Tennis needs to introduce a zero tolerance doping policy

Spencer Gore

Spencer Gore

Legend
Recent events in both the men's and women's games have highlighted a serious doping issue in tennis. Those who believe the excuses put forward by those found with PEDs or banned substances in their system are either very naive or wilfully refusing to acknowledge the truth. The excuses are the same ones you always hear from professional athletes when they are caught doping - it was in cough medicine, it was my coach, it was all an innocent accident. Dopers through history from Ben Johnson to Marion Jones have used the same excuses when initially caught.

The tennis authorities need to start getting serious. We need a zero tolerance drugs policy. The responsibility lies with the athlete to be certain no banned substances enter their system. So it is their responsibility to check the ingredients of drugs, to check the ingredients of "health drinks", to know precisely what their coach is administering to them.

Anyone caught with ANY amount of banned substance above legal limits should be banned from competing until two slams have passed, for a first offence; banned for a season and all ranking points stripped for a second offence; and banned for life for a third offence.

Time to get serious. Time to get doping out of tennis.
 
Last edited:
There must also be a suspension for accidental doping or negligence of one of the team members (in this case, a physiotherapist and a doctor).

3 months is a minimum

0 seconds for Sinner and a month for Iga is a huge shame and therefore all the other players who were draconianly punished for the same case now turn out to be total clowns who had to sit at home for years while their more famous colleagues play the tournaments they want and get away with it.
 
Spencer Gore said:
Recent events in both the men's and women's games have highlighted a serious doping issue in tennis. Those who believe the excuses put forward by those found with PEDs or banned substances in their system are either very naive or wilfully refusing to acknowledge the truth. The excuses are the same ones you always hear from professional athletes when they are caught doping - it was in cough medicine, it was my coach, it was all an innocent accident. Dopers through history from Ben Johnson to Marion Jones have used the same excuses when initially caught.

The tennis authorities need to start getting serious. We need a zero policy drugs policy. The responsibility lies with the athlete to be certain no banned substances enter their system. So it is their responsibility to check the ingredients of drugs, to check the ingredients of "health drinks", to know precisely what their coach is administering to them.

Anyone caught with ANY amount of banned substance above legal limits should be banned from competing until two slams have passed, for a first offence; banned for a season and all ranking points stripped for a second offence; and banned for life for a third offence.

Time to get serious. Time to get doping out of tennis.
Click to expand...
'better that 10 guilty people go free than one innocent person suffer, was Blackstone's famous quote about the criminal justice system, and the logic of that applies to doping.
I think it's a noble aim to try and keep tennis doping free, but the concept of fairness also has to come into play, and that means any reasonable doubt must be part of the evaluation.
Even in your opening paragraph, you concede that it's possible to be very naïve - and i agree with that. Just as in a criminal prosecution where the stakes are high, if there is reasonable doubt, that must be given to the player.
The world is so constructed that sometimes guilty people escape justice, and that will also happen to many dopers too, but better that than a draconian system that punishes athletes who may be foolish, naïve or careless.
Zero tolerance, has to mean zero tolerance when we can be absolutely certain of guilt, not where we are uncertain.
 
taster said:
'better that 10 guilty people go free than one innocent person suffer, was Blackstone's famous quote about the criminal justice system, and the logic of that applies to doping.
I think it's a noble aim to try and keep tennis doping free, but the concept of fairness also has to come into play, and that means any reasonable doubt must be part of the evaluation.
Even in your opening paragraph, you concede that it's possible to be very naïve - and i agree with that. Just as in a criminal prosecution where the stakes are high, if there is reasonable doubt, that must be given to the player.
The world is so constructed that sometimes guilty people escape justice and that will also happen to many dopers, but better that than a draconian system that punishes athletes who may be foolish, naïve or careless.
Zero tolerance, has to mean zero tolerance when we can be absolutely certain of guilt.
Click to expand...
The logic that applies to the criminal justice system doesn't apply to sport. Otherwise football players would be up in court every week for assault.
 
Spencer Gore said:
The tennis authorities need to start getting serious. We need a zero tolerance drugs policy. The responsibility lies with the athlete to be certain no banned substances enter their system. So it is their responsibility to check the ingredients of drugs, to check the ingredients of "health drinks", to know precisely what their coach is administering to them.
Click to expand...
And how do you propose we deal with a proven instance of contamination, i.e., stuff NOT in the list of ingredients, o Elder One?
 
