Ban Reduction Galore

[brokenshoelace]

I think a one year ban is fully justified, because Troicki should have known that (partly) missing a doping test is the same thing as testing positive. But if the circumstances were such that he had reason to believe that he could take the test the next day because of statements made by an official, that is definitely something to take into account when laying down a suspension.

But that's not something to be taken lightly. You don't just "think you can take it the next day." If you do believe that, you do your best to communicate with whoever is in charge of conducting the test and make sure you absolutely can take it the next day, lest you receive a 2 year ban.

 

[Denis]

Well, I'm not going to read the judgement, and I assume on what you just typed above that neither did you. His case is most likely more complicated than that. I don't care too much about Troicki to go look it up, but all these careless statements written in this thread are frankly stupid. If you want to argue that the ban was unjustifiably shortened argue convincingly.

 

[Kieran]

If Nadal did what Troicki did, Mastoor would be all over it like a red rash. I mean, he makes up stories about Nadal, so something like this would probably be like Christmas to Mastoor - or do Buddhists celebrate Christmas? :huh:

But actually, Troicki made a huge miscalculation and there's no real defense for it. His coach is similarly culpable to the extent that the board found his witness to lack credibility - he'd say anything to get his man off with it. It shouldn't matter what excuses are given, especially by top-paid pampered sports stars who know the stakes.

And I'd say this if it was Rafa too, if he did a Cilic or Troicki...

 

[britbox]

Yes, however, Djokovic has a point, in that the ITP and WADA are not consistent, and I can understand if the players feel they're chasing a moving target.

They should be more consistent - they should give them the full term of the ban instead of reducing it based on ridiculous excuses. The players would complain even more...

I see your point, but it is also not nuanced. Authorities make mistakes and individuals should be protected against authorities if they do so. That's why there are judicial systems: judges second-guess decisions made by authorities all the time. Apparently, Troicki's case was good enough to get him a reduction of his suspension. You cannot dismiss outright that no mistakes have been made, that's just stupid rigidity to the detriment of an individual.

I think a one year ban is fully justified, because Troicki should have known that (partly) missing a doping test is the same thing as testing positive. But if the circumstances were such that he had reason to believe that he could take the test the next day because of statements made by an official, that is definitely something to take into account when laying down a suspension.

If you can find me the evidence where the official said it would be fine to take the test the next day without any sanctions then I'd have some sympathy... Troicki said he was unwell. I'd also probably feel unwell if a doping official asked for a test when I was doping too.

...and as for Cilic getting a reduced sanction based on "I sent Mum out to buy some supplements..." it makes a mockery of the whole system. What's the next players excuse? "I popped round to Cilic's for a tea party and Old Ma Cilic fed me some contaminated cake?".... No problem sir - happens every day -we'll cut your sanction in half...

 

[Denis]

Yes, however, Djokovic has a point, in that the ITP and WADA are not consistent, and I can understand if the players feel they're chasing a moving target.

They should be more consistent - they should give them the full term of the ban instead of reducing it based on ridiculous excuses. The players would complain even more...

I see your point, but it is also not nuanced. Authorities make mistakes and individuals should be protected against authorities if they do so. That's why there are judicial systems: judges second-guess decisions made by authorities all the time. Apparently, Troicki's case was good enough to get him a reduction of his suspension. You cannot dismiss outright that no mistakes have been made, that's just stupid rigidity to the detriment of an individual.

I think a one year ban is fully justified, because Troicki should have known that (partly) missing a doping test is the same thing as testing positive. But if the circumstances were such that he had reason to believe that he could take the test the next day because of statements made by an official, that is definitely something to take into account when laying down a suspension.

If you can find me the evidence where the official said it would be fine to take the test the next day without any sanctions then I'd have some sympathy.

No. You should give evidence when you are accusing someone or something. I'm not going to read the report, but if you criticize it, you should.

