What would happen if a GS winner was confirmed doping?

Jeffrey573639

Jeffrey573639

Semi-Pro
Just a random question- if a GS champion admits to having taken performance enhancing substances to win a slam (so different from Agassi), who would be declared the winner of that slam? Or would there simply be no winner? Not sure if this has actually happened before so maybe some can clarify? And if it hasn't what do you think ought to happen?
(Hoping no one brings up current players or this thread is going to hell).
 
no winner.

handing it out to the other finalist may not be the fairest as the SFist or even the QFist on the winners's side may have been better than the finalist.
 
Last edited:
Jeffrey573639 said:
Just a random question- if a GS champion admits to having taken performance enhancing substances to win a slam (so different from Agassi), who would be declared the winner of that slam? Or would there simply be no winner? Not sure if this has actually happened before so maybe some can clarify? And if it hasn't what do you think ought to happen?
(Hoping no one brings up current players or this thread is going to hell).
Click to expand...

Petr Korda might be able to answer your question.

Edit: Just a bit of background

http://www.tennis-ontheline.com/99/99korda.htm
 
Last edited:
Korda won the AO in 1998 and was found doping later that year.

His title still stands, but maybe that's because the positive test was about 6 months later.

Puerta, who lost in the FO 2005 final to Nadal, was found doping and had all his results after that final stripped from the books.

No winner of a Grand Slam title has ever tested positive immediately after they won it. I really don't know what would happen.
 
Jeffrey573639 said:
Just a random question- if a GS champion admits to having taken performance enhancing substances to win a slam (so different from Agassi), who would be declared the winner of that slam? Or would there simply be no winner? Not sure if this has actually happened before so maybe some can clarify? And if it hasn't what do you think ought to happen?
(Hoping no one brings up current players or this thread is going to hell).
Click to expand...

A silent ban. ;)
 
Phoenix1983 said:
Korda won the AO in 1998 and was found doping later that year.

His title still stands, but maybe that's because the positive test was about 6 months later.

Puerta, who lost in the FO 2005 final to Nadal, was found doping and had all his results after that final stripped from the books.

No winner of a Grand Slam title has ever tested positive immediately after they won it. I really don't know what would happen.
Click to expand...

His runner up place at RG was somehow allowed to stand though. I think he even kept the prize money?. Not sure.
 
Jeffrey573639 said:
Just a random question- if a GS champion admits to having taken performance enhancing substances to win a slam (so different from Agassi), who would be declared the winner of that slam? Or would there simply be no winner? Not sure if this has actually happened before so maybe some can clarify? And if it hasn't what do you think ought to happen?
(Hoping no one brings up current players or this thread is going to hell).
Click to expand...

Andy Murray would lose his titles and prize money as well as getting a hefty ban.
 
Phoenix1983 said:
No winner of a Grand Slam title has ever tested positive immediately after they won it. I really don't know what would happen.
Click to expand...

They would obviously be stripped. No way would Puerta have been allowed to keep the 2005 French Open title had he beaten Nadal in that final.
 
Last edited:
Mustard said:
They would obviously be stripped. No way would Puerta have been allowed to keep the 2005 French Open title had he beaten Nadal in that final.
Click to expand...

Well, you say that, but why then was Puerta allowed to keep his runner-up position from the 2005 FO? And would they have declared Nadal as the champion that year, or left the title blank?
 
Phoenix1983 said:
Well, you say that, but why then was Puerta allowed to keep his runner-up position from the 2005 FO?
Click to expand...

My belief is that they kept Puerta's 2005 French Open record on the record books for bureaucratic neatness. They didn't want a major finalist to be stripped of that, because it would cause more negative publicity. Also, had Puerta's final place been annulled, could Davydenko or Canas have launched any legal challenges?

I know Davydenko felt very annoyed by the whole thing, having lost to Puerta in 5 sets in the semi finals. Canas would have felt annoyed as well, having lost to Puerta in 5 sets in the quarter finals, but Canas had his own doping controversy in August 2005. Canas was back in action in September 2006, after being cleared of knowingly taking any banned substance.

Phoenix1983 said:
And would they have declared Nadal as the champion that year, or left the title blank?
Click to expand...

I don't know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Who gets awarded Slam titles if a player is found guilty of doping?
2
Replies
67
Views
6K
mellowyellow
mellowyellow
frinton
What is doping and what is not? inspired by a troll...
Replies
24
Views
4K
TeflonTom
T
weakera
What would happen if both semi final winners needed to withdraw before a final?
Replies
21
Views
454
Mainad
Mainad
vortex1
  • Poll Poll
Would Murray have a slam now if he beat Nadal in semi?
Replies
19
Views
1K
Cyan
Cyan
B
What if tennis had a heavyweight championship?
Replies
18
Views
3K
flyinghippos101
flyinghippos101
Back
Top