Puerta - Banned For 8 Years

[VamosRafa]

kbg, I will admit that post you highlighted is not the most mature post. Maybe I should have just ignored the post. I do not like posters who show an extreme bias in their posts toward any player, however. Their cheerleading bothers me. Anyway, since you seem to think that I love Nadal for some reason, let me clarify. I wouldn't consider myself a Nadal fan, I was definitely rooting for Federer when they played in the French. I also see nothing in Rataplan's first few posts that is at all offensive or gives reason to believe that he is a Nadal fan at all.

I just want to pipe in and say that I now know that kbg is pretty darn anti-Nadal. At first I thought it was targeted at me personally, but it wasn't. She/he/it has a problem with Nadal, and I suspect it's not going away. She/he/it even has a problem with Uncle Toni, who isn't talking about his nephew here -- but about an Argentine player.

 

[Andres]

I have to agree with this decision. It was his second offence and he got caught with a stimulant right after he had come out of nowhere to get to the finals of the most grueling tournament on the tour. Very dubious.

He came out of nowhere? That's because YOU didn't hear anything about Puerta before RG.
He was ranked #3 on claycourts entering RG, because of his claycourts results early that year.

And he was coming out a 9 month suspension, and a heavy injury.

 

[Andres]

The details of the Spanish cases are here, buried in the ATP archives: http://www.atptennis.com/en/antidoping/info_warnings.asp
I'm not one to go for conspiracy theories but I do think it is unfair that Argentina gets a reputation in the press for doping while almost nobody in the press acknowledges that other countries have had more players testing positive within the year. I mean, some tennis journalists are literally calling the players "doping Argies." It's irresponsible and a kind of misrepresentation for members of the press to do that.

And, let's add, extremely offensive for my people...

 

[go_nadal]

oh i luv it when people fight its so amusing.... oh and i kinda feel sory for puerta poor bugger but silly him kinda serves him right

 

[kbg]

I just want to pipe in and say that I now know that kbg is pretty darn anti-Nadal. At first I thought it was targeted at me personally, but it wasn't. She/he/it has a problem with Nadal, and I suspect it's not going away. She/he/it even has a problem with Uncle Toni, who isn't talking about his nephew here -- but about an Argentine player.

Who cares? It's my prerogative to like or dislike other players and their family members. Now if you don't have anything useful to contribute to this thread about Puerta other than to whine about the fact that I don't like you or the player you vociferously advertise on the board, SHUT UP.

Now that that's out of the way, what is the likelihood of a shortened sentence when Puerta appeals? Do people think it's possible that they will overturn the decision or will it stand? Because it's starting to look inevitable that Puerta will appeal.

 

[Rataplan]

Now that that's out of the way, what is the likelihood of a shortened sentence when Puerta appeals? Do people think it's possible that they will overturn the decision or will it stand? Because it's starting to look inevitable that Puerta will appeal.

I really wonder about his chances if you read the currrent anti-doping rules. I mean, if he's speaking the truth (big IF) and he took this substance without intent...that's a pity but according to the rules, it's no excuse.

Doping Offences:
Article C.1. The presence of a prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers in a player's specimen, unless the player establishes that the presence is persuant to a therapeutic use exemption granted in accordance to article E.

Article C.1.1. It's each player's personal duty to ensure that no prohibited substances enters his or her body. A player is responsible for any prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers found to be present in his or her specimen. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing use on the player's part be demonstrated in order to establish a doping offence under article C.1.; nor is the player's lack of intent, fault, negligence or knowledge a defence to a charge that a doping offence has been committed under article C.1.

2005 ITF anti-doping programme


Following the current rules, I don't really see how Puerta could really have a chance in an appeal.
The only thing he could try to establish is to question to use of the current rules: the presence of a prohibited substance is enough to punish a player, you don't need to prove intent. The fact that the substance found in Puerta is not really doping in the strict sense of the word does not really seem to matter under the current rules.

 

[VamosRafa]

Who cares? It's my prerogative to like or dislike other players and their family members. Now if you don't have anything useful to contribute to this thread about Puerta other than to whine about the fact that I don't like you or the player you vociferously advertise on the board, SHUT UP.

Now that that's out of the way, what is the likelihood of a shortened sentence when Puerta appeals? Do people think it's possible that they will overturn the decision or will it stand? Because it's starting to look inevitable that Puerta will appeal.

I'd say the likelihood is slim to none.

Because I think there was a plea bargain of sorts before the announcement was made, and that both sides made concessions leading to the 8-year ban that purportedly places no fault on Puerta.

Doesn't anyone else think it's odd that he could have gotten a lifetime ban, but didn't -- but got one that is, in essence, a lifetime ban, along with an admission that he did nothing wrong?

So he can now move ahead with his life -- and I think he will do that -- knowing that he is an aberration in a system that generally works, but didn't work in his case. He can always say, in good faith, that he was found innocent of wrong-doing, but rules is rules, and as a result, he was banned. Unfairly -- yes, but alas, he can move on.

Doesn't that strike some of you as a bit too "pat"? Or am I the only one who thinks this was perhaps a negotiated result?

It doesn't place a lot of blame on Puerta -- it actually places no blame on him -- yet sends a significant message to the rest of the ATP. While giving Puerta and Argentine tennis in general a way to recover from it all.

 

[K!ck5w3rvE]

Mariano Puerta...twice in less than two years...as much as I liked him as a player..YOU'RE A DEADSET FOOL.

