Is Martina Hingis's induction to Hall of Fame Fair?

[Calvy]

"Are not the people inducted to Hall of Fame
expected to be role model for others."

Role models are based on moral standards, and by you writing that one is expected to be a "role model," moral standards apply and are relevant in what I wrote.

Cocaine DOES NOT give one a benefit when competing. Heck, we might as well ban chocolate candy bars and other types of candies as well as coca cola or pepsi, they're stimulants and they're allowed to be ingested on court. They're no more natural than cocaine.

I meant role model in a professional sense, not in terms of their
personal life. Being banned is definitely not being a role model
in the professional sense itself.

So, why do you think Cocaine is one of the banned substances?
It is definitely not for some moralistic reasons.

It is against the law.

ITF is not there for law enforcement. That would be the business
of local police. If a player's blood alcohol level was found higher
than the local limits for safe driving, ITF will not ban them from
playing for two years. ITF will just laugh at the player for
hurting their own chances by "playing while intoxicated".

No major sport will tolerate its players breaking the law.

Alcohol is not illegal

And while it is extremely stupid for a player to go on court

drunk it is not illegal. I don't know if its against the rules of

tennis

Actually, in some countries alcohol is illegal, primarily Muslim countries, but, illegal nonetheless.

So, alcohol should be banned as it also could be considered a stimulant, no?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I meant role model in a professional sense, not in terms of their
personal life. Being banned is definitely not being a role model
in the professional sense itself.

So, why do you think Cocaine is one of the banned substances?
It is definitely not for some moralistic reasons.

It is against the law.

ITF is not there for law enforcement. That would be the business
of local police. If a player's blood alcohol level was found higher
than the local limits for safe driving, ITF will not ban them from
playing for two years. ITF will just laugh at the player for
hurting their own chances by "playing while intoxicated".

No major sport will tolerate its players breaking the law.

Alcohol is not illegal

And while it is extremely stupid for a player to go on court

drunk it is not illegal. I don't know if its against the rules of

tennis

Actually, in some countries alcohol is illegal, primarily Muslim countries, but, illegal nonetheless.

So, alcohol should be banned as it also could be considered a stimulant, no?

FYI, Alcohol is a depressant and not a stimulant.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I am actually a big fan of Martina and for that matter any finesse
tennis player. I am definitely not questioning her achievements.
She has obviously won, I believe 5 GS titles in singles alone and
many more in doubles.

However, she was found guilty of drug violation and was
banned for 2 years, which is the maximum sentence for
drug violation without extenuating circumstances.

Is it really a good idea to induct someone into Hall of
Fame, who has served a 2 year ban on even playing in
the WTA circuit. Are not the people inducted to Hall of Fame
expected to be role model for others.

What does this tell about Tennis Establishment?

Her drug violation was for cocaine, not a PED or steroids, but a recreational drug. There was benefit from partaking in the use of cocaine. In some sports marijuana is banned, and I don't believe one should be banned from entering the HOF because of those type of violations.

As for role model, if we're going to start banning people due to not be everyone's idea of a role model or indiscretions, then most of the people in the HOF shouldn't be allowed. Jimmy Connors was an adulterer, Chris Evert had an abortion, Martina N was in a lesbian relationship during time when it was highly frowned upon and illegal in many states and countries, Bill Tilden liked the company of younger men.

Simply put, she earned her inclusion into the Hall of Fame.

There is a men's player by name Bob Hewitt, who later became
a coach. He was inducted into Hall of Fame. He was accused of
sexually harassing and raping young girls he coached.

On November 15, 2012, after months of investigation in the claims and allegations that he sexually abused girls he coached, Hewitt was suspended of his accolade in the International Tennis Hall of Fame. "His legacy ceases to exist in the Hall of Fame", said Mark Stenning, executive director of the International Tennis Hall of Fame. "As of today, his plaque will be removed from the Hall of Fame. His name will be removed from our website and all other materials, and from the perspective of the Hall of Fame, he is suspended from the Hall of Fame."

According to the charter, there is an even an explicit line about
character and integrity in the requirements to be inducted into
the Hall of Fame.[/u]

Are you truly equating the rape and molestation of several young girls by their trust coach to taking cocaine?

And I aware of the Hewitt saga, and the HOF is correct in it's decision to remove him. But, his removal had nothing to his being a role model, especially since he was not very well liked for his on court tactics and disposition toward his opponents.

Tennis Establishment did nothing improper when they inducted
Bob Hewit into the Hall of Fame as at that time nobody knew of
Bob's Adventures.