Spencer Gore said:
The logic that applies to the criminal justice system doesn't apply to sport. Otherwise football players would be up in court every week for assault.
Click to expand...
First of all, the fact that this principle may not apply to all areas of life, doesn't mean it's not sound - it is. Justice isn't always even handed, that doesn't mean that the principle itself isn't sound and we shouldn't strive for equality before the law - w should.
The principle of reasonable doubt in doping is a good one, and you frankly you haven't undermined it.
 
Spencer Gore said:
Those who believe the excuses put forward by those found with PEDs or banned substances in their system are either very naive or wilfully refusing to acknowledge the truth.
Click to expand...

As soon as someone posts anything resembling evidence, facts, or whatever that isn't personal bias, false equivalence or doesn't rise above the level of 'trust me, bro' - I'd be happy to reconsider and change my position.

For now, Sinner, ITIA et all, have made a stronger case than those who continue to claim intentional doping without anything solid other than their claim of it being 'the truth'.
 
Doping is based on strict liability. It follows from a positive lab result. And all the scientists drive to work in electric vehicles.

taster said:
First of all, the fact that this principle may not apply to all areas of life, doesn't mean it's not sound - it is. Justice isn't always even handed, that doesn't mean that the principle itself isn't sound and we shouldn't strive for equality before the law - w should.
The principle of reasonable doubt in doping is a good one, and you frankly you haven't undermined it.
Click to expand...
 
"Justice isn't always even handed, that doesn't mean that the principle itself isn't sound and we shouldn't strive for equality before the law - w should."

Where is the inequality in making ALL tennis players responsible for checking no illegal substances are in their system?
 
Doping control and its adjudication is not a criminal legal system. It's based on a voluntarily agreed-upon arbitration.

FreeJannik said:
In real world the choice is between:
1) Having a legal system with a 100% chance of punishing the guilty... but often punish some innocent
2) Having a legal system with less than 100% chance of punishing the guilty... but rarely punish an innocent
Click to expand...
 
Bartelby said:
Doping is based on strict liability. It follows from a positive lab result. And all the scientists drive to work in electric vehicles.
Click to expand...
That's not correct.
There's a doping test, which may prove positive, and then the player has an opportunity to offer mitigation or defence regarding the circumstances of the doping. If you look back over this thread, someone has already presented Iga's defence, which is part of the whole doping process and gives the players a right to prove their innocence - even if the test was positive. Even if there is some form of negligence or limited culpability on the part of the player -as there have been in many cases, it's not purely a positive test which determines the players fate.
 
Bartelby said:
Doping control and its adjudication is not a criminal legal system. It's based on a voluntarily agreed-upon arbitration.
Click to expand...
It doesn't have to be legal, in the technical sense, for the principle of fairness to be applied. The point here isn't that the doping adjudication exactly parallels the law to the letter, but that the spirit of fairness and reasonable defence is allowed and applied. And in that sense, it carries the logic of the law, as it should and does.
 
Tennis has been tarnished. The way ITIA handled Sinner's case in an effort to relativize such an incident will lead to gradually throwing existing criteria out the window for all future cases. Soon enough we may find ourselves in a scenario where no one raises an eyebrow if a top player tests positive.
 
So when you're at work at the boss says you are not productive, what court of law internal to your company applies the logic of the law?

taster said:
It doesn't have to be legal, in the technical sense, for the principle of fairness to be applied. The point here isn't that the doping adjudication exactly parallels the law to the letter, but that the spirit of fairness and reasonable defence is allowed and applied. And in that sense, it carries the logic of the law, as it should and does.
Click to expand...
 
You don't seem to be able to distinguish liability from punishment. The test makes you liable. Factors reduce the suspension.

taster said:
That's not correct.
There's a doping test, which may prove positive, and then the player has an opportunity to offer mitigation or defence regarding the circumstances of the doping. If you look back over this thread, someone has already presented Iga's defence, which is part of the whole doping process and gives the players a right to prove their innocence - even if the test was positive. Even if there is some form of negligence or limited culpability on the part of the player -as there have been in many cases, it's not purely a positive test which determines the players fate.
Click to expand...
 
