Ban Reduction Galore

[Denis]

You are using a strawman here. I never said, nor did these arbitrators, that Troicki should have a reduced sentence because he is a 'nice guy'. You think these guys are idiots? The guy has a recognized phobia, was sick and not properly informed by the doping authorities (this is a basic requirement for due process). He DID get a ban of a year, because he should have known better, but the rules permit mitigating circumstances like these. And I don't think it is that unreasonable to do so. These are not the middle-ages nor do we need witch-hunts. Luckily there is still something like due process.

 

[britbox]

You are using a strawman here. I never said, nor did these arbitrators, that Troicki should have a reduced sentence because he is a 'nice guy'. You think these guys are idiots? The guy has a recognized phobia, was sick and not properly informed by the doping authorities (this is a basic requirement for due process). He DID get a ban of a year, because he should have known better, but the rules permit mitigating circumstances like these. And I don't think it is that unreasonable to do so. These are not the middle-ages nor do we need witch-hunts. Luckily there is still something like due process.

The "nice guy" was a passing reference to Nadal's backing of Troicki.

"Not properly informed"? He had it in front of him in writing and refused to sign the blood control document. That's a fact, undisputed by both parties, not a witch hunt. He also admitted he knew the anti-doping rules. That's also outlined in the document and is undisputed.

The mitigating circumstances provided are that he felt unwell and had a phobia of needles. As Broken already mentioned - if you take those as mitigating circumstance then you are setting a very dangerous precedent. A precedent I find laughable and open to absolute abuse.

Having followed a lot of cases with doped athletes across various sports over the years it correlates with the usual bunch of excuses that have been accepted at the time, often only to be shown up as a complete sham later on.

My own opinion is that Troicki and Cilic were doping and that's based on the evidence I've read.

 

[nehmeth]

My own opinion is that Troicki and Cilic were doping and that's based on the evidence I've read.

Sad thing is that all the doping in the world isn't going to make those two better players. No way doping will ever give anyone the heart to fight it out in a match and win.

 

[Denis]

The problem is that tennis is handling doping amateurish. They need to be much more fierce BUT also fair. There are way to little tests, and as the Troicki example shows, they are executed in a poor fashion.

 

[britbox]

The problem is that tennis is handling doping amateurish. They need to be much more fierce BUT also fair. There are way to little tests, and as the Troicki example shows, they are executed in a poor fashion.

There is not enough testing, agreed. The Troicki example doesn't show a test executed in poor fashion - it shows the test wasn't allowed to be executed at all... and that was at the player's own insistence. Some ex-players have called for zero tolerance and automatic life bans on such matters. Troicki is very fortunate he's had his ban reduced.

 

[Kieran]

I think zero tolerance should be tried. I mean, there needs to be an ultimate deterrent. Some sports are just incredible and it can breed cynicism about clean athletes...

 

[Denis]

The problem is that tennis is handling doping amateurish. They need to be much more fierce BUT also fair. There are way to little tests, and as the Troicki example shows, they are executed in a poor fashion.

There is not enough testing, agreed. The Troicki example doesn't show a test executed in poor fashion - it shows the test wasn't allowed to be executed at all... and that was at the player's own insistence. Some ex-players have called for zero tolerance and automatic life bans on such matters. Troicki is very fortunate he's had his ban reduced.

It was the fault of the testers, that was the problem. Not Troicki. If you are going to have zero-tolerance (which I think leads to 'kill them all and let God sort them out' type of rules which I very much oppose), at least be clear about it. They weren't here. Establish clear rules and make sure you get the cheaters. More importantly, give everyone prosecuted a fair trial.

 

[britbox]

My own opinion is that Troicki and Cilic were doping and that's based on the evidence I've read.

Sad thing is that all the doping in the world isn't going to make those two better players. No way doping will ever give anyone the heart to fight it out in a match and win.

If doping didn't make a difference then the bottom line is nobody would dope. I agree to a certain extent that it's not going to give suddenly improve a guy's mechanics... Nobody is going to suggest for a minute that Player A has discovered his sliced backhand through doping.... or his tennis IQ has rocketed. But it makes a lot of difference in out of competition training for endurance/stamina, speed and strength. It can also make a lot of difference in recovery. I'm not suggesting for a minute a #300 ranked player is going to break the Top #10 through doping... but that #300 ranked player might just end up being ranked #200. A Top 40 player just might end up being ranked #30... and so it goes on.

