Spencer Gore
Legend
I'd say comparing doping in tennis to mass murder is extremely immature reasoning.
Tennis needs to introduce a zero tolerance doping policy
- Thread starter Spencer Gore
- Start date
At least you missed my points
.If the logic is that you think there will be less doping the more severe the penalty, is like thinking there will be less crime the more severe the penalty.
My other point was that doping can be everything from the Lance Armstrong machinery, to ignorance like using a cream for sunburned lips or your hands. Hence my analogy that murder can be everything from Charles Manson to hitting someone who throws himself in front of your car.
If its true (as i understand the specialists say) that you can get a positive test from your physio using a cream on his hands, then there are simply too many factors for a player to control. One thing is keeping control on yourself, but to completely control every person you have contact with is starting to look like a full time job.
Its not black or white.
Last edited:
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
Doping policy is somewhat black and white because if you test positive then you are a doper. If it's unintentional then you could end up with four months rather than four years.
Fitting the punishment to the crime is where there are shades of grey. But the Sinner and Swiatek decisions were a long way outside established precedent and that's why WADA appealed.
Fitting the punishment to the crime is where there are shades of grey. But the Sinner and Swiatek decisions were a long way outside established precedent and that's why WADA appealed.
At least you missed my points
If the logic is that you think there will be less doping the more severe the penalty, is like thinking there will be less crime the more severe the penalty.
My other point was that doping can be everything from the Lance Armstrong machinery, to ignorance like using a cream for sunburned lips or your hands. Hence my analogy that murder can be everything from Charles Manson to hitting someone who throws himself in front of your car.
Its not black or white.
I understand its not easy. We all want a clean sport, but at the same time, you cant ban everyone with a positive test for life. Imo, if the Sinner physio story is true, i feel sorry for him, and he doesnt deserve to be called a doper if he never did anything illegal to improve results.
Of course i agree with you that there must be some precedent here, but my main point is that you have to make a difference between intentional and unintentional, which surprisingly some posters here think is irrelevant.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
The trouble for Sinner is that his physios are a part of team Sinner so what they do is what he does.
The doping system can't go around checking if results were improved. It just states that substances are prohibited. Take them and you will be suspended.
The doping system can't go around checking if results were improved. It just states that substances are prohibited. Take them and you will be suspended.
Sure, I understand, but as you said, thats also why intentional vs unintentional is an important difference.
And, like everything else, maybe also the doping system sometimes have to change? If an over-the-counter cream from your physios hands in enough, its starting to get pretty tough for the athletes to control, to say the least.
Norwegians are very familiar with clostebol because of Theres Johaug, which gets extreme scars on her lips because of the sun and cold. She was prescribed a cream from her doctor while training in Italy. It probably sounds weird to you, and you might need to be norwegian to understand, but im 99% sure she was clean. She got a 2 year ban, which i think was a litte tough.
Last edited:
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
For better or worse, it's always been that tough. The golden rule is that if you can't satisfy yourself that each new medication is dope-free then you can't use it.
Sinner should have looked carefully at the cream and got someone to check its legality before using it. Examing the packaging would have set off warning bells for me.
Sinner should have looked carefully at the cream and got someone to check its legality before using it. Examing the packaging would have set off warning bells for me.
But it wasnt Sinner who used it, it was his physio? As i understand, Sinner was unaware of the whole thing. He got the cream transferred to his skin from his physios hands, who had used it prior to giving a massage, because of a scar on his finger.
Last edited:
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
The physios are his agents so what they do he does. He needed to supervise closely what they used even on themselves. This is what the doping policy requires. Although if true the punishment should be minor.
TrickyWithTheWindy
New User
Deterrence is well studied. The single most effective deterrent is certainty of punishment, which is what most are advocating for here.
At least you missed my points
If the logic is that you think there will be less doping the more severe the penalty, is like thinking there will be less crime the more severe the penalty.
My other point was that doping can be everything from the Lance Armstrong machinery, to ignorance like using a cream for sunburned lips or your hands. Hence my analogy that murder can be everything from Charles Manson to hitting someone who throws himself in front of your car.
If its true (as i understand the specialists say) that you can get a positive test from your physio using a cream on his hands, then there are simply too many factors for a player to control. One thing is keeping control on yourself, but to completely control every person you have contact with is starting to look like a full time job.
Its not black or white.
Of course you need punishment, but you wont get rid of doping by banning athletes for life, and there are certainly not less crime in countries with a death penalty or long inprisonments, thats a weak correlation.
