Robert Kendrick banned for 12 months

Robert Kendrick has been banned till 21 May 2012 (12 months from 22 May 2011) based on his sample at RG testing positive for Methylhexaneamine.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2011/07/Features/Robert-Kendrick-Suspended.aspx

Is ITF just going after 'small' fish?

Laverfan, becareful you may be denouced as a conspiracy theorist. I don't know it sure seems that way. We know according to agassi that the ATP let him off the hook for meth positive test and didn't go public with it. It is really one of those questions that is hard to prove or disprove.

Crystal Meth does not enhance performance over the long term and has severe detrimental health aspects.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/drugpages/methamphetamine.html

No that isn't my point laverfan that crystal meth is performance enhancing, we know that the ATP does have a track record of differing standards for different players. What you are suggesting about unequal enforcement would not be the first time this particular organization has done something like it.

All I can say is that if players want (or think they need) to

take phd's that's up to them .



BUT there is a 99% chance they will get caught !



Such a shame 'cos Kendrick COULD have progressed naturally!

He's leaving it a bit late at 31 yrs old, but yummy's right, its a gamble to dabble, but in his case he got it from anti-jet lag...Zija XM3, which in itself is a stupid medicine to take, he should have known the risks, so its his fault entirely.

Most players within the ATP umbrella are told to not take any substance unless you are absolutely, comprehensively sure it is OK. He wasn't, he shouldn't and he's now banned for a year.

dumba**

If that is really how he got this in his system then they should really consider moderating and going lighter on the suspension.

socal1976 wrote:If that is really how he got this in his system then they should really consider moderating and going lighter on the suspension.

They should, but someone called him a 'scapegoat' to take the pressure from ITF/WADA off.

Serves him right !!!!



Drugs have no part in tennis !



What a Prat !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's the way the ITF roll. Catch people for jet lag pills and acne treatments and hand out huge bans.

People get busted in huge blood doping scandals and they spend a lot of money making sure it gets covered up.

Typical and pathetic from the tennis authorities.

Tennis is without doubt one of the dirtiest sports there is. It's just they know they can get away with it unless they're stupid or naive.

Is it cheating?

If not I fail to understand what the problem is.

For one time I agree with Bogbrush. I really don't think the ATP should get involved unless it is clear that the drug use was a way to cheat. I mean we all use drugs everyday from caffeine to asprin. Anti-jet lag medicine is no more performance enhancing than an antibiotic would be. My opinion they should also not test for party drugs either, they aren't the cops. They just need to maintain a clear playing field. The gasquet things was real fiasco that really impacted a fine player Gasquet's career and really frankly I didn't see any of it being the ITF's business.

Even in Odesnik's case, it was the Australian Customs, not ITF, that caught him carrying.

ITF even accepted that the ingestion was not meant to enhance performance.

Yummy does have a valid point that drugs have no place in Tennis, or any other sport.

Pretty sure CAS will step in reduce the ban on appeal.

Kendrick plans to appeal.

http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/news.aspx?articleid=13508&zoneid=25

socal1976 wrote:For one time I agree with Bogbrush. I really don't think the ATP should get involved unless it is clear that the drug use was a way to cheat. I mean we all use drugs everyday from caffeine to asprin. Anti-jet lag medicine is no more performance enhancing than an antibiotic would be. My opinion they should also not test for party drugs either, they aren't the cops. They just need to maintain a clear playing field. The gasquet things was real fiasco that really impacted a fine player Gasquet's career and really frankly I didn't see any of it being the ITF's business.

And for once, I agree with you socal. I guess the problem is that the only way to have a clear playing field is zero tolerance, but I also have a sneaking suspicion like laverfan that if a few small fish, who have unfortunately been careless rather than criminal, are seen to be publicly dealt with helps promote tennis as a clean sport - and I don't believe that there is any sport out there (after all the revelations with atheletics and cycling) that are completely drug free.

Who was the guy that was caught with steroids in his suitcase before AO 2010? It was some US journeyman wasn't it and it was the customs officials that caught him.