Just to be clear. I think a ban is fully justified in case you refuse a test, but I understand that a case can be a bit more complicated than that and that certain circumstances can lead to a reduced sentence.

 

[britbox]

Yes, however, Djokovic has a point, in that the ITP and WADA are not consistent, and I can understand if the players feel they're chasing a moving target.

They should be more consistent - they should give them the full term of the ban instead of reducing it based on ridiculous excuses. The players would complain even more...

I see your point, but it is also not nuanced. Authorities make mistakes and individuals should be protected against authorities if they do so. That's why there are judicial systems: judges second-guess decisions made by authorities all the time. Apparently, Troicki's case was good enough to get him a reduction of his suspension. You cannot dismiss outright that no mistakes have been made, that's just stupid rigidity to the detriment of an individual.

I think a one year ban is fully justified, because Troicki should have known that (partly) missing a doping test is the same thing as testing positive. But if the circumstances were such that he had reason to believe that he could take the test the next day because of statements made by an official, that is definitely something to take into account when laying down a suspension.

If you can find me the evidence where the official said it would be fine to take the test the next day without any sanctions then I'd have some sympathy.

No. You should give evidence when you are accusing someone or something. I'm not going to read the report, but if you criticize it, you should.

Just to be clear. I think a ban is fully justified in case you refuse a test, but I understand that a case can be a bit more complicated than that and that certain circumstances can lead to a reduced sentence.

The evidence is that they failed to supply the sample. That's evidence enough. If you refuse an alcohol test after being stopped by police on the road then they don't need to categorically prove you've been drinking either - refusing the test is enough.

 

[Kieran]

...and as for Cilic getting a reduced sanction based on "I sent Mum out to buy some supplements..." it makes a mockery of the whole system. What's the next players excuse? "I popped round to Cilic's for a tea party and Old Ma Cilic fed me some contaminated cake?".... No problem sir - happens every day -we'll cut your sanction in half...

"The dog ate it - but it showed up in my blood!" uzzled

 

[Denis]

They should be more consistent - they should give them the full term of the ban instead of reducing it based on ridiculous excuses. The players would complain even more...

I see your point, but it is also not nuanced. Authorities make mistakes and individuals should be protected against authorities if they do so. That's why there are judicial systems: judges second-guess decisions made by authorities all the time. Apparently, Troicki's case was good enough to get him a reduction of his suspension. You cannot dismiss outright that no mistakes have been made, that's just stupid rigidity to the detriment of an individual.

I think a one year ban is fully justified, because Troicki should have known that (partly) missing a doping test is the same thing as testing positive. But if the circumstances were such that he had reason to believe that he could take the test the next day because of statements made by an official, that is definitely something to take into account when laying down a suspension.

If you can find me the evidence where the official said it would be fine to take the test the next day without any sanctions then I'd have some sympathy.

No. You should give evidence when you are accusing someone or something. I'm not going to read the report, but if you criticize it, you should.

Just to be clear. I think a ban is fully justified in case you refuse a test, but I understand that a case can be a bit more complicated than that and that certain circumstances can lead to a reduced sentence.

The evidence is that they failed to supply the sample. That's evidence enough. If you refuse an alcohol test after being stopped by police on the road then they don't need to categorically prove you've been drinking either - refusing the test is enough.

Well, I hope for the sake of the people living in your jurisdiction that you are not a judge. You seem to love authority.

 

[britbox]

...and as for Cilic getting a reduced sanction based on "I sent Mum out to buy some supplements..." it makes a mockery of the whole system. What's the next players excuse? "I popped round to Cilic's for a tea party and Old Ma Cilic fed me some contaminated cake?".... No problem sir - happens every day -we'll cut your sanction in half...

"The dog ate it - but it showed up in my blood!" uzzled

Remember Contador the spanish cyclist putting his Clenbuterol findings down to eating a contaminated steak? He'd have had to have eaten half a herd of Cattle to have failed the test and it was a one in three million chance of one of those cattle ending up on his dinner table... but hey, I guess somebody has to win the lottery.

