No person in right mind would believe this ridiculous attempt at an excuse.
No professional would make such mistake.
Wada says Sinner case 'million miles away from doping'
- Thread starter Turning Pro
- Start date
No person in right mind would believe this ridiculous attempt at an excuse.
No professional would make such mistake.
I believe in the Carrot
sortof
Hall of Fame
Indeed, who knows? You don´t that´s for sure. Speculations and prejudice, that´s all there is.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
Sinner has been given one sweetheart deal after another, so the question is what machinations have been going on behind closed doors?
Tennis wants to protect a commercial asset and they let him play on and organised a Tribunal decision fatally flawed by legal error.
Italian tennis and political figures would also have been lobbying for a good result. And then finally WADA shuts down CAS.
Tennis wants to protect a commercial asset and they let him play on and organised a Tribunal decision fatally flawed by legal error.
Italian tennis and political figures would also have been lobbying for a good result. And then finally WADA shuts down CAS.
RSJfan
Legend
I guess so but I’m not clear what I said to prompt your question.
And unless I’m missing something your question is implying a definition of doping that suggests intent is required. Just like the WADA guy did when he said “it was a million miles from doping” suggesting Carrot had no intent or no performance enhancement, or both. I just thought it funny because it is doping under the WADA Code definition. But he knows that most people think about intent or performance enhancement, or both, when they think “doping”.
There is no universal definition of “doping” hence the arguing here and elsewhere. But WADA’s definition is pragmatic. The occurrence of one or more of the anti-doping rule violations in Article 2 of the Code is doping. Period. There were two occurrences in the Carrot case: 2.1 (presence) and 2.2 (use or attempted use). Hence it wasn’t a million miles away. It was spot on doping as far as the WADA Code is concerned.
Last edited:
Subway Tennis
G.O.A.T.
The Pope is struggling mightily at the moment with old age and a lot of infirmities and has unfortunately just had another stay in hospital. He’s really in bad shape at the moment.
Sinner maybe an easy case for Canonisation because he has already performed his miracles on the court. No deep research required, just need to look at that crosscourt backhand in full flight.
It was just meant as a sarcastic question to WADAs stupid definition, which implies youre a doper although youre unaware that the substance is in your body and it gives you no performance enhancing effectI guess so but I’m not clear what I said to prompt your question.
And unless I’m missing something your question is implying a definition of doping that suggests intent is required. Just like the WADA guy did when he said “it was a million miles from doping” suggesting Carrot had no intent or no performance enhancement, or both. I just thought it funny because it is doping under the WADA Code definition. But he knows that most people think about intent or performance enhancement, or both, when they think “doping”.
There is no universal definition of “doping” hence the arguing here and elsewhere. But WADA’s definition is pragmatic. The occurrence of one or more of the anti-doping rule violations in Article 2 of the Code is doping. Period. There were two occurrences in the Carrot case: 2.1 (presence) and 2.2 (use or attempted use). Hence it wasn’t a million miles away. It was spot on doping as far as the WADA Code is concerned.
To normal people doping is something you do with a cheating intent, to enhance performance.
This is of course very problematic, because it puts athletes with no intention to cheat, and no performance enhancing effect, in the same category as Lance Armstrong.
...and this is NOT in conflict with "strict liability". I agree that Sinner to a degree is responsible for his physios mistake, but that doesnt make him a doper.
By saying "Sinner case is a million miles away from doping", WADA is actually contradicting their own stupid definition, implying they are actually unaware of just how stupid their own definition of doping actually is
Last edited:
RSJfan
Legend
Then apparently we have some abnormal people on this board.
I think most people couldn’t care less what “doping” means under the Code and can and will distinguish cheats from inadvertent doping and/or negligent athletes. Just like the Code itself contemplates ADOs and independent tribunals will do when it comes to sanctions time. (Except for losing your prize money and points which is the one area strict liability is used for sanctions.)
Also I don’t think the definition is really stupid it just follows from the structure of the WADA Code. I did take a quick look at MLB and Crossfit two groups that handle their own doping but they just call their programs Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program (MLB) and Drug Testing Program (Cross-fit) and don’t even mention anti-doping. Like the issue is drug dependence/prevention not cheating.
They both, of course, use strict liability for violations.One thing that caught my eye re the MLB program which is the product of collective bargaining between the league and the players union. They agreed to conduct a confidential joint investigation into “whether and to what extent the consumption of potentially contaminated meat products in the Dominican Republic (and other locations agreed to by the parties) could cause a player to test positive for either Boldenone or Nandrolone.” They also say “This agreement is without prejudice to either party's positions regarding the necessity, or relative merits of the Joint Investigation and any result(s) thereof.”
