Puerta - Banned For 8 Years
- Thread starter Power_Player
- Start date
Fom NY Times Dec. 22 I find the last paragraph bothersome. I wonder what the outcome would have been if it had been a high profile player...and not a South American unknown to th e public?
Puerta, 27, was suspended for eight years Wednesday for his second doping offense, effectively ending his career. He is the first tennis player to receive a ban of more than two years.
"I find it extraordinary that it could ever be thought satisfactory that a person's livelihood can be terminated in circumstances such as these," Puerta said in a statement.
Puerta tested positive for the cardiac stimulant etilefrine after losing to Rafael Nadal in the French Open final June 5.
The three-man International Tennis Federation tribunal said the drug apparently came from effortil, a medication that Puerta's wife takes for hypertension.
"We accept on the balance of probabilities that the player's contamination with effortil was inadvertent," said the tribunal, which met Dec. 6-7. "The amount of etilefrine in his body was too small to have any effect on his performance."
Puerta, 27, was suspended for eight years Wednesday for his second doping offense, effectively ending his career. He is the first tennis player to receive a ban of more than two years.
"I find it extraordinary that it could ever be thought satisfactory that a person's livelihood can be terminated in circumstances such as these," Puerta said in a statement.
Puerta tested positive for the cardiac stimulant etilefrine after losing to Rafael Nadal in the French Open final June 5.
The three-man International Tennis Federation tribunal said the drug apparently came from effortil, a medication that Puerta's wife takes for hypertension.
"We accept on the balance of probabilities that the player's contamination with effortil was inadvertent," said the tribunal, which met Dec. 6-7. "The amount of etilefrine in his body was too small to have any effect on his performance."
DashaandSafin
Hall of Fame
What the hell then? If the substance was too small to have any effect on his performance then why should he be banned. It obviously was some sort of accident if the substance had no effect. Thats just like me accidentaly drinking out of my friends cup, who takes steriods, but i recived only a nanogram or something so it wont do anything.
********. Stupid ATP should lax things up. I mean too much caffine is a freaking ban. What if i like to drink coke and coffee? Ruining doubles and now this and Canas, pure bullsh*t.
********. Stupid ATP should lax things up. I mean too much caffine is a freaking ban. What if i like to drink coke and coffee? Ruining doubles and now this and Canas, pure bullsh*t.
Rabbit
G.O.A.T.
Puerta said:
Well, that's stretching it a bit. He probably doesn't know this at present, but he could become a teaching pro and probably do quite well in Argentina. He could also get a job like the other 99% of the population on the planet. In reality, his career would've been close to over anyway at age 27. If it hand't been for the chemicals, it probably already would have.
It would seem that Ponce de Leon shouldn't have been looking in Florida for the fountain of youth. It is in Argentina...
B
big r
Guest
I think perhaps people are reading to much into the determination that Puerta had taken the drugs accidentally and that they were too little to have any meaningful effect.
My take is that nobody was buying his story...too contrived and very suspect...I'd be willing to bet that they thought he did do it intentionally, and that at some point there was enough in his system to effect his performance...both of which are very difficult (impossible?) to prove.
So instead, they went out of their way to say "it don't matter"...even if he did take them by mistake, and even if there was no demonstrated impact on performance...he was careless and guilty of a "technical" violation, so here's the punishment.
All of which will stand up much better with the inevitable appeal.
Also, how will the ITF or anyone else actually get Puerta to return the RG money...if I'm Puerta, I'm telling them to shove it..come and get the $$ if you can.
My take is that nobody was buying his story...too contrived and very suspect...I'd be willing to bet that they thought he did do it intentionally, and that at some point there was enough in his system to effect his performance...both of which are very difficult (impossible?) to prove.
So instead, they went out of their way to say "it don't matter"...even if he did take them by mistake, and even if there was no demonstrated impact on performance...he was careless and guilty of a "technical" violation, so here's the punishment.
All of which will stand up much better with the inevitable appeal.