What ive come to is that how one look at cheating is very cultural. There have been and are huge differences on doping across countries. I dont know why cheating is more accepted in certain countries but its definetly the case. Im norwegian and here cheating is really not accepted, and luckily we also have very good traditions with doping. Like with crime, you wont solve the problem by just increasing punishment. The best thing to do would probably be working on childrens attitude towards cheating.
Last edited:
Rovesciarete
Hall of Fame
Cheating is view quite similarly in the home province of Sinner and there is a high level of cultural and institutional trust. Often words about a subject reveal more about the writer and maybe even the society they grew up in.
The Johaug case hit maybe also home because some of my wider family members compete in winter sports. As she put in directly on her own lips the concentration was iirc vastly higher.
Interesting bit about the procedures of the Norwegian team at the time:
Difficult for tennis player to have the same kind of institutionalised set of rules and support.
Last edited:
Yeah the Johaug case hit hard. I think almost everyone believed her, even her foreign competitors (except Kowalczyk lol). I mean, everyone who followed her knew how she suffered from those extreme and bleeding mouth sores, everyone could see them. Interestingly enough it also happened in Italy, which i understand is one of the few countries you can get these creams over-the-counter.
Rovesciarete
Hall of Fame
Training on the high-altitude Seiser Alm in very sunny Southtyrol in August can lead to an enormous solar exposure, so the sunstroke made at once sense to anybody with a similar kind of experience. The burned lips were there for all to see.
We might see top ATP players with large ’pharmaceutical suitcase’ which will look strange. I think we need a traveling WTA/ATP pharmacy for at least all challengers upwards.
and meals on wheels, suitcase wheels. they may need their own food too.
Yeah as far as I remember, it was a big blunder by a somewhat lazy team doctor who should have known better. A ban was correct, although i think almost everyone believed she was innocent. I think 2 years was way too hard though.
Xabi Alonso
New User
Point 31 is very suspicious. She's used the same medicine for years, says she usually just copies the answers from a list, but that list for some reason doesn't contain the medicine she regularly uses? How does that make sense?
To me it reflects that Iga was actually tired.
If it was actually the case where her doping was intentional, then she'd have the excuse of a contaminated supplement ready, along with a manipulated product of such supplement to povide to the authorities. Instead, she forgot, setting herself into potential trouble, but afterwards they found another sealed box --not listed in the form-- and they find it was contaminated as well. To me, it is clear that the 1 month ban is fair. Iga was reasonably being physically enhanced along that month, and she was not punished for intentional doping.
Sinner's case is much less nuanced, and much more fishy-smelling.
He fails a test. Twice. It is supposedly due to a contamination through the skin of a lotion applied to a single finger injured finger. Apparently Sinner suffers some kind of skin condition on the thights. The massages are done without gloves. The excuse is to a high degree difficult to believe (*), and even gross. This all occurs exactly when Sinner stops losing to journeymen due to lack of stamina and physical limitations. Yet, no penalty.
(*) It's the same excuse used by many italian players. Professional of the caliber of pro's physiotherapists who are also pharmacy experts should be aware. And I mean aware so as to prevent it fom happening, not to have a working excuse or justification. Plus, though-skin contamination cases typically occur the other way around: someone applies a massage with naked hands using a lotion with some active principle. The active principle transfers adequately to the receiving subject, but the massage giver also absorbs some throug the skin, acroos a smaller area, and even washing hands. Sinner's case is from a small area (finger), and from the massage giver to the patient who should receive no active principle.
Aussie Darcy
Bionic Poster
Then Halep deserves a big day because she did get the ban and name dragged through the mud and then got cleared but it was too late. Meanwhile Sinner and Swiatek got the courtesy of privacy through the investigation, silent bans and peace. Halep will never get to recover from what happened to her despite it being the same end result that it was not intentional doping.
And thats simply wrong, there needs to be some kind of precedent, but at the same time, one must be open for making som changes.
The Sinner case is the first case to my knowledge (im sure there has been others) where the substance is used by another person, then secondary transferred to Sinner.
The Contador case also comes to mind, where the substance allegedly came from eating beef at a restaurant.
Now if its true that you can have a positive test, both from getting a massage and eating at a restaurant, we are in extremely difficult territory, where its close to impossible for the athletes to play it safe, unless they live in total isolation. The days when doping was synonymous with bodybuilders on steroids or cyclists with hotel rooms which looked like labs are long gone.
mental midget
Hall of Fame
totally. just as a thought experiment, though, might a HUGE doping scandal in tennis create intrigue for the sport, and maybe, offset whatever viewership loss with a 'bigger tent' full of new fans who want to see what's going on? spectacle sells! not that they'd go for it, but...just a thought.