 

[go_nadal]

Mariano Puerta...twice in less than two years...as much as I liked him as a player..YOU'RE A DEADSET FOOL.

well put

 

[Jack the Hack]

I'd say the likelihood is slim to none.

Because I think there was a plea bargain of sorts before the announcement was made, and that both sides made concessions leading to the 8-year ban that purportedly places no fault on Puerta.

Doesn't anyone else think it's odd that he could have gotten a lifetime ban, but didn't -- but got one that is, in essence, a lifetime ban, along with an admission that he did nothing wrong?

So he can now move ahead with his life -- and I think he will do that -- knowing that he is an aberration in a system that generally works, but didn't work in his case. He can always say, in good faith, that he was found innocent of wrong-doing, but rules is rules, and as a result, he was banned. Unfairly -- yes, but alas, he can move on.

Doesn't that strike some of you as a bit too "pat"? Or am I the only one who thinks this was perhaps a negotiated result?

It doesn't place a lot of blame on Puerta -- it actually places no blame on him -- yet sends a significant message to the rest of the ATP. While giving Puerta and Argentine tennis in general a way to recover from it all.

Susan,

I don't think that there was any "plea bargain" whatsoever. The Tribunal had certain discretion under the rules for imposing a minimum sentence (less than a lifetime ban), but as they interpreted WADA code, 8 years was the minimum that they could impose. Puerta's legal representation argued that since there was no intent to dope (and in fact, there was no doping effect based on the amount ingested), there should be no punishment (either loss of money, points, or suspension). Therefore, they are VERY unhappy with the results and will be appealing to CAS.

I have posted this link several times already on this forum, but here is the unedited Tribunal report, which includes the testimony given and the justification of their decision: http://www.atptennis.com/en/common/TrackIt.asp?file=/en/antidoping/puerta_decision.pdf

It is a very interesting read, and shows that this case is not about straightforward cheating. This is a prime example of the gaps in WADA code, and how athletes should be wary...

I've posted choice quotes from the report already, but here is one regarding their decision and the subject of appeal (page 36):

"We are aware that our decision is likely to be appealed to the CAS. We would welcome that, because on our findings of fact this case raises in very stark form the jurisprudential dilemma faced by tribunals such as ours in the era of the Code. It is important for the fight against doping in sport that anti-doping tribunals do not assume powers to decide each case on its facts irrespective of the rules in play, including rules providing for uniform sanctions. On the other hand those rules can, as in this case, operate very harshly against individuals. The result is particularly harsh here because etilefrine is characterised by factors which might well have led to it becoming a Specified Substance, as ephedrine is. It is readily available, as shown by the fact that the player’s wife did not need a prescription to purchase it. It is not very likely to be successfully abused as a doping agent, because of its pharmacological profile, and indeed in the present case the dose accidentally ingested was so minute it could not have enhanced the player’s performance."

 

[kbg]

JacktheHack would you know of any precedents wherein the CAS have overturned decisions made by the ITF on the basis of "jurisprudential dilemmas" that have arisen because of the severity of the WADA code? (Or in any other sport)

 

[Aeropro joe]

thats too bad that he chose to use PED's after he was caught once already and under suspicion i like watching player's climb thru he rankings, all that time and hard work invested in tennis and climbing all the way back up to the top ten only to be knocked away while being so close to regainging a promising career, it wasnt worth it mariano peurta, was it? now his imae is tainted and career over, 8 years seems silly, it is an odd-ball number y not make it 7 or 9? 8? i think that if they are going to make it a career ending decicsion, they should at least have the deceny to call it that, a life long ban from competively competing on the circuit, well there's always the senior tour if he is still eligable for that

 

[Jack the Hack]

JacktheHack would you know of any precedents wherein the CAS have overturned decisions made by the ITF on the basis of "jurisprudential dilemmas" that have arisen because of the severity of the WADA code? (Or in any other sport)

That's a good question and is going to take some research, especially in looking at other sports.

The ATP site does have one CAS appeal posted on it's site at http://www.atptennis.com/en/common/TrackIt.asp?file=/en/antidoping/Hipperdinger_appeal_decision.pdf .

In that particular case, Diego Hipperdinger, a 27 year old player from Spain, tested positive for cocaine in February, 2004, after drinking a tea made from coca leaves, which he claims he thought he was an herbal tea (such as vervain and lime) that is common in South America. He ingested the drink, which was given to him by a friend, to relieve nausea and a headache. He also chewed on coca leaves for several days, which he claims is a common practice in that part of the country. Harperdinger also argued that coca leaves are not listed on the WADA list of banned substances and that he could not have reasonably known that ingesting them could cause a positive test result for cocaine (any more than someone could test positive for alcohol from eating grapes). While the Tribunal found that there was no intent to enhance performance in Harperdinger’s actions, they felt that he had a reasonable responsibility to find out whether the coca leaves for alright for him to use. Similar to Puerta, they ruled that his offense was due to "No Significant Fault or Negligence". In accordance with WADA guidelines, they banned him for 2 years with forfeiture of all prize money and points from the time of the test for a 1st time offense of that nature.

In Hipperdinger's CAS appeal, he tried to change the ATP finding of "No Significant Fault or Negligence" to "No Fault or Negligence" (which makes a huge difference when applying WADA sanctions), and have his 2 year suspension reduced or eliminated on the basis of proportionality. In the appeal, he continued his insistance that he could not have known that the coca leaves were a banned substance and that the 2 year suspension was inconsistant with seriousness of his infraction since there was no intent to dope. CAS ruled that they might have agreed to change the finding to "No Fault" if he had only consumed the tea by itself, but felt that his chewing of the coca leaves (especially for several days) was an unusual practice and that the player had a reasonable obligation to inquire about the legality of that substance with ATP officials. Therefore, by upholding that original ruling, they said that the ATP Tribunal correctly applied WADA sanctions, which called for a 2 year suspension. In regards to the proportionality of the suspension to the infraction, they cited several previous decisions (see Section K, pages 18-20 of the appeal in the link above), and noted that uniform sanctions (such as those written in the WADA Code) are considered as consistant with human rights and general legal principles. Therefore, in their opinion, the sanctions were not disproportionate to Hipperdinger's actions.

