Tara Moore: Swiatek was allowed to play WTA Finals and BJK Cup while being banned.

jmnk

Hall of Fame
?
Iga played BJK and WTA Finals. It was only after these events were completed did the 1 month ban come down. Ban starting on Thanksgiving.
With credit for provisional suspension time served in September which is fine.
But many are complaining that the ban should have come down in November when BJK and WTA were held.
:unsure:
  • November 2-9, 2024: Swiatek participated in the WTA Finals in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
  • November 13-20, 2024: Swiatek played in the BJK Cup Finals in Malaga, Spain, where she led Poland to significant victories against Spain and the Czech Republic.
  • November 28, 2024: The ITIA officially announced a one-month suspension for Swiatek, which included time already served during her provisional suspension. She had just eight days remaining on her suspension at that point.
It's really not that complicated if you read the timing. The final decision on the ban was not reached until Nov 28. If BJK Finals were held starting let's say Dec 1 then she could not have played. Could that decision be reached earlier - perhaps, the ITIA took whatever time it needed to review the case and asses the penalty. So you are essentially arguing they took 'too long'. But in Sinner's case many argue that it was botched too because ITIA ruled 'too quickly' on his appeal. So which is it - you want that body to act fast or slow?
 

jmnk

Hall of Fame
Have you ever seen any breakdown of the numbers who take this "in-camera process"?

It's only a rational choice to take the "in-camera process" if you think you'll get off.

It seems odd that the two best players in the world took this option and got off lightly.

The ITIA seems a very obliging organisation compared to the TIU that preceded it.
sorry, what do you mean by 'in camera' process?
 

Robert F

Hall of Fame
Because you are automatically suspended after a positive test result pending a full investigation by the ITIA and if you challenge the ITIA conclusion then also pending an arbitration before the Tennis Independent Tribunal to resolve the dispute. However, you have the right to appeal this automatic provisional suspension (to the Chair of the Tennis Independent Tribunal). If successful you may play so this is where a “split” occurs because after a full investigation you may wind up with a (final not provisional) suspension.

Provisional suspension [can’t play] …Successful appeal of provisional suspension [can play]…final ITIA decision or Tennis Independent Tribunal arbitration decision that results in a suspension [can’t play]
This helps.
Again though publicly this doesn't look good.

My other question is typically how long are suspensions for "contamination?" If they are at least a month, why not keep the suspesnion in place until the decision is made as to how long the suspension is supposed to be?
If the suspsension was to be completed, then shouldn't the events participated in between suspsension not count then??

Similar question arises for Sinner, if WADA gets him suspsended longer is it fair to the rest of the field that he got to compete?

Legally all these processes make some sense and appears that Swiatek and Sinner played by letter of the law, it just looks bad for tennis and goes against a common sense of fairness. The process seems to give enough wiggle room that the ITIA can play with timinig of accusations and notification to benefit or punish players or benefit the tour. Don't want your #1 player to miss headlining events especially when your tour is struggling to make ends meet.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
It just means a private/secret process though those words are slightly more pejorative.

You could argue that all doping cases should be held behind closed doors.

The only problem is practical. Every winner would "need to be confirmed".

sorry, what do you mean by 'in camera' process?
 
Last edited:

Sudacafan

Bionic Poster
I assume for reasons unknown to me that you “split” the work involved in certifying my post and have not permanently suspended my application. I look forward to ultimately prevailing once you complete your full investigation.
Actually, the task has been outsourced to some of our offshore workshops. Please inform your ticket number, and allow us four to six weeks for a response. Thanks for your business.
 

TennisBro

Hall of Fame
The contrary. It’s laid out in such boring detail that most people including the whiny player won’t read it but will instead head to tik tok for a case summary. :giggle:
I guess reading is your strong side and there's abundance of time in your life. I'd like you to point us all in the official direction where it states that Swiatek is banned for a month from _____ to ________ and where it states that she can play the tournaments in case that she has played. Many of us skim, scan and infer when reading.
 

