Rules are rules, buddy!

[travlerajm]

In the summer of 1990, I was playing a backdraw junior match in the morning sun in Yakima. My opponent hit a drop shot, and I raced to the net and scooped it over the net past my opponent for a winner…. Or so I thought… until my opponent pointed to my feet, and I looked down to see my toe was standing on top of the net that was draped down and extending 6” into my side of the court.

Come on, I protested. Rules are rules, buddy! he retorted. My opponent was correct, I accepted that it was his point.

This is the same situation with the Sinner doping scandal. Rules are rules. Just like a teensy bit of toe overlap over the draped bottom of the net counts as a rules violation, a teensy bit of anabolic steroid in your system also counts.

The integrity of the sport must be protected. We must hold athletes accountable to the rules.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

i'm confused... did sinner get a toe massage?

 

[Bartelby]

The amount of the substance can lessen the punishment, however, as is the fact that agents under his control were responsible.

But to go to zero suspension makes little sense given past decisions.

 

[travlerajm]

i'm confused... did sinner get a toe massage?

His toe touched something it wasn’t supposed to.

 

[RSJfan]

Thread title should be “How to fail the Miller Analogies Test.”

 

[nolefam_2024]

Rules are rules.

 

[travlerajm]

Thread title should be “How to fail the Miller Analogies Test.”

It’s not my problem if others can’t make the connection.

 

[mtommer]

It’s not my problem if others can’t make the connection.

I'll diasagree with you on this one. There is the letter of the law but there's also the spirit of the law. You shouldn't just dismiss the spirit of the law. In Sinner's case, I'd like to know if Clostebol is used as a masking agent in doping regimes. If it's not and his measured amount really doesn't indicate anything more than purely incidental contact as his defense suggests, then I could care less if he tested positive and I don't care that it's "against the rules".
So, what's the spirit of the can't touch the net rule?

 

[Sport]

Tautologies are tautologies, buddy!

 

[Bartelby]

There is no "spirit of the law" here. If dope is in your system, however small a quantity, then you are in deep trouble. It's a "hard rule".

Quantity comes into consideration with punishment, not liability.

I'll diasagree with you on this one. There is the letter of the law but there's also the spirit of the law. You shouldn't just dismiss the spirit of the law. In Sinner's case, I'd like to know if Clostebol is used as a masking agent in doping regimes. If it's not and his measured amount really doesn't indicate anything more than purely incidental contact as his defense suggests, then I could care less if he tested positive and I don't care that it's "against the rules".
So, what's the spirit of the can't touch the net rule?

 

[jayvee]

In the summer of 1990, I was playing a backdraw junior match in the morning sun in Yakima. My opponent hit a drop shot, and I raced to the net and scooped it over the net past my opponent for a winner…. Or so I thought… until my opponent pointed to my feet, and I looked down to see my toe was standing on top of the net that was draped down and extending 6” into my side of the court.

Come on, I protested. Rules are rules, buddy! he retorted. My opponent was correct, I accepted that it was his point.

This is the same situation with the Sinner doping scandal. Rules are rules. Just like a teensy bit of toe overlap over the draped bottom of the net counts as a rules violation, a teensy bit of anabolic steroid in your system also counts.

The integrity of the sport must be protected. We must hold athletes accountable to the rules.

This post really settled it for me! Thanks Travis!

 

[tennis3]

Thread title should be “How to fail the Miller Analogies Test.”

What he’s saying is, even if Draper didn’t get that ball, we still have to go with the Chair Umpires call. Rules are rules

 

[mtommer]

There is no "spirit of the law" here. If dope is in your system, however small a quantity, then you are in deep trouble. It's a "hard rule".

Quantity comes into consideration with punishment, not liability.

Taking the spirit of the law into consideration is taking how the infraction is dealt with into consideration.

 

[RSJfan]

It’s not my problem if others can’t make the connection.

How dare you!

 

[travlerajm]

This post really settled it for me! Thanks Travis!

Your welcome. And please don’t call me Travis.

 

[jayvee]

Your welcome. And please don’t call me Travis.

My welcome?

 

[travlerajm]

My welcome?

Forgive me for not being able to see my iPhone screen. I’m busy squinting trying to see the ball in the China open match going on where an entire half of the court is in the bright sun, and other side of net in shade. Gotta be the worst tv coverage I’ve ever seen. End rant.

 

[JMR]

This is the same situation with the Sinner doping scandal. Rules are rules. Just like a teensy bit of toe overlap over the draped bottom of the net counts as a rules violation, a teensy bit of anabolic steroid in your system also counts.

Actually, one of the challenges in addressing the Sinner situation, both administratively and publicly, is that sports fans and other players tend to think this way. The facile analogy to game play is staring them in the face. Naturally, some will believe it's all the answer that's needed.