Also, how will the ITF or anyone else actually get Puerta to return the RG money...if I'm Puerta, I'm telling them to shove it..come and get the $$ if you can.
ssuHeartsRivald
Rookie
this is good for tennis and the rules. no place for a trickery.
It's proper for ITF to banned him for the rest of his career (instead of '8yrs').
and prevents puerta to do same thing again for third times....
GOOD CALL ITF
It's proper for ITF to banned him for the rest of his career (instead of '8yrs').
and prevents puerta to do same thing again for third times....
GOOD CALL ITF
Ash Doyle
Professional
big r said:
I think you are exactly right. The tribunal admitted that they did not believe his story even though it could be possible. They lightened the sentence from life to eight years for that reason.
The story he tells most likely came from lawyers and advisors telling him what to say, just as the story he told the first time he was caught. Lawyers are taught the best way to get defendant off is to turn the situation around and somehow make their client look like a victim.
Also, a lot of you see the demand for the repay of his earnings as an extra punishment. It's all in the rules. He doesn't deserve the money since he was caught cheating. It's all written out in the rules that every ATP player is expected to follow. Why now do you want to protect the cheater from having to take his punishment as the rules state and as he was very well aware would happen to him?????
Did you even read the findings? They specifically stated that the amount found in his system was too small to have any effect on his performance. Why put it in the official documents if they thought he was enhanced that day in any way? The reason that they banned him was the fact that it was in his system, not that it had any effect on his performance.big r said:
nononsense
Banned
DashaandSafin said:
(I'm not saying whether or not they should ban him or not just FYI.)
You also have to take into account that it may not obviously be an accident, just because even the governing body deemed the trace amount to be small. I know your reasoning,
Well, the thing is, they did take his urine sample after a match. Did you know that stimulants can clear you body within 1-3 days? That's fast.
Now the Puerta guy is a professional athlete. Do you know how fast their bodies metabolize substances? Not to mention the intense sweating during a game. Plus, you wouldn't need to take a high traceable-within-a-day dosage to gain an edge.
nononsense
Banned
Caffine regulation is absurd.
nononsense
Banned
nononsense said:
This tribunal's ruling seems similar to that of other courts in that it addresses the core issue and chooses to avoid or not to contest others which could be grounds for reversal on appeal.
The concession that the substance could have been ingested "inadvertently" doesn't mean that the tribunal necessarily believes that to be the case. It probably means that the tribunal did not want to contest the alibi story nor bare the burden of proving Puerta to be a liar and a cheat.
The supposed trace amounts were addressed by the tribunal adding they could not establish when Puerta ingested the banned drug. They obviously felt the "when" was insignificant compared to the "what". Along those lines, who knows if he took the substance for his QF or SF match and this was the remainder left in his system 2 days and 2 matches later.
The tribunal only dealt with the fact that the banned substance was in his system during play. How much of the substance was in Puerta's system initially, when and how it entered his system during the fortnight was inconsequential to the tribunal and they evidently did not want to delve into whether the defenses/excuses offered were lies. Not unusual in decisions from any "court". Looking past the words chosen, the fact of the matter was that the banned substance was in Puerta's system during RG and the verdict, while not stating outright that Puerta used it as a performance enhancer and lied about it later, says what the tribunal thought of it. What the tribunal avoids doing is getting lost in the tangental arguments about when, how much was initially ingested, who knew and who lied, which could be offered at any subsequent appeal. It is also most likely the reason they did NOT label the suspension a "lifetime ban" in that the Puerta camp had already sabre rattled a challenge. The "lifetime ban" is for second violations under the current testing system which came in after Puerta's first violation.
Ultimately the decision was based solely on the fact that a banned substance was found in Puerta's system for a second time. Period.
IMO a proper ruling with an appropriate outcome.
The concession that the substance could have been ingested "inadvertently" doesn't mean that the tribunal necessarily believes that to be the case. It probably means that the tribunal did not want to contest the alibi story nor bare the burden of proving Puerta to be a liar and a cheat.
