring her medical records.
Either she's a) lying and not bringing medical records, b) falsifying medical records, or c) truth telling
She says communications were buried in newsletters etc. and she did not pay enough attention to the "Main Changes to the doping programme for 2016. To me that's her defence.
Fair enough, but it isn't. She doesn't even have a defense, really. She's just trying to prove she wasn't taking it for PE reasons and hoping that will help reduce the ban.
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
Maria didn't say she didn't receive a straightforward announcement, her post was about numerous other announcements that the media was referring to. She actually admitted that she did receive an announcement and just didn't look at it.
No. Her 1st statement was 'didn't open the link'. A recent FB post mocked the # of steps required to get to the info.

Again, I'm not defending her. Just saying make these announcements bulletproof- so athletes can't make excuses. Not sure if you're American and familiar with the Ryan Braun saga...
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
What an idiot you are...There are 100s of videos that show Sharapova and Nadal being in good terms.
She was the one who supported and showed her fanism on Nadal when he lost French open last year...she took a dig at the media asking them to show some respect on Nadal.

Sooo...that means her saying something positive about Nadal last year means she wont throw him under the bus now--when she's trying to drag others down in her drug controversy?

Come on.

Of course they post it it. Go to WADA website. It's probably the way many athletes and their advisors (each of who is obligated to be familiar with the list) get the list. And they don't say it's updated monthly/quarterly they say it's updated annually because that's when they update it.

In addition there is an iPhone app.

There is a Wallet Card as well. Get your own at the ITF link below.

Or download the 2016 list which includes changes to the list from the 2015 version.

http://www.itftennis.com/antidoping/rules/prohibited-list.aspx

You almost have to go out of your way not to get the information. And every single person that advises you on your tennis is ALSO OBLIGATED TO BE AWARE OF THE DOPING RULES AND THE LIST OF BANNED SUBSTANCES.

Exactly. No professional can pretend it is not part of their JOB--in this long-lived period of drug tracking--to be aware of banned drugs. It is a linked part of professional sports. Sharapova continues to offer the most obvious lies about the matter.

So it is already publicly available from multiple sources. Guess there is no excuse then for being caught with a banned substance in your body. She is making it sound like it is the ITF/WTA's job to make sure she gets the information on banned substances and not her and her team's responsibility to keep themselves informed - which is utterly stupid of her and reeks of an entitled mindset.

Entitled is correct--from her father, agents, doctors to the worst of her fans, they have made her believe the fantasy that she can flout every rule, every behavior and every responsibility others must follow. Yes, others break laws and rules, but none come off with such a terrible sense of an absolute privilege to disregard anything that does not build on her self interests at the expense of all else.


I think your post here should be added as a reply to her stupid facebook post.


Agreed.
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
This is awesome. The one question I had is whether or not she could prove her story...
Great post. Of course the fact that there are many other drugs to treat her issues that don't enhance endurance is going to be a tough sell. Also wonder if the amount her sample contained will also ruin her case.

I wonder if we'll ever get to Lie Detector tests. I know they can be gamed but it's not easy.
 

tacou

G.O.A.T.
Great post. Of course the fact that there are many other drugs to treat her issues that don't enhance endurance is going to be a tough sell. Also wonder if the amount her sample contained will also ruin her case.

I wonder if we'll ever get to Lie Detector tests. I know they can be gamed but it's not easy.
Is there any precedent of ITF doing that? That'd be pretty nuts.
Yeah, we can all say she should've done this/that/taken this instead, but that's why the medical records are so key.
If she refused to/could not provide medical records, that's basically an open and shut case.
I'm assuming we will find out this ~May.
 

clayqueen

Talk Tennis Guru
Rusedski:

"It is quite different for Sharapova. She has already acknowledged that she took meldonium but that it was for a family susceptibility to diabetes. So the next question must be whether she ever filled in the form that is given to you at every doping test, which asks for details of any prescription medication that you might be taking. Admittedly, this is not mandatory, but it is described as “best practice”. If she declared meldonium on the form for any of the 60-odd tests that she has taken since 2010 – according to the International Tennis Federation’s data – then it would strengthen her case hugely. In that case, you would have to conclude that she was naive rather than anything more sinister. You could look at this as an honest mistake."

