General Doping/PEDs Discussion

[Front242]

RE: The Cilic Question and General doping issues

From tennis.com. A reader's question to Steve Tignor about Cilic. http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2014/09/reading-readers-sept-12/52757/#.VBibdBYpC2U

"Steve,

You keep saying [Marin] Cilic is such a “nice guy.” Shouldn’t you be mentioning that he was suspended for a positive doping test last year?—Dan

Yes, we can't forget or ignore that. Certainly, seeing a guy who has never won a 500-level event, let alone a Masters or a major, suddenly play the best tennis of his life to win nine straight sets for the U.S. Open title, one year after being banned from the same tournament because of a positive drug test, is rightfully going to arouse suspicion. And last year I found it interesting that in 2012 the ITF tested Cilic “4-6” times out of competition; that was more than the 1-3 norm for most top players that year. Were the testing authorities suspicious even before he came up positive?"

 

[GameSetAndMath]

RE: The Cilic Question and General doping issues

I kind of agree with you, GSM, in the sense of transparency protecting the innocent, and this is something that all the top players have argued as well. It's unfair that rumours abound without substance and this may in part be due to the system and how it works, and of course, it may in part be down to base human nature, and the nature of fandom, which wouldn't change, regardless of how the news of failed tests is brought to us.

I don't see what harm greater transparency can have, and if anything, fear of immediate exposure will act as a deterrent of sorts, if deterrents work.

The issue of a silent ban is a grave one, and one open to blind misrepresentation. Cilic didn't serve a silent ban. He withdrew from Wimbledon while an investigation was taking place. It was proper that this investigation happen and it was his right that there should be a proper process followed, and he withdrew from tennis immediately, falsely claiming to be injured.

Had his failed test been announced immediately, the situation wouldn't have occurred. Eventually, of course, the failed tests are announced, after due process has been observed, which is inevitable. But are the ITF doing the sport any favours by taking so long in announcing failed tests? Or is there merit in waiting until everything is legally rubber-stamped? I think that in the case of conspiracy theorists, rabid fans, etc, an early announcement might spike their guns but not affect their blindness, but for the sake of doing things properly, and protecting the innocent, what is the benefit of waiting until the investigation is over before announcing the results?We also have to bear in mind that the drugs issue is massively contentious and gossip is king. If a rumour began that Player Z was taking his time in the toilet giving a sample, imagine the frenzy among trolls and conspiracy theorists, drawing conclusions and leaping into wild fantasy. But that sort of thing happens anyway, and so shouldn't get in the way of how this is handled. My long held view is that there should be stronger penalties for drug cheats, justice should be blind, and of course, tennis can't clean it's own stable...

I don't see any benefit here in the tennis and ATP/ITF situation.

However, in the legal system there is a benefit. Once a case becomes publicized
in newspapers and media, it becomes tough to find a jury pool who have not taken
a position one way or other in the case. So, especially if the legal system involves
a jury based system as in USA, there is some benefit in not publicizing a case.

But, in the ITF/ATP situation, a jury is not delivering the verdict, but the
officials and adminsitrators of the Drug Testing business or CAS authorities.

 

[Moxie]

RE: The Cilic Question and General doping issues

I kind of agree with you, GSM, in the sense of transparency protecting the innocent, and this is something that all the top players have argued as well. It's unfair that rumours abound without substance and this may in part be due to the system and how it works, and of course, it may in part be down to base human nature, and the nature of fandom, which wouldn't change, regardless of how the news of failed tests is brought to us.

I don't see what harm greater transparency can have, and if anything, fear of immediate exposure will act as a deterrent of sorts, if deterrents work.

The issue of a silent ban is a grave one, and one open to blind misrepresentation. Cilic didn't serve a silent ban. He withdrew from Wimbledon while an investigation was taking place. It was proper that this investigation happen and it was his right that there should be a proper process followed, and he withdrew from tennis immediately, falsely claiming to be injured.