The supposed trace amounts were addressed by the tribunal adding they could not establish when Puerta ingested the banned drug. They obviously felt the "when" was insignificant compared to the "what". Along those lines, who knows if he took the substance for his QF or SF match and this was the remainder left in his system 2 days and 2 matches later.
The tribunal only dealt with the fact that the banned substance was in his system during play. How much of the substance was in Puerta's system initially, when and how it entered his system during the fortnight was inconsequential to the tribunal and they evidently did not want to delve into whether the defenses/excuses offered were lies. Not unusual in decisions from any "court". Looking past the words chosen, the fact of the matter was that the banned substance was in Puerta's system during RG and the verdict, while not stating outright that Puerta used it as a performance enhancer and lied about it later, says what the tribunal thought of it. What the tribunal avoids doing is getting lost in the tangental arguments about when, how much was initially ingested, who knew and who lied, which could be offered at any subsequent appeal. It is also most likely the reason they did NOT label the suspension a "lifetime ban" in that the Puerta camp had already sabre rattled a challenge. The "lifetime ban" is for second violations under the current testing system which came in after Puerta's first violation.
Ultimately the decision was based solely on the fact that a banned substance was found in Puerta's system for a second time. Period.
IMO a proper ruling with an appropriate outcome.
Jack the Hack
Hall of Fame
nononsense said:
nononsense, this is a general description of how stimulants could enhance performance. However, in Puerta's case(s), neither time did he have enough in his system to actually boost performance in the manner that you described. On this note, I want you to take a couple Sudafed, play a match this afternoon, and tell me whether your game got a boost. Pseudoephidrine is also a stimulant that would have effects similar to what Puerta took, and two Sudafed would be enough to create a positive drug test by WADA standards.
In an earlier post, you said:
nononsense said:
While what you said is true, the WADA tribunal would have known this, could calculate the level of dissipation, and noted it. However, in their statement, they stated clearly that the amount inPuerta's system was not enough to enhance performance at all. Rather, they explain that Puerta's punishment is not because the substance actually helped him, but because he is a two-time offender and was careless. As such, I completely agree that he should be punished. However, no tennis player in history has gotten more than a 2 year ban. In my opinion, that length of a suspension (in addition to losing all of his prize money and ranking points) would have been more appropriate.
Athletes too often consider passivity a suitable defense -- I don't know how it got there and I didn't know about it so I'm not responsible. This has never worked in other instances -- I didn't know I was going 130 MPH and I didn't know it was illegal -- and shouldn't work here. If athletes are told that certain substances are banned, they need to make it their business to find out what contains those substances and be sure they don't ingest them. Doesn't seem to me like a whole lot to ask of them. I'm sure most of them are actually pretty meticulous about what they eat in any event.
DariusRaiden
Rookie
dmastous said:
Puerta will not be able to play on the senior tour(at least not a result of his Finalist finish at Roland Garros). Because of the positive drug test, Puerta must give up the points from RG and also the result. As far as senior tour eligibility is concerned, he was never a grand slam finalist: he has forfeited his results as a result of his positive test.
Something drove this policy change.
1- Tennis becoming an Olympic sport?
2- An outside agency conducting an investigation and discovering players X,Y and Z were being supplied banned substances, a la BALCO, and giving tennis an ultimatum to clean up their own act before someone else does?
3- Fellow competitors complaining of others gaining an illegal and unfair advantage, negatively impacting the plaintiff's results and right to earn a living on the tour?
Something is driving this. Personally I think the "insiders" have the best view of things and the motive to cause the change and the means to cause it under the threat of "blowing the whistle" in the press or to law enforcement.
What the governing bodies of tennis are saying with this "verdict" is that there is now a new "zero tolerance" policy, regarding P.E. drugs, in effect. I don't think tennis did this for altruist reasons. Joe Pesce's character asks the judge in "My Cousin Vinny" when he holds him in contempt, again, "You were serious about that?". Puerta's penalty leaves no doubt that tennis is, in fact, serious about P.E. drug use.
1- Tennis becoming an Olympic sport?