To be quite honest, the only way to ensure that PEDs are not in the sport are to take up Federer's suggestion that blood samples, instead of urine, are taken and stored for 8 years so that they can be retested as testing becomes more sophisticated.

time please wrote:Who was the guy that was caught with steroids in his suitcase before AO 2010? It was some US journeyman wasn't it and it was the customs officials that caught him.

laverfan wrote:Even in Odesnik's case, it was the Australian Customs, not ITF, that caught him carrying.

Think I saw the 'Cycling' Biological Passport on 606v2 somewhere, perhaps Tenez posted it.

"UCI president Pat McQuaid cautioned the initiative will not cure the doping problem but serve as a new element in the anti-doping "arsenal.""

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=3075241

Seems a way forward, but has potential to backfire. It assumes that the natural variations and tolerances in individual athletes can be documented and tracked. But there is no way to distinguish whether the changes are due to 'natural' changes or 'artificial' means. Long-term doping is almost impossible to detect by this method and can be easily camouflaged.

That's a very interesting article laver, and it would seem to be the way to go forward to build a profile of each athlete. I have heard that steroids can be used very cleverly and at certain times to have maximum benefit and minimum risk of discovery - I am not sure how that works with random testing, but I do know from horses that urine samples may not give as clear a picture after a few hours as blood will do. Clearly don't want to turn top athletes into pin cushions, but there must be a way to perhaps blood test at certain points of the year for all players as well as random urine testing.

The worrying thing for me is the players that hint about ped use in the sport. I seem to be suffering from early onset dementia today, but who was the guy that retired last year and was pretty frank about the prevalence and talked about 'endurance' that the locker room was suspicious about? The ATP dismissed the claim, but if the players themselves feel that peds are around, then the sport either does have a problem or there is a confidence problem in the locker room about how the ATP monitor testing etc.

time please wrote:who was the guy that retired last year and was pretty frank about the prevalence and talked about 'endurance' that the locker room was suspicious about?

Christophe Rochus (the elder Rochus. Younger Olivier Rochus still plays).

http://www.10sballs.com/2010/11/01/rochus-claims-illegal-drug-use-is-common/

One issue with his allegations is due to his previous run-ins with ATP and others (Re. gambling, etc.)

Its one thing damaging a sport for personal or professional reasons, through blowing the whistle and making claims against players, but I find it a little egotistical and self indulgent to put forward such statements without any names being mentioned.

I would have thought if you were to go to these extremes and publicly denounce a sport as being rife with cheating, what further damage could you possibly do than to name the players you are sure have delved into these kinds of drugs. Surely you would have heard or seen players doing this and not relied on gossip and heresay to put forward such accusations and then put yourself into a position of ridicule.

But no-one who has gone public with these matters has the nerve to name names, because they know they have absolutely no proof. They are scared that the player will sue them, and the authorities too. If that is the case, then maybe they should shut the hell up until they do have evidence to prove that tennis is full of cheaters.

IMO, anyone who proclaims PE drugs are as common as bottled water are either on a hedonistic trip or have a chip on their shoulder about some past grievance.

djlovesyou wrote:It's the way the ITF roll. Catch people for jet lag pills and acne treatments and hand out huge bans.

People get busted in huge blood doping scandals and they spend a lot of money making sure it gets covered up.

Typical and pathetic from the tennis authorities.

Tennis is without doubt one of the dirtiest sports there is. It's just they know they can get away with it unless they're stupid or naive.

"Tennis is without doubt one of the dirtiest sports there is"

And I know where we've heard all this before, but you still haven't provided us with any, even remotely, related hard evidence to support your claims.

Who is "they" you keep referring to ? its sounds as if you know many players who are on your list of Cheaters, so why don't you tell us who they are ?

Jubbahey wrote:Its one thing damaging a sport for personal or professional reasons, through blowing the whistle and making claims against players, but I find it a little egotistical and self indulgent to put forward such statements without any names being mentioned.

I would have thought if you were to go to these extremes and publicly denounce a sport as being rife with cheating, what further damage could you possibly do than to name the players you are sure have delved into these kinds of drugs. Surely you would have heard or seen players doing this and not relied on gossip and heresay to put forward such accusations and then put yourself into a position of ridicule.