RSJfan

Hall of Fame
I guess reading is your strong side and there's abundance of time in your life. I'd like you to point us all in the official direction where it states that Swiatek is banned for a month from _____ to ________ and where it states that she can play the tournaments in case that she has played. Many of us skim, scan and infer when reading.

@jmnk

Case in point.
 

beltsman

G.O.A.T.
So your favourite Iga can choose to break up her suspension into pieces. Serve three weeks here. Then decide to play a tournament. Then serve another week.
:rolleyes:

giphy.webp

She's insufferable
 

RSJfan

Hall of Fame

My other question is typically how long are suspensions for "contamination?"

Beats me. I haven’t surveyed cases generally, tennis specific or CAS appeals. Plus they’re all very fact specific anyway,

If they are at least a month, why not keep the suspesnion in place until the decision is made as to how long the suspension is supposed to be?

I guess you could have a system where a positive test triggers an investigation but no action is taken against a player unless and until the ITIA investigation concludes and either the player and ITIA come to an agreement or a third party arbiter resolves any dispute. This can take months. If there is an appeal to CAS even longer.

But they went with an auto provisional suspension for a positive test. They don’t care if someone held a gun to your head and made you ingest the substance. You are auto banned. Harsh. However, the player may appeal to an independent third party to have the provisional ban lifted while a full investigation takes place.

But what you’re proposing is IMO fundamentally unfair to players. The ITIA which is acting as investigator and prosecutor can not be given the additional power of a judge to be final say on how strong its preliminary case is, that an independent tribunal will subsequently agree with it if after its full investigation a player challenges its conclusions, or to determine unilaterally what punishment it thinks appropriate. How does the player get their time suspended back (and undo any damage to their reputation if the ban leaks and/or finances — prob have to explain to their sponsors what’s going on) if the Independent Tribunal (or CAS) reaches a different more player friendly result ?

If the suspension was to be completed, then shouldn't the events participated in between suspsension not count then??

Similar question arises for Sinner, if WADA gets him suspended longer is it fair to the rest of the field that he got to compete?

If you’re competing during a period a suspension was lifted (i.e., you’re not suspended) and you’re not otherwise being charged with a new ADRV during that period then it counts. Fair and square. :p


…it just looks bad for tennis and goes against a common sense of fairness.

What is against common sense or unfair, specifically. :unsure:

The process seems to give enough wiggle room that the ITIA can play with timinig of accusations and notification to benefit or punish players or benefit the tour. Don't want your #1 player to miss headlining events especially when your tour is struggling to make ends meet.

There are time periods involved but action and inaction is probably more a function of when weekends fall :giggle: than the ITIA manipulating when to send notices with an eye on the tennis calendar. Prosecutors of all stripes always have discretion.
 
Last edited:

Sudacafan

Bionic Poster
Beats me. I haven’t surveyed cases generally, tennis specific or CAS appeals. Plus they’re all very fact specific anyway,



I guess you could have a system where a positive test triggers an investigation but no action is taken against a player unless and until the ITIA investigation concludes and either the player and ITIA come to an agreement or a third party arbiter resolves any dispute. This can take months. If there is an appeal to CAS even longer.

But they went with an auto provisional suspension for a positive test. They don’t care if someone held a gun to your head and made you ingest the substance. You are auto banned. Harsh. However, the player may appeal to an independent third party to have the provisional ban lifted while a full investigation takes place.

But what you’re proposing is IMO fundamentally unfair to players. The ITIA which is acting as both detective and prosecutor can not be given the additional power of a judge to be final say on how strong its preliminary case is, that an independent tribunal will subsequently agree with it if after its full investigation a player challenges its conclusions, or to determine unilaterally what punishment it thinks appropriate. How does the player get their time suspended back (and undo any damage to their reputation and/or finances) if the Independent Tribunal (or CAS) reaches a different more player friendly result ?