No doubt to me it makes a difference - it certainly did for all the Top dopers who have been exposed to date. Tennis isn't about running in straight lines which gives it a better chance than a lot of sports, but I believe that a lot of athletes will look for an edge. I was conversing with a guy on the junior circuit and he said tons of them were at it even at that level. Put money and sport in the same saucepan and you will find doping cases.

 

[britbox]

The problem is that tennis is handling doping amateurish. They need to be much more fierce BUT also fair. There are way to little tests, and as the Troicki example shows, they are executed in a poor fashion.

There is not enough testing, agreed. The Troicki example doesn't show a test executed in poor fashion - it shows the test wasn't allowed to be executed at all... and that was at the player's own insistence. Some ex-players have called for zero tolerance and automatic life bans on such matters. Troicki is very fortunate he's had his ban reduced.

It was the fault of the testers, that was the problem. Not Troicki. If you are going to have zero-tolerance (which I think leads to 'kill them all and let God sort them out' type of rules which I very much oppose), at least be clear about it. They weren't here. Establish clear rules and make sure you get the cheaters. More importantly, give everyone prosecuted a fair trial.

What was the fault of the testers? The tester flat out denied that she'd told Triocki he'd be ok if he skipped the test. Who do you believe? A tester with 15 years experience in the role or an athlete flat out refusing to take a blood test? Even when he has admitted he knew the procedures and the likely consequences of refusing a test.

The rule is absolutely clear... you refuse a test and you get sanctioned. How much clearer can it be?

 

[Denis]

I think zero tolerance should be tried. I mean, there needs to be an ultimate deterrent. Some sports are just incredible and it can breed cynicism about clean athletes...

Zero tolerance after the second offense yes. And after a fair trial and proper evidence of the offense.

 

[Denis]

The problem is that tennis is handling doping amateurish. They need to be much more fierce BUT also fair. There are way to little tests, and as the Troicki example shows, they are executed in a poor fashion.

There is not enough testing, agreed. The Troicki example doesn't show a test executed in poor fashion - it shows the test wasn't allowed to be executed at all... and that was at the player's own insistence. Some ex-players have called for zero tolerance and automatic life bans on such matters. Troicki is very fortunate he's had his ban reduced.

It was the fault of the testers, that was the problem. Not Troicki. If you are going to have zero-tolerance (which I think leads to 'kill them all and let God sort them out' type of rules which I very much oppose), at least be clear about it. They weren't here. Establish clear rules and make sure you get the cheaters. More importantly, give everyone prosecuted a fair trial.

What was the fault of the testers? The tester flat out denied that she'd told Triocki he'd be ok if he skipped the test. Who do you believe? A tester with 15 years experience in the role or an athlete flat out refusing to take a blood test? Even when he has admitted he knew the procedures and the likely consequences of refusing a test.

The rule is absolutely clear... you refuse a test and you get sanctioned. How much clearer can it be?

The rule is not clear actually:

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.

 

[Kieran]

I think zero tolerance should be tried. I mean, there needs to be an ultimate deterrent. Some sports are just incredible and it can breed cynicism about clean athletes...

Zero tolerance after the second offense yes. And after a fair trial and proper evidence of the offense.

I would expect a fair trial at all times. I haven't heard there were no fair trials. In fact, leniency seems to be their byword.

I agree about ZT for even a second offence but my fear is that the battle is being lost and sportsmen are making a mockery of the rules with their hamfisted excuses...

 

[britbox]

The problem is that tennis is handling doping amateurish. They need to be much more fierce BUT also fair. There are way to little tests, and as the Troicki example shows, they are executed in a poor fashion.

There is not enough testing, agreed. The Troicki example doesn't show a test executed in poor fashion - it shows the test wasn't allowed to be executed at all... and that was at the player's own insistence. Some ex-players have called for zero tolerance and automatic life bans on such matters. Troicki is very fortunate he's had his ban reduced.

It was the fault of the testers, that was the problem. Not Troicki. If you are going to have zero-tolerance (which I think leads to 'kill them all and let God sort them out' type of rules which I very much oppose), at least be clear about it. They weren't here. Establish clear rules and make sure you get the cheaters. More importantly, give everyone prosecuted a fair trial.