Had his failed test been announced immediately, the situation wouldn't have occurred. Eventually, of course, the failed tests are announced, after due process has been observed, which is inevitable. But are the ITF doing the sport any favours by taking so long in announcing failed tests? Or is there merit in waiting until everything is legally rubber-stamped? I think that in the case of conspiracy theorists, rabid fans, etc, an early announcement might spike their guns but not affect their blindness, but for the sake of doing things properly, and protecting the innocent, what is the benefit of waiting until the investigation is over before announcing the results?We also have to bear in mind that the drugs issue is massively contentious and gossip is king. If a rumour began that Player Z was taking his time in the toilet giving a sample, imagine the frenzy among trolls and conspiracy theorists, drawing conclusions and leaping into wild fantasy. But that sort of thing happens anyway, and so shouldn't get in the way of how this is handled. My long held view is that there should be stronger penalties for drug cheats, justice should be blind, and of course, tennis can't clean it's own stable...

I don't see any benefit here in the tennis and ATP/ITF situation.

However, in the legal system there is a benefit. Once a case becomes publicized
in newspapers and media, it becomes tough to find a jury pool who have not taken
a position one way or other in the case. So, especially if the legal system involves
a jury based system as in USA, there is some benefit in not publicizing a case.

But, in the ITF/ATP situation, a jury is not delivering the verdict, but the
officials and adminsitrators of the Drug Testing business or CAS authorities.

I get your point about not announcing a result until it had been properly adjudicated, because mud, once slung, never really can erase the stain. But it is a question as to why Cilic would withdraw from Wimbledon with a (false, if so) injury claim, just because he was under suspicion. Shouldn't a player be able to play, while contesting innocence? There are certainly a lot of things that need to be worked out, and clarified to the public.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

RE: The Cilic Question and General doping issues

I kind of agree with you, GSM, in the sense of transparency protecting the innocent, and this is something that all the top players have argued as well. It's unfair that rumours abound without substance and this may in part be due to the system and how it works, and of course, it may in part be down to base human nature, and the nature of fandom, which wouldn't change, regardless of how the news of failed tests is brought to us.

I don't see what harm greater transparency can have, and if anything, fear of immediate exposure will act as a deterrent of sorts, if deterrents work.

The issue of a silent ban is a grave one, and one open to blind misrepresentation. Cilic didn't serve a silent ban. He withdrew from Wimbledon while an investigation was taking place. It was proper that this investigation happen and it was his right that there should be a proper process followed, and he withdrew from tennis immediately, falsely claiming to be injured.

Had his failed test been announced immediately, the situation wouldn't have occurred. Eventually, of course, the failed tests are announced, after due process has been observed, which is inevitable. But are the ITF doing the sport any favours by taking so long in announcing failed tests? Or is there merit in waiting until everything is legally rubber-stamped? I think that in the case of conspiracy theorists, rabid fans, etc, an early announcement might spike their guns but not affect their blindness, but for the sake of doing things properly, and protecting the innocent, what is the benefit of waiting until the investigation is over before announcing the results?We also have to bear in mind that the drugs issue is massively contentious and gossip is king. If a rumour began that Player Z was taking his time in the toilet giving a sample, imagine the frenzy among trolls and conspiracy theorists, drawing conclusions and leaping into wild fantasy. But that sort of thing happens anyway, and so shouldn't get in the way of how this is handled. My long held view is that there should be stronger penalties for drug cheats, justice should be blind, and of course, tennis can't clean it's own stable...

I don't see any benefit here in the tennis and ATP/ITF situation.

However, in the legal system there is a benefit. Once a case becomes publicized
in newspapers and media, it becomes tough to find a jury pool who have not taken
a position one way or other in the case. So, especially if the legal system involves
a jury based system as in USA, there is some benefit in not publicizing a case.

But, in the ITF/ATP situation, a jury is not delivering the verdict, but the
officials and adminsitrators of the Drug Testing business or CAS authorities.

I get your point about not announcing a result until it had been properly adjudicated, because mud, once slung, never really can erase the stain. But it is a question as to why Cilic would withdraw from Wimbledon with a (false, if so) injury claim, just because he was under suspicion. Shouldn't a player be able to play, while contesting innocence? There are certainly a lot of things that need to be worked out, and clarified to the public.