If you’re competing during a period a suspension was lifted (i.e., you’re not suspended) and you’re not otherwise being charged with a new ADRV during that period then it counts. Fair and square. :p




What is against common sense or unfair, specifically. :unsure:



There are time periods involved but action is probably more a function of when weekends fall :giggle: than the ITIA manipulating notices with an eye on the tennis calendar. Prosecutors of all stripes always have discretion.
This exchange is very long. I am afraid that it will take months to certify to our undermanned offshore units.
You are hereby warned of this situation.
Thanks for your comprehension.
 

RSJfan

Hall of Fame
This exchange is very long. I am afraid that it will take months to certify to our undermanned offshore units.
You are hereby warned of this situation.
Thanks for your comprehension.
I did not file an application to have this exchange certified — there must be an error in your intake processing. It is too fluid at this point. And I’m afraid Raul has not finished disrupting it either. Please concentrate on my earlier application. All matters relating to FEDR topics should be taking precedence anyway.
 

Sudacafan

Bionic Poster
I did not file an application to have this exchange certified. It is too fluid at this point. And I’m afraid Raul has not finished disrupting it either. Please concentrate on my earlier application. All matters relating to FEDR topics should be taking precedence anyway.
Noted with thanks.
We will deactivate the automatic certification mode setting in your posts.
 

RSJfan

Hall of Fame
WTA is corrupt! What a surprise!

Nth time. The ATP and WTA agree to have their players be bound by the WADA Code and related tennis rules (TADP). They have no role in anti-doping enforcement (other than education).
 

jmnk

Hall of Fame
This helps.
Again though publicly this doesn't look good.
only because people read headlines only. What changes to the process would you suggest to make it 'look better'?
My other question is typically how long are suspensions for "contamination?"
there really isn't 'typical'. It depends on whether you are found to be 'significant at fault' or just 'at fault', and even then there's a range of applicable punishment.
If they are at least a month, why not keep the suspesnion in place until the decision is made as to how long the suspension is supposed to be?
If the suspsension was to be completed, then shouldn't the events participated in between suspsension not count then??

Similar question arises for Sinner, if WADA gets him suspsended longer is it fair to the rest of the field that he got to compete?

Legally all these processes make some sense and appears that Swiatek and Sinner played by letter of the law, it just looks bad for tennis and goes against a common sense of fairness. The process seems to give enough wiggle room that the ITIA can play with timinig of accusations and notification to benefit or punish players or benefit the tour. Don't want your #1 player to miss headlining events especially when your tour is struggling to make ends meet.
really ITIA docs outline all of the above.
I guess reading is your strong side and there's abundance of time in your life. I'd like you to point us all in the official direction where it states that Swiatek is banned for a month from _____ to ________ and where it states that she can play the tournaments in case that she has played. Many of us skim, scan and infer when reading.
@RSJfan and others outlined the timeline I think at least 3 times _in this very thread_. If you can't be bothered to read posts in the the thread you are commenting in then perhaps you should not be commenting.
 

jmnk

Hall of Fame
on a side note, out of curiosity, I actually went back to read the details of Moore's case (since this thread was inspired by her twitter post). I can see she is obviously angry that her case took so long. On the other hand the fact that Independent Panel that made the final verdict found her completely not at fault - given the circumstances and facts of her case - is rather surprising and somewhat unexpected.

In a weird sense the fact that Independent Panel ruled so leniently in Moore's case (compared to original punishment that ITIA issued) may have caused ITIA being more lenient in recent (aka Sinner or Swiatek) cases.
 

Robert F

Hall of Fame
only because people read headlines only. What changes to the process would you suggest to make it 'look better'?
It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

Again, it just looks bad that a player is suspended for 22 days, plays 2 big tournaments and then is banned another 8. To the general population not even super tennis fans, they aren't going to read all the policies and procedures they are going to follow the headlines and it looks like the player agreed to skip crappy tournaments as punishment.

If you make it very strict and concrete, say players are banned until aribtration/adjucation is done, publicly it is clear and doesn't offer an appearnce of favoritism. But, then it is really hard on players that have not broken the rules.

