Biogenesis / Troicki / Cilic / Doping in Tennis

[ClayDeath]

RE: Biogenesis Scandal - Tennis Players on the books

in the mean time doping continues to be rampant in other sports.



BERLIN (AP) -- Former rider Erik Zabel resigned Monday as a member of an International Cycling Union advisory panel after telling a German newspaper he used the blood-booster EPO, cortisone and other banned substances during several years of his career.

Zabel, who won 12 Tour de France stages and earned the sprinter's green jersey six times, retired in 2008. The year beforehand, the German said he briefly used EPO in 1996.

In Monday's edition of Germany daily Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Zabel said that was only ''a small part of the truth'' and that he instead engaged in doping for ''many years.''

Zabel was quoted as saying that he never had a ''structured doping plan.'' But he added: ''If you take it all together now - EPO, cortisone, then even blood doping - it's a whole lot.'' Last week, Zabel was mentioned in a French senate report to fight doping in sport as having tested positive for EPO at the 1998 Tour.

He offered his resignation from the sport's Professional Cycling Council to UCI President Pat McQuaid.

Zabel was among five UCI nominees to the 13-member panel, which also includes 1987 Tour winner Stephen Roche and Tour organizing chief Christian Prudhomme.

The UCI said in a statement that Zabel expressed ''deep regret for having lied for so long about taking performance-enhancing substances.''

 

[Kieran]

RE: Biogenesis Scandal - Tennis Players on the books

Just a general question: if a player won a slam and was later found to have juiced, what happens to their title?

 

[britbox]

Just a general question: if a player won a slam and was later found to have juiced, what happens to their title?

Petr Korda won the 98 AO and was busted a few months later for anabolic steroids. He kept his title and just served a ban.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

Just a general question: if a player won a slam and was later found to have juiced, what happens to their title?

Petr Korda won the 98 AO and was busted a few months later for anabolic steroids. He kept his title and just served a ban.

of course he kept them, because as we all know, noone can gain anything from PED use in tennis. :nono

generally, i think the stripping of titles should be self-evident. and you definitely need a clear rule on it. nothing worse than having a TDF like situation, where you have one guys titles taken away (or not, depending on which organization you ask), and other dirty wins are to remain in the books untouched.

---

translate to actual quantifiable data or else you are speculating as well. Tennis players are not cyclists; when you show me how Player A doping can give him an edge over Player B not doping then we have a case in my book.

I'll tell you what, take a player like Wawrinka, world class athlete with insane amount of talent and game. No amount of doping would allow him to have changed his H2H with Rafa.....PERIOD. That's my point all alone. Tennis is not a mindless sprint to 100 meters nor a purely endurance, speed and strength sport. Tennis is so complex, so delicate and exquisite in it's mechanics that Wawrinka could never escape the conundrum of Rafa's forehand and overall superiority.

Now you say; "well take Rafa vs Novak" very close players in talent and hardwork..........the edge doping would provide would be in the 5th set when there are no longer legs to run on. Something like the AO final in 2012. I can see the minuscule edge there but still, either player has to push the other to the very limit to then expose a natural physical limitation; BUT the ATP tour it's not made up of Rafa vs Nole 5th setters in GS finals....

Finally, why you keep insisting on how I don't make sense and then go around it and say you understand my point and somehow agree with my overall position? Do you want to debate me so bad that you have to nit pick everything I say?

no, i never understood your point and didn't agree with your position, because i do think you don't make sense in the way that you downplay the physical aspects of the sport. i did point out that like you, i don't really believe that doping is rampant in tennis. and i was constantly wondering if you can believe your rationale (judging whether or not doping can be relevant in the sport by looking at moonballing elderly), or if it's just some sort of hyperbole that you go to, when a more reasonable approach like that of CD (believe it or not, claydeath, the voice of reason!) comes so close to your assessment, just making a lot more sense?