Purestriker
Legend
Same for contaminated foods.
LOBALOT
Legend
Yes, it is impactful. If you are doping you are going to do your best to low dose but still get the benefit and/or mask it so the testing doesn't pick it up.
The low dose is exactly what the doper intends which is why it is found in such a small quantity. The thing is these drugs just don't float around in the air so the odds that someone is going to somehow just end up with some of this in their system is very small. So then if the testing finds it even in small quantities then the odds that someone ingested the drug with intent goes way up.
It's not like these tests are looking to see if someone ate a cheese burger. These drugs are not prevelant. That is the piece people are missing and why all these accidental doping stories are so farcical. You aren't going to go to a public park and sit at a table and touch one of these drugs or something.
LOBALOT
Legend
Exactly. The process / people failed the system not the testing. That is what we see in all of this. Politics.
LOBALOT
Legend
Testing isn't problematic that is just it. The interpretation and execution of what happens with the result is problematic (i.e. ignoring the result, or favoring one player or country over another, or hiding the result). That is the problem. The testing isn't problematic.
TrickyWithTheWindy
New User
There is no widespread contamination issue, unless you know something no one else does. That's a trope used to deflect attention from the issue, similar to the suggestion that our testing regimes are oversensitive.
See my previous post on zero tolerance. It is necessary and fair in anti-doping.
See my previous post on zero tolerance. It is necessary and fair in anti-doping.
Spencer Gore
Legend
Hitting someone who throws themselves in front of your car isn't murder.
Which leads us to the question if cream from your physios hands, with no performance enhancing effect, is doping?
Spencer Gore
Legend
No, it doesn't. It leads us to conclude that someone saying hitting a person who threw themselves in front of your car is 'murder' doesn't have a clue what they're talking about.
I suspect you are intentionally missing my points, but ok, ill leave it with that.
The lack of widespread contamination is the problem here. If it was widespread, it would be detected by the usual checks.
I suspect people advocating a zero tolerance policy with no mitigating factors are using the same logic that a death penalty or long inprisonments will take away crime. The latter shows very little correlation. Of course im not saying there shouldnt be deterrence, but you definetly wont solve it by just punishing athletes harder.
You wont solve doping by banning athletes for life. Doping is a very cultural thing, which is historically much more accepted and common in certain countries than others. Working with childrens attitude vs cheating is probably the best place to start.
You wont solve doping by banning athletes for life. Doping is a very cultural thing, which is historically much more accepted and common in certain countries than others. Working with childrens attitude vs cheating is probably the best place to start.
Last edited:
TrickyWithTheWindy
New User
No.
As others have already pointed out to you, you're the only person in the thread using that kind of language and then assigning it to others.
I can only speak for myself. When I say zero tolerance I mean strict liability. Certainty of punishment as a deterrent, not severity of punishment. The issues are related to enforcement. I suspect this is what others mean as well.
I hope that sets your mind at ease and you'll feel comfortable ceasing with all talk of stonings and hangings and life imprisonment without parole.
As others have already pointed out to you, you're the only person in the thread using that kind of language and then assigning it to others.
I can only speak for myself. When I say zero tolerance I mean strict liability. Certainty of punishment as a deterrent, not severity of punishment. The issues are related to enforcement. I suspect this is what others mean as well.
I hope that sets your mind at ease and you'll feel comfortable ceasing with all talk of stonings and hangings and life imprisonment without parole.
What?? OP is presenting a detailed recipe on severity of punishment in three steps here...
So everyone is suppose to believe that the top two players in the world got contamination this year and no one else did. Boy the people running this really think everyone is stupid. I see more and more of this. Just tell the dumbest lie and go with it. Half the people will believe you or be ambivalent about it anyway.
TrickyWithTheWindy
New User
No, OP did not offer a "detailed recipe on severity of punishment". It is you who is fixating on the severity of the punishments OP proposed, which look sound to me but are besides the point. Swap OP's penalties with others, and it would amount to the same thing: action A triggers punishment A, action B triggers punishment B, action C triggers punishment C. The point is that the scheme needs to be strictly enforced. Commit the prohibited action, receive the corresponding penalty. Zero tolerance.
The penalties that OP mentions are already on the books. See section 10 of ITIA's anti-doping program. The problem is that ss.10.5, 10.6, and 10.7 allow for reduced penalties in various circumstances. If you think this whole conversation revolves around OP's "recipe", then what you'd want to fixate on is not the specific punishments, which are standard, but the absence of anything like you find in ss. 10.5-10.7. OP is saying it's time to get serious about doping in tennis and start laying down the law.