2- An outside agency conducting an investigation and discovering players X,Y and Z were being supplied banned substances, a la BALCO, and giving tennis an ultimatum to clean up their own act before someone else does?
3- Fellow competitors complaining of others gaining an illegal and unfair advantage, negatively impacting the plaintiff's results and right to earn a living on the tour?
Something is driving this. Personally I think the "insiders" have the best view of things and the motive to cause the change and the means to cause it under the threat of "blowing the whistle" in the press or to law enforcement.
What the governing bodies of tennis are saying with this "verdict" is that there is now a new "zero tolerance" policy, regarding P.E. drugs, in effect. I don't think tennis did this for altruist reasons. Joe Pesce's character asks the judge in "My Cousin Vinny" when he holds him in contempt, again, "You were serious about that?". Puerta's penalty leaves no doubt that tennis is, in fact, serious about P.E. drug use.
Jack the Hack
Hall of Fame
OK, I think we all need to read the actual tribunal report directly before we make further comments. It can be found here:
http://www.itftennis.com/shared/medialibrary/pdf/original/IO_18182_original.PDF
I'll post a couple good portions:
"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."
"That said, 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.
We recognise that contamination via Mrs Puerta’s use of the player’s glass as
alleged by the player is not impossible. We do not rule it out. It is but one of
the possible explanations, and, we find, not the most likely. Another would be
deliberate doping by a corrupt person without the knowledge of the player, with
the intention of protecting the player from such knowledge and with the
intention that in the event of a positive test innocent the player would able to
assert innocent and non-negligent contamination by effortil. Another would be
that the player and his wife carelessly shared a glass in their hotel.
We will return shortly to the consequences of our findings. First, we continue
our narrative of the facts. The player lost the final in four sets. 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."
http://www.itftennis.com/shared/medialibrary/pdf/original/IO_18182_original.PDF
I'll post a couple good portions:
"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."
"That said, 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.
We recognise that contamination via Mrs Puerta’s use of the player’s glass as
alleged by the player is not impossible. We do not rule it out. It is but one of
the possible explanations, and, we find, not the most likely. Another would be
deliberate doping by a corrupt person without the knowledge of the player, with
the intention of protecting the player from such knowledge and with the
intention that in the event of a positive test innocent the player would able to
assert innocent and non-negligent contamination by effortil. Another would be
that the player and his wife carelessly shared a glass in their hotel.
We will return shortly to the consequences of our findings. First, we continue
our narrative of the facts. The player lost the final in four sets. 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."
nononsense
Banned
Actually, Pseudoephedrine (the stuff in Sudafed) can enhance performance. Pseudoephedrine and ephedrine are precursors of methamphetamine. Although the high may not be as clean and pure as D-isomers of ephedrine, D-isomers of pseudoephedrine, or meth, Sudafed and other ephederine medicines can elevate heart rate, raise sense of awareness, enable vasoconstriction of the blood vessels that would inturn widen airways enabling deeper breathing and so on. Now obviously, anything containing alcohol or other active ingredients that may cause drowsiness could contradict increased awareness and reaction.
nononsense
Banned
I never said he had enough in his system to have benefitted from the dope. I was explaining what it could potentially do.Jack the Hack said:
vantagepoint
Rookie
That says it well. Puerta will feel wronged and have some cause to feel that way, in the sense that the governing bodies were 'looking' for the first case of someone who technically crossed the lines. They were probably not interested all that much in how what he took (and how much of it he took) affected his performance. Of course, all the players had to be aware of recent testings and suspensions, so he was fairly foolish if he was really only careless and not deliberately infringing the rules. Yet it is also probably true that some players who got busted in years past may have taken steroids in a more overt, intent-bearing way than Mariano. It could be that 8 years is just too long given the possible relationship between asthma and his first offense. A 3 year ban would still send a strong message, but have given him some hope of playing again.
Jack the Hack
Hall of Fame
More:
“In the end, after much anxious thought, we have concluded that we should not
disapply the written provisions of the Programme applicable to this case. We
do have an uncomfortable feeling about the severity of the sanction, even a very
uncomfortable one."