back to your points (as you do seem to get closer to moderation in your view anyway): yes, day in - day out, doping might not bring monumental advantages in most matchups. and it wouldn't help you overcome drastic differences in level, i see that as well. which is why i've always said that it makes the most sense on the mid-lower levels and late in careers - when a guy faces the options of going big or going home because once you're 28 and ranked 80-120, you are faced with questions like whether or not being a tennis pro will actually pay off. it's not whether #130 will beat #30 - it's whether in the fourth round of qualifying, he'll be consistently better rested than #s 127 or 142. stamina is relevant within one match, and just the same within the weeks of tournaments and months of the season. if it weren't, then you'd never have witnessed a player hampered by tired legs.

as to your five-setter example: how about Stan's chances versus Nole at the 2013 AO? or Simon versus Fed, be it at AO or RG? yes, five setters aren't everyday stuff - but they can help make or break careers.

as for strength and speed (in regards to the bodily function, they're one and the same, as speed is created by strength) - at the risk of sounding like a broken record: Obviously, PEDs can help with that. and just as Obviously, they're relevant in tennis because otherwise why on earth would players train the way they do? "nah, Ivan, leave me alone. i got the basic fitness necessary for tennis, no need for another session on the versaclimber."

doping can give you An edge in tight matchups. it might not pay off every time, but in the long run, you might be able to increase your odds. the question is of whether or not it's worth the risk (here, controls and sanctions come into play). i think for most players, it's not worth it, as just as been said, there are so many other factors going into tennis, other aspects in which to approve, which is why i think and hope they realize it and am optimistic that doping isn't that big a factor.

 

[tented]

generally, i think the stripping of titles should be self-evident. and you definitely need a clear rule on it. nothing worse than having a TDF like situation, where you have one guys titles taken away (or not, depending on which organization you ask), and other dirty wins are to remain in the books untouched.

I agree. If it can be proven that Player X was doping during the time he won a GS, then he should be stripped of the title, and forced to return the prize money.

I'm not sure what to do with the finalist. Should he be declared the winner? Or should there be no winner? Seems unfair not to make the finalist the winner. It's kind of like what happens if one guy is defaulted, such as the Cilic/Nalbandian championship match a few years ago.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

RE: Biogenesis Scandal - Tennis Players on the books

I agree with this, and couldn't decide who to quote, so I just landed on you. That huntingyou and Clay Death seem to deny any advantage in doping seems to me to be head in the sand. I do get that there can be an advantage. But the question is over advantage vs. risk assessment vs. a player's skill level. This is why I don't think the top guys do dope. I believe they're so much more talented, and they have the money to keep an amazing training team, and they're ruthlessly competitive, and so keep to a serious training regime. In that sense, I agree with HY and CD. Their bodies are treated like Ferraris, and they have a whole pit-crew.

However, where I see the temptation may lie is in the middling- and lower-levels of the rankings. Every round won is worth money to them. And a few really productive years could set you up pretty well. Looking at it from that perspective, it could feel worth the risk. I don't see how it's worth the risk for the top guys/gals, especially when they're already worth millions. It's possible to say that they are just protected by the powers that be, but that is too sad a possibility. If that's so, I'll have to give up on tennis, as it would be just a joke, like cycling, and Sat. afternoon wrestling.

agree 100%. this is basically what i've been trying to say.

---

generally, i think the stripping of titles should be self-evident. and you definitely need a clear rule on it. nothing worse than having a TDF like situation, where you have one guys titles taken away (or not, depending on which organization you ask), and other dirty wins are to remain in the books untouched.

I agree. If it can be proven that Player X was doping during the time he won a GS, then he should be stripped of the title, and forced to return the prize money.

I'm not sure what to do with the finalist. Should he be declared the winner? Or should there be no winner? Seems unfair not to make the finalist the winner. It's kind of like what happens if one guy is defaulted, such as the Cilic/Nalbandian championship match a few years ago.

i think it's still better to go with no winner - because what about the guy who lost to the doper in the semis? or the quarters? or the first round? each of them was robbed the chance to fair competition in the same way.

it's different in sports where you compete against the whole field. and the defaut in a final is different as well, because the default happens because of something that happened only on that day, in their individual match.

so i'd say no winner, an honorary mention to the finalist, and all the prize money goes to anti-doping measures. having a blank in their winner's list also wouldn't be nice for the tournament, making them more interested in fighting it beforehand.