The Sinner and Swiatek cases raise institutional issues, not ones based on legal principles.

The people in charge of the ITIA need to be removed. Cases continue to be oddly decided.

There is a complete loss of confidence in the process.
 
aldeayeah said:
You people are incredible. In Iga's case, a sealed melatonin box from the same manufacturing run of the one she used was found, and it was found to be contaminated as well. See point 32:

https://www.reddit.com/r/tennis/comments/1h21ns2

She does not deserve the crucifying she's getting because of Sinner's team botch job of justifying his positive.
Click to expand...

I hate to be that guy but doesn't that all seem a bit too convienient? Factory that produces the product, also produces the substance which is banned making cross-contaimination plausable when you don't think about it for more than a few minutes. I feel like that would be a significantly bigger issue if it was an entire batch contaminated right? Wouldn't that also warrent the company being invesigated? Also I'm super impressed they managed to find a container of the same product from the same batch that Iga used because of where she bought it from in Poland. They must be amazing at their jobs!

Then you've got the fact she didn't declare this specific medication on her doping form because and I quote "it was not on the normal list she usually copies from and she was tired". Now I would like to add that under this same invesigation, it's started she has been recommended to take this medication for YEARS to help with regularing her sleep patterns but somehow she didn't know or forgot to declare it this specific time? When it was convientiently contaminated? Come on!
 
TearTheRoofOff said:
We can all very easily hop and skip down 'Everything is Fake' Alley, you know.
Click to expand...
Millions of dollars and careers are at stake. If you honestly think people aren't prepared to provide fake physical evidence in those circumstances you really are in the naive category.

Physical evidence provided by the accused that could easily have been tampered with beforehand shouldn't count as evidence at all.

Otherwise everyone accused can simply say "the product was contaminated! Look here's another one (I made earlier!)"
 
Spencer Gore said:
Millions of dollars and careers are at stake. If you honestly think people aren't prepared to provide fake physical evidence in those circumstances you really are in the naive category.

Physical evidence provided by the accused that could easily have been tampered with beforehand shouldn't count as evidence at all.

Otherwise everyone accused can simply say "the product was contaminated! Look here's another one (I made earlier!)"
Click to expand...

Anything to back this up? Or are you relying on my naivety to believe you?
 
They need to introduce testing with lower sensitivity but higher frequency, that's all. Most of these cases are probably really contamination.
To ban somebody who is not guilty has nothing to do with "zero tolerance", it's just a crime!
 
Bartelby said:
So when you're at work at the boss says you are not productive, what court of law internal to your company applies the logic of the law?
Click to expand...
There isn't a court and nobody has said there is a court - that's a red herring, but rather the principle of redress does exist in tennis, and that's perfectly reasonable. What's being said is that there is a right of redress for players - which how it should be, when the implications can a ban reputation, and can have a profound effect on their career.
The fact that boss may or may not be right about my productivity, doesn't mean where the implications are profound there shouldn't be a right of redress. There is a right to challenge unfair dismissal in the UK, when the implications of unfairness are profound, that's a sound principle.
And if there weren't such statute, i would advocate there should be such a statute because it's a sound principle.
 
Bartelby said:
You don't seem to be able to distinguish liability from punishment. The test makes you liable. Factors reduce the suspension.
Click to expand...
Liability is the precursor to punishment, and in this context full liability is not fully established by the positive test, the guilt is provisional but can be challenged. This is the Sinner case in a nutshell, it's his lack of vigilance for which he's given limited punishment, not that he is deemed to have intentionally doped - at least thus far. This correctly parallels the judicial process, at least up to a point.
Players have to be hyper vigilant, and not being that has consequences, but that's different from the idea that a positive test is absolute proof of an intentional doping regime.
I do agree with opening post in this thread, that there's something very fishy about all this positive tests and the explanations given for them, but that doesn't mean reasonable doubt should be abandoned, for reasons I've already given.
 
Spencer Gore said:
Millions of dollars and careers are at stake. If you honestly think people aren't prepared to provide fake physical evidence in those circumstances you really are in the naive category.

