Cilic Suspended for Doping

http://news.sky.com/story/1142539/marin-cilic-tennis-ace-suspended-over-doping

It is sad to see, but he will be back in Jan 2014.

Mr Cilic asserted that the nikethamide, for which he did not hold a valid TUE, had entered his system through his ingestion of Coramine glucose tablets that had been purchased on his behalf from a pharmacy.

The Independent Tribunal found that Mr Cilic ingested the nikethamide inadvertently as a result of taking the Coramine glucose tablets, and did not intend to enhance his performance in doing so, and that he therefore met the preconditions of Article 10.4 of the Programme, which entitles him to a reduction of the Period of Ineligibility for Specified Substance based on an assessment of his fault.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2013/09/38/Cilic-Decision.aspx

Unfortunate for him, but it had to be punished.

Interesting that it's called nikethamide - is that some sort of sponsorship deal? It's on the shelf next to reebokamine and adidasulphate

Again this is what i never understand with you LF. Why on earth is it sad to see?
Seriously!?!?
I for one don't buy this for one second.

Fair all round. No need to go OTT likes some of the drug cheat zealots would like

In affect though, it means he misses three slams, just as he was starting to look like one of those who we could potentially label 'next slam winner'

That's even more of punishment

LuvSports! wrote:Again this is what i never understand with you LF. Why on earth is it sad to see?
Seriously!?!?
I for one don't buy this for one second.

Mr Cynic. What don't you "buy"? Not all failed dope tests are athletes so hooked on the stuff that they are growing things that shouldn't be growing  Occasionally, someone does something daft and this is it

Before you say this is no punishment, just as he starts looking better than he's ever done, he puts himself out of nearly a years worth of slams (he will be too uncompetitive for the Aus)

Off with his head, I suppose for you??

As long as you find your own remarks funny, i guess that is good for you.
Do you know much about this topic? Drugs in sport?
I did a dissertation on it, have studied it so meticulously and extensively that I have seen a plethora of examples just like this and it stinks to high heaven.
Everyone except the spectators know what's going on.

You don't agree with me, but don't patronise, no need.

He won't be back for the Australian as the suspension only ends on 31st Jan.

Tend to agree with the idea this was an error rather than deliberate given the facts. The cynical assessment relies on Cilic somehow knowing that the glucose product contained the banned substance so that he had a ready-made excuse for genuine drug taking. In my view, that is far less likely than a simple error.

Dissertation or not stats tend to hold up better with larger sample groups, theres still a good chance that it was a mistake, those other examples arent him. Its pretty tough on him but he can count himself lucky its on countback, means he only misses the Aussie, and gets a good crack at 2014 otherwise

If he tested positive in Munich. Why was he allowed to play Madrid, Rome, RG, Queens and also one round of Wimbledon? Why did he withdraw at that particular point whilst competing in a tournament?

It would be tough on him if he were innocent. But he has been found guilty. Without knowing more about it I have no reason to doubt the guilty verdict. If he was innocent he will be more careful about taking anything that has been purchased for him from a pharmacy without first reading very carefully what it is...

:

LuvSports! wrote:As long as you find your own remarks funny, i guess that is good for you.
Do you know much about this topic? Drugs in sport?
I did a dissertation on it, have studied it so meticulously and extensively that I have seen a plethora of examples just like this and it stinks to high heaven.
Everyone except the spectators know what's going on.

You don't agree with me, but don't patronise, no need.

Very pleased for you LS. It of course gives you full licence to do to me, what you just accused of me doing to you  

My reaction to your rather harsh comment, comes from someone who is actually has a degree in chemistry (both physical, organic and inorganic) and hence knows that it would be very easy for someone to think that one mixture is all the same - it's happened numerous times to holidaymakers, thinking that, for example, a named cough mixture is the same everywhere and quickly finding out they aren't

laverfan wrote:It is sad to see, but he will be back in Jan 2014.

Have to agree with LS that this is a very odd comment to make.

summerblues wrote:

laverfan wrote:It is sad to see, but he will be back in Jan 2014.

Have to agree with LS that this is a very odd comment to make.

Why is it strange?

As far as I can see from what has been said, it seems that Cillic made a fatal mistake in not taking the appropriate measures to ensure what he had indgested was not banned.