The penalties that OP mentions are already on the books. See section 10 of ITIA's anti-doping program. The problem is that ss.10.5, 10.6, and 10.7 allow for reduced penalties in various circumstances. If you think this whole conversation revolves around OP's "recipe", then what you'd want to fixate on is not the specific punishments, which are standard, but the absence of anything like you find in ss. 10.5-10.7. OP is saying it's time to get serious about doping in tennis and start laying down the law.
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
No, there’s no way to stop PEDs
We still see “dirty” records being broke all the time in all sports consistently by “clean” athletes.
I guess it’s magic?
We still see “dirty” records being broke all the time in all sports consistently by “clean” athletes.
I guess it’s magic?
Tennis Devolution
Rookie
What is considered to be "doping" and what is considered to be not "doping" is all completely subjective and arbitary. Thus, it is a complete waste of time to prevent "doping" with bans and tests because the doping techniques will always be a step ahead of the anti-doping techniques.
Tennis Devolution
Rookie
The concept of "doping" is completely subjective and arbitrary so there is nothing to "solve" in the first place.
Well of course you have to separate intentional from unintentional doping, if that is what youre talking about. It would be madness to put the Armstrong or Sochi doping machine in the same boat as someone who got a massage from an ignorant physio.
I disagree with OP on almost all points. The way i read his first post, he almost refuses that doping can be unintentional, putting everyone with a positive test in the same boat, no matter the circumstances. Hense my analogies with causing somones death.
TrickyWithTheWindy
New User
The boundary may be arbitrary, but all that tells you is it's important how you draw it. It reflects your values, priorities and so on -- like any other boundary. It's certainly not subjective, unless we draw it poorly ie. "PEDs are things that make you feel funny". Fortunately, we can and do draw it with reference to objective criteria.
I agree the techniques will likely be ahead of detection. That no reason to endorse cheating.
I agree the techniques will likely be ahead of detection. That no reason to endorse cheating.
RSJfan
Professional
WADA is deeply corrupt. Tennis should not involve WADA in its anti-doping program. Tennis should refuse to participate in the Carrot appeal as well as refuse to enforce any CAS decision if WADA proceeds on its own. Tennis needs to find another way forward with anti-doping without WADA. An extra benefit of booting WADA is no more tennis wasting time with Olympics.
“But when the agency, known as WADA, learned of the positive tests, top leaders did not crack down on China. Instead, they sidelined the investigative unit, choosing not to tell its investigators and analysts that the swimmers had tested positive, ensuring the matter would not be looked into any further.
The decision by the agency’s leaders to keep its own investigators in the dark raises new questions about WADA’s response to repeated incidents of possible doping by Chinese athletes.
And it creates new doubts about whether WADA meaningfully changed its operations and culture after its credibility was called into question by the discovery in 2015 that the agency failed to stop a Russian state-sponsored doping program that had operated without detection for years.”
Not incidentally, “Among the ways Chinese athletes were cheating, she said, was by taking undetectable amounts of a little-known prescription heart medication, trimetazidine, or TMZ, which can help increase stamina, endurance and recovery.”
www.nytimes.com
“But when the agency, known as WADA, learned of the positive tests, top leaders did not crack down on China. Instead, they sidelined the investigative unit, choosing not to tell its investigators and analysts that the swimmers had tested positive, ensuring the matter would not be looked into any further.
The decision by the agency’s leaders to keep its own investigators in the dark raises new questions about WADA’s response to repeated incidents of possible doping by Chinese athletes.
And it creates new doubts about whether WADA meaningfully changed its operations and culture after its credibility was called into question by the discovery in 2015 that the agency failed to stop a Russian state-sponsored doping program that had operated without detection for years.”
Not incidentally, “Among the ways Chinese athletes were cheating, she said, was by taking undetectable amounts of a little-known prescription heart medication, trimetazidine, or TMZ, which can help increase stamina, endurance and recovery.”
Antidoping Agency Froze Out Investigators Who Warned About China
The World Anti-Doping Agency’s investigative unit highlighted intelligence about Chinese athletes possibly using a banned medication, but was kept out of the loop when 23 swimmers tested positive for it.
TrickyWithTheWindy
New User
First, no one knows what happened in the Sinner case except Sinner and his team. All you've done is reproduce his testimony as fact. Personally, I find the story ludicrous, and a perfect demonstration of why liability should be strict in anti-doping.