 

[britbox]

I see your point, but it is also not nuanced. Authorities make mistakes and individuals should be protected against authorities if they do so. That's why there are judicial systems: judges second-guess decisions made by authorities all the time. Apparently, Troicki's case was good enough to get him a reduction of his suspension. You cannot dismiss outright that no mistakes have been made, that's just stupid rigidity to the detriment of an individual.

I think a one year ban is fully justified, because Troicki should have known that (partly) missing a doping test is the same thing as testing positive. But if the circumstances were such that he had reason to believe that he could take the test the next day because of statements made by an official, that is definitely something to take into account when laying down a suspension.

If you can find me the evidence where the official said it would be fine to take the test the next day without any sanctions then I'd have some sympathy.

No. You should give evidence when you are accusing someone or something. I'm not going to read the report, but if you criticize it, you should.

Just to be clear. I think a ban is fully justified in case you refuse a test, but I understand that a case can be a bit more complicated than that and that certain circumstances can lead to a reduced sentence.

The evidence is that they failed to supply the sample. That's evidence enough. If you refuse an alcohol test after being stopped by police on the road then they don't need to categorically prove you've been drinking either - refusing the test is enough.

Well, I hope for the sake of the people living in your jurisdiction that you are not a judge. You seem to love authority.

No, just hate cheating.

 

[masterclass]

I believe the ITF is too lenient in their rules/sanctions regarding refusal to take a test. Their testing control personnel should obviously make it very clear what will happen if one refuses, and there should be witnesses attesting to that. And all players and their support teams should know what sanctions will result without a doubt.

Refusal to take a test is tantamount to refusal to take part in the Anti-Doping programme and should be treated most seriously.

Before a player can play on tour, they are required to sign a consent and agreement form to abide by the rules that includes a section where they agree to participate in the Anti-Doping program. If they don't sign the consent and agreement form, they can't play on tour, simple as that.

A refusal should be considered a violation of the Anti-Doping rules, but moreover of that consent form, and they should be subject to a lifetime ban.

If that rule/sanction were in place, and well known, how many refusals do you think you would you see?


By the way, here is the pertinent rule from the ITF Anti-Doping Programme 2013:

2. Anti-Doping Rule Violations
Doping is defined to be an occurrence of one or more of the Anti Doping Rule Violations and subject to sanction:

...

2.3 Refusing or failing without compelling justification* to submit to Sample collection after notification of Testing as authorised in applicable anti-doping rules, or otherwise evading Sample collection.

* Compelling justification in this rule would mean something where it was unavoidable that they couldn't take the test, like incurring a heart attack or something similar, where the person would be in a life threatening situation if they were forced to take the test. Illness (e.g. dizziness or nausea) or phobias are not compelling justification. Compelling is taken very strictly and narrowly to avoid consequences where testing would be completely undermined.

Respectfully,
masterclass

 

[brokenshoelace]

Well, I'm not going to read the judgement, and I assume on what you just typed above that neither did you. His case is most likely more complicated than that. I don't care too much about Troicki to go look it up, but all these careless statements written in this thread are frankly stupid. If you want to argue that the ban was unjustifiably shortened argue convincingly.

Actually, if Novak/Troicki want to argue that Victor has been hard-done by, they need to argue convincingly. My argument is simple: He missed the test. The rules clearly state that there are consequences for that. Now, the ball is in Troicki's court and I'm sorry but his justification is hardly convincing.

 

[Denis]

Well, I'm not going to read the judgement, and I assume on what you just typed above that neither did you. His case is most likely more complicated than that. I don't care too much about Troicki to go look it up, but all these careless statements written in this thread are frankly stupid. If you want to argue that the ban was unjustifiably shortened argue convincingly.

Actually, if Novak/Troicki want to argue that Victor has been hard-done, they need to argue convincingly. My argument is simple: He missed the test. The rules clearly state that there are consequences for that. Now, the ball is in Troicki's court and I'm sorry but his justification is hardly convincing.