As this relates to Puerta's case, I think he will have a hard time getting CAS to over-rule the "No Significant Fault or Negligence" finding. To do so, he would have to convince CAS that he did use "utmost care" in making sure that no prohibited substances reached his system, and that the drug entered his system via sabotage or indirect intent from another party. For example, Greg Rusedski's doping case was thrown out with a "No Fault" finding because it was determined that he had gone to an official ATP trainer looking for an approved supplement drink, and the ATP trainer inadvertantly gave him a drink that was contaminated with a banned substance. While the Tribunal found that the amount of etilefrine in Puerta's system was was consistant with accidental ingestion, they had serious doubts about how much caution Puerta was taking to make sure that this substance did not enter his system - especially since he knew that his wife took a medication that contained it. On the other hand, since Puerta did not have any intention of cheating and the drug provided him no benefit, CAS may find that the ingestion was more due to indirect intent from another person (Puerta's wife) than from Puerta's own carelessness... but it seems unlikely that they would do this. Therefore, the appeal would then leverage upon the question of proportionality again, and given what they ruled in the Hipperdinger case, it doesn't look likely to change. Then again, 8 years is a lot longer than 2 years...

In general terms, CAS is only going to make sure that the ITF Tribunal properly applied WADA Code properly, and is not likely to circumvent sanctioning policy. This means that Puerta is probably SOL. However, I am hopeful that this creates a larger athletic movement to examine the sanctioning policy, and enhance it. Should two "accidental" positive tests be sanctioned in the same manner as two offenses for someone that is intentionally cheating? It doesn't seem like it should, but current code (by design) doesn't seem to give a lot of room for the Tribunals to modify sentences.

 

[callitout]

At first glance, the idea that a player doesn't have to knowingly ingest a banned substance to be subject to harsh sanctions seems completely unjust. But, in fact, the ITF policy, is quite sensible. If ignorance were an excuse what would stop every single player who tests positive for a banned substance from claiming that he didnt knowingly take a banned supplement. If Puerta's defense is based on ignorance, and he cant provide a person on whom he should have reasonably relied for advice, theyre not gonna let him off.

They've specifically addressed the ignorance excuse in their statement, and they dont care whether he did or didnt know that he was ingesting a stimulant. He's an elite athelete and its his responsibility to take due diligence not to run afoul of the ITF anti-doping policy.

 

[Ash Doyle]

For example, Greg Rusedski's doping case was thrown out with a "No Fault" finding because it was determined that he had gone to an official ATP trainer looking for an approved supplement drink, and the ATP trainer inadvertantly gave him a drink that was contaminated with a banned substance.

When this was looked into further, no one could ever find any "tainted" supplements and the committee that looked into how this case was handled stated that this whole story was false. It was just a lie cooked up by Rusedski's defense team and the ATP went with it without even the smallest bit of proof or fact to back it up. Along with the urging of the IOC, many consider the final straw that brought the ATP to hand over drug testing to the current organization.

 

[Jack the Hack]

At first glance, the idea that a player doesn't have to knowingly ingest a banned substance to be subject to harsh sanctions seems completely unjust. But, in fact, the ITF policy, is quite sensible. If ignorance were an excuse what would stop every single player who tests positive for a banned substance from claiming that he didnt knowingly take a banned supplement. If Puerta's defense is based on ignorance, and he cant provide a person on whom he should have reasonably relied for advice, theyre not gonna let him off.

They've specifically addressed the ignorance excuse in their statement, and they dont care whether he did or didnt know that he was ingesting a stimulant. He's an elite athelete and its his responsibility to take due diligence not to run afoul of the ITF anti-doping policy.

I hate to pick apart your statement because I agree with a lot of what you wrote. However, I have to point out that Puerta is not claiming "ignorance" as a defense, at least not in this latest case.

The first time he tested positive, it was for an asthsma medication that he was taking. At the time, he claimed that he didn't know the medication contained a banned substance or that he needed to file for an exemption. The ATP Tribunal found that he had been given the same prohibited list and anti-doping information that all ATP members are given, and that his ignorance of these rules was not an excuse (which is exactly what you said they should do). Based on the substance in his first test and the lack of doping intent, they were able to reduce his sentence and suspend him for 9 months.

However, with this latest test, Puerta did not intentionally ingest a drink that he later found to contain a banned substance and then claim that he didn't know it was wrong. Rather, it would appear that he unintentionally drank from a glass that was contaminated with a small amount of the banned substance, mostly likely from one that his wife had used. Since the substance is colorless, odorless, and tasteless, it is very concievable that he could have mixed it with his water without knowing. The ITF Tribunal had issues with the narrative on how Puerta could have inadvertantly shared his wife's glass, but did find that the amount in his system was consistant with accidental ingestion. However, they believed that he had a responsibility to exercise "utmost care" to make sure that contamination did not occur, especially since Puerta knew that his wife took this drug and that he had already tested positive once. That is what made the difference between "No Fault or Negligence" and "No Significant Fault or Negligence", which makes a huge difference on how WADA sanctions are applied. As I wrote in my previous post, the CAS appeal probably hinges completely on whether they agree with the ITF Tribunal on this technical issue.