 

[tented]

RE: Biogenesis Scandal - Tennis Players on the books

generally, i think the stripping of titles should be self-evident. and you definitely need a clear rule on it. nothing worse than having a TDF like situation, where you have one guys titles taken away (or not, depending on which organization you ask), and other dirty wins are to remain in the books untouched.

I agree. If it can be proven that Player X was doping during the time he won a GS, then he should be stripped of the title, and forced to return the prize money.

I'm not sure what to do with the finalist. Should he be declared the winner? Or should there be no winner? Seems unfair not to make the finalist the winner. It's kind of like what happens if one guy is defaulted, such as the Cilic/Nalbandian championship match a few years ago.

i think it's still better to go with no winner - because what about the guy who lost to the doper in the semis? or the quarters? or the first round? each of them was robbed the chance to fair competition in the same way.

so i'd say no winner, an honorary mention to the finalist, and all the prize money goes to anti-doping measures. having a blank in their winner's list also wouldn't be nice for the tournament, making them more interested in fighting it beforehand.

All good points. I agree.

 

[Moxie]

RE: Biogenesis Scandal - Tennis Players on the books

generally, i think the stripping of titles should be self-evident. and you definitely need a clear rule on it. nothing worse than having a TDF like situation, where you have one guys titles taken away (or not, depending on which organization you ask), and other dirty wins are to remain in the books untouched.

I agree. If it can be proven that Player X was doping during the time he won a GS, then he should be stripped of the title, and forced to return the prize money.

I'm not sure what to do with the finalist. Should he be declared the winner? Or should there be no winner? Seems unfair not to make the finalist the winner. It's kind of like what happens if one guy is defaulted, such as the Cilic/Nalbandian championship match a few years ago.

i think it's still better to go with no winner - because what about the guy who lost to the doper in the semis? or the quarters? or the first round? each of them was robbed the chance to fair competition in the same way.

so i'd say no winner, an honorary mention to the finalist, and all the prize money goes to anti-doping measures. having a blank in their winner's list also wouldn't be nice for the tournament, making them more interested in fighting it beforehand.

All good points. I agree.

I'd go with that, too. But I was exactly thinking about Nalbandian at Queens...he got defaulted and lost all his points and money for the tournament just for losing his temper...which doesn't seem like it would have affected his early rounds. Whereas, doping would have affected all of them. I'm not saying it wasn't right to punish Nalby as they did, I'm only shocked to hear that they let Korda keep his title. (Which then presumes the money and the points.) That was a long time ago, and I would hope the ATP would not be so inconsistent with punishment now, but we don't know, I guess.

 

[Front242]

Nalby was unfairly treated imo. Sure, he rightly lost the match but personally I thought the loss of prize money up to the final and ranking points was just harsh. Hope he's healing up well from his surgeries although chances are his days are sadly numbered now.

 

[Grossefavourite]

Just a general question: if a player won a slam and was later found to have juiced, what happens to their title?

Petr Korda won the 98 AO and was busted a few months later for anabolic steroids. He kept his title and just served a ban.

of course he kept them, because as we all know, noone can gain anything from PED use in tennis. :nono

generally, i think the stripping of titles should be self-evident. and you definitely need a clear rule on it. nothing worse than having a TDF like situation, where you have one guys titles taken away (or not, depending on which organization you ask), and other dirty wins are to remain in the books untouched.

---

translate to actual quantifiable data or else you are speculating as well. Tennis players are not cyclists; when you show me how Player A doping can give him an edge over Player B not doping then we have a case in my book.

