Printable View
Sharapova's excuses are a crock. I understand there are discounts for pleading guilty and co-operating but apart from that I hope she gets a lengthy ban. Exploiting the rules to your advantage is one thing but if you're going to do it you need to be organised about it.
Hopefully she will get at least 4 years. Anything less is soft. Sharipova (and almost every other athlete taking Meldonium) was knowing taking the substance to improve performance. The story about a magnesium deficiency and diabetes does seem to have any basis. The alarming part is that she admits to have been using Meldonium to cheat since 2006. Sure it wasn't a banned substance until 2015 but taking performance enhancers is still cheating even if not yet explicitly against the rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
I look forward to four years of professional tennis with one less high-profile grunter blighting the game.
Of course she knew what she was doing, but imho a ban is not necessary. She's been hurt a motza already.
> but taking performance enhancers is still cheating even if not yet explicitly against the rules.
No.. that's not right at all.
Drugs are either illegal or not. Caffeine enhances performance for many sports, and everyone takes it.
Almost no-one takes Meldonium unless you are a cheating athlete. To compare it to caffeine is ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Smith
And cheats should be banned and banned for a long time. Four years is the standard penalty for this sort of thing and no circumstances seem to be extenuating at all despite Sharipova's posturing.
A 4 year penalty sounds sufficient.
Her excuses are laughable.
Of course they are not the same. But i was just providing an example.Quote:
To compare it to caffeine is ridiculous.
I'm sure there are numerous drugs that are taken that enhance performance.
The point is, if they are not perscribed illegal, how can you then be cheating.
I know you're point, and i'd probably agree that users of this a drug are "cheating" in spirit.
But laws do not work or concern themselves with doing things in the right spirit.
So if one week it is legal, but the next week it is illegal, maybe four years is a bit harsh ??
It had been on the monitored list for then whole of 2015 and the list of banned substances became effective on 1 Jan 2016 but was published in September 2015.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Smith
That gave Sharipova (and any of the other roughly dozen athletes to have been reported for Meldonium use) three whole months which is enough time to realise it is banned and remove it from their 'medical' regime.
Give how well managed her PR has been since the positive test result someone in her operation should have been able to connect the dots.
I saw a newspaper piece in the Oz today that well made the point that performance enhancement is very arbitrarily divided into banned and non-banned, and especially there seems to be a bias that if the enhancement is a drug you can take then that's bad, but if the enhancement is something like sleeping in a tent with an unusual air composition (Chris Froome) then that's OK. A more logical screening process for lists of banned enhancement methods (IMO) might concern 1) whether the method is harmful 2) whether the method is unduly expensive 3) whether use of the method by athletes creates some other problems, such as shortage of a drug for people who need it 4) whether the method is legal in some countries and not others (etc).
But it makes no difference. If someone takes a banned performance-enhancer they're availing themselves of an opportunity not available to people who play by the rules. It's very important that people be able to play by the rules without disadvantage, should they wish to do so. And very wealthy sportspeople have no excuse for not keeping up with the rules (though we have of course seen cases of leading chessplayers being ignorant of chess rules!)
French Open is on. Sadly, with Roger sidelined by injury I do not find it that exciting to follow. The highlights so far are probably Murray's 2 5-set struggles
There was some soap opera involving Nadal.
He is suing the former French sports minister over doping allegations, who said
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...ng-allegationsQuote:
We know that Nadal’s famous seven-month injury was without a doubt due to a positive [drug test].
And in a strange coincidence, he has bizarrely withdrawn from the tournament he almost owns -
because - “I’m here to announce that I have to retire from the tournament because I have a problem in my wrist that I have had a couple of weeks,”.
This is bizarre really - he has won so many tournaments with injury, and never says die.
I'm finding it hard not to think the ex-minister has pulled some strings with the drug testers, and they were going to knock on Nadal's door, or something of this nature.
Could be true :).Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Smith
Nice to see Sam boost her retirement fund.
A semi final appearance at Roland Garros is worth $500k euro , and maybe she can keep going.
http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/ne...semifinal.html
I'm jumping on the Sam Stosur bandwagon too. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Smith
Novak is a cleary favourite in the upcoming final against Murray...but lets see what happens. Can not wait for Roger to be back.