 

[kbg]

Thank you very much, Jack the Hack. Your responses have been really informative and helpful for those of us who aren't so fluent in legalities and so forth. So it seems that Puerta's case rests on proving "No Fault or Negligence" rather than have it qualified as "No Significant Fault or Negligence." I think that the Tribunal could have ruled for the former if not for their suspicion that Puerta intentionally took the etilefrine before the semifinals and their issues with the inconsistencies in the Puertas' account. Whoever advised the Puertas to concoct the story about Mariano inadvertently drinking it in the player's cafeteria should be fired. Contamination in the hotel is a much more plausible theory, and they should have just gone with that. It seems that the Tribunal is making a big deal out of the fact that Puerta did not know the chemical contents of his wife's medication but is he really morally culpable for that under WADA code? I think he definitely has a shot at the "No Fault" defense but a lot of that is dependent on the CAS believing his contamination theory and how culpable he is for not knowing the chemical contents of his wife's medicine.

In any case, I do think he stands a slightly better chance than Mr. "Eating-coca- leaves-does-not-qualify-as-ingesting-cocaine" Hipperdinger. On a more humorous note, I can't believe that someone was actually stupid enough to pull that excuse.

 

[Jack the Hack]

When this was looked into further, no one could ever find any "tainted" supplements and the committee that looked into how this case was handled stated that this whole story was false. It was just a lie cooked up by Rusedski's defense team and the ATP went with it without even the smallest bit of proof or fact to back it up. Along with the urging of the IOC, many consider the final straw that brought the ATP to hand over drug testing to the current organization.

Respectfully, I would be interested in any supporting documentation that you could provide to support your statement (especially the part in bold).

As it is, this would seem to be inconsistant with the findings of the ATP investigation into the supplements, which can be found here: http://www.atptennis.com/en/common/TrackIt.asp?file=/en/antidoping/young_report.pdf

Also, Rusedski tested positive for nandrolone, but was never sanctioned. Given the fact that the ATP has punished other players for the same substance (Korda for one), I highly doubt that they would have "just went with it" for Rusedski unless there was a significant probability to believe that the supplement contamination was true.

(However, I have heard similar rumors to what you stated above, so if you've got some solid links for me to read, I am open to being educated!!!)

In regards to why the ATP handed over drug testing to the ITF, I thought the main reason is because it was better for an independant ruling body to administer the program rather than having the player's own association performing the role. Also, the ITF could provide more consistancy across both men's and women's tennis as far as testing is concerned.

 

[Kaptain Karl]

I've read only the first and 15th pages of this thread.

To the Puerta apologists, who believe the penalty is too harsh, I say "Not for a two-time offender." Having been caught once, Puerta had an obligation to be extra-scrupulous in his attention to the rules.

To those who lament all his hard work being washed away I say, "He should have thought of that BEFOREHAND."

To those who say an eight year ban equals a lifetime ban I say, "No. Maybe he can be competitive -- like Connors and Agassi, and what about Navratilova -- into his late 30s." I also say, "He should have thought of that BEFOREHAND."

Jack - Are you an attorney? You seem to be able to wade through the "legalese" pretty well.

- KK

 

[Jack the Hack]

I've read only the first and 15th pages of this thread.

To the Puerta apologists, who believe the penalty is too harsh, I say "Not for a two-time offender." Having been caught once, Puerta had an obligation to be extra-scrupulous in his attention to the rules.

To those who lament all his hard work being washed away I say, "He should have thought of that BEFOREHAND."

To those who say an eight year ban equals a lifetime ban I say, "No. Maybe he can be competitive -- like Connors and Agassi, and what about Navratilova -- into his late 30s." I also say, "He should have thought of that BEFOREHAND."

Jack - Are you an attorney? You seem to be able to wade through the "legalese" pretty well.

- KK

KK - Since you've read only the 1st and 15th pages, you have missed some of the detail I posted directly from the ITF Tribunal report, which can be found here: http://www.atptennis.com/en/common/TrackIt.asp?file=/en/antidoping/puerta_decision.pdf. When the headlines first came out, I felt very much the same as you in that Puerta was either a dirty player or just plain stupid, and in either case, deserved to be thrown out. However, as I looked deeper into the case, I found:

• The stimulant that he tested positive for - etilefrine - would only enhance his performance if taken in massive amounts, which would have been detected in the testing procedure.
  
• The amount actually found in his system could not have effected his performance, and was consistant with accidental ingestion, not an attempt to dope.
  
• The ITF Tribunal believed that Puerta did not intend to take this drug, but had been careless (especially since he knew - or should have known - that his wife took it).
  
• The ITF Tribunal actually stated that they felt their punishment was harsh, but did not have the means to reduce the suspension for less than 8 years under their interpretation of WADA code. (In other words, the maximum penalty was a lifetime ban, but the minimum for a second offense of this type was 8 years.)

As it stands, I believe for the good of the game, Puerta definitely needs to be punished. It's not fair to every other athlete that does take "utmost care" with their bodies if Puerta is allowed to be so cavalier. However, given the amount of money he will be losing, the 8 years does seem excessive. (I would support a 2 year ban.)

In any case, I thought it was worth at least playing devil's advocate on this subject, especially to those posters that aren't taking the time to look into the details.