But no-one who has gone public with these matters has the nerve to name names, because they know they have absolutely no proof. They are scared that the player will sue them, and the authorities too. If that is the case, then maybe they should shut the hell up until they do have evidence to prove that tennis is full of cheaters.

IMO, anyone who proclaims PE drugs are as common as bottled water are either on a hedonistic trip or have a chip on their shoulder about some past grievance.

Nobody could mention names without having concrete easily provable evidence, otherwise it would be slander or libel.

But I think it is naive to assume tennis is the only sport without an issue - I don't think the comment was directed at one player, more a culture.

The top players live very well, and can afford the best physiotherapy and injury lay offs, it is a much harder grind down the rankings with players struggling to earn a crust and with more of a temptation.

However, Jubbahey, that is as you say just speculation, but I don't think any sport or fan of any sport should be afraid of discussing the ped question. I don't suppose it is as simple as someone setting out to cheat - more that a ped can help overcome an injury, cope with a schedule and what begins as a short term measure escalates.

IMO, it does need debating in sport because ped use often points a finger at unrealistic pressure within that sport. For example, Kieran Fallon was the last high profile jockey who was found having taken drugs, cocaine I think - but not the first - the pressure of suppressing hunger and making the weights has meant that quite a few top jockeys in the past have sought refuge in this drug.

laverfan wrote:

time please wrote:who was the guy that retired last year and was pretty frank about the prevalence and talked about 'endurance' that the locker room was suspicious about?

Christophe Rochus (the elder Rochus. Younger Olivier Rochus still plays).

http://www.10sballs.com/2010/11/01/rochus-claims-illegal-drug-use-is-common/

One issue with his allegations is due to his previous run-ins with ATP and others (Re. gambling, etc.)

I bet he knows more than you and me though. considering that all retired players say the same thing (latest being Santoro) I am not sure there is much point arguing that tennis is clean. An interesting observation is that the ITF will not release the number of OOC tests undertaken in 2010 ...unlike the previous years. It's all covered up. I guess they don't want us to know they only carry one or 2 OOC tests per top players when other sports are much stricter.

I agree TP, but it is so easy to throw claims about and say that players are "obviously" doing this, because their gut tells them so, but it is really at all fair to the players to have this kind of witch hunt, based on the position of entrails of a sacrificial victim ?

Rochus, did provide an example of this in one of his interviews and a specific player was mentioned (based on a score line). My assumption is that any 'names' would have been provided to ITF/WADA (as part of an 'exit' interview).

The subsequent pursuit is left to the custodians of the sport, viz., WADA/ITF/ATP rather than the player who provided such information.

There is an example (Strauss-Kahn) where the accuser's credibility gets questioned and the judicial system hangs on to the blind 'beyond-a-resonable-doubt' paradigm and nothing comes out of any accusations, very similar to Rochus. Santoro is a different case.

Perhaps Tennis needs the equivalent of WikiLeaks, and the retiring players can play the PfC Manning role with anonymity.

This is such an upsetting issue for me that I am not even willing to enter in a discussion. Until facts are provided every opinion about specific players doped is highly hypothetical. Nonetheless it's apparent to me the ITF and ATP handling of the issue is less then transparent to say the least.

Jubbahey wrote:I agree TP, but it is so easy to throw claims about and say that players are "obviously" doing this, because their gut tells them so, but it is really at all fair to the players to have this kind of witch hunt, based on the position of entrails of a sacrificial victim ?

Not exactly the most apt analogy for the statement of an active professional player.

I echo those calling for transparency in the sport. I am all for zero tolerance for performance enhancing drugs that is cheating. But enforcing bans for jet lag medicine or cocaine and things that aren't directly performance enhancing drugs is in my opinion an incorrect policy. Their main focus should be about keeping the competition clean. So things like gambling and PEDs should be the focus, not what you did in some club in miami on your night off.

bogbrush wrote:

Jubbahey wrote:I agree TP, but it is so easy to throw claims about and say that players are "obviously" doing this, because their gut tells them so, but it is really at all fair to the players to have this kind of witch hunt, based on the position of entrails of a sacrificial victim ?