What was the fault of the testers? The tester flat out denied that she'd told Triocki he'd be ok if he skipped the test. Who do you believe? A tester with 15 years experience in the role or an athlete flat out refusing to take a blood test? Even when he has admitted he knew the procedures and the likely consequences of refusing a test.

The rule is absolutely clear... you refuse a test and you get sanctioned. How much clearer can it be?

The rule is not clear actually:

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.

So dizziness and sickness are not compelling (as above). Kind of rules out Troicki's excuse unless you seriously think he was in danger of having a heart attack or some other life threatening condition on performing the dope test.

 

[Denis]

I think zero tolerance should be tried. I mean, there needs to be an ultimate deterrent. Some sports are just incredible and it can breed cynicism about clean athletes...

Zero tolerance after the second offense yes. And after a fair trial and proper evidence of the offense.

I would expect a fair trial at all times. I haven't heard there were no fair trials. In fact, leniency seems to be their byword.

I agree about ZT for even a second offence but my fear is that the battle is being lost and sportsmen are making a mockery of the rules with their hamfisted excuses...

You are really naive to expect that.

 

[Denis]

There is not enough testing, agreed. The Troicki example doesn't show a test executed in poor fashion - it shows the test wasn't allowed to be executed at all... and that was at the player's own insistence. Some ex-players have called for zero tolerance and automatic life bans on such matters. Troicki is very fortunate he's had his ban reduced.

It was the fault of the testers, that was the problem. Not Troicki. If you are going to have zero-tolerance (which I think leads to 'kill them all and let God sort them out' type of rules which I very much oppose), at least be clear about it. They weren't here. Establish clear rules and make sure you get the cheaters. More importantly, give everyone prosecuted a fair trial.

What was the fault of the testers? The tester flat out denied that she'd told Triocki he'd be ok if he skipped the test. Who do you believe? A tester with 15 years experience in the role or an athlete flat out refusing to take a blood test? Even when he has admitted he knew the procedures and the likely consequences of refusing a test.

The rule is absolutely clear... you refuse a test and you get sanctioned. How much clearer can it be?

The rule is not clear actually:

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.

So dizziness and sickness are not compelling (as above). Kind of rules out Troicki's excuse unless you seriously think he was in danger of having a heart attack or some other life threatening condition on performing the dope test.

His condition seems to fall in between. Hence, he gets banned but a reduction.

 

[britbox]

It was the fault of the testers, that was the problem. Not Troicki. If you are going to have zero-tolerance (which I think leads to 'kill them all and let God sort them out' type of rules which I very much oppose), at least be clear about it. They weren't here. Establish clear rules and make sure you get the cheaters. More importantly, give everyone prosecuted a fair trial.

What was the fault of the testers? The tester flat out denied that she'd told Triocki he'd be ok if he skipped the test. Who do you believe? A tester with 15 years experience in the role or an athlete flat out refusing to take a blood test? Even when he has admitted he knew the procedures and the likely consequences of refusing a test.

The rule is absolutely clear... you refuse a test and you get sanctioned. How much clearer can it be?

The rule is not clear actually:

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.

So dizziness and sickness are not compelling (as above). Kind of rules out Troicki's excuse unless you seriously think he was in danger of having a heart attack or some other life threatening condition on performing the dope test.

His condition seems to fall in between. Hence, he gets banned but a reduction.

I've never heard of a condition that falls in between life-threatening and non-life threatening.

 

[nehmeth]

I also have a difficult time believing a big strong mature player who has been doing these tests for years... chooses to use the "I'm terrified of needles" argument for skipping a test. I can certainly see why other posters would be skeptical.

 

[Denis]

^ It is listed as an example. The rule is 'something where it was unavoidable that they couldn't take the test'. From the perspective of a person with a needle phobia and a having a fever, that might be the case.

I can understand the judgment. You may want to change the rules, that's a whole different debate. But the judgment seems sound.

 

[Denis]

I also have a difficult time believing a big strong mature player who has been doing these tests for years... chooses to use the "I'm terrified of needles" argument for skipping a test. I can certainly see why other posters would be skeptical.

He had medical proof that he has a phobia for needles. In where I am from, a sworn statement by a doctor that you have such a condition in court is evidence that can hardly be rebutted.

 

[britbox]

I don't want to change the rules... I want them adhered to.

"Illness (e.g. dizziness or nausea) or phobias are not compelling justification." are the rules (you quoted them above). Both formed Troicki's defence.