On a personal note, as far as my legal prowess, I am not an attorney. However, my father, half-brother, brother-in-law, and father-in-law are lawyers - and my Mom is a victim witness coordinator with the US Attorney's office. When I was younger, I resisted following in the legal footsteps, but I have (somewhat) regretted that now. My undergraduate degree is actually in Information Systems and my Masters degree is in Sports Science, so I have kind of wandered around with my education. However, when I was doing my graduate work, I actually wrote an exhaustive paper on Jerry Tarkanian's NCAA due process case - I even interviewed "Tark the Shark" over the phone - so I guess I never really lost interest in that way of thinking. The analytical legal mind is in my genes, and I read case studies and legal briefs for fun now that I've gotten older. (I find it more informative to read the actual files rather than a reporter's interpretation of a case in a newspaper.) Also, in my current everyday job as an IT manager, I am the one that negotiates with vendors and works with the legal department to implement contracts, so I have seen my fair share of legalese. I am young enough that I have toyed with the idea of changing careers and going to law school, but I'm thinking that the experience I already have may suit me more as a professional negotiator or mediator, which I wouldn't need a law degree to perform.

 

[jhhachamp]

Jack, your arguments are very convincing, I have changed my opinion and agree with you now for the most part! I think they really do need to recognize the differences between a no significant fault and significant fault. Significant fault should be punishable by the 2 year and 9 month ban and then the lifetime ban, but other cases should be handled much differently. I think no significant fault should be maybe a 9 month suspension followed by a 2 year suspension if it happens again. 2 no significant fault offences could equal one significant fault case. If a player had 2 no significant fault or 1 significant fault I am not sure what would be best from there if the player had another no significant fault. They could give him an 8 year ban or a lifetime. I think a lifetime ban would be reasonable here.

To put my proposal in more simple terms, a no significant fault offence is one point and a significant fault offence is two points. You cannot lose points. You serve 9 months for the first point, 2 years for the 2nd point, and you are done after you accumulate 3 (or 4) points.

What do you think Jack?

 

[ShooterMcMarco]

Im doing IT too

My undergraduate degree is actually in Information Systems and my Masters degree is in Sports Science. Also, in my current everyday job as an IT manager

Cool, im studying for my BA in Information Security Systems, any suggestions for me with what employers are looking for?

 

[VamosRafa]

Thanks, Jack. I went ahead and read the whole opinion, and it was enlightening. I appreciate your re-posting the link. Interesting how Puerta's theory of the case changed a couple times.

Obviously, Puerta's legal team decided in the end to admit that he had had ingested the drug, and to rely on the no significant fault defense.

And the opinion does a very good job of accepting the facts in his defense, but yet justifying the ban. And that's why it likely will not succeed on appeal.

The focus of the opinion is on the fact that Puerta knew he was particularly "at risk" for a suspension given his prior history. He also knew that his wife takes the medication, and thus was already on notice that he had to be "ultra careful" in terms of what he ingests. But notwithstanding that, he had this incident on the eve of his RG final. And that is inexplicable, according to the tribunal, given the circumstances.

The decision does seem harsh in same ways, but perhaps not harsh enough in others. The tribunal accepted Puerta's own theory of the case, and rendered its verdict based on that. It would have been different if they had said he was lying, or didn't believe certain aspects, but they accepted all of that as true, or at least plausible, and yet reached the result.

The only way the result will change on appeal, IMO, is if the tribunal misapplied the law. Because they adjudicated all the facts in Puerta's favor, so if under those particular facts, a player cannot be banned for 8 years, Puerta has a chance on appeal. But if under those facts, he can be banned, then he will lose, because again, the tribunal accepted his theory of the facts, and imposed penalties based on their interpretation of the law.

And here's another question. Why does Mrs. Puerta put her drugs in a glass to drink? Don't most people swallow the pills, along with some water, and not put their drugs in the water. Especially when her husband could potentially drink it by accident?

 

[Jack the Hack]

Jack, your arguments are very convincing, I have changed my opinion and agree with you now for the most part! I think they really do need to recognize the differences between a no significant fault and significant fault. Significant fault should be punishable by the 2 year and 9 month ban and then the lifetime ban, but other cases should be handled much differently. I think no significant fault should be maybe a 9 month suspension followed by a 2 year suspension if it happens again. 2 no significant fault offences could equal one significant fault case. If a player had 2 no significant fault or 1 significant fault I am not sure what would be best from there if the player had another no significant fault. They could give him an 8 year ban or a lifetime. I think a lifetime ban would be reasonable here.

To put my proposal in more simple terms, a no significant fault offence is one point and a significant fault offence is two points. You cannot lose points. You serve 9 months for the first point, 2 years for the 2nd point, and you are done after you accumulate 3 (or 4) points.

What do you think Jack?

Steve, you're thinking on the same terms as I am and I do like your point penalty system.

The concept that is important here is "uniform sanctions", which means that there is a predetermined penalty for each offense so that athletes know the consequences of their actions. The opposite of uniform sanctions would be that Tribunals would have ultimate open power to employ any sanction they see fit, which means that athletes would be subjected to inconsistancy in sanctions across sports. WADA Code attempts to regulate drug testing across all sports, and the uniform sanctions are supposed to make it fair for everyone.

The reason I am pointing this out is because when I first starting looking into this, I was under the mistaken impression that there were no guidelines and the Tribunal had imposed such a harsh punishment randomly. However, Kevin Patrick (the poster on this forum) pointed out that the sanctions were in fact defined, and I learned this quickly as I read through the documentation on the ATP, WADA, and ITF websites.