On the other hand, which appears to be the case now, when you offer flexiblity and review on a case by case basis, it is probably much more fair to the players and the game itself. But me and the masses can minterpret is as favoritism and corruption.

I'd almost say earlier transparency in this process might make things clearer, but in fairness to innocent players, even an investigation can tarnish a career if it proven innocent.
I imagine if it was disclosed Nadal tested positive for a banned substance and two weeks later was cleared because the back up testing sample was clean, all of us on TW would be he is a doper and the tennis powerd didn't want to sink their hero and money maker. Heck, we are all suspicious his injuries were deals for quiet suspensions.
 

jmnk

Hall of Fame
It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

Again, it just looks bad that a player is suspended for 22 days, plays 2 big tournaments and then is banned another 8. To the general population not even super tennis fans, they aren't going to read all the policies and procedures they are going to follow the headlines and it looks like the player agreed to skip crappy tournaments as punishment.

If you make it very strict and concrete, say players are banned until aribtration/adjucation is done, publicly it is clear and doesn't offer an appearnce of favoritism. But, then it is really hard on players that have not broken the rules.

On the other hand, which appears to be the case now, when you offer flexiblity and review on a case by case basis, it is probably much more fair to the players and the game itself. But me and the masses can minterpret is as favoritism and corruption.

I'd almost say earlier transparency in this process might make things clearer, but in fairness to innocent players, even an investigation can tarnish a career if it proven innocent.
I imagine if it was disclosed Nadal tested positive for a banned substance and two weeks later was cleared because the back up testing sample was clean, all of us on TW would be he is a doper and the tennis powerd didn't want to sink their hero and money maker. Heck, we are all suspicious his injuries were deals for quiet suspensions.
yes, indeed it is the case of "It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.". These are complicated matters, players reputation is at stake, literally professional life of subjects affected by true/alleged doping is at stake. There's no easy solution.

If you read what the entire process is, and I'm not sure why one would as it is a long very boring read of ~130 pages (https://www.itia.tennis/media/l0ojihy2/tadp-2024.pdf), I think you would agree it is rather strict but pretty fair. And clear what the steps are, what the timelines are, etc. Is it easier to navigate through all the legal steps when you have money resources and a team of people working on your behalf - absolutely! But that is not different than life on the circuit being easier for someone that can hire a coach, a trainer, an assistant, a manager, driver, mental coach, etc, etc vs someone that can barely afford plane tickets.
But of course none of it matters in the age where everyone forms an opinion based on one sentence headline.............
 

RSJfan

Hall of Fame
It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

Again, it just looks bad that a player is suspended for 22 days, plays 2 big tournaments and then is banned another 8. To the general population not even super tennis fans, they aren't going to read all the policies and procedures they are going to follow the headlines and it looks like the player agreed to skip crappy tournaments as punishment...
:D


Iga lawyer: “I just spoke to the lead ITIA inspector. I’ve had cases with him before and he‘s a good guy. We’re all on Team Tennis here. Not like those WADA people. ITIA understands you’re not some Jane Doe player. You‘re not going to miss anything that matters. I think I can get him to go for 30 days. We just need to give him a semi plausible story that the ITIA can sell. But first we get the provisional ban lifted so you can play the BJK Cup and the Tour Finals. You’ll just have to pass on a few crap tournaments before that and that you’d probably skip one or two of anyway. You’ll get credit for skipping them. So you‘ll play the important events and have maybe a week suspension after but it will coincide with the off-season and holiday time. Sound good?“
 
Last edited:

TennisBro

Hall of Fame
@RSJfan and others outlined the timeline I think at least 3 times _in this very thread_. If you can't be bothered to read posts in the the thread you are commenting in then perhaps you should not be commenting.
The question was for the purpose to reiterate the timing of suspension and the tournaments Iga Swiatek has played after the USO. There's no need to be snide and gangbang with other user names for suggestions you may not like.
 