I'll tell you what, take a player like Wawrinka, world class athlete with insane amount of talent and game. No amount of doping would allow him to have changed his H2H with Rafa.....PERIOD. That's my point all alone. Tennis is not a mindless sprint to 100 meters nor a purely endurance, speed and strength sport. Tennis is so complex, so delicate and exquisite in it's mechanics that Wawrinka could never escape the conundrum of Rafa's forehand and overall superiority.

Now you say; "well take Rafa vs Novak" very close players in talent and hardwork..........the edge doping would provide would be in the 5th set when there are no longer legs to run on. Something like the AO final in 2012. I can see the minuscule edge there but still, either player has to push the other to the very limit to then expose a natural physical limitation; BUT the ATP tour it's not made up of Rafa vs Nole 5th setters in GS finals....

Finally, why you keep insisting on how I don't make sense and then go around it and say you understand my point and somehow agree with my overall position? Do you want to debate me so bad that you have to nit pick everything I say?

no, i never understood your point and didn't agree with your position, because i do think you don't make sense in the way that you downplay the physical aspects of the sport. i did point out that like you, i don't really believe that doping is rampant in tennis. and i was constantly wondering if you can believe your rationale (judging whether or not doping can be relevant in the sport by looking at moonballing elderly), or if it's just some sort of hyperbole that you go to, when a more reasonable approach like that of CD (believe it or not, claydeath, the voice of reason!) comes so close to your assessment, just making a lot more sense?

back to your points (as you do seem to get closer to moderation in your view anyway): yes, day in - day out, doping might not bring monumental advantages in most matchups. and it wouldn't help you overcome drastic differences in level, i see that as well. which is why i've always said that it makes the most sense on the mid-lower levels and late in careers - when a guy faces the options of going big or going home because once you're 28 and ranked 80-120, you are faced with questions like whether or not being a tennis pro will actually pay off. it's not whether #130 will beat #30 - it's whether in the fourth round of qualifying, he'll be consistently better rested than #s 127 or 142. stamina is relevant within one match, and just the same within the weeks of tournaments and months of the season. if it weren't, then you'd never have witnessed a player hampered by tired legs.

as to your five-setter example: how about Stan's chances versus Nole at the 2013 AO? or Simon versus Fed, be it at AO or RG? yes, five setters aren't everyday stuff - but they can help make or break careers.

as for strength and speed (in regards to the bodily function, they're one and the same, as speed is created by strength) - at the risk of sounding like a broken record: Obviously, PEDs can help with that. and just as Obviously, they're relevant in tennis because otherwise why on earth would players train the way they do? "nah, Ivan, leave me alone. i got the basic fitness necessary for tennis, no need for another session on the versaclimber."

doping can give you An edge in tight matchups. it might not pay off every time, but in the long run, you might be able to increase your odds. the question is of whether or not it's worth the risk (here, controls and sanctions come into play). i think for most players, it's not worth it, as just as been said, there are so many other factors going into tennis, other aspects in which to approve, which is why i think and hope they realize it and am optimistic that doping isn't that big a factor.

---

Doping cannot help you in tight matches, unless they've invented a drug to combat choking, which was Venus' point in stating why she's not overly concerned about drugs in tennis. If you're a choker, you're gonna choke and lose.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

moxie/front - agree with both of you on the Nalbs case (especially given that it was obviously never meant as an attack against the linesperson); i think taking the money and points of the Final away from him, 'degrading' him to a Semifinalist, might have been more appropriate.

grosse - well, you got a point. the difference between Fed and Simon and Novak and Stan, at these late stages, is more mental than physical. however, the difference between Stan and Simon - that's another thing. so of course doping CAN help you in tight matches. question remains about whether and who it'd help enough to actually make a difference in outcome.

 

[coban]

Just a general question: if a player won a slam and was later found to have juiced, what happens to their title?

Petr Korda won the 98 AO and was busted a few months later for anabolic steroids. He kept his title and just served a ban.

.. and he kept the money (prize and sponsor)... which is what matters most for a guy like him.

 

[Grossefavourite]

NADAL--No Silent Bans, Please. Name And Shame.