The uniform sanctions outlined in WADA Code are very strict because they are trying to root out cheating in all sports, which is a noble and just cause. However, I am of the opinion that cases like Puerta's show that there are grey areas between accidental ingestion and outright cheating, and the penalties should be updated to reflect that. Understandably, this opens up a can of worms in that it would put more pressure on Tribunals to determine intent with offenses, and sift out the careless from the cheaters. However, from what I have seen, they are doing that already, so the range of penalties could be updated to reflect these different circumstances.

 

[Jack the Hack]

Thanks, Jack. I went ahead and read the whole opinion, and it was enlightening. I appreciate your re-posting the link. Interesting how Puerta's theory of the case changed a couple times.

Obviously, Puerta's legal team decided in the end to admit that he had had ingested the drug, and to rely on the no significant fault defense.

And the opinion does a very good job of accepting the facts in his defense, but yet justifying the ban. And that's why it likely will not succeed on appeal.

The focus of the opinion is on the fact that Puerta knew he was particularly "at risk" for a suspension given his prior history. He also knew that his wife takes the medication, and thus was already on notice that he had to be "ultra careful" in terms of what he ingests. But notwithstanding that, he had this incident on the eve of his RG final. And that is inexplicable, according to the tribunal, given the circumstances.

The decision does seem harsh in same ways, but perhaps not harsh enough in others. The tribunal accepted Puerta's own theory of the case, and rendered its verdict based on that. It would have been different if they had said he was lying, or didn't believe certain aspects, but they accepted all of that as true, or at least plausible, and yet reached the result.

The only way the result will change on appeal, IMO, is if the tribunal misapplied the law. Because they adjudicated all the facts in Puerta's favor, so if under those particular facts, a player cannot be banned for 8 years, Puerta has a chance on appeal. But if under those facts, he can be banned, then he will lose, because again, the tribunal accepted his theory of the facts, and imposed penalties based on their interpretation of the law.

And here's another question. Why does Mrs. Puerta put her drugs in a glass to drink? Don't most people swallow the pills, along with some water, and not put their drugs in the water. Especially when her husband could potentially drink it by accident?

Susan, you summarized the entire situation up perfectly!!!

As to your last question, it would seem that Effortil (the medication that Mrs. Puerta takes) is in liquid form. Here's the section on this from the Tribunal report (from the bottom of page 2):

"Since the age of about 15 Mrs Puerta has taken the drug “effortil” on the advice of her doctor. She uses this medication to treat hypotensive episodes, particularly during menstruation. Effortil can be purchased over the counter in pharmacies without a prescription in some countries, including Argentina and Spain. The written information supplied with the drug states that its active ingredient is etilefrine, a stimulant which is a prohibited substance under the Programme.

The effortil used by Mrs Puerta is contained in a bottle. Mrs Puerta’s evidence is that “it states on the bottle” that it contains etilefrine. It consists of colourless, odourless drops which have no or virtually no taste when mixed with water. Mrs Puerta takes effortil, normally, by dripping about 20 drops of the drug into ordinary water and then drinking the water with the drops of effortil mixed in it."

 

[Jack the Hack]

Cool, im studying for my BA in Information Security Systems, any suggestions for me with what employers are looking for?

Shooter, you are studying a very good niche field within IT. Back when I was going to school, colleges were still focusing a lot on programming for IT students, which led to a lot of database and web developers. However, as we have seen in recent years, a lot of that expertise can be outsourced to countries like India and China, where IT workers cost a lot less, but can program the same things. On the other hand, IT Security is typically an expertise that companies try to keep close to their corporate headquarters. Our IT Security team is all based at my company headquarters in San Jose, where they plan and implement policy across our world-wide network.

As for advice, this probably isn't anything you haven't heard of or thought about already, but I would definitely encourage you to pick up as many certifications along with your BA degree as possible. This would include the Cisco certs (both for networking and security), applicable Microsoft certs, and the CISSP. You may not be able to afford them all, but if your college offers a way to test out for them as part of their program, do it!!! This will help your resume when you hit the job market. In addition, you would probably do well to get a good summer internship job in the field as you get close to graduation so that you have some experience to go along with the degree and certs. Also, keep in mind that your first few IT related jobs may really suck, but as you go up the ladder and get more responsibility, it gets better. (I hated my first 3 years in the industry, which is why I started working on my Masters in Sports Science degree. However, by the time I graduated with the MS, I had moved up into better IT positions - with good pay - and it no longer made sense to switch careers at that point. If I had to do it over again, I would probably gotten an MBA instead.) Good luck!!!

 

[callitout]

Susan, you summarized the entire situation up perfectly!!!

As to your last question, it would seem that Effortil (the medication that Mrs. Puerta takes) is in liquid form. Here's the section on this from the Tribunal report (from the bottom of page 2):

"Since the age of about 15 Mrs Puerta has taken the drug “effortil” on the advice of her doctor. She uses this medication to treat hypotensive episodes, particularly during menstruation. Effortil can be purchased over the counter in pharmacies without a prescription in some countries, including Argentina and Spain. The written information supplied with the drug states that its active ingredient is etilefrine, a stimulant which is a prohibited substance under the Programme.

The effortil used by Mrs Puerta is contained in a bottle. Mrs Puerta’s evidence is that “it states on the bottle” that it contains etilefrine. It consists of colourless, odourless drops which have no or virtually no taste when mixed with water. Mrs Puerta takes effortil, normally, by dripping about 20 drops of the drug into ordinary water and then drinking the water with the drops of effortil mixed in it."