"In many such second offence cases, the mitigating circumstances will include
factors such as those invoked by the player here: a low concentration in the
urine, a lack of intent to enhance performance, an honest mistake, a low degree
of fault, and so forth. Indeed, some of these were the very factors which the
CAS considered in Squizzato. The real question is whether it is open to
international sporting federations to adopt rules which provide for an eight year
suspension for two doping offences committed by mistake, i.e. whether eight
years for two mistakes is disproportionate."
"In the circumstances of the arduous fight against doping in sport, we are not
persuaded that it is. The hard choice in sport is whether to have truly deterrent
uniform sanctions for doping, or whether to have open-ended discretion in each case. The signatories to the Code have chosen the former, not the latter. In our
view it was open to them lawfully to do so. The inexorable logic of having
done so is that there will be hard cases like this one. It is very hard on the
player, as we recognise. We do not say that as an individual he deserves to
suffer so severely. But he knew the risks, or must be taken to have known
them, and we do not think it is unlawful for him now to have to take the
consequences."
The document that I pulled these quotes from is 37 pages long, but a very interesting read. I think that it is clear that the tribunal:
1.) Acknowledges that Puerta was not trying to enhance performance.
2.) States that he was careless and failed to use utmost caution required by professional athletes to avoid an offense (especially a second time).
3.) Accepts that his excuse was not unreasonable, but concludes that it does not constitute sabotage. (He wasn't tricked and his sample wasn't tainted in the lab).
4.) Recognizes that the punishment is severe and may not be proportional to the crime, but state that they have no choice in applying the WADA code as it is written.
(EDIT: By the way, this is further to my earlier post - #120 - regarding the actual tribunal report, which can be found at http://www.itftennis.com/shared/medi...2_original.PDF . Several additional posts came in while I was writing this, so I thought I should link my two posts together.)
“In the end, after much anxious thought, we have concluded that we should not
disapply the written provisions of the Programme applicable to this case. We
do have an uncomfortable feeling about the severity of the sanction, even a very
uncomfortable one."
"In many such second offence cases, the mitigating circumstances will include
factors such as those invoked by the player here: a low concentration in the
urine, a lack of intent to enhance performance, an honest mistake, a low degree
of fault, and so forth. Indeed, some of these were the very factors which the
CAS considered in Squizzato. The real question is whether it is open to
international sporting federations to adopt rules which provide for an eight year
suspension for two doping offences committed by mistake, i.e. whether eight
years for two mistakes is disproportionate."
"In the circumstances of the arduous fight against doping in sport, we are not
persuaded that it is. The hard choice in sport is whether to have truly deterrent
uniform sanctions for doping, or whether to have open-ended discretion in each case. The signatories to the Code have chosen the former, not the latter. In our
view it was open to them lawfully to do so. The inexorable logic of having
done so is that there will be hard cases like this one. It is very hard on the
player, as we recognise. We do not say that as an individual he deserves to
suffer so severely. But he knew the risks, or must be taken to have known
them, and we do not think it is unlawful for him now to have to take the
consequences."
The document that I pulled these quotes from is 37 pages long, but a very interesting read. I think that it is clear that the tribunal:
1.) Acknowledges that Puerta was not trying to enhance performance.
2.) States that he was careless and failed to use utmost caution required by professional athletes to avoid an offense (especially a second time).
3.) Accepts that his excuse was not unreasonable, but concludes that it does not constitute sabotage. (He wasn't tricked and his sample wasn't tainted in the lab).
4.) Recognizes that the punishment is severe and may not be proportional to the crime, but state that they have no choice in applying the WADA code as it is written.
(EDIT: By the way, this is further to my earlier post - #120 - regarding the actual tribunal report, which can be found at http://www.itftennis.com/shared/medi...2_original.PDF . Several additional posts came in while I was writing this, so I thought I should link my two posts together.)