My translation: if we (league) agree to do this expensive and wasteful investigation then you guys (players) stop with the fake contaminated meat stories every time you test positive.
Last edited:
Well I dont see why they need to have a different definition on doping than the common understanding i.e "the unlawful use of drugs to enhance or inhibit performance". Its not contradictory to say that Sinner is (to a degree) responsible for his teams mistake without calling it doping. To most people "doping" is synonymous with cheating, and thats a stamp for example Armstrong deserves, but not Sinner.Then apparently we have some abnormal people on this board.
I think most people couldn’t care less what “doping” means under the Code and can and will distinguish cheats from inadvertent doping and/or negligent athletes. Just like the Code itself contemplates ADOs and independent tribunals will do when it comes to sanctions time. (Except for losing your prize money and points which is the one area strict liability is used for sanctions.)
Also I don’t think the definition is really stupid it just follows from the structure of the WADA Code. I did take a quick look at MLB and Crossfit two groups that handle their own doping but they just call their programs Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program (MLB) and Drug Testing Program (Cross-fit) and don’t even mention anti-doping. Like the issue is drug dependence/prevention not cheating.
One thing that caught my eye re the MLB program which is the product of collective bargaining between the league and the players union. They agreed to conduct a confidential joint investigation into “whether and to what extent the consumption of potentially contaminated meat products in the Dominican Republic (and other locations agreed to by the parties) could cause a player to test positive for either Boldenone or Nandrolone.”
And i think most of Sinners haters on this board actually agree that doping is synonymous with cheating, they just dont believe Sinners story. They think he is deliberately doping to enhance performance, and that his story is a lie.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
I don't believe Sinner's story, but even if it were true he is still a doper.
WADA's embrace of strict liability makes two lab busts "doping".
Sharapova and many others got a year to two years for a similar transgression.
WADA asked for this in Sinner's case, but chose instead to give him a sweetheart deal.
WADA's embrace of strict liability makes two lab busts "doping".
Sharapova and many others got a year to two years for a similar transgression.
WADA asked for this in Sinner's case, but chose instead to give him a sweetheart deal.
Yes according to WADAs definition (code), Sinner is doping, and thats the problem. When WADA then say "Sinner case million miles away from doping" they are directly contradicting themselves, and they seem unaware of their own stupid definition.
For normal people doping is synonymous with deliberate cheating.
Do you think there are cases with unintentional doping, or do you think every positive test is because of deliberate cheating?
Last edited:
RSJfan
Legend
WADA Code is not some Mickey Mouse anti-doping code like whatever rules Raul whips out at his local club tourney to try to disqualify players that are better than him. WADA is backed by governments and international sports federations and given the enormous task of cleaning up sports from doping worldwide.
We shouldn’t lose the forest of dopers getting bogged down in definitional trees. And the forest is filled with dopers and their facilitators. WADA doesn’t want any confusion on the part of dopers/facilitators. They’re wily.
WADA wants all dopers on notice that “intent, Fault, Negligence or knowing” is not looked at or required for you to be doping. People can make their own choices on what’s inadvertent and whether any moral judgments should attach. You test positive and the sample is untainted and yours, doping! Any of the ten other anti-doping violations, doping!
Frankly if WADA were doing its job then Raul’s favs Russia and China would be permanently banned from the Olympics. Instead they’re busy harassing a Boy Scout tennis player from Italy.
Last edited:
Ofc I agree their job is extremely important, we all want a clean sport!
But WADA is indeed contradicting their own code, when they say "Sinner case million miles away from doping". According to their code, Sinner IS doping. To me this is proof their definitions are unnecessary problematic.
Same with the Johaug case. To me its contrary to reason to call someone who is treating sunburned lips with a cream, and who has no performance enhancing effect, a doper.
Rovesciarete
Hall of Fame
Both the Sinner* and the Pope are good Shepards, and every flock has its black sheep. Good to see one skiing in his beautiful mountains under a brilliant sky, sad to see one struggling in eternal Rome in a hospital bed.
*from a Celtic root, for somebody who tends flocks in the mountains. Senner in standard German.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
So you want to exonerate a self-confessed doper, but ban players from two countries based on your political preferences.
ChrisJR3264
Legend
According to this guy : WADA is wrong to say 1 billionth of a gram does not mean he didn’t dope….
He is right. WADA has their own weird definition of doping, which is different from the usual definition. According to WADA, doping neither has to be on purpose, nor does it have to be performance enhancing.
According to WADAs code, Sinner did dope, so WADA is actually contradicting themselves.
Last edited:
Similar threads