Physical evidence provided by the accused that could easily have been tampered with beforehand shouldn't count as evidence at all.

Otherwise everyone accused can simply say "the product was contaminated! Look here's another one (I made earlier!)"
Click to expand...
Yes, some can go to great lengths to cover up their doping when there's such a great deal at stake.
But you're not facing up to what your advocacy of zero tolerance regime actually means.
Only if you abandon a right of redress to any positive test can you have a zero tolerance of doping, if you allow a right of redress then reasonable adjudication of that redress may allow for mitigation or the overturning of the de facto charge of intentional doping. That's just not reasonable, unless you think every positive test is intentional doping, which you can't possibly know.
 
I don't see any problem with doping actually. I would say that if I was playing, I would encourage it. I think that the one month ban was a bit excessive. Overall, very unhappy.
 
Spencer Gore said:
"Justice isn't always even handed, that doesn't mean that the principle itself isn't sound and we shouldn't strive for equality before the law - w should."

Where is the inequality in making ALL tennis players responsible for checking no illegal substances are in their system?
Click to expand...
Players are responsible in that sense - there is some culpability, which is why there are suspensions, even when the doping wasn't intentional.
But oversites and failures to be vigilant are a reality of being human, which is why that mitigation exists. There are no moral principles that i can think of, be it deontological or consequential, that don't allow for human fallibility.
 
SourBuffalo said:
I don't see any problem with doping actually. I would say that if I was playing, I would encourage it. I think that the one month ban was a bit excessive. Overall, very unhappy.
Click to expand...
Surely the obvious argument against doping, is that is straight up unhealthy. You end up with an arms race amongst athletes where they have to outcompete each other by taking every increasing amounts of drugs, and that would reach a logical conclusion if you allow drugs in sport. I was talking about this with regard to female East German athletes who were given drugs in athletics, with profound and harmful long term consequences for them.
I guess you could argue that if players know the risks, then let them do it, but i would argue for separate categories if that was the case, so you would have clean and doping categories, but that's just not going to happen.
 
Terenigma said:
I hate to be that guy but doesn't that all seem a bit too convienient? Factory that produces the product, also produces the substance which is banned making cross-contaimination plausable when you don't think about it for more than a few minutes. I feel like that would be a significantly bigger issue if it was an entire batch contaminated right? Wouldn't that also warrent the company being invesigated? Also I'm super impressed they managed to find a container of the same product from the same batch that Iga used because of where she bought it from in Poland. They must be amazing at their jobs!

Then you've got the fact she didn't declare this specific medication on her doping form because and I quote "it was not on the normal list she usually copies from and she was tired". Now I would like to add that under this same invesigation, it's started she has been recommended to take this medication for YEARS to help with regularing her sleep patterns but somehow she didn't know or forgot to declare it this specific time? When it was convientiently contaminated? Come on!
Click to expand...

Seems to me like maybe the company makes melatonin as a cover and "accidentally" adds PEDs, and athletes know to order their melatonin from them...
 
@Spencer Gore I agree with you but have a hard time accepting that notion as many that actually compete on the pro tour may be exposed to varieties of substances unknowingly. Nowadays, foods, drinks and even the air we breathe may have agents (not the CIA ones) harmful all the way to the anti-doping organizations. There may not be a complete way to protect oneself from being exposed.
 
Biotic said:
Tennis has been tarnished. The way ITIA handled Sinner's case in an effort to relativize such an incident will lead to gradually throwing existing criteria out the window for all future cases. Soon enough we may find ourselves in a scenario where no one raises an eyebrow if a top player tests positive.
Click to expand...
That is the sad truth there. What stands out there is "no one raises an eyebrow if top player tests positive". Imagine those in lower rankings that cannot afford legal advice/aid and are stuck defending themselves only. Those players not only won't be noticed but also judged more and banned for longer time too.
 