You are getting a point that I did not make.

Here is the real reason why Cilic withdrew from Wimbledon. Sure, a player can keep playing
while under investigation. However, if he was shown to be guilty, I believe he loses all the
points earned and the prize money earned since the time he was charged. When that is the
case, players lose motivation to play (especially when you know you are guilty) under the
cloud. Further, it comes with the added bonus that any period of suspension is retroactively
applied from the point they accepted the "silent ban". Again, all of these are shady practices.

 

[Moxie]

RE: The Cilic Question and General doping issues

I kind of agree with you, GSM, in the sense of transparency protecting the innocent, and this is something that all the top players have argued as well. It's unfair that rumours abound without substance and this may in part be due to the system and how it works, and of course, it may in part be down to base human nature, and the nature of fandom, which wouldn't change, regardless of how the news of failed tests is brought to us.

I don't see what harm greater transparency can have, and if anything, fear of immediate exposure will act as a deterrent of sorts, if deterrents work.

The issue of a silent ban is a grave one, and one open to blind misrepresentation. Cilic didn't serve a silent ban. He withdrew from Wimbledon while an investigation was taking place. It was proper that this investigation happen and it was his right that there should be a proper process followed, and he withdrew from tennis immediately, falsely claiming to be injured.

Had his failed test been announced immediately, the situation wouldn't have occurred. Eventually, of course, the failed tests are announced, after due process has been observed, which is inevitable. But are the ITF doing the sport any favours by taking so long in announcing failed tests? Or is there merit in waiting until everything is legally rubber-stamped? I think that in the case of conspiracy theorists, rabid fans, etc, an early announcement might spike their guns but not affect their blindness, but for the sake of doing things properly, and protecting the innocent, what is the benefit of waiting until the investigation is over before announcing the results?We also have to bear in mind that the drugs issue is massively contentious and gossip is king. If a rumour began that Player Z was taking his time in the toilet giving a sample, imagine the frenzy among trolls and conspiracy theorists, drawing conclusions and leaping into wild fantasy. But that sort of thing happens anyway, and so shouldn't get in the way of how this is handled. My long held view is that there should be stronger penalties for drug cheats, justice should be blind, and of course, tennis can't clean it's own stable...

I don't see any benefit here in the tennis and ATP/ITF situation.

However, in the legal system there is a benefit. Once a case becomes publicized
in newspapers and media, it becomes tough to find a jury pool who have not taken
a position one way or other in the case. So, especially if the legal system involves
a jury based system as in USA, there is some benefit in not publicizing a case.

But, in the ITF/ATP situation, a jury is not delivering the verdict, but the
officials and adminsitrators of the Drug Testing business or CAS authorities.

I get your point about not announcing a result until it had been properly adjudicated, because mud, once slung, never really can erase the stain. But it is a question as to why Cilic would withdraw from Wimbledon with a (false, if so) injury claim, just because he was under suspicion. Shouldn't a player be able to play, while contesting innocence? There are certainly a lot of things that need to be worked out, and clarified to the public.

You are getting a point that I did not make.

Here is the real reason why Cilic withdrew from Wimbledon. Sure, a player can keep playing
while under investigation. However, if he was shown to be guilty, I believe he loses all the
points earned and the prize money earned since the time he was charged. When that is the
case, players lose motivation to play (especially when you know you are guilty) under the
cloud. Further, it comes with the added bonus that any period of suspension is retroactively
applied from the point they accepted the "silent ban". Again, all of these are shady practices.

Sorry, I thought that was part of the point that you were making: that until the judgment has been made, it's prejudicial to announce a positive test.

I get why Cilic might not have played Wimbledon, if his results might have been negated after, but that does seem to imply a guilt, by bowing out before the decision was made.

 

[DarthFed]

RE: The Cilic Question and General doping issues

I kind of agree with you, GSM, in the sense of transparency protecting the innocent, and this is something that all the top players have argued as well. It's unfair that rumours abound without substance and this may in part be due to the system and how it works, and of course, it may in part be down to base human nature, and the nature of fandom, which wouldn't change, regardless of how the news of failed tests is brought to us.