From her view LF believes this to be a 'genuine' mistake and that he is serving his punishment for it.

For me I am more harsh I don't think he is serving enough time on the sidelines and that also I am bewildered that he was allowed to play on when he tested positive.

useless sanction. Even worse that it's been backdated, despite him playing on initially. "Missed three slams?" he played the French, and Wimbers (the official story is still of him pulling out through injury), so in reality he's missed one.

Ultimately professional athletes should be 100% responsible for what goes into their body. That means if you buy something at the pharmacists, you check that it's 100% OK for you to use. Should have been at least 18 months, not backdated, IMO.

Tennis fans defending this ban are exactly why Tennis can continue to take the fight against drugs so "seriously". Sorry if that causes offence but it's how I see it. One day something will slip up (Fuentes, maybe?), and all hell will break loose...

banbrotam wrote::

LuvSports! wrote:As long as you find your own remarks funny, i guess that is good for you.
Do you know much about this topic? Drugs in sport?
I did a dissertation on it, have studied it so meticulously and extensively that I have seen a plethora of examples just like this and it stinks to high heaven.
Everyone except the spectators know what's going on.

You don't agree with me, but don't patronise, no need.

Very pleased for you LS. It of course gives you full licence to do to me, what you just accused of me doing to you  

My reaction to your rather harsh comment, comes from someone who is actually has a degree in chemistry (both physical, organic and inorganic) and hence knows that it would be very easy for someone to think that one mixture is all the same - it's happened numerous times to holidaymakers, thinking that, for example, a named cough mixture is the same everywhere and quickly finding out they aren't

That's not an excuse for it happening to professional athletes. Until we adopt a stance where we say "doesn't matter how it got there [in your body], it's banned and shouldn't be there, and it's your [the athlete's] responsibility to ensure it isn't", we're not going to get anywhere. Anyone can make up a hard-luck story (and they invariably do). Heck I think athletics is a laughing joke for this, but at least Meritt got 21 months...

Im not sure what the issue is here. Cilic has been penalised in a way that means he has missed the prize money and points from an entire year of slams. Its irrelevant he played the French because he will have his points and prize money removed.

If the circumstances as described are correct my view is that it is a reasonable sanction. I don't want to see players banned for two years for making an innocent, if stupid, mistake. 9 months is a large chunk lf his career which he has lost purely because he didn't check the contents of some glucose tablets closely enough.

Of course, there will be cynics who think that it wasn't a mistake. Obviously they don't have the evidence available to the panel hearing the case so aren't in any real position to judge. Personally, as I said above, if the panel has found his explanation acceptable then I think it is highly likely to be a true explanation.

but he was playing. And by playing and beating guys I would argue he deprived those guys of potential earnings, ranking points, tournaments, etc.

As for a "9 month" ban, in reality it's anything but, since it also includes two and a half months (the period after Wimbers and the off-season) where no one's playing anyway... I just don't buy the genuine mistake excuse either. Once more, professional athletes need to be 100% sure everything that goes in their body has a right to be there. Clearly, Cilic wasn't. That's not a mistake, that's negligence. Mistake is Gasquet kissing a girl who'd taken cocaine...

Gasquet kissing a girl is something which is very convenient and impossible to prove - given Pamela wasn't there to give evidence.

In Cilic's case, I presume that the panel had evidence showing when he brought the tablets and lab results showing trace elements of the banned substance is contained therein - clear evidence to support his excuse. I completely agree he should still be banned but the penalty to me matches the offence. Missing the majority of a season seems fair for one stupid error.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:but he was playing. And by playing and beating guys I would argue he deprived those guys of potential earnings, ranking points, tournaments, etc.

As for a "9 month" ban, in reality it's anything but, since it also includes two and a half months (the period after Wimbers and the off-season) where no one's playing anyway... I just don't buy the genuine mistake excuse either. Once more, professional athletes need to be 100% sure everything that goes in their body has a right to be there. Clearly, Cilic wasn't. That's not a mistake, that's negligence. Mistake is Gasquet kissing a girl who'd taken cocaine...

If the girl's tongue was in his mouth, doesn't that come under "professional athletes need to be 100% sure everything that goes in their body has a right to be there"?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:but he was playing. And by playing and beating guys I would argue he deprived those guys of potential earnings, ranking points, tournaments, etc.