This would probably decide her fate.
 

watungga

Professional
OMG... it was rotated +90°right ! how can you read that ?! :eek:
just kidding, just kidding...

in fact, i kinda like her post... her words sound honest, she shares her understandable disgust at the vile -although expected- mediatic lynching targetting her (including false rumours) and admits her negligence.

that being said... if it's indeed a negligence (and i hope so), her team sucks a bit !
here's the electronic version of the "wallet card" she posted :
http://www.itftennis.com/media/220465/220465.pdf
do it yourself:
CTRL+F, meldonium... bingo. :confused:
(but maybe she only had the paper version ?)
Capture.jpg
 
Of course she would have pretended to be injured if ITF would have allowed it.

The ONLY reason she came forward is to get ahead of the story.

The rest of her post is nonsense. If she knew she was taking any medications or supplements, it's up to her and her team to check them against the list of banned substances. The list apparently comes out at the SAME TIME each and every year and she's been a pro player for 12 years or so.

She should just go away and serve out her suspension gracefully.

I am ROFLMAOing all the way through her "statements" and the posts of some of the posters here.

She doesn't check her E-mails?

Does anyone actually believe her, when she says that she deals with this stuff personally?

And if she did, where is her license as a pharmacologist or an actual physician?

Such stuff is usually handled by her coaches and her medical team.

And, does ANYONE actually believes that a pro athlete (and ESPECIALLY one of her caliber) is rolling the dice when dealing with doping regulations, ESPECIALLY when using regularly all sorts of medicines for her health problems?

She was given even leaflets about her responsibilities, but she didn't read "the thousands of words some of them in the small print".

I know she probably finds it difficult to read, but this is just WOW worthy.

I will very much enjoy, when the lying **** is put in its right place.

:cool:
 
Last edited:

gogo

Legend
No. Her 1st statement was 'didn't open the link'. A recent FB post mocked the # of steps required to get to the info.

Again, I'm not defending her. Just saying make these announcements bulletproof- so athletes can't make excuses. Not sure if you're American and familiar with the Ryan Braun saga...

Perhaps we are caught up in semantics and I'm likely not being clear, but this is what I am referring to:


I make no excuses for not knowing about the ban. I already told you about the December 22, 2015 email I received. Its subject line was “Main Changes to the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme for 2016.” I should have paid more attention to it.

That's a quote from Maria's recent FB post. People have been saying "poor Maria" it was so difficult to get at the information, because she subsequently went on at length at how complicated it was to get at the information in some other ways. The information was sent directly to her. The information was readily available if she googled it or went to the ITF website. Yet she goes on and on about how difficult the other 'means of communication were to access. She's throwing up a red herring to distract people.
 
That's basically right, but how many players have had the money in the bank to think outside these parameters? There are other parties that could involve themselves.

The drug manufacturer and Russian authorities spring to mind. The case could raise novelties. It has a huge political subtext as WADA has banned Russian athletics.

When exactly was the last time that the Foreign Minister of a great power made a tennis player a political issue?

Whether it does is another matter.

It was not the foreign minister, it was the PM of Spain. :D

And these days Lavrov is being used all over the planet for just about anything.

:cool:
 
Perhaps we are caught up in semantics and I'm likely not being clear, but this is what I am referring to:


I make no excuses for not knowing about the ban. I already told you about the December 22, 2015 email I received. Its subject line was “Main Changes to the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme for 2016.” I should have paid more attention to it.

That's a quote from Maria's recent FB post. People have been saying "poor Maria" it was so difficult to get at the information, because she subsequently went on at length at how complicated it was to get at the information in some other ways. The information was sent directly to her. The information was readily available if she googled it or went to the ITF website. Yet she goes on and on about how difficult the other 'means of communication were to access. She's throwing up a red herring to distract people.

Anyone, who has been following tennis in the last 10 years is acquainted with this tactic executed to perfection by Team Nadal.

It starts with the statement that the Nadal is not looking to excuse his losses with health problems and ends with exactly that.

:cool:
 
Top