jmnk

Hall of Fame
The question was for the purpose to reiterate the timing of suspension and the tournaments Iga Swiatek has played after the USO. There's no need to be snide and gangbang with other user names for suggestions you may not like.
fair enough.
now, it's funny you think my comment was 'snide' given the fact your post was written as follows:
I guess reading is your strong side and there's abundance of time in your life. I'd like you to point us all in the official direction where it states that Swiatek is banned for a month from _____ to ________ and where it states that she can play the tournaments in case that she has played. Many of us skim, scan and infer when reading.
anyway, the answer to your question is here https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...k-cup-while-being-banned.778569/post-18492340 , one of the earlier posts in this very thread
 

TennisBro

Hall of Fame

NaDjoFed

Professional
Tara Moore: complains that her case was handled poorly with unfair suspension
Also Tara Moore: complains because other similar cases were not handled poorly with unfair suspension
 

jmnk

Hall of Fame
Tara Moore: complains that her case was handled poorly with unfair suspension
Also Tara Moore: complains because other similar cases were not handled poorly with unfair suspension
to add to that:
Tara Moore: explains the presence of the drug X in her sample to happen via contaminated meat. Points to two other players testing for the same at that tournament and eating the same meal.
Also Tara Moore: explains the presence of drug Y in her sample _but not in the samples of the other two players_ via arguing the other two players apparently _did not eat the same meal_.
 

Robert F

Hall of Fame
And that is exactly the issue, right.

Two players test positive for PEDs.
PEDs are illegal.
The end.
There is no difference.
Same rules and penalties should apply.
So if I intentionally dope for years to get performane enhancement, lie to the public, take masking agents, pay supplement companies to say they contanimated my supplements, I should get the same punishment as to someone who once in their lifetime ate contanimated meat or got a massage with an oil I don't control?

Or even worse, what if a desperate Federer had Djokovic over when Djoker has 18 slams, Federer's personal chef prepares Fed a PED free meal but Djoker's steak is sauted in clobestal with TMZ sprinked on top? Should Djoker's career be ended when someone puprposely tried to take him out? I mean he test positive for a PED?
 

socallefty

G.O.A.T.
Tara Moore: complains that her case was handled poorly with unfair suspension
Also Tara Moore: complains because other similar cases were not handled poorly with unfair suspension
This is a good post. Tara Moore wanted the trial/sentencing part of the positive drug test to be much quicker than in her case. She also wanted quick absolution of guilt and short sentences for cases where accidental contamination happened. Maybe her example caused the system to be reformed and made better. Isn’t this what she wants?

If the two players Sinner and Swiatek had been ranked outside the top 100, would she be applauding the fact that there was a speedy resolution to those cases with minimal punishment once it was decided that it was not the fault of the players since this is what she thinks should happen in a just system?

It seems like the fact that both these players are highly ranked seems to have created a suspicion that it resulted in them getting an expeditious dismissal of their cases with minimal punishment. But if the system works this way for all players in the future, I assume that they would be happy about it.
 

AM75

Hall of Fame
So your favourite Iga can choose to break up her suspension into pieces. Serve three weeks here. Then decide to play a tournament. Then serve another week.
:rolleyes:
Didn't she complaint about long and hard WTA season? Now she got a solution. Just dope and then use your suspension to recover from gruelling schedule when you want it. It's a win win situation.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Where is the announcement that the system was reformed in such a manner? It would indeed be a good reform, but the ad hocery that surrounds doping controls suggests the change, if any, went unannounced.

This is a good post. Tara Moore wanted the trial/sentencing part of the positive drug test to be much quicker than in her case. She also wanted quick absolution of guilt and short sentences for cases where accidental contamination happened. Maybe her example caused the system to be reformed and made better. Isn’t this what she wants?

If the two players Sinner and Swiatek had been ranked outside the top 100, would she be applauding the fact that there was a speedy resolution to those cases with minimal punishment once it was decided that it was not the fault of the players since this is what she thinks should happen in a just system?

It seems like the fact that both these players are highly ranked seems to have created a suspicion that it resulted in them getting an expeditious dismissal of their cases with minimal punishment. But if the system works this way for all players in the future, I assume that they would be happy about it.
 