As for a "9 month" ban, in reality it's anything but, since it also includes two and a half months (the period after Wimbers and the off-season) where no one's playing anyway... I just don't buy the genuine mistake excuse either. Once more, professional athletes need to be 100% sure everything that goes in their body has a right to be there. Clearly, Cilic wasn't. That's not a mistake, that's negligence. Mistake is Gasquet kissing a girl who'd taken cocaine...

If the girl's tongue was in his mouth, doesn't that come under "professional athletes need to be 100% sure everything that goes in their body has a right to be there"?

 

Born Slippy wrote:Tend to agree with the idea this was an error rather than deliberate given the facts. The cynical assessment relies on Cilic somehow knowing that the glucose product contained the banned substance so that he had a ready-made excuse for genuine drug taking. In my view, that is far less likely than a simple error.

I guess if you are taking banned drugs, it's quite likely you or the person helping you will check out in advance which over-the-counter products contains the same substance so you are ready with the excuse.
It's a difficult one - it's easy to imagine someone making a stupid mistake, but on the other hand, no-one who's caught ever says "it's a fair cop, guv".

In the end, none of us are ever likely to know the truth of this, nor should it matter now that the incident is behind us and has been punished. Cilic will be more careful in the future if he is innocent, but tarring him as a deliberate cheat is not something appropriate from our place on the sidelines. And writing a dissertation, as a sidepoint, is just as likely to cloud one's judgement and create a confirmation bias as it is to inform judgement with expertise. You'd be astounded at the number of simple, avoidable, silly errors made by fully trained doctors and even pharmacists when it comes to the content of medications, and to me that makes the "silly mistake" story far more believable because that is where my experience lies, but I'm aware of that and wary of using that knowledge as evidence in a case where we are privy to none of the details

This is a classic benefit of doubt or not discussion.
I'm personally skeptical that pro athletes don't know or don't check what they're putting in their bodies, tongues, supplements or drugs alike.
Cilic had struck me as someone who had gained muscle in last 12 mths but that proves nothing. However, I am in the skeptical camp and agree he's got off lightly luckily for him.

lydian wrote:This is a classic benefit of doubt or not discussion.
I'm personally skeptical that pro athletes don't know or don't check what they're putting in their bodies, tongues, supplements or drugs alike.
Cilic had struck me as someone who had gained muscle in last 12 mths but that proves nothing. However, I am in the skeptical camp and agree he's got off lightly luckily for him.

Totally agree .. in light of all the publicity surrounding PEDs in sport I would have thought he personally  should have taken more care and checked the contents of what he was taking or preferably  his coach should have taken on the responsibility. Which makes me very skeptical sadly.

@LS...

Kendrick (jet lag medicine), Triocki (refusal to give blood), Coria (nandrolone issue) are some examples, where it is hard to say who made a mistake and if it was genuine or not.

In Coria's case...

Coria tested positive for nandrolone in April 2001, after a match in Barcelona against Michel Kratochvil. The news of Coria's positive test was publicly revealed on 10 July 2001. Coria was initially banned from tennis for two years, starting in August 2001, and was fined $98,565. Coria claimed that the only supplement that he was taking was a multivitamin made by a New Jersey supplements company. His family employed a private lab to test the multivitamin, which was found to be contaminated with steroids. In December 2001, the ATP refused to acquit Coria, but reduced his ban from two years to seven months, which meant that he would be free to continue with his tennis career in March 2002. Coria sued the New Jersey supplements company for more than $10 million in lost prize money and endorsements and settled after the third day of the trial for an undisclosed amount.

@MFC... notice the dates, April 2001 and July 2001 (a 4+ month gap) in Coria's case. This a typical scenario where a player can appeal, B sample tested, etc. which takes some time, and hence bans are not handed immediately.

"Sad for them" is just such a strange way of putting it, i cannot understand that response at all.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

summerblues wrote:

laverfan wrote:It is sad to see, but he will be back in Jan 2014.

Have to agree with LS that this is a very odd comment to make.

Why is it strange?

As far as I can see from what has been said, it seems that Cillic made a fatal mistake in not taking the appropriate measures to ensure what he had indgested was not banned.