Not exactly the most apt analogy for the statement of an active professional player.

If I was actually referring to a players claim.

I was more aiming it at the hordes of sheep being driven by camel herders.

Socal I totally agree with your zero policy statement and anyone found taking peformance enhancing drugs should be banned for a long time. However for the lesser discretions (e.g. cocaine, jet lag medicine) as far as I am aware these are on a list of banned substances and it is the players own responsibility to be certain whatever they injest does not contain them. Again as far as I am aware there are people on the tour who can advise what is safe to take.

Yeah, Calder, but I just think the ITF shouldn't be out policing things that aren't really impacting the competition level of the game. Does it really hurt the sport or the integrity of the game if a couple of pros smoke pot? In my mind for things that aren't ped's they should just get out of involvement in those areas.

I know what your saying but the stipulations are there and they are not just for tennis. Inadvertant use although careless is bad enough but if you know something like cocaine is inadmissable then you don't use it.

This has caused problems in other sports as well.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/mar/04/methylhexaneamine-kolo-toure-drugs

This has been known since 1984.

http://healthymeats.net/sites/all/themes/krehbiels/zija/zija_XM3_Q&A.pdf

Jubbahey wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Jubbahey wrote:I agree TP, but it is so easy to throw claims about and say that players are "obviously" doing this, because their gut tells them so, but it is really at all fair to the players to have this kind of witch hunt, based on the position of entrails of a sacrificial victim ?

Not exactly the most apt analogy for the statement of an active professional player.

If I was actually referring to a players claim.

I was more aiming it at the hordes of sheep being driven by camel herders.

That's as maybe, but are you suggesting the "sheep" are the entrails of a sacrifice, or the people reading them? If the former that's strange and not understandable as the people are not being read, if the latter then I was correct and the professional player statement is being equated to a random irrelevance.

Jubbahey wrote:I agree TP, but it is so easy to throw claims about and say that players are "obviously" doing this, because their gut tells them so, but it is really at all fair to the players to have this kind of witch hunt, based on the position of entrails of a sacrificial victim ?

Well I don't believe there is a witch hunt at all, in fact the allegations about drug use within the sport made by former players have not been taken up by the press for instance at all. Maybe those player allegations arise from jealousy, but the ATP has been known to waive a drugs charge before - in the case of Agassi, I don't have a problem because the drugs he took were far from performance enhancing, but the fact is that he did break the sport's rules and was let off, while players who are not such box office stars of the sport have not been afforded the same leniency. I feel very sorry for Kendrick, who while he was obviously careless, does not appear to have tested postive for a ped, though presumably a jet lag remedy contains a stimulant of sorts? Then there is the strange case of Odenisk who was allowed to carry on playing pending his hearing - well on one hand I salute the fact that the ATP did not take away his livelihood until his case was heard. On the other hand, if I remember correctly, he had an awful lot of banned substances in that suitcase, far more than he could have used during his time in Australia - it seemed sufficiently serious to warrant immediate suspension and compensation could be awarded if he won his case.

I don't think it is a witch hunt either for posters to debate the issue because with Kendrick's suspension it is fairly topical and furthermore it has been brought into the public domain by former players - more than once. Reading other posters it seems that the ATP has been less than transparent about testing activity in the last year.

If posters were to start throwing specific allegations about certain players, then that is a different matter altogether.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/tennis/2011-04-13-wayne-odesnik-interview-doping_N.htm

I thought I would just refresh my memory - incredible, unbelievable. I don't know what else to say.

time please wrote:http://www.usatoday.com/sports/tennis/2011-04-13-wayne-odesnik-interview-doping_N.htm

I thought I would just refresh my memory - incredible, unbelievable. I don't know what else to say.

The most surprising thing in this story is the whistle-blowing angle. Odesnik has never tested positive, despite carrying HGH which is banned in Australia. The reduction in the length of suspension and the permission to continue to play is indicative of ITF/WADAs desire to not 'lose' a prime link in a chain which leads somewhere.