However, in Hingis's case they knew before they did the induction.

The point is not whether sexual harassment is comparable to
consuming cocaine. The point is that if something she did is
worthy of banning her from even playing Tennis for two years
according to Tennis Establishment, how come according to the
same establishment it can be condoned while considering
her induction into Hall of Fame, especially when criteria 3
says explicitly that character, sportsmanship and integrity
should be taken into account also.

 

[Fiero425]

No one wants to talk about Hingis playing tennis, so I guess I'll break the freakin' ice! She won her doubles match with Daniela, 1 and 1 over Julia Goerges and her partner; whoever she is in Southern California!

 

[GameSetAndMath]

No one wants to talk about Hingis playing tennis, so I guess I'll break the freakin' ice! She won her doubles match with Daniela, 1 and 1 over Julia Goerges and her partner; whoever she is in Southern California!

There is no question that she deserves to be in Hall of Fame for
her accomplishments, provided she was not banned.

I have great respect for her game and for her achievements.
Inducting somebody into the Hall knowing that there was a
doping violation that merited 2 years sentence (and that was
not even appealed) indicates that Tennis Establishment does
not even take itself seriously.

 

[britbox]

I think Martina actually had about one fifth of the level of cocaine that Gasquet had and he only got a few months, based on the kissing excuse. Bit of a discrepancy in the length of bans. Gasquet was allowed to provide character witnesses and hair samples... Martina wasn't allowed either of them.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I think Martina actually had about one fifth of the level of cocaine that Gasquet had and he only got a few months, based on the kissing excuse. Bit of a discrepancy in the length of bans. Gasquet was allowed to provide character witnesses and hair samples... Martina wasn't allowed either of them.

Gasquet fought with ITF and appealed. Martina just accepted
the punishment and quit. It is hard to say whether acceptance
implies admission of guilt or lack of energy to fight, especially
considering her second run at the tour did not go as anticipated
and she was nowhere close to the #1 Martina.

 

[britbox]

I think Martina actually had about one fifth of the level of cocaine that Gasquet had and he only got a few months, based on the kissing excuse. Bit of a discrepancy in the length of bans. Gasquet was allowed to provide character witnesses and hair samples... Martina wasn't allowed either of them.

Gasquet fought with ITF and appealed. Martina just accepted
the punishment and quit. It is hard to say whether acceptance
implies admission of guilt or lack of energy to fight, especially
considering her second run at the tour did not go as anticipated
and she was nowhere close to the #1 Martina.

I think she should have been banned, as should Gasquet... but even with the appeal, I don't get the difference in the bans (and I thought Gasquet's excuse was a load of rubbish). It was a recreational use drug, so the ban length should be a lot shorter than something like steroids, hgh etc...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I think Martina actually had about one fifth of the level of cocaine that Gasquet had and he only got a few months, based on the kissing excuse. Bit of a discrepancy in the length of bans. Gasquet was allowed to provide character witnesses and hair samples... Martina wasn't allowed either of them.

Gasquet fought with ITF and appealed. Martina just accepted
the punishment and quit. It is hard to say whether acceptance
implies admission of guilt or lack of energy to fight, especially
considering her second run at the tour did not go as anticipated
and she was nowhere close to the #1 Martina.

I think she should have been banned, as should Gasquet... but even with the appeal, I don't get the difference in the bans (and I thought Gasquet's excuse was a load of rubbish). It was a recreational use drug, so the ban length should be a lot shorter than something like steroids, hgh etc...

I agree with you that Gasquet's excuse is basically BS. Of the top of
my head, I think he only served six months. I need to look up for exact
details.

As for the difference in the length of the ban, the problem is
that the doping rulebook gives the tribunal a large amount of
leeway in selecting the actual punishment. For some drugs, the
punishment listed is 2 to 6 years, a wide range. The tribunal
can use their discretion to decide the exact length.

Having said that, this is also the way the judicial system
works. There will be a recommendation of something like
10 to 20 years for murder in second degree and the sentencing
judge uses his discretion and character evidence etc in deciding
the actual sentence.

 

[special700]

I am actually a big fan of Martina and for that matter any finesse
tennis player. I am definitely not questioning her achievements.
She has obviously won, I believe 5 GS titles in singles alone and
many more in doubles.

However, she was found guilty of drug violation and was
banned for 2 years, which is the maximum sentence for
drug violation without extenuating circumstances.

Is it really a good idea to induct someone into Hall of
Fame, who has served a 2 year ban on even playing in
the WTA circuit. Are not the people inducted to Hall of Fame
expected to be role model for others.