I don't see what harm greater transparency can have, and if anything, fear of immediate exposure will act as a deterrent of sorts, if deterrents work.

The issue of a silent ban is a grave one, and one open to blind misrepresentation. Cilic didn't serve a silent ban. He withdrew from Wimbledon while an investigation was taking place. It was proper that this investigation happen and it was his right that there should be a proper process followed, and he withdrew from tennis immediately, falsely claiming to be injured.

Had his failed test been announced immediately, the situation wouldn't have occurred. Eventually, of course, the failed tests are announced, after due process has been observed, which is inevitable. But are the ITF doing the sport any favours by taking so long in announcing failed tests? Or is there merit in waiting until everything is legally rubber-stamped? I think that in the case of conspiracy theorists, rabid fans, etc, an early announcement might spike their guns but not affect their blindness, but for the sake of doing things properly, and protecting the innocent, what is the benefit of waiting until the investigation is over before announcing the results?

We also have to bear in mind that the drugs issue is massively contentious and gossip is king. If a rumour began that Player Z was taking his time in the toilet giving a sample, imagine the frenzy among trolls and conspiracy theorists, drawing conclusions and leaping into wild fantasy. But that sort of thing happens anyway, and so shouldn't get in the way of how this is handled. My long held view is that there should be stronger penalties for drug cheats, justice should be blind, and of course, tennis can't clean it's own stable...

I think we might have to believe that it is possible the ITF wouldn't have even announced the Cilic case had it not been for Croatian media breaking the story beforehand. If I remember correctly Troicki's ban for skipping (not failing) a drug test was announced immediately. I think what happened with Cilic was a silent ban gone wrong and chances are they told him to withdraw from Wimbledon immediately even if it meant making up a bogus injury. It was all around shady IMO.

 

[Kieran]

RE: The Cilic Question and General doping issues

Troicki's ban was announced when due process was over, the same as Cilic. Cilic didn't serve any silent ban, he simply removed himself from tennis while the investigation took place. With this hanging over him, he withdrew. The ITF were aware he'd failed the test, because they were the ones who tested him.

GSM's suggestion that a failed test is publicly announced when it's first known is one I agree with, because then it removes any chance to misrepresent what's taking place while the investigation is ongoing...

 

[Kieran]

[split] The Cilic Question and General doping issues

You're rooting for Troicki?

 

[Front242]

RE: Rankings

You're rooting for Troicki?

Nope but I'll never fail to be disgusted by the ATP/ITF for the completely double standards handling of Troicki v Cilic who should still be banned right now. I like Cilic's game and he was outstanding in the last few rounds of the USO but he should still be banned and then following his ban he should be out there slaving away like Troicki playing challengers. To his credit Troicki got a wild card in Beijing and beat Youzhny and he got through qualifying in Shenzen. I've much more respect for him since he had to start from scratch.

Compare the 1 year off tour for Troicki and the hard route back via challengers to the measly 4 months for Cilic who was right back at the top in no time and quite possibly with the benefits of whatever he was ingesting in the past. A complete joke. So in that respect fair play to Troicki for moving back up the rankings the hard way.

 

[Kieran]

RE: Rankings

Yes, but the Cilic case was different to troicki. I think they both shoulda had the door slammed, but the circumstances in both cases were different so there was always going to be a different ruling. Most players slated Troicki more because he was just stupid to evade a test - or else he was being wise..

 

[Front242]

RE: Rankings

Yes, but the Cilic case was different to troicki. I think they both shoulda had the door slammed, but the circumstances in both cases were different so there was always going to be a different ruling. Most players slated Troicki more because he was just stupid to evade a test - or else he was being wise..

Both were stupid, yup, but the punishments were even more stupid. They should've got the same at the very least.

 

[DarthFed]

RE: Rankings

^ 2 years, no more no less. Troicki refusing to take a test should be given a punishment as though he did fail a test. Though maybe if he came up with a mom at the pharmacy excuse they'd have only given him 7 months...The Cilic case is a travesty especially when he is holding a GS title just 12 months after his ban was exposed by the IT..cough, the Croatian media.