Apparently Troicki did, hence the reduced sentence. You have a problem with the reduced sentence, so you should argue why it was not convincing.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Well, I'm not going to read the judgement, and I assume on what you just typed above that neither did you. His case is most likely more complicated than that. I don't care too much about Troicki to go look it up, but all these careless statements written in this thread are frankly stupid. If you want to argue that the ban was unjustifiably shortened argue convincingly.

Actually, if Novak/Troicki want to argue that Victor has been hard-done, they need to argue convincingly. My argument is simple: He missed the test. The rules clearly state that there are consequences for that. Now, the ball is in Troicki's court and I'm sorry but his justification is hardly convincing.

Apparently Troicki did, hence the reduced sentence. You have a problem with the reduced sentence, so you should argue why it was not convincing.

Because Troicki's argument was not convincing to me. Simple.

 

[brokenshoelace]

...Not to mention the dangerous precedent these reduced sentences are setting.

 

[Denis]

Well, I'm not going to read the judgement, and I assume on what you just typed above that neither did you. His case is most likely more complicated than that. I don't care too much about Troicki to go look it up, but all these careless statements written in this thread are frankly stupid. If you want to argue that the ban was unjustifiably shortened argue convincingly.

Actually, if Novak/Troicki want to argue that Victor has been hard-done, they need to argue convincingly. My argument is simple: He missed the test. The rules clearly state that there are consequences for that. Now, the ball is in Troicki's court and I'm sorry but his justification is hardly convincing.

Apparently Troicki did, hence the reduced sentence. You have a problem with the reduced sentence, so you should argue why it was not convincing.

Because Troicki's argument was not convincing to me. Simple.

Do you even know his argument? Other than what you've 'read in the news'? Which points by the judges are unconvincing in your eyes?

 

[britbox]

http://www.itftennis.com/media/152389/152389.pdf

Troicki's mitigating circumstances (P22):

Mr Troicki acted in the way that he did in consequence of the stress that he was under - in this case, as a result of a combination of his physical condition and his panic at the prospect of giving blood. On all other occasions when he was in good health (including on 16 April 2013 – see paragraph 23 above), he gave blood, despite his phobia. On the other hand, we agree with the ITF that his circumstances only warrant affording Mr Troicki limited mitigation, given our finding that he was nonetheless aware at the time that there was a risk (however small) that his actions might result in a sanction. We have concluded in all the circumstances that the right course for us is to accept that Mr Troicki has established that he was not guilty of Significant Fault or Negligence and reduce the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility by six months.

Laughable.

 

[Denis]

Laughable? Well you are clearly not without prejudice.

Seems very reasonable to ban him, but I can understand considering the circumstances and the rules applicable that the judges reduced his sentence.

EDIT: the mitigating circumstances are explained a lot more in detail than your selective quote.

 

[britbox]

The part I quoted were the circumstances on why they reduced the ban. That was about as good as it gets from a Troicki point of view.

 

[britbox]

Laughable? Well you are clearly not without prejudice.

Seems very reasonable to ban him, but I can understand considering the circumstances and the rules applicable that the judges reduced his sentence.

EDIT: the mitigating circumstances are explained a lot more in detail than your selective quote.

You suggested people read the document buddy, so I did and find it unacceptable his ban was reduced on the basis he gave. Prejudice? If you flat out refuse doping controls or get caught doping then I want the player kicked out without prejudice. I followed cycling for years and the softly softly approach by the governing body to doping ripped the sport apart.

After the Armstrong fiasco, all the top players jumped on the "the sport must be whiter than white" bandwagon... but at the first opportunity they are going about "volte face". I don't care if Troicki is "a nice guy"... he refused the test, knew the rules (which he has admitted to in the document) and should be punished accordingly. The same should apply to any player - without prejudice to ranking, nationality or how they feel on any given day.