Yes, I am saying a positive test should put everyone in the same boat. That is what strict liability means. If it's in your system, you should be punished. It doesn't matter how it got into your system. Once it's there, the harm has already been done. The only question is who is going to bear that harm. When you let these players off the hook, you shift the harm onto the opponent, who is cheated, or the sport itself, whose integrity is compromised. The player's intention is irrelevant, because the goal of anti doping is not to punish morally blameworthy athletes. The goal of anti doping is to protect fair competition.
It's kind of like how I don't know if you're being intentionally or unintentionally obtuse. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter because it has no effect on the harm I suffer when reading yet another one of your analogies to murder.
You like analogies. Here's a better one for you. You live in an apartment building. There are explosives and flammable liquids in your apartment. The inspector comes to check your fire alarm. He sees your explosives and flammable liquids. He reports it to police. They charge you with endangering your neighbours. You didn't intend to put them in danger. Maybe you didn't even know the materials posed a danger. Does your intention matter?
Here's another one: you're driving 100km over the speed limit through a school zone. You didn't intend to drive over the limit. Maybe you didn't even know. Maybe you were being chased by Lance Armstrong. You get pulled over and given a fine, license suspended, charged with endangering others etc. Does your intention matter?
Yes, I am saying a positive test should put everyone in the same boat. That is what strict liability means. If it's in your system, you should be punished. It doesn't matter how it got into your system. Once it's there, the harm has already been done. The only question is who is going to bear that harm. When you let these players off the hook, you shift the harm onto the opponent, who is cheated, or the sport itself, whose integrity is compromised. The player's intention is irrelevant, because the goal of anti doping is not to punish morally blameworthy athletes. The goal of anti doping is to protect fair competition.
It's kind of like how I don't know if you're being intentionally or unintentionally obtuse. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter because it has no effect on the harm I suffer when reading yet another one of your analogies to murder.
You like analogies. Here's a better one for you. You live in an apartment building. There are explosives and flammable liquids in your apartment. The inspector comes to check your fire alarm. He sees your explosives and flammable liquids. He reports it to police. They charge you with endangering your neighbours. You didn't intend to put them in danger. Maybe you didn't even know the materials posed a danger. Does your intention matter?
Here's another one: you're driving 100km over the speed limit through a school zone. You didn't intend to drive over the limit. Maybe you didn't even know. Maybe you were being chased by Lance Armstrong. You get pulled over and given a fine, license suspended, charged with endangering others etc. Does your intention matter?
Strange examples, how do you drive fast unintentionally? Only kind of example i can think of is if a terrorist hacked and took control over your car while you sat behind the wheel and caused an accident (which is relevant for high tec cars in the future), in which case it would be very stange with strict liability.
And the explosives example you are also getting wrong imo. What if someone else placed the explosives in your apartment, and you didnt know about it. Would that also be strict liability, or would it be a mitigating factor?
And it which post have i reproduced his testimony as a fact? Please show me, im very clear about that i dont know the truth, but that experts say that the story is plausible.
Nappa
Professional
If they are slam winners absolutely hehehe
TrickyWithTheWindy
New User
This is my last reply to you. In order...
1. Very easily. My words were "drive over the limit". If you didn't know the limit, then you could not form an intention to drive over it. You're still getting a fine.
2. You're responsible for what is stored in your apartment. It doesn't matter how it got there. You are presumed to control the space. You're getting a fine.
3. When you state that Sinner's physio massaged steroids into his open wounds, you are reproducing the testimony of Sinner and his team. The ITIA tribunal found their story plausible. It's still no more than their testimony.
1. Very easily. My words were "drive over the limit". If you didn't know the limit, then you could not form an intention to drive over it. You're still getting a fine.
2. You're responsible for what is stored in your apartment. It doesn't matter how it got there. You are presumed to control the space. You're getting a fine.
3. When you state that Sinner's physio massaged steroids into his open wounds, you are reproducing the testimony of Sinner and his team. The ITIA tribunal found their story plausible. It's still no more than their testimony.
There is legal doping and illegal doping. In reality, every athlete in the world is doping. Multivitamins and herbal supplements, protein bars and shakes, caffeine, electrolytes, even water at changeovers are all forms of doping designed to enhance and sustain performance. To be honest, some of the items on the banned list do seem to be arbitrary and unjustified, while others are nobrainers. There are also many legal products that enhance performance in such a way that they should be banned but they aren’t. So definitely doping lists are quite arbitrary.