Okay now the defense fits perfectly in line with the usual nonsense we get from athletes who dope. Puerta, who has everything to lose, if he (unwittingly) ingests this colorless odorless substance which can easily cross- contaminate even an imperfectly washed glass asks us believe that his wife is taking this to treat perimenstrual hypotension. This strains credibility just as Canas' diuretic defense did.
This is a conclusion of a 1999 randomized controlled trial from the journal Circulation on the efficacy of this substance:
Oral etilefrine is not superior to placebo in preventing spontaneous episodes of vasovagal syncope. Randomized controlled studies are essential to assess the real usefulness of any proposed therapy for patients with vasovagal syncope.

I've taken care of lots of hypotensive hemorrhaging women and the treatment is volume (for her it would be to drink water and perhaps to take iron pills), not an ineffective vasopressor. Obviously a patient in acute hemorrhagic shock requires vasopressors while volume is being infused, but applied to Puerta's wife taking this stuff since age 15 this sounds like the usual obfuscation we get when someone's caught doping.

 

[ShooterMcMarco]

heh, excuse the hijack guys =)

Thanks for your response Jack. I plan on taking an MCSE cert pretty soon (based on the 290 book) after I review. I've taken the courses for the A+ and Network+ certs, I just haven't signed up to take them, doh! I'm curious, how much linux have you seen in your career thus far? I'm taking a linux admin course right now...

 

[VamosRafa]

Okay now the defense fits perfectly in line with the usual nonsense we get from athletes who dope. Puerta, who has everything to lose, if he (unwittingly) ingests this colorless odorless substance which can easily cross- contaminate even an imperfectly washed glass asks us believe that his wife is taking this to treat perimenstrual hypotension. This strains credibility just as Canas' diuretic defense did.
This is a conclusion of a 1999 randomized controlled trial from the journal Circulation on the efficacy of this substance:
Oral etilefrine is not superior to placebo in preventing spontaneous episodes of vasovagal syncope. Randomized controlled studies are essential to assess the real usefulness of any proposed therapy for patients with vasovagal syncope.

I've taken care of lots of hypotensive hemorrhaging women and the treatment is volume (for her it would be to drink water and perhaps to take iron pills), not an ineffective vasopressor. Obviously a patient in acute hemorrhagic shock requires vasopressors while volume is being infused, but applied to Puerta's wife taking this stuff since age 15 this sounds like the usual obfuscation we get when someone's caught doping.

Thanks, Jack and callitout.

I can't add to what you say, callitout, but I do think that the whole "I-
inadvertently-drank-my-wife's-drugs" defense is a bit weak. It's amazing that a young woman would need to be on those drugs, and would put them in a situation where her husband would drink them. But truth is stranger than fiction as we all know.

The tribunal has accepted that defense, and is still still saying, that even if you accept that as true, Puerta violated the rules, and that he is subject to that sanction.

Perhaps, in the end, they will find that the sanction is too much, and will give him a lesser sanction.

 

[Jack the Hack]

Okay now the defense fits perfectly in line with the usual nonsense we get from athletes who dope. Puerta, who has everything to lose, if he (unwittingly) ingests this colorless odorless substance which can easily cross- contaminate even an imperfectly washed glass asks us believe that his wife is taking this to treat perimenstrual hypotension. This strains credibility just as Canas' diuretic defense did.
This is a conclusion of a 1999 randomized controlled trial from the journal Circulation on the efficacy of this substance:
Oral etilefrine is not superior to placebo in preventing spontaneous episodes of vasovagal syncope. Randomized controlled studies are essential to assess the real usefulness of any proposed therapy for patients with vasovagal syncope.

I've taken care of lots of hypotensive hemorrhaging women and the treatment is volume (for her it would be to drink water and perhaps to take iron pills), not an ineffective vasopressor. Obviously a patient in acute hemorrhagic shock requires vasopressors while volume is being infused, but applied to Puerta's wife taking this stuff since age 15 this sounds like the usual obfuscation we get when someone's caught doping.

callitout,

I am not going to dispute your diagnosis that Mrs. Puerta probably doesn't need to self-medicate with this particular substance. However, please understand that Effortil is available over-the-counter, and that people self-diagnose and misuse over-the-counter medications quite often. (I just read an article a couple days ago regarding people overdosing on acetaminophen to the point their liver shuts down, which illustrates my point.)

Anyway, you can impose your opinion of Puerta's intentions if you like. I'm having a hard time seeing how this substance could have possibly had any performance enhancing effect, and how he could have been intentially using it to gain advantage given the amount in his system... and I am basing this opinion on the following statements in the Tribunal report:

"Etilefrine is potentially capable of enhancing sporting performance in the short term, though no direct study of its effect on athletic performance has been done. It is a cardiac stimulant and would thus potentially enhance athletic performance to some degree if taken in therapeutic doses as normally taken by Mrs Puerta. Etilefrine is eliminated from the body rapidly. Its pharmacokinetics and urinary excretion after the first 24 hours following ingestion are not known. It has a half-life of about two to four hours, probably nearer two hours, depending on the metabolism of the individual.

Etilefrine has some traits in common with ephedrine, which is prohibited where the concentration in urine exceeds 10 micrograms per millilitre, and is a “Specified Substance” under the Programme. But there are important differences: ephedrine crosses the “blood / brain barrier” and thus provides central nervous system stimulation as well as increasing cardiovascular performance, while etilefrine does not. Ephedrine is less potent than etilefrine as an agent for increasing cardiovascular performance. Ephedrine is still widely available without prescription though its availability is being curtailed because of its use in the manufacture of illegal drugs, particularly in the USA."