DashaandSafin
Hall of Fame
Actually it does close to nothing. My friends take it before swim meets sometimes and so do my other friends before tennis. I admit i have tried it myself and it does absolutly nothing. Maybe mentally you are better becuase you think your "getting stuff in your system" that will enhance your performance. Same goes with caffine etc etc. Even if you did take mass amounts of caffine...after one set, or probably even before you would be wasted becuase of the downing effect after the high.nononsense said:
Also here is a question for all you out there. What if it would have been Roger Federer. Would 95% of this board go with banning him for 8 years or for life?
DashaandSafin said:
Probably, just because a lot of people are hating on the guy already and he hasn't even done anything wrong. Also, it really would not have been fair if he had been dominating the tour while ingesting all kinds of Performance Enhancing Drugs.
But the ITF probably wouldn't feel the same way, though. They'd probably realize that banning a popular star would mean less revenue for tennis, so they might be willing to overlook some positive tests. I've heard/read that one of the unofficial sanctions for a high-profile player who has tested positive is extended injury breaks but again, this is nothing but hearsay.
What I am VERY concerned about is who the fourth player who tested positive at RG is, as the name has yet to be disclosed. This could be another ITF cover-up, or they could be delaying an announcement.
Ash Doyle
Professional
FiveO said:
According to what Peter Bodo wrote on his blog it is because of tennis becomming an olympic sport. The IOC views the ITF as the governing body of tennis, and not the ATP or WTA. They wanted drug testing handled by the ITF because they did not like the way it was being handled by each of the tours. The ATP was glad to hand it over to the ITF because it was very expensive and troublesome.
nononsense
Banned
FYI...........A few years ago Sudafed abuse was very popular among hockey players, pros and non-pros.
nononsense
Banned
FYI...also, sometimes a reverse placebo effect can occur...that is...by not knowing or expecting active effects and or side effects, a person may not notice any changes at all after administrating a substance.
nononsense
Banned
Also, for some drugs, it may take time and repeated consistent use in order to get any effects. Some stimulants work by acting as re-uptake inhibitors, and usually reuptake inhibitors take time (ie 1-2 weeks for noticable effect, taking daily dosages). Some work by stimulating more production of certain neurotransmitters (dopamine, serotonin, norepinephrin, etc.).
Also, abuse is different from, " I tried it once or twice before for my cold and it didn't seem to do anything "
Also, abuse is different from, " I tried it once or twice before for my cold and it didn't seem to do anything "
nononsense
Banned
DashaandSafin said:
Well, if Fed were in the same shoes as Puerta I think the same punishiment should apply. Fed attracts spectators and so banning him would most likely result in loss of venue revenues but it would only be fair to treat everyone the same way.
DashaandSafin said:
I know nothing about the subject, but I will tell you that your argument is extremely unconvincing. nononsense has me thinking that he has some real knowledge on the subject and seems much more credible to me. Just because you cannot feel the difference does not mean it is not there.
DashaandSafin said:
Roger Federer has never been caught before, so this question makes no sense. The maximum sentence would be 2 years and I certainly think that would be fair.
Andy Hewitt
Professional
Nice! I like!
AndrewD said:
From the original message.
"Puerta claimed the drug entered his body just before the final after he inadvertently used a glass that had previously been used by his wife, who takes a treatment containing etilefrine. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/4549544.stm
According to him, his wife was suffering from something that requires a dosage of etilefrine.
Jack the Hack
Hall of Fame
Ash Doyle said:
Sure enough, I looked on the 2006 WADA Prohibited List, and this is what is says now:
"Each of ephedrine and methylephedrine is prohibited when it's concentration in urine is greater than 10 micrograms per milliliter.
The following substances included in the 2006 Monitoring Program (bupropion, caffeine, pheynyephrine, phenylpropanolamine, pipradol, pseudoephedrine, synephrine) are not considered as Prohibited Substances."
I think this is a good move because it will keep athletes from getting positive tests for taking normal amounts of most over-the-counter cold medicines and diet supplements (which contain some of the other ingredients listed). If this rule had been in place in 2000, Andreea Raducan wouldn't have lost her Olympic gold medal for taking Sudafed.