Speculating on how he obtained it by itself is very intriguing. (Internet ? - how did he know what to order to carry with him. There are thousands of brands.)

laverfan wrote:

time please wrote:http://www.usatoday.com/sports/tennis/2011-04-13-wayne-odesnik-interview-doping_N.htm

I thought I would just refresh my memory - incredible, unbelievable. I don't know what else to say.

The most surprising thing in this story is the whistle-blowing angle. Odesnik has never tested positive, despite carrying HGH which is banned in Australia. The reduction in the length of suspension and the permission to continue to play is indicative of ITF/WADAs desire to not 'lose' a prime link in a chain which leads somewhere.

Speculating on how he obtained it by itself is very intriguing. (Internet ? - how did he know what to order to carry with him. There are thousands of brands.)

Yes definitely the time off for co-operation angle is the most striking thing about Odenisk's case. His ban was reduced, as you say, because his defence was that he hadn't used the HGH and examining the few facts we know it doesn't seem too far fetched to wonder if he was attempting to suplement his earnings by supplying. Curiouser and curiouser as Alice might say!

BTW, notice that many of you are using a selected piece of a posting as a quote - how do I do that? Have tried highlighting but only able to quote previous posting in full, or not at all? Will check in later for hints

time please wrote:
BTW, notice that many of you are using a selected piece of a posting as a quote - how do I do that? Have tried highlighting but only able to quote previous posting in full, or not at all? Will check in later for hints

If you click on the 'quote' button on the post that you want to reference, it brings the entire text of the post. Once the text is in your Preview window, you can 'cut and paste' the desired portions or change the font, as you wish, giving you the ability to quote parts of the post that you choose to quote.

The other option is to type '[quote="<name>"]' and paste selected text and end it with "[\/quote]" without the "\".

This Blog Linked From Here Interesting Blogs, Websites, Tweeters
This Blog
Linked From Here
.Interesting Blogs, Websites, Tweeters
.
Loading...
Monday, August 1, 2011
Clarifying the Release of Positive Tests

There was a bit of discussion in a previous thread regarding this issue, so here is clarification from the horse's mouth (Thanks SNR):
In regards to the recent decision to suspend Robert Kendrick, I note that the decision states that Mr. Kendrick tested positive on May 22, 2011 and that he took a voluntary suspension in June 2011. However, neither of these events was announced by the ITF prior to the decision being released on July 29, 2011. Can you please explain why the ITF did not announce the positive test result or the voluntary suspension at the time they occurred? Is it the ITF's policy not to announce a positive test until a decision of guilt is rendered?

ITF Response:
This policy is set out in Article P.3 of the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme:
P.3 The ITF shall use its reasonable endeavours to ensure that Persons under its control do not publicly identify Participants whose Samples have resulted in Adverse Analytical Findings or Atypical Findings, or who have a Provisional Suspension imposed on them, or are alleged to have committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation under this Programme, unless and until an Anti-Doping Tribunal has determined that an Anti-Doping Rule Violation has been committed, and/or the Anti-Doping Rule Violation has been admitted.
Yours,
ITF Anti-Doping
In other words, a player can serve a provisional suspension and then be "exonerated" and we are never going to be told. This is a huge loophole that allows the ITF to do their discipline and suspension without anyone being informed. A player, for example, while under a provisional suspension, could simply cite an "injury" and still even show up for exhibition tournaments with no penalty. That is all hypothetical, of course. The ITF would never allow such a maneuver...

Update/Follow-up (Thanks again, SNR):Thank-you very much for the prompt clarification.
Is it therefore the case that there are (or have been) players that are serving (or served) a "voluntary" or "Provisional" suspension for which no public identification was or will be made? If so, how many "voluntary" or "Provisional" suspensions occurred last year and so far this year?
...
The ITF does not comment on ongoing cases, or previous cases that have resulted in no Anti-Doping Rule Violation.
Thank you for your interest.
Yours,
ITF Anti-Doping
So to recap: Even if a player has a positive test, they can fight it and, at the discretion of the ITF, which has a financial interest in the outcome, can be exonerated without their test ever being made public. Furthermore, it appears likely that there were many cases of this nature based on the vague denial above and we are no longer going to be told which players are tested and when or what the results of those tests are. All we know for sure was that there were several missed tests by unnamed players and no explanation will be forthcoming. I think that this is the kind of transparency that makes the ITF such a credible organization.