From her view LF believes this to be a 'genuine' mistake and that he is serving his punishment for it.

If I understand the original post correctly, Cilic's suspension is based on the assumption he took the banned substance by accident.  So there are two possibilities:  either it was indeed an accident, in which case the suspension is the correct one, or it was deliberate, in which case it is too light.  What is sad about it?  Unless, of course, LF thinks it is sad he was not handed out more severe punishment, but I think it is pretty clear from LF's post that that is not what she has in mind.

I disagree, even if it was an accident (something I'm relatively willing to believe) I still think it's gross negligence on Cilic's part, and that the suspension is too light. Like I said, 18 months minimum would be my starting point. Harsh? Yes. But Tennis needs to start taking the drugs issue more seriously. Ultimately every sportsman caught has a hard-luck story to back it up...

On the whole retrospective thing, I maintain that it's very unfair towards the players he beat in that period, and those who as a result of Cilic's inclusion weren't ranked quite high enough to reach the main draw of the tournaments he was playing in, thus depriving them of (potential) ranking points and prize money. Taking away Cilic's points and money doesn't give it "back" to them...

If we believe Cilic, then he has taken a glucose tablet which he would be perfectly ok to take out of competition not realising it contained a stimulant which is banned in competition. Its an error but im not sure id call that gross negligence, sufficient to wipe out 25% of his peak years. 9 months is in my view clearly sufficient to ensure players understand the importance of being very careful.

In relation to the retrospective point, the ATP could presumably redistribute prize money amongst those affected. However, I don't see the relevance to the length of ban.

I'm arguing two points here.

1) the length of the ban. I maintain that it's gross negligence. Professional athletes should be 100% sure they're allowed to take a product before doing so. Buy something at the chemists, check what it contains (hardly an 800-page novel), check that nothing on the banned list is there. Shouldn't take too long, really. Clearly Cilic didn't check. I call that negligence. As such, the ban should be longer (especially when you consider that a decent chunk of his ban is at times when he wouldn't play anyway...)

2) The retroactive effect. For the reasons I've presented I believe retroactive sanctions to be stupid and unfair. There's no fair way even to redistribute prize money (and ranking points) among those affected IMO. Take Queens, where Cilic made the final: should Del Potro be given his runner-up points? Who takes Del potro's semi-final points in that case? etc...

These two points are completely separate BTW, in case that wasn't clear.

Well, we aren't going to agree on the first point. It seems a fair sanction to me, particularly given the max penalty for deliberate doping is two years for a first offence.

On the second, I am a bit confused as to what you are saying should have happened. Are you saying he should be able to keep the points and prize money during that period and then be banned from the date of the voluntary suspension?

The initial indications seem to be that he is appealing by the way. Seems odd if he does given there seems no dispute that he did test positive.

Cilic is still a human being remember, not a filthy little beast to be made an example of over what could be, and seems to be accepted as, a mistake. Thats why its sad. He's not a r***ist, or a murderer or a child molester, hence why i dont see why LF is being given any stick for saying it's sad. He certainly shouldnt be called out for it twice...
Also Cilic played those matches seemingly unaware that he had taken it, once he was told he immediately withdrew from wimbledon, so im not sure that should be held against him. He is innocent until proven guilty, so regardless of how cynical you are, or what you've written its important to remember that hes guilty of an accident but not of knowing doping, and not drag his name through the mud yet.

I'm with MfC on this I'm afraid. Every professional sports person knows that drug testing comes with the teritory. And if you can't be held responsible for your own actions then what hope do we have.

There are nearly always extenuating circumstances. The bigger issue for me is what this says to individual who are either not caught or contemplating such acts. Basically they have a get out clause. Stupidity/carelessness is not, nor should it be, a defence.

No one is saying he is some archcriminal. But I firmly believe he should serve the mandatory ban with no redress on the basis 'he didn't know'. What about all those players who did know? The players who go 'hang on - I'm not allowed to take that'. Where is the incentive or reward for them paying attention.

I also believe (of which I have no evidence!) that their must be more drug use in tennis than we are aware. Simply because of the nature of the sport and the rewards that are on offer.

But people are acting like it is. You see on the news a child has been killed and no one bats an eyelid... but some athlete they've never met took a drug? Well thats just not on...