What I find very curious is that ephedrine is prohibited when it is over a certain level of concentration, but pseudoephedrine is not. Ephedrine and pseudoephedrine are nearly chemically identical (they share mirrored isomers), which is why the meth "industry" was able to easily switch when the US government began restricting supply of ephedrine in both powder and pill form in the late 90s. Drug Enforcement officials attempted to get the same restrictions on pseudoephedrine from Congress and the Senate, but pharmaceutical company lobbyist worked hard to kill regulation of that substance because it is found in so many over-the-counter medicines. The compromise that came out in the new law was that powder and bottled forms of pseudoehedrine would be regulated, but pills in blister packs would be exempt... the government was conviced by lobbyists that meth manufacturers would not want to take the time to open hundreds of blister packed pills to make the drug. Of course, they were wrong and meth use has exploded in this country in the past 10 years. If you want to know more about this problem, The Oregonian had an excellent multi-part series on the entire meth issue, which can be accessed here: http://www.oregonlive.com/special/oregonian/meth/stories/
RiosTheGenius
Hall of Fame
I think players should get together on this one..... go on strike. boycott tournamnts to have Puerta back.
Kevin Patrick
Hall of Fame
Yeah right, this isn't the 70s when the players actually were concerned for the state of the game. No cause is big enough for todays' players to sacrifice their ranking/bank account for another.
I'm sure they could care less about Puerta.
I'm sure they could care less about Puerta.
I wonder if there are any rules as such for college level tennis? I know some players will want to get that advantage/chance to break into pros and will do whatever it takes. I haven't had to take any blood/pee tests.
I'm on a few drugs (antibiotics and cold-flu medecine stuff) and fighting a flu and tennis season starts next month.
I'm on a few drugs (antibiotics and cold-flu medecine stuff) and fighting a flu and tennis season starts next month.
DashaandSafin
Hall of Fame
No one would. Tennis is such an individual sport that im pretty sure no Pro actually CARES. They are probably laughing thanking that they wont have to play the top 10 player Puerta again. Of course not all have this viewpoint...but hell honestly i would.RiosTheGenius said:
Also its not like in baseball or any other team sport where the team can just walk out and refuse to play....
DashaandSafin
Hall of Fame
Of course this is just speaking from personal expierence. I dont know if my friend knows anything about it either. His parents just give it to him and he eats it. Besides, psudophed is probably more of a placebo kind of performing enhancing thing. I would be wary of taking it in fear of dehydrathion. Psued makes you thirsty as hellSteve Dykstra said:
Yea he hasnt been caught before. My point was what if the most popular player (im just saying on this board) were caught. We know just about everyone on this board likes Federer and a few love Federer. Replace Puertas name with Federer, would you feel the same way? Or is there some Argentinian doping bias due to thier history.Steve Dykstra said:
Tennis-x Dec 23
"Dutch player John van Lottum, speaking to BN/DeStem, elaborated: "I wouldn't be surprised if 50 percent of the Top 100 uses. The risk you get caught is really small, if you do it smart. And if it happens you get a small suspension. And the tennis world stays nice for you. Juan Ignacio Chela is a crowd-puller in Amersfoort, Guillermo Coria got a wildcard in Monte Carlo. And adidas signed Chela. A big shame. These guys should be on the front page with a big picture, to make clear they don't play it fair."
"Dutch player John van Lottum, speaking to BN/DeStem, elaborated: "I wouldn't be surprised if 50 percent of the Top 100 uses. The risk you get caught is really small, if you do it smart. And if it happens you get a small suspension. And the tennis world stays nice for you. Juan Ignacio Chela is a crowd-puller in Amersfoort, Guillermo Coria got a wildcard in Monte Carlo. And adidas signed Chela. A big shame. These guys should be on the front page with a big picture, to make clear they don't play it fair."
VamosRafa
Hall of Fame
Thought some of you may be interested in this article, translated from Spanish:
http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/deportes/8-60826-2005-12-23.html
http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/deportes/8-60826-2005-12-23.html
Similar threads
- King Fed WW
- General Pro Player Discussion