Yes it is quite troubling as to players missing tests and lack of transparency in the system. I have found that any organization that lacks transparency and accountabilty will eventually degrade into some form of petty corruption. The ITF should be smarter than that, afterall they are playing with integrity of the very game that pays their bills. But why am I not surprised at this type of lack of openess. Well at least they aren't FIFA yet in terms of corruption at the top.

Very troubling.

It's an interesting question to ask the following; when an organisation clearly obscures facts from the public and does not act in a way that enhances transparency, why is it unethical for the public (who pays for all this, by the way) to speculate about individual players activities, especually where there is circumstantial evidence (such as association with known dopers, refusal to contest allegations, etc.)?

It seems to me that restraint from speculation has to be earned. The top players should be coming out and forcing the pace themselves; publishing their tests, showing how clean they are. If they do not, and they are part of such an opaque process, they can hardly complain if we wonder at their recoveries or prowess, can they?

Tenez wrote:ITF Response:
This policy is set out in Article P.3 of the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme:
P.3 The ITF shall use its reasonable endeavours to ensure that Persons under its control do not publicly identify Participants whose Samples have resulted in Adverse Analytical Findings or Atypical Findings, or who have a Provisional Suspension imposed on them, or are alleged to have committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation under this Programme, unless and until an Anti-Doping Tribunal has determined that an Anti-Doping Rule Violation has been committed, and/or the Anti-Doping Rule Violation has been admitted.
Yours,
ITF Anti-Doping

It sounds quite reasonable at first, not publicising names of players who have an "adverse analytical finding or atypical finding" - innocent until proved guilty and all that, but unfortunately the policy set out above allows the ITF to be less than transparent and when that happens, I quite agree with socal here, history tells us that you create a breeding ground for corruption. It is this clause that allowed Agassi to plead innocent and for his transgression never to have been made public. (I don't personally think Agassi's admitted drug taking was that heinous, but the fact that it was hushed up makes you wonder what else may have been - and that is why the sport must always be transparent)

The fact is that while drug tests may seem draconian,players in the top 50 earn a good living, and the top 20 earn a fabulous one because tennis is big box office and sponsorship deals are worth millions for the very top players - the flip side to the fabulous rewards that tennis brings is a bit of inconvenience in making sure that you are always available for a certain period every day for testing (it is only a short but lucrative career after all) and the sport should be fully accountable to the punters who are the people who ensure that prize money is at an all time high because of their support for the sport, and to the sponsors.

In the case of Odenisk - If there is an ongoing investigation into any allegations that Odenisk has made in return for his ban being reduced by a year, the public and the sponsors absolutely have a right to know.

PS - thanks laver for help with selective quoting - finally got there!

... the policy set out above allows the ITF to be less than transparent and when that happens, I quite agree with socal here, history tells us that you create a breeding ground for corruption.

It's actually the other way around. It's because there is corruption that the rules are set up to cover it up if needed.

The ITF, ATP and WTA would never let a positive sample of their biggest stars spoils the lucrative business that is tennis. Let's not kid ourselves.

Tenez wrote:

... the policy set out above allows the ITF to be less than transparent and when that happens, I quite agree with socal here, history tells us that you create a breeding ground for corruption.

It's actually the other way around. It's because there is corruption that the rules are set up to cover it up if needed.

The ITF, ATP and WTA would never let a positive sample of their biggest stars spoils the lucrative business that is tennis. Let's not kid ourselves.

The so-called 'loophole' can be plugged very easily. Taking an example from governments and the need for transparency, if the desire is to curb media hysteria, put in place a 'declassification' process. A statute of limitations (say 24 months or 36 months) and then publish details as necessary.