taster said:
'better that 10 guilty people go free than one innocent person suffer, was Blackstone's famous quote about the criminal justice system, and the logic of that applies to doping.
I think it's a noble aim to try and keep tennis doping free, but the concept of fairness also has to come into play, and that means any reasonable doubt must be part of the evaluation.
Even in your opening paragraph, you concede that it's possible to be very naïve - and i agree with that. Just as in a criminal prosecution where the stakes are high, if there is reasonable doubt, that must be given to the player.
The world is so constructed that sometimes guilty people escape justice, and that will also happen to many dopers too, but better that than a draconian system that punishes athletes who may be foolish, naïve or careless.
Zero tolerance, has to mean zero tolerance when we can be absolutely certain of guilt, not where we are uncertain.
Click to expand...
And guilty player get free pass because we dont want that innocent player suffer and when guilty player win slam and huge money then ????
ZTP must be applied and i must say without any partiality. One person is getting 5 year ban other is getting 5 weeks does not sound fair.
Granted that some naive and innocent will also get rough decision but some sacrifice has to be made. You cant let 10 players with PED usages going free for the sake of 1 innocent player.
Players should be made responsible for their actions .
 
I am in agreement to a point.
Tennis is a different pro sport than most. Tour is in several countries and some where food regulations aren’t as good. Believe pros state you can’t consume certain foods (mostly red meat) in Columbia due to hormone contamination and regulations aren’t as tight.
So that seems a bit unfair. Believe Tara Moore is going through this now.

But then you have Iga who claims it’s contaminated supplements. Well in my opinion - supplements aren’t regulated as tightly so you are at risk there. Little odd to hear a banned substance to help oxygen increase in your blood was contaminated in a mfg facility producing melatonin though.

My take is the rules and processes - both suspension and Appeals need to be equal. Lower ranked players shouldn’t have to wait 12-18 months to have their appeals heard while sinner and iga get to play through there’s while no one knows about it.
 
gamelovergold said:
And guilty player get free pass because we dont want that innocent player suffer and when guilty player win slam and huge money then ????
ZTP must be applied and i must say without any partiality. One person is getting 5 year ban other is getting 5 weeks does not sound fair.
Granted that some naive and innocent will also get rough decision but some sacrifice has to be made. You cant let 10 players with PED usages going free for the sake of 1 innocent player.
Players should be made responsible for their actions .
Click to expand...
Yes, but if players are inadvertently doped, then it wasn't their actions that are responsible?
By all means, if you want any player to be banned if they test positive, then that's your position, have innocent players banned along with the guilty, but be aware of the logic you're advocating.
If it's ok for someone to be innocent in sport, but be punished anyway, why not apply that to the criminal justice system? Why not any aspect of life?
Once you assume a persons guilt based on whatever evidence, and don't allow for redress, demons follow. What if someone wanted to frame a player, they managed to smuggle a small amount of something into their drink? According to your position they could do so and the player would have no right of redress because - they failed the test, that's it, do you want to defend that?
 
taster said:
Yes, but if players are inadvertently doped, then it wasn't their actions that are responsible?
By all means, if you want any player to be banned if they test positive, then that's your position, have innocent players banned along with the guilty, but be aware of the logic you're advocating.
If it's ok for someone to be innocent in sport, but be punished anyway, why not apply that to the criminal justice system? Why not any aspect of life?
Once you assume a persons guilt based on whatever evidence, and don't allow for redress, demons follow. What if someone wanted to frame a player? According to your position they could do so and the player would have no right of redress because - they failed the test, that's it, do you want to defend that?
Click to expand...
I think it’s wild to me hearing how players can be “doped” without knowing. Like if I was sinner and I had open cuts on my feet or blisters , no way I’m allowing someone to rub my feet without gloves
 
ChrisJR3264 said:
Little odd to hear a banned substance to help oxygen increase in your blood was contaminated in a mfg facility producing melatonin though.
Click to expand...
Maybe they add it in to the melatonin so you can dream about not getting gassed while winning the French Open?
 