He should serve the ban for his carelessness, fair enough. I dont think its fair to treat him like hes already guilty of being an actual drug cheat

I disagree with pretty much all of what you said, hence why i responded to LF the way I did. From my viewpoint it was a very strange comment.

falzy21 wrote:
He is innocent until proven guilty, so regardless of how cynical you are, or what you've written its important to remember that hes guilty of an accident but not of knowing doping, and not drag his name through the mud yet.

Like Lance Armstrong?
I never 100% accuse someone of doping, I generally get very suspicious and tend not to buy anything when they get banned. I love this topic and studied it extensively, so i have my views and you have yours, i can respond however i so choose thanks.

As can I luvsports, and I fell its a gross over exaggeration to compare Cilic to Armstrong. I also think that's a serious cause of looking in retrospect, not everyone's Lance Armstrong.

I also think its was disrespectful to Laverfan how you reacted to a single line comment, here it is for reference.

"Again this is what I never understand with you LF. Why on earth is it sad to see?
Seriously!?!?"

He's sad to see someones career reduced to this? That is sad in some ways, maybe not for Cilic but in general it is a shame. Thats not at all a strange thing to say in my view. To Laverfans credit, he didn't respond to your bait.

Ive written dissertations on things too, a fair few in fact, but I learnt very quickly that it didn't make my opinion the be all and end all.

You clearly have an EXTREMELY aggressive opinion on this, that's fine but dont knock other people so much for having a different one, theyre not necessarily wrong just because you think they are.

I've always found myself strangely uninterested in drugs cases in all sports, it's not a side of the sport I overly concern myself with.

Anyway, no more fighting eh? You ask us to respect your opinion, which is fair, we ask you respect ours back. Lf is clearly of the opinion that Cilic did this by accident and shouldnt be too badly scolded for being careless, I happen to be of the opinion of second chances, this is Cilic's only current violation, given the weight of whats said i'd give him a ban and one last chance. It would be a straight 2 years or perma ban for another offence.

That doesnt make our opinion strange, which implies somethings wrong with it, just diffrerent

i am EXTREMELY AGGRESSIVE aren't I...

This is the tennis way of proving that they're doing something about anti-doping.

A few poor saps get lenient bans for barely beneficial substances (usually down to their own stupidity) while the ones who are on or have been on cocktails of the proper stuff are left well alone.

djlovesyou wrote:This is the tennis way of proving that they're doing something about anti-doping.

A few poor saps get lenient bans for barely beneficial substances (usually down to their own stupidity) while the ones who are on or have been on cocktails of the proper stuff are left well alone.

There's just no real way to know that though. I don't think that the tennis authorities are letting players off. However, I suspect any top players who are truly doping would be too sophisticated to be caught.

What proportion of players are doping is just speculation. I'd be surprised if everyone currently in the top 10 was clean but, on the other hand, tennis isn't actually that tough a sport nor is it team organised so I wouldn't have thought they all are doping. My speculation would be its 10% or so of the top 100. I can only think of a couple of incidents which have caused me to raise an eyebrow at the physical feats that have occurred.

I suppose doping in sports is like that age-old question....
Would you rather make out with a donkey and have no one find out, or not make out with a donkey and have everyone think you did? Athletes are damned either way.

Born Slippy wrote:

There's just no real way to know that though. I don't think that the tennis authorities are letting players off. However, I suspect any top players who are truly doping would be too sophisticated to be caught.

That's it really. They're not letting them off per se. But you only have to look at the amount of times the players are tested in a year compared to a sport with a more robust anti-doping policy to see that they're perhaps not quite putting as much effort as they could into catching them.

No sports imo are doing enough to but then again it isn't in the interests of the sport to dismantle it's main drawcards.

@LS... The reasons for my 'sadness' are multiple..

1. It [Nikethamide] is available as a short-acting over-the-counter drug in several South American and European countries, combined with glucose in form of lozenges.  It is especially useful for mountain climbers to increase endurance at high altitudes.

The label for such 'lozenges' should contain warning label saying it contains a substance which can be considered a stimulant in Professional Sports.

2. Apparently, whoever purchased this for Cilic, could have made a genuine mistake, not being a  professional sportsperson. This is pure conjecture on my part.