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2013/07/silence-isnt-golden/48573/#.UfgNMNLrx50

 

[Front242]

RE: NADAL--No Silent Bans, Please. Name And Shame.

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2013/07/silence-isnt-golden/48573/#.UfgNMNLrx50

Cheers for the update. Regarding his high levels of glucose, it's possible he was injecting insulin to regulate effects of HGH. We'll find out more soon hopefully. A guy in a gym I used to go to before was taking a lot of hardcore stuff and was injecting insulin straight into his pecs. He was a beast and as you can imagine if you do things wrong injecting insulin right into your bloodstream like that you can die in minutes. Some complete lunatics out there!

 

[Iona16]

Confirmation of Cilic's failed drugs test by Bob Brett:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/jul/30/marin-cilic-tennis-drug-test

The former coach of Marin Cilic, the world No15, said that the Croat claims he failed a drug test because of "high glucose" after taking something bought over the counter.

Bob Brett, who coached the 24-year-old Cilic on and off for nine years before they parted in May, also called on tennis to do more to educate and support players so they do not suffer a similar fate.

Brett, who has also coached Boris Becker and Goran Ivanisevic, said he had had a telephone conversation with Cilic in which the player had admitted the news.

"He said he had tested positive," Brett said. "The one thing I found out was that he tested positive for high glucose and Marin had co-operated with the organisation [the International Tennis Federation] about the product and the pharmacy. One of the people in his team bought it in a pharmacy – basically what you've been reading in the papers. Some people will say he made a mistake. But it was carelessness."

 

[Front242]

Confirmation of Cilic's failed drugs test by Bob Brett:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/jul/30/marin-cilic-tennis-drug-test

The former coach of Marin Cilic, the world No15, said that the Croat claims he failed a drug test because of "high glucose" after taking something bought over the counter.

Bob Brett, who coached the 24-year-old Cilic on and off for nine years before they parted in May, also called on tennis to do more to educate and support players so they do not suffer a similar fate.

Brett, who has also coached Boris Becker and Goran Ivanisevic, said he had had a telephone conversation with Cilic in which the player had admitted the news.

"He said he had tested positive," Brett said. "The one thing I found out was that he tested positive for high glucose and Marin had co-operated with the organisation [the International Tennis Federation] about the product and the pharmacy. One of the people in his team bought it in a pharmacy – basically what you've been reading in the papers. Some people will say he made a mistake. But it was carelessness."

Oldest excuse in the book and rather laughable too. Over the counter product excuses in this day and age.

The likely answer is he was taking HGH and needed more glucose to regulate his insulin levels. If they buy that excuse they're idiots imo and need to do more research into his high glucose levels.

Oh, what's this then Cilic? "While its effectiveness in enhancing physical performance is still not proved, data show that received by healthy subjects and athletes hGH causes in short term glucose intolerance." Personally I stand by my claim he was taking HGH. Read the articles below.

http://www.doping-prevention.sp.tum.de/substances-and-methods/hormones-and-related-substances/side-effects/reproductive-and-endocrine-system.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6377008

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11431133

Good article on blood doping also. More to with with EPO than relating to the glucose "excuse" by Cilic's camp but informative as regards stamina and EPO.

http://www.faqs.org/sports-science/Ba-Ca/Blood-Doping.html

Interesting article that claims 220,000 people are using banned substances in Italy. Kinda makes a mockery of their football league.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729043.100-widespread-hightech-doping-blights-australian-sport.html#.UfhLF6wwswA

 

[Moxie]

RE: NADAL--No Silent Bans, Please. Name And Shame.

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2013/07/silence-isnt-golden/48573/#.UfgNMNLrx50

The Guardian article cited in the piece you quote is here.

It interestingly adds this note:

Brett said the ATP should follow the example of the WTA Tour, which employs a company, Usana Health Sciences, to provide "clean" supplements. Any player who subsequently fails a test due to one of these products is entitled to compensation of twice her current annual salary, up to $1m.