Better_Call_Raul

Hall of Fame
That’s something Moore couldn’t understand as she wrote in her post on X, “Wait… so she was supposed to be suspended until Dec 4th yet played BJK cup.. which was (correct me if I’m wrong) LAST WEEK. HOW WAS SHE ALLOWED TO PLAY WHILST BEING SUSPENDED??? Someone plz explain cause I’m spiralling.”


It is unfortunate that Tara Moore, despite being a WTA pro who has been through her own very long doping case still does not fundamentally understand how a provisional suspension works.

Every player is automatically provisionally suspended immediately upon testing positive. Every player also has the right appeal this automatic suspension.
Iga successfully appealed her Sept 12 provisional suspension and it was lifted on Oct 4. Iga was then allowed to play events in Oct and Nov.

Iga received credit for those three weeks served in September.

Leaving Iga with only one more week to serve, Nov 27 - Dec 4.

Iga is officially free today Dec 4.

August 12: Iga provides a urine sample.
September 12: Iga is notified of her positive test for trimetazidine (TMZ) and placed under a mandatory provisional suspension.
September 22: Iga files an application to lift her provisional suspension.
October 4: Iga's provisional suspension is lifted.

November 27: The ITIA offers Iga a one-month suspension, which she accepts.
December 4: Iga's suspension is set to end.
 
Last edited:

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
So did TAra Moore appeal the automatic suspension and, if so, why was it not granted?

It is unfortunate that Tara Moore, despite being a WTA pro who has been through her own very long doping case still does not fundamentally understand how a provisional suspension works.

Every player is automatically provisionally suspended immediately upon testing positive. Every player also has the right appeal this automatic suspension.
Iga successfully appealed her Sept 12 provisional suspension and it was lifted on Oct 4. Iga was then allowed to play events in Oct and Nov.

Iga received credit for those three weeks served in September.

Leaving Iga with only one more week to serve Nov 27 - Dec 4. Iga is officially free today Dec 4.

August 12: Iga provides a urine sample.
September 12: Iga is notified of her positive test for trimetazidine (TMZ) and placed under a mandatory provisional suspension.
September 22: Iga files an application to lift her provisional suspension.
October 4: Iga's provisional suspension is lifted.

November 27: The ITIA offers Iga a one-month suspension, which she accepts.
December 4: Iga's suspension is set to end.
 

Better_Call_Raul

Hall of Fame
So did TAra Moore appeal the automatic suspension and, if so, why was it not granted?

It appears that Moore was clueless on her rights to appeal and/or lacked the resources to appeal.

When Moore received her test results, she "had no idea what to do," indicating a lack of immediate access to legal guidance or resources.

This information suggests that Moore's limited financial resources and lack of immediate access to specialized legal support likely hindered her ability to quickly appeal her provisional suspension within the initial period, as higher-ranked players were able to do.

 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
This may be the reason, but if it is it's shameful.

When Moore received her test results, she "had no idea what to do," indicating a lack of immediate access to legal guidance or resources.

This information suggests that Moore's limited financial resources and lack of immediate access to specialized legal support likely hindered her ability to quickly appeal her provisional suspension within the initial period, as higher-ranked players were able to do.

 

Better_Call_Raul

Hall of Fame
This may be the reason, but if it is it's shameful.

This is the problem with strict liability which you are a proponent of. Even if she was able to immediately appeal how in the world would she able to quickly establish
the source of the contamination to be some hamburger meat that she had consumed?
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Gasquet - inadvertent cocaine use

Cilic - inadvertent supplement use.

Sharapova - inadvertent placebo use

Cilic - refused to be tested on the day

Hingis - self-administered cocaine


Halep belongs to the ITIA era so does not belong to this list.

Halep - exonerated

Sinner - let off

Swiatek - slap on wrist

Gasquet 2009, Cilic 2013, Troicki 2013, Canas 2005, Puerta 2005

Hingis 2007, Barbora 2013, Sharapova 2016, Halep 2022,
 
Last edited:
Top