3. These players are extraordinary athletes. While mere mortals can take such tainted-Glucose without being punished, these players have to live in a bubble to be insulated from such mistakes. IMVHO, it is a genuine mistake.

4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1859729/ - shows it is very hard to catch someone. However, an intermediate metabolite (N-ethylnicotinamide) was found by us in the urine of horses treated with CoramineR. Coramine Glucose is the source. The drug test would have followed rather quickly after the ingestion. I am not certain what to make of it. Did someone intend Cilic harm? (Perhaps another separate thread is worth considering).

5. As I alluded to Coria in a prior post, his career was virtually ruined by the company which made the drug contaminated with Nandrolone.

6. The athletes at this level have it really tough, giving up ordinary human comfort, by choice, if I may add.

7. As DJ alludes, what is being caught is probably small fish. If ATP/WADA is serious, they are in a tough chasing pack. This is sad.

8. I am also sad that LA is used to characterise and demonise the entire Sports community of athletes.

Even if you do not see it the way I do, hopefully you will appreciate the mindset.

BTW, 20 years ago, the technology did not exist to detect such stimulants. This may also be of interest to you - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12801208

Whilst I think the punishment is right for Cilic and I don't want to see a career ruined by a mistake, I don't really agree with Laver's post:

1. So far as I am aware we do not know what the label said. However, a warning shouldn't be needed. If nikethamide is listed it is the athlete's responsibilty to check the ingredients against the banned list. In this case it seems to be fairly reasonably reported that nikethamide is an ingredient. It is not the same as a contaminated product.

2. There is no suggestion so far that Cilic was set up. Even he hasn't said that. It seems to be a case of carelessness.

3. These requirements are not that difficult to meet given the rewards athletes obtain and the risks if the requirements were made less strict.

4. Armstrong hasn't really demonised others. There was a strong body of opinion that there was widespread doping in sport before Lance's true nature was publically revealed. All he has done is lend credence to those views.

Born Slippy wrote:Whilst I think the punishment is right for Cilic and I don't want to see a career ruined by a mistake, I don't really agree with Laver's post:

1. So far as I am aware we do not know what the label said. However, a warning shouldn't be needed. If nikethamide is listed it is the athlete's responsibilty to check the ingredients against the banned list. In this case it seems to be fairly reasonably reported that nikethamide is an ingredient. It is not the same as a contaminated product.

2. There is no suggestion so far that Cilic was set up. Even he hasn't said that. It seems to be a case of carelessness.

3. These requirements are not that difficult to meet given the rewards athletes obtain and the risks if the requirements were made less strict.

4. Armstrong hasn't really demonised others. There was a strong body of opinion that there was widespread doping in sport before Lance's true nature was publically revealed. All he has done is lend credence to those views.

1. http://www.catalog.md/drugs/coramine-glucose.html - Novartis is a reputed drug maker.

2. As I said, it was pure conjecture based on timing of the test to detect the stimulant side of it.

3. What you are suggesting is that the athletes should carry a list and check for every act of ingestion? Mere mortals like me do not do that. Are we expecting too much from this players?

4. This is the bubble that is referred to.  

5. LS seems to reference LA in many a doping discussion. What would you consider that act to be?

To me, Operation Puerto and the associated travesty of justice is much more of a sore thumb, than just LA. The current MLB revelations reduce my faith in authorities to be able to get ahead in the new Sports Arms race. Ferrari, Fuentes, Galea stayed ahead of the organizations like WADA/USADA/ASADA and other NGOs.

You all lose faith in sport now... try following boxing. Convicted PED ring-leaders re-surfacing under new alias' to train world champs....

Alternatively, from the rubble there are positives. Angel Heredia has claimed doping would be next to impossible under the VADA (voluntary anti-doping association), Im inclined to agree with him giving the resoundingly low amount of organisation which have made athletes sign up.

LF, I respectfully disagree with your 3rd point. If you're allergic to something and someone buys some medicine for you at the chemists, you check it doesn't contain said something. Professional sportsmen IMO have the responsibility of checking what goes into their bodies. The "I didn't know it was there" excuse just doesn't carry any weight with me: "you should have checked"... Hence why in this discussion I'm using the word "negligence" rather than "mistake" to describe Cilic's misdemeanour...