That seems one interesting investment in protecting athletes. I know some of you sneer at the notion that some blame it on supplements, but there are certainly OTC drugs that athletes can't take, including some simple cold medications. It might take some of the randomness out of it.

 

[Front242]

RE: NADAL--No Silent Bans, Please. Name And Shame.

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2013/07/silence-isnt-golden/48573/#.UfgNMNLrx50

The Guardian article cited in the piece you quote is here.

It interestingly adds this note:

Brett said the ATP should follow the example of the WTA Tour, which employs a company, Usana Health Sciences, to provide "clean" supplements. Any player who subsequently fails a test due to one of these products is entitled to compensation of twice her current annual salary, up to $1m.

That seems one interesting investment in protecting athletes. I know some of you sneer at the notion that some blame it on supplements, but there are certainly OTC drugs that athletes can't take, including some simple cold medications. It might take some of the randomness out of it.

Sorry to be cynical but I'd have maybe bought the OTC excuse in 1830, but not in 2013.

 

[Moxie]

RE: NADAL--No Silent Bans, Please. Name And Shame.

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2013/07/silence-isnt-golden/48573/#.UfgNMNLrx50

The Guardian article cited in the piece you quote is here.

It interestingly adds this note:

Brett said the ATP should follow the example of the WTA Tour, which employs a company, Usana Health Sciences, to provide "clean" supplements. Any player who subsequently fails a test due to one of these products is entitled to compensation of twice her current annual salary, up to $1m.

That seems one interesting investment in protecting athletes. I know some of you sneer at the notion that some blame it on supplements, but there are certainly OTC drugs that athletes can't take, including some simple cold medications. It might take some of the randomness out of it.

Sorry to be cynical but I'd have maybe bought the OTC excuse in 1830, but not in 2013.

Well, I know that's you, and you're very cynical about these things. I'm not saying that everyone who claims to be an innocent lamb about falling fallow of an OTC drug is innocent...all I'm saying is: can't the sport help them out so that some don't? Especially if there's a company that does which the WTA employs? I think the guarantee of up to a $1M reimbursement seems like their supplements are pretty safe.

 

[Front242]

RE: NADAL--No Silent Bans, Please. Name And Shame.

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2013/07/silence-isnt-golden/48573/#.UfgNMNLrx50

The Guardian article cited in the piece you quote is here.

It interestingly adds this note:

Brett said the ATP should follow the example of the WTA Tour, which employs a company, Usana Health Sciences, to provide "clean" supplements. Any player who subsequently fails a test due to one of these products is entitled to compensation of twice her current annual salary, up to $1m.

That seems one interesting investment in protecting athletes. I know some of you sneer at the notion that some blame it on supplements, but there are certainly OTC drugs that athletes can't take, including some simple cold medications. It might take some of the randomness out of it.

Sorry to be cynical but I'd have maybe bought the OTC excuse in 1830, but not in 2013.

Well, I know that's you, and you're very cynical about these things. I'm not saying that everyone who claims to be an innocent lamb about falling fallow of an OTC drug is innocent...all I'm saying is: can't the sport help them out so that some don't? Especially if there's a company that does which the WTA employs? I think the guarantee of up to a $1M reimbursement seems like their supplements are pretty safe.

Well even if I did buy the banned substance from supplement excuse, (which I most definitely don't) that actually causes a great problem. Here's why. The team of the cheating player simply needs to do a bit of research to find numerous supplements, let's say in this case that have a lot of glucose in them that may fail a test. In doing so they not only get free reign to inject HGH and blame a "supplement with banned substance" as their fall back excuse, the player also gets to sue the innocent supplement company (I'm saying innocent because they can blame the supplements glucose while the player is taking tons of glucose from an external source to aid HGH loading) and make $1m on top of cheating! That's a ridiculously easy scenario thought of in mere minutes and I'm no drug cheat so imagine what they could achieve by hiring a scientist or doping doctor. And it's been noted already certain players are clients of known doping doctors.

So imo the sue the supplement company idea is rubbished already by what I suggested above.