I agree ITF/WADA/ATP/WTA need a watchdog to watch 'them', otherwise it is a dictatorship.

time please wrote:PS - thanks laver for help with selective quoting - finally got there!

You are welcome.

Bogbrush, what are you rabbiting on about ?

Haven't you heard of seers who use the entrails of sacrificed animals to perform their practices ? that is all I was alluding to, eg... a gut feeling that "Tennis is without doubt one of the dirtiest sports there is"

Who posted that has no proof to back up that statement, its just an opinion based on what he/she has read or listened to in the media.

TP, I'm not saying we should not discuss PED's, but we shouldn't make blanket statements that tennis is dirty or say that "some" players are guilty of cheating with their use of them. Its such a generalisation that it hides behind a wanton belief to cast an image that players who either have increased their physical attributes or their talent, have done so illegally. Again, there is no proof of this.

What we should be doing is discussing what PED's do, should they be legalised, what the long term affects are, how can they be detected, what laws are there in place etc etc.

Far more useful direction to go than argue who is or isn't taking them

Jubbahey wrote:What we should be doing is discussing what PED's do, should they be legalised, what the long term affects are, how can they be detected, what laws are there in place etc etc.

Agree with you. The discussion was intended to go that way with the 'Biological' passport mentioned in my post, but has veered in the direction of transparency of ITF/WADA/ATP/WTA.

Jubbahey wrote:TP, I'm not saying we should not discuss PED's, but we shouldn't make blanket statements that tennis is dirty or say that "some" players are guilty of cheating with their use of them. Its such a generalisation that it hides behind a wanton belief to cast an image that players who either have increased their physical attributes or their talent, have done so illegally. Again, there is no proof of this.

That is one post that claims tennis is 'dirty' in an otherwise well ordered debate. The fact is that the Odenisk, particularly, should be discussed, not least because, as laver pointed out, it was Australian Customs and not ITF who discovered the HGH. In the ITF's own words, they are working with Odenisk - if the paying public do not put pressure on the tennis authorities to be open after the investigation is complete, of course the inclination will be to cover up, but you can't believe that is healthy in any organisation.

Jubbahey wrote: What we should be doing is discussing what PED's do, should they be legalised, what the long term affects are, how can they be detected, what laws are there in place etc etc.

Well I can see that by legalising them you would feel you had done everything to ensure a level playing field - at least for those who were less inclined to worry about long term health effects.

But think........that should never ever be allowed if for the only reason that it is so open to abuse of young players by adults (I refer you again to "Open" and Agassi Snr popping speed to his boys) I can't think of anything more hideously irresponsible if the authorities went this way - what a complete cop out.

Because of the risk of abuse alone, but also because it is against the very nature of sport even when sport is big business, if PEDs were ever legalised, I would stop watching tennis immediately.

Jubbahey wrote:Far more useful direction to go than argue who is or isn't taking them

I am really sorry Jubb, I may have missed something, but I really haven't seen anyone do this. I am guilty of mentioning Agassi, but as I am taking material from his autobiography, I can't see that is a problem? Odenisk is a matter of public record, as are allegations by the two named former players - by this reckoning we shouldn't discuss Rebekkah Brooks or Rupert Murdoch in the same sentence as phone hacking.

I don't mean to be combative, and I understand if you don't wish to discuss some of the statements or suspensions in the last 24 months, but I don't think you can be prescriptive about what other posters may wish to discuss as long as they are not libellous or bring a personal prejudice against a player into such a discussion.

laverfan wrote: The discussion was intended to go that way with the 'Biological' passport mentioned in my post, but has veered in the direction of transparency of ITF/WADA/ATP/WTA.

laver, it has been a very interesting discussion and your biological passport route was discussed but inevitably the conversation veered again to the authorities (this may again have been my fault), however I think your opening post that posed the question:

laverfan wrote:Is ITF just going after 'small' fish? Whistle

may have invited the speculation?

time please wrote:may have invited the speculation?

Mea Culpa.

laverfan wrote:

time please wrote:may have invited the speculation?

Mea Culpa.

Isn't it natural to question why the proven dopers are not nearly as physical as the top clean players?