What does this tell about Tennis Establishment?

Her drug violation was for cocaine, not a PED or steroids, but a recreational drug. There was benefit from partaking in the use of cocaine. In some sports marijuana is banned, and I don't believe one should be banned from entering the HOF because of those type of violations.

As for role model, if we're going to start banning people due to not be everyone's idea of a role model or indiscretions, then most of the people in the HOF shouldn't be allowed. Jimmy Connors was an adulterer, Chris Evert had an abortion, Martina N was in a lesbian relationship during time when it was highly frowned upon and illegal in many states and countries, Bill Tilden liked the company of younger men.

Simply put, she earned her inclusion into the Hall of Fame.

Agree Calvy. Like you said she was on cocain and as far as I know taking cocain in no way can help anyone win a match. From what I have read about the drug it dullen your senses and slows you down so I do not see why they even band her for that.

 

[Calvy]

It is against the law.

ITF is not there for law enforcement. That would be the business
of local police. If a player's blood alcohol level was found higher
than the local limits for safe driving, ITF will not ban them from
playing for two years. ITF will just laugh at the player for
hurting their own chances by "playing while intoxicated".

No major sport will tolerate its players breaking the law.

Alcohol is not illegal

And while it is extremely stupid for a player to go on court

drunk it is not illegal. I don't know if its against the rules of

tennis

Actually, in some countries alcohol is illegal, primarily Muslim countries, but, illegal nonetheless.

So, alcohol should be banned as it also could be considered a stimulant, no?

FYI, Alcohol is a depressant and not a stimulant.

Further FYI,

Alcohol is classified as a depressant and a stimulant, but not a hallucinogen. Depending on the study you read, some believe alcohol is only a depressant while others believe it is both a depressant and stimulant. For someone who is just starting to drink for the evening, it can be a stimulant. The person may be the life of the party. As the evening continues, and more alcohol is consumed, it can become a depressant.

 

[Calvy]

I am actually a big fan of Martina and for that matter any finesse
tennis player. I am definitely not questioning her achievements.
She has obviously won, I believe 5 GS titles in singles alone and
many more in doubles.

However, she was found guilty of drug violation and was
banned for 2 years, which is the maximum sentence for
drug violation without extenuating circumstances.

Is it really a good idea to induct someone into Hall of
Fame, who has served a 2 year ban on even playing in
the WTA circuit. Are not the people inducted to Hall of Fame
expected to be role model for others.

What does this tell about Tennis Establishment?

Her drug violation was for cocaine, not a PED or steroids, but a recreational drug. There was benefit from partaking in the use of cocaine. In some sports marijuana is banned, and I don't believe one should be banned from entering the HOF because of those type of violations.

As for role model, if we're going to start banning people due to not be everyone's idea of a role model or indiscretions, then most of the people in the HOF shouldn't be allowed. Jimmy Connors was an adulterer, Chris Evert had an abortion, Martina N was in a lesbian relationship during time when it was highly frowned upon and illegal in many states and countries, Bill Tilden liked the company of younger men.

Simply put, she earned her inclusion into the Hall of Fame.

There is a men's player by name Bob Hewitt, who later became
a coach. He was inducted into Hall of Fame. He was accused of
sexually harassing and raping young girls he coached.

On November 15, 2012, after months of investigation in the claims and allegations that he sexually abused girls he coached, Hewitt was suspended of his accolade in the International Tennis Hall of Fame. "His legacy ceases to exist in the Hall of Fame", said Mark Stenning, executive director of the International Tennis Hall of Fame. "As of today, his plaque will be removed from the Hall of Fame. His name will be removed from our website and all other materials, and from the perspective of the Hall of Fame, he is suspended from the Hall of Fame."

According to the charter, there is an even an explicit line about
character and integrity in the requirements to be inducted into
the Hall of Fame.[/u]

Are you truly equating the rape and molestation of several young girls by their trust coach to taking cocaine?

And I aware of the Hewitt saga, and the HOF is correct in it's decision to remove him. But, his removal had nothing to his being a role model, especially since he was not very well liked for his on court tactics and disposition toward his opponents.

Tennis Establishment did nothing improper when they inducted
Bob Hewit into the Hall of Fame as at that time nobody knew of
Bob's Adventures.

However, in Hingis's case they knew before they did the induction.

The point is not whether sexual harassment is comparable to
consuming cocaine. The point is that if something she did is
worthy of banning her from even playing Tennis for two years
according to Tennis Establishment, how come according to the
same establishment it can be condoned while considering
her induction into Hall of Fame, especially when criteria 3
says explicitly that character, sportsmanship and integrity
should be taken into account also.