And:

"On Friday 3 June 2005 the player played in the semi-final and won. He was not tested. Mrs Puerta says in evidence that she did not take effortil that day. Professor Forrest, the expert instructed by the player to assist the Tribunal, accepted that it was possible – though he thought unlikely in view of the low concentration of etilefrine found in the player’s A and B samples – that the player could have taken or been contaminated with effortil in a high dose (relative to the dose if contaminated on the day of the final) on the day of the semi-final."

And:

"...we are satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the etilefrine contained in the effortil taken by the player’s wife is the source of the positive test result. We accept the evidence that she takes effortil and we think it would be too much of a coincidence if its active ingredient found its way into the player’s body from some other unrelated source. We believe that the player came into contact with effortil in the two days before the final.

We have considered the possibility that on the day of the semi-final the player deliberately doped himself with effortil, intending to enhance his performance through etilefrine, knowing that he would only be tested if he lost, and gambling that he would win, would therefore not be tested until two days later and that the substance, which is rapidly eliminated from the body, would have disappeared from his body by the day of the final.

After careful thought, we reject this explanation on the balance of probabilities. We accept the player’s evidence that he did not deliberately dope himself. We accept on the balance of probabilities that the player’s contamination with effortil was inadvertent. We do not think he would be so unwise as to risk his career, even though he was playing the biggest match of his life on 3 June 2005. We take into account the negative tests undergone by the player after the end of his suspension. We take into account Professor Forrest’s view that it would be improbable that any etilefrine would remain in the player’s body by the evening of 5 June when the test was administered.

We find on the balance of probabilities that the player was contaminated by effortil and that this occurred during the period of about one to two days before the final at a time and place unknown, and with a dose that is unknown, and in circumstances that are unknown save that we find the source was Mrs Puerta’s medication. We do not believe on the balance of probabilities that the player was aware of the contamination. We consider that it must have occurred through the negligent or deliberate act of an unknown person. We think that is more likely to be the case than the theory of contamination via use of the player’s glass by Mrs Puerta for her medication."

And:

"...his performance was not, we accept, enhanced. The amount of etilefrene in his body was too small to have any effect on his performance. It later transpired that the approximate concentration was in the region of 192 ng/ml, which is about 50 times less than the reporting threshold of 10 micrograms per millilitre for ephedrine."

And:

"We also take into account that the concentration of etilefrine in the player’s A and B samples was so low as to be incapable of enhancing performance. We understand that the consequences of an error are not the same thing as the gravity of the fault that caused it to be committed, but it is relevant that the nature of the player’s fault was not such as to lead to a high and performance enhancing dose of etilefrine being administered or inadvertently ingested. We take into account also that the likelihood of the player’s wife taking her medication – and thus the risk of contamination - was increased above the norm at the time of the semi-final and final of Roland-Garros because of the tension of the occasion."

And:

"The result is particularly harsh here because etilefrine is characterised by factors which might well have led to it becoming a Specified Substance, as ephedrine is. It is readily available, as shown by the fact that the player’s wife did not need a prescription to purchase it. It is not very likely to be successfully abused as a doping agent, because of its pharmacological profile, and indeed in the present case the dose accidentally ingested was so minute it could not have enhanced the player’s performance."

With your obvious medical or pharmacological background, do you disagree with these assessments?

Overall, as Susan (aka VamosRafa) summarized, it doesn't matter that the amount was small or that Puerta had no intent to dope. The Tribunal weighed the situation and determined that he failed to exercise "utmost care" in keeping himself clean, and they are bound by the WADA Code with their sanction. Puerta does have a sliver of hope in CAS, but it is unlikely that they will find that the ITF Tribunal misapplied the WADA Code or misruled on any of the provisions. So for those that think he is a cheater and did this on purpose, the suspension will likely stand anyway. However, I just want to point out that this is not as black and white as some are making it out to be...

 

[Jack the Hack]

heh, excuse the hijack guys =)

Thanks for your response Jack. I plan on taking an MCSE cert pretty soon (based on the 290 book) after I review. I've taken the courses for the A+ and Network+ certs, I just haven't signed up to take them, doh! I'm curious, how much linux have you seen in your career thus far? I'm taking a linux admin course right now...

I work for a software company that develops computer aided design solutions for developing microprocessors and other complex electronic components. A great deal of our product base runs on Unix, and we in turn, have a ton of Unix servers in house. There have been a few experiments with Linux for certain applications, but 99% of our systems are either Unix or Windows.

I can tell you that there are a lot of us IT professionals that are very unhappy with the constant security flaws and patching that is necessary with a Windows server. The stability of the OS has gotten remarkably better over the years, but the old headaches we used to have with "blue screens of death" have been replaced by dealing with the "virus of the month". This is in contrast to our Unix servers that are easier to protect and run day-after-day with little intervention. You probably already know this, but Linux offers most of the same protection and stability that you get from Unix without the huge price tag. While it hasn't caught on well at my particular company, I can definitely see how it would be more popular in other organizations.

 

[wyutani]

All i know is no other major sport does 8 freaking year bans. Hell no to baseball, where the "ban" is a couple of measly games.
Well i dont really like Puerta anyway....just something about him. But i dont want to see him dead broke though, and all the years hard work down the drain.

Puerta is a great clay court specialist, would be a shame to see him go....

 

[theJuniorACE]

Puerta is a great clay court specialist, would be a shame to see him go....

Way to bring back a dead thread...
lol

He was a great clay courter and he was able to challenge even the best,
i liked Puerta, but he got caught and at his age(26?) he wont be able to come back successfully on tour in 8 years,
its a shame, but hes paying for his crimes