In any event, in this case there was never a question that the "teensy" quantity of the banned substance would be sufficient to trigger the TADP provisions and ITIA review. No one argued to the contrary. While the scientific experts did provide testimony to the effect that the amount of the substance was too small to have had any competitive impact (which is why the "integrity of the sport" issue is a red herring in this case), that was not an attempt by Sinner's team to argue that the TADP rules should not apply at all. There was no attempt to craft a complete de minimis exception to the TADP.

Moreover, at this stage the question being pursued by WADA is whether Sinner should be held negligent for allowing himself to be exposed to a banned substance, regardless of the amount, through the actions of his support staff. The guidelines regarding player negligence are fuzzy and certainly don't lend themselves to a "toe on the line" analysis.

 

[jayvee]

Actually, one of the challenges in addressing the Sinner situation, both administratively and publicly, is that sports fans and other players tend to think this way. The facile analogy to game play is staring them in the face. Naturally, some will believe it's all the answer that's needed.

In any event, in this case there was never a question that the "teensy" quantity of the banned substance would be sufficient to trigger the TADP provisions and ITIA review. No one argued to the contrary. While the scientific experts did provide testimony to the effect that the amount of the substance was too small to have had any competitive impact (which is why the "integrity of the sport" issue is a red herring in this case), that was not an attempt by Sinner's team to argue that the TADP rules should not apply at all. There was no attempt to craft a complete de minimis exception to the TADP.

Moreover, at this stage the question being pursued by WADA is whether Sinner should be held negligent for allowing himself to be exposed to a banned substance, regardless of the amount, through the actions of his support staff. The guidelines regarding player negligence are fuzzy and certainly don't lend themselves to a "toe on the line" analysis.

I bet you were a Covid expert a couple of years ago

 

[Bartelby]

Bortolotti and Sinner are the first two cases where strict liability hasn't occasioned a ban of however short a length.

This direction has either to be affirmed or rejected by CAS and WADA made the sensible choice to appeal the Tribunal decision.

 

[travlerajm]

Actually, one of the challenges in addressing the Sinner situation, both administratively and publicly, is that sports fans and other players tend to think this way. The facile analogy to game play is staring them in the face. Naturally, some will believe it's all the answer that's needed.

In any event, in this case there was never a question that the "teensy" quantity of the banned substance would be sufficient to trigger the TADP provisions and ITIA review. No one argued to the contrary. While the scientific experts did provide testimony to the effect that the amount of the substance was too small to have had any competitive impact (which is why the "integrity of the sport" issue is a red herring in this case), that was not an attempt by Sinner's team to argue that the TADP rules should not apply at all. There was no attempt to craft a complete de minimis exception to the TADP.

Moreover, at this stage the question being pursued by WADA is whether Sinner should be held negligent for allowing himself to be exposed to a banned substance, regardless of the amount, through the actions of his support staff. The guidelines regarding player negligence are fuzzy and certainly don't lend themselves to a "toe on the line" analysis.

You are jumping ahead several steps.

To believe what you are saying, you must accept the premise that Sinner’s team is telling the truth.

The reason I don’t believe them is not because the amount of steroid detected was minuscule. It’s because if the story were true, then every member of his team, including him, was so stupid that they deserve to be punished for the stupidity alone.

There was already a doping crisis going on in Italy for quite some time, and everyone in Italy involved in sports already knew about the risks of using a cream with a NO DOPING warning prominently displayed on the label. And everyone already knew how clostebol makes a terrific masking agent for the good stuff because it clears the system so rapidly.

 

[PMChambers]

If Rules are rules, why don't you accept the ruling?

It's arguable that WADA is only following protocol. After all if they do nothing why do they exist.

 

[jeroenn]

You are jumping ahead several steps.

To believe what you are saying, you must accept the premise that Sinner’s team is telling the truth.

The reason I don’t believe them is not because the amount of steroid detected was minuscule. It’s because if the story were true, then every member of his team, including him, was so stupid that they deserve to be punished for the stupidity alone.

There was already a doping crisis going on in Italy for quite some time, and everyone in Italy involved in sports already knew about the risks of using a cream with a NO DOPING warning prominently displayed on the label. And everyone already knew how clostebol makes a terrific masking agent for the good stuff because it clears the system so rapidly.

Then why is the WADA not arguing this in its appeal? They do accept Sinners explanation.

That means that the ITIA, by means of independend 3 panel scientists and the WADA accepted this. That's a lot of doping expertise supporting that conclusion.

Your argument against it is that "everybody already knew how clostebol makes a terrific masking agent".
I haven't seen anything that accurately details this, so maybe you can support your argument with some kind of quality documentation / study.