ChrisJR3264 said:
I think it’s wild to me hearing how players can be “doped” without knowing. Like if I was sinner and I had open cuts on my feet or blisters , no way I’m allowing someone to rub my feet without gloves
Click to expand...
I feel the same, and i don't necessarily believe what they are saying in their defence. I'm suspicious of Iga and Sinner, but while I'm very suspicious, I'm not certain, and that's an important distinction
 
FreeJannik said:
In real world the choice is between:
1) Having a legal system with a 100% chance of punishing the guilty... but often punish some innocent
2) Having a legal system with less than 100% chance of punishing the guilty... but rarely punish an innocent
Click to expand...
Everytime 1 is right.
taster said:
Yes, but if players are inadvertently doped, then it wasn't their actions that are responsible?
By all means, if you want any player to be banned if they test positive, then that's your position, have innocent players banned along with the guilty, but be aware of the logic you're advocating.
If it's ok for someone to be innocent in sport, but be punished anyway, why not apply that to the criminal justice system? Why not any aspect of life?
Once you assume a persons guilt based on whatever evidence, and don't allow for redress, demons follow. What if someone wanted to frame a player, they managed to smuggle a small amount of something into their drink? According to your position they could do so and the player would have no right of redress because - they failed the test, that's it, do you want to defend that?
Click to expand...
Never want that any innocent player should face ban because he cannot defend himself . But 1 person is innocent and say 5 are using PED and not getting caught and competing on same tournament with that 1 innocent guy. Will that 1 innocent guy win against them. Will his innocence will raise his performance ??? No way the guys who are doping will win 9|10 times. Maybe 10/10 times and that innocent guy will remain empty hand.
desperate time demands desperate measures. To put in simple explanation
Suppose i want to join army . I go to army camp. Then there are physical tests and written test that i have to pass but lets suppose my country is at war with other country and we need soldiers . I reach army camp . They dont ask written test and physical test . They give minimum training and before i blink i am in border. area and in the firing line of enemy .
It is the need of hour that is the deciding factor. And if you cant find gulity party then close this anti doping agency.
 
gamelovergold said:
Everytime 1 is right.

Never want that any innocent player should face ban because he cannot defend himself . But 1 person is innocent and say 5 are using PED and not getting caught and competing on same tournament with that 1 innocent guy. Will that 1 innocent guy win against them. Will his innocence will raise his performance ??? No way the guys who are doping will win 9|10 times. Maybe 10/10 times and that innocent guy will remain empty hand.
desperate time demands desperate measures. To put in simple explanation
Suppose i want to join army . I go to army camp. Then there are physical tests and written test that i have to pass but lets suppose my country is at war with other country and we need soldiers . I reach army camp . They dont ask written test and physical test . They give minimum training and before i blink i am in border. area and in the firing line of enemy .
It is the need of hour that is the deciding factor. And if you cant find gulity party then close this anti doping agency.
Click to expand...
The army analogy fails, because in that instance, the consequences may be existential for that country and thousand or millions may die. Desperation in war is not the same as what we're faced with in tennis, thousands will not die because players are doped. Also, in the analogy you gave, there are consequences to abandoning procedure, you may be guaranteeing certain death for the unqualified solder, so even this example is not without moral relevance.
To abandon are principles of morality and procedure, even during war, can lead to a hellish road, pretty quickly.
In regard to your point about a 5-1 ration in doping, i simply us refer you to the point i made earlier by Blackwell about it being better that 10 guilty men go free than an innocent be punished, which in essence, you take issue with, although you initially said you never want any innocent player to face a ban if he cannot defend himself, so which is it?
The ratio between dopers and clean players is unknown, you give a 5 -1 ratio, but that's plucked straight out of the air. What if it's 40 -1, what if it's 1-30. Simply taking a hypothetical figure and using it as evidence doesn't really get us very far.
 
aldeayeah said:
You people are incredible. In Iga's case, a sealed melatonin box from the same manufacturing run of the one she used was found, and it was found to be contaminated as well. See point 32:

She does not deserve the crucifying she's getting because of Sinner's team botch job of justifying his positive.
Click to expand...

We never know if she only took that one medication. What if she secretly took other drug and hid it from us all?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Solution to doping problems
2
Replies
60
Views
1K
Sudacafan
Sudacafan
C
Anti-Doping Programme to introduce biological passport
2 3
Replies
104
Views
12K
Deleted member 688153
D
O
Atheltics, cycling....when is Tennis going to start taking doping seriously?
2
Replies
68
Views
6K
hersito
H
Centre Court
Doping in mens tennis and silent bans
Replies
48
Views
12K
Semidios
S
Mainad
Murray criticises doping offence duo
Replies
37
Views
4K
Mainad
Mainad
Back
Top