 

[Front242]

RE: Rankings

^ Yeah, wouldn't even have been found out except for the Croatian media such is the shambolic state of the ITF.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

RE: Rankings

^ Yeah, wouldn't even have been found out except for the Croatian media such is the shambolic state of the ITF.

Well, it is not that the Croatian media is great. What happened was that there was a home
tournament in which Cilic plays every year over there. When his name was not on the
draw, the media got suspicious and did some detective work. If the Croatian tournament
was not occurring on the calendar during the period of "silent ban", it is completely
possible that nobody even knew of it. Cilic's absence from the draw would not be
considered a mystery in several other places.

 

[Front242]

[split] General tennis news

Something worth pondering about the state of tennis is this: the authorities care more about a nobody match fixing than dopers. That to me is both sad and utterly disgraceful. A player who refuses a blood test gets a one year ban (Troicki), a player who actually fails a test (Cilic) gets a measly 4 months and comes storming back to win a slam and has no hardship to deal with in terms of ranking places dropped compared to a guy who refused a test and yet somehow these complete morons decide that a nobody then ranked 232 in the world and playing challengers should be banned 5 years for match fixing?! WTF? :nono

This sport needs a huge kick up the arse like cycling got recently and it'd be such a radical change if WADA were thoroughly responsible for all testing and setting proper and fair bans to all offenders. Sadly with the ITF in charge and their corruption and unfair and double standards with ban lengths, it'll probably never happen.

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2014/10/cas-upholds-olasos-5-year-ban-for-match-fixing/52914/#.VC3GYBbPC2U

 

[tented]

RE: The Cilic Question and General doping issues

I've started watching some cycling on a sports network here in the US. To be honest, I'd never watched it before, but was curious. It's a strange mix of exciting and boring.

But I couldn't stop thinking about Lance Armstrong and doping. As I watched each cyclist, I kept wondering whether or not he's doping. It's terrible for their sport that this is how I came to it.

 

[Front242]

RE: The Cilic Question and General doping issues

^ True but for many as we watch tennis now we're wondering the same thing regarding whether he or she is on something banned and even more so imo because of the terribly poor testing.

 

[tented]

RE: The Cilic Question and General doping issues

^ True but for many as we watch tennis now we're wondering the same thing regarding whether he or she is on something banned and even more so imo because of the terribly poor testing.

I would hate for tennis to develop a reputation like cycling. It would ruin the sport.

I'm all for making testing an independent process, which the ATP, WTA, and ITF can't control.

 

[Front242]

RE: The Cilic Question and General doping issues

^ True but for many as we watch tennis now we're wondering the same thing regarding whether he or she is on something banned and even more so imo because of the terribly poor testing.

I would hate for tennis to develop a reputation like cycling. It would ruin the sport.

I'm all for making testing an independent process, which the ATP, WTA, and ITF can't control.

Yeah I'd hate for tennis to become like cycling too but it may already be and that's the problem. We'll never know 'cos they're doing nothing to catch anyone who isn't a nobody and even then they let them off with drastically reduced sentences which basically tells them you might as well keep doing it.

 

[Billie]

RE: The Cilic Question and General doping issues

Gee, Viktor didn't refuse his test, as a matter of fact he came to the testing station, gave a urine sample and just asked if his blood test can be postponed until he felt better. He felt that given his medical history, giving a blood sample would worsen his condition. So the doctor said that there were ways to postpone it, that he should write a letter and fax it to the proper authorities. She even came back to his room to check on him and remind him to go back and give his blood the following day. Which Viktor did. He even received the notification back that all of his tests were clean. His 6 month reduction from the original punishment was due to mishandling of his case by the doctor as well.

I don't care who thinks what, I believe him, but I also think that he was just behaving terribly naïve, although he wouldn't be the first and won't be the last person. I found myself in situations where somebody else took advantage of me, financially and emotionally, but I blame it only on myself, for being that stupid, nobody else.