As far as rules are concerned, the ITIA argues it followed the rules. So can OP please clarify which rules were broken and not followed up correctly? I'm especially interested in the rules dealing with 'Stupidity'.

 

[Hitman]

Rules don't matter when you're born a Sinner.

 

[travlerajm]

In Sinner’s defense, I watched off his match yesterday. That 2hb crosscourt down set point had ice injected into his veins. Didn’t look like a guy with worries.

 

[SonnyT]

In the summer of 1990, I was playing a backdraw junior match in the morning sun in Yakima. My opponent hit a drop shot, and I raced to the net and scooped it over the net past my opponent for a winner…. Or so I thought… until my opponent pointed to my feet, and I looked down to see my toe was standing on top of the net that was draped down and extending 6” into my side of the court.

Come on, I protested. Rules are rules, buddy! he retorted. My opponent was correct, I accepted that it was his point.

This is the same situation with the Sinner doping scandal. Rules are rules. Just like a teensy bit of toe overlap over the draped bottom of the net counts as a rules violation, a teensy bit of anabolic steroid in your system also counts.

The integrity of the sport must be protected. We must hold athletes accountable to the rules.

Yep, rules must be protected!

 

[Lleytonstation]

Rules must be challenged. I challenge this rule.

 

[Rovesciarete]

Actually, one of the challenges in addressing the Sinner situation, both administratively and publicly, is that sports fans and other players tend to think this way. The facile analogy to game play is staring them in the face. Naturally, some will believe it's all the answer that's needed.

Indeed, funny that one does try to create a refined analogy to potentially banning a player out of a toe move where a sportsman should make a fuss - just like Sinner has shown like very few others.

 

[uscwang]

In the summer of 1990, I was playing a backdraw junior match in the morning sun in Yakima. My opponent hit a drop shot, and I raced to the net and scooped it over the net past my opponent for a winner…. Or so I thought… until my opponent pointed to my feet, and I looked down to see my toe was standing on top of the net that was draped down and extending 6” into my side of the court.

Come on, I protested. Rules are rules, buddy! he retorted. My opponent was correct, I accepted that it was his point.

This is the same situation with the Sinner doping scandal. Rules are rules. Just like a teensy bit of toe overlap over the draped bottom of the net counts as a rules violation, a teensy bit of anabolic steroid in your system also counts.

The integrity of the sport must be protected. We must hold athletes accountable to the rules.

In other words,

WADA anti-doping code
Article 2. Anti-doping rule violations
2.6.2 Possession of a substance that is prohibited in Out-of-
Competition Testing or a Prohibited Method by Athlete Support
Personnel in connection with an Athlete, Competition or training,
unless the Athlete Support Personnel establishes that the
Possession is pursuant to a therapeutic use exemption granted
to an Athlete in accordance with Article 4.4 (Therapeutic Use) or
other acceptable just
ification.

 

[Shaolin]

In the summer of 1990, I was playing a backdraw junior match in the morning sun in Yakima. My opponent hit a drop shot, and I raced to the net and scooped it over the net past my opponent for a winner…. Or so I thought… until my opponent pointed to my feet, and I looked down to see my toe was standing on top of the net that was draped down and extending 6” into my side of the court.

Come on, I protested. Rules are rules, buddy! he retorted. My opponent was correct, I accepted that it was his point.

This is the same situation with the Sinner doping scandal. Rules are rules. Just like a teensy bit of toe overlap over the draped bottom of the net counts as a rules violation, a teensy bit of anabolic steroid in your system also counts.

The integrity of the sport must be protected. We must hold athletes accountable to the rules.

This changes everything.

 

[Sudacafan]

In the summer of 1990, I was playing a backdraw junior match in the morning sun in Yakima. My opponent hit a drop shot, and I raced to the net and scooped it over the net past my opponent for a winner…. Or so I thought… until my opponent pointed to my feet, and I looked down to see my toe was standing on top of the net that was draped down and extending 6” into my side of the court.

Come on, I protested. Rules are rules, buddy! he retorted. My opponent was correct, I accepted that it was his point.

This is the same situation with the Sinner doping scandal. Rules are rules. Just like a teensy bit of toe overlap over the draped bottom of the net counts as a rules violation, a teensy bit of anabolic steroid in your system also counts.

The integrity of the sport must be protected. We must hold athletes accountable to the rules.

Same thing happened to me at the club years ago, as I touched the net very lightly, so my opponent claimed it was his point.
OK, then, you get the point, I said, but I will call out all your foot faults, which by the way, were very evident.
So it went shortly afterwards, and my opponent was so pissed after his second foot fault I called, as his were so evident, as he used to serve like one ot two full steps from inside the court. He retired because of that.
Rules are rules.