If I go by what you wrote, neither John Mcenroe, nor Guillermo Vilas should be in the HOF. Vilas was suspended and fined for receiving appearance fees at a time when it was considered a violation. McEnroe has been fine and defaulted from tournaments due to temper and his approach to linespeople and umpires on many occasions.

Had Serena been suspended for her outburst at the 2009 US Open, like many believe she should have, do you then believe she should be ineligible for the HOF.

Bill Tilden enjoyed the "company" of younger men, and even was jailed for it. Should he be "uninducted," or should he even had inducted in the first place, especially considering it was known in tennis circles?

Fact is, there is debate whether a suspension for cocaine use should even exist, or to the extent for which Hingis was suspended, because, again, it is not a drug that benefits ones performance, it's simply not a "Performance Enhancing Drug" like steriods, or HGH. It's a recreational drug and ones HOF eligibilty should not be affected by a recreational drug use.

Also, there is a difference between being "banned" and "suspended."

Bans typical have no end date, although they can eventually be lifted. Suspension have end dates, hense, Hingis was suspended for 18 months, not banned.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Her drug violation was for cocaine, not a PED or steroids, but a recreational drug. There was benefit from partaking in the use of cocaine. In some sports marijuana is banned, and I don't believe one should be banned from entering the HOF because of those type of violations.

As for role model, if we're going to start banning people due to not be everyone's idea of a role model or indiscretions, then most of the people in the HOF shouldn't be allowed. Jimmy Connors was an adulterer, Chris Evert had an abortion, Martina N was in a lesbian relationship during time when it was highly frowned upon and illegal in many states and countries, Bill Tilden liked the company of younger men.

Simply put, she earned her inclusion into the Hall of Fame.

There is a men's player by name Bob Hewitt, who later became
a coach. He was inducted into Hall of Fame. He was accused of
sexually harassing and raping young girls he coached.

On November 15, 2012, after months of investigation in the claims and allegations that he sexually abused girls he coached, Hewitt was suspended of his accolade in the International Tennis Hall of Fame. "His legacy ceases to exist in the Hall of Fame", said Mark Stenning, executive director of the International Tennis Hall of Fame. "As of today, his plaque will be removed from the Hall of Fame. His name will be removed from our website and all other materials, and from the perspective of the Hall of Fame, he is suspended from the Hall of Fame."

According to the charter, there is an even an explicit line about
character and integrity in the requirements to be inducted into
the Hall of Fame.[/u]

Are you truly equating the rape and molestation of several young girls by their trust coach to taking cocaine?

And I aware of the Hewitt saga, and the HOF is correct in it's decision to remove him. But, his removal had nothing to his being a role model, especially since he was not very well liked for his on court tactics and disposition toward his opponents.

Tennis Establishment did nothing improper when they inducted
Bob Hewit into the Hall of Fame as at that time nobody knew of
Bob's Adventures.

However, in Hingis's case they knew before they did the induction.

The point is not whether sexual harassment is comparable to
consuming cocaine. The point is that if something she did is
worthy of banning her from even playing Tennis for two years
according to Tennis Establishment, how come according to the
same establishment it can be condoned while considering
her induction into Hall of Fame, especially when criteria 3
says explicitly that character, sportsmanship and integrity
should be taken into account also.

If I go by what you wrote, neither John Mcenroe, nor Guillermo Vilas should be in the HOF. Vilas was suspended and fined for receiving appearance fees at a time when it was considered a violation. McEnroe has been fine and defaulted from tournaments due to temper and his approach to linespeople and umpires on many occasions.

Had Serena been suspended for her outburst at the 2009 US Open, like many believe she should have, do you then believe she should be ineligible for the HOF.

Bill Tilden enjoyed the "company" of younger men, and even was jailed for it. Should he be "uninducted," or should he even had inducted in the first place, especially considering it was known in tennis circles?

Fact is, there is debate whether a suspension for cocaine use should even exist, or to the extent for which Hingis was suspended, because, again, it is not a drug that benefits ones performance, it's simply not a "Performance Enhancing Drug" like steriods, or HGH. It's a recreational drug and ones HOF eligibilty should not be affected by a recreational drug use.

Also, there is a difference between being "banned" and "suspended."

Bans typical have no end date, although they can eventually be lifted. Suspension have end dates, hense, Hingis was suspended for 18 months, not banned.

An outburst in the heat of the moment is one thing and a banned
substance being found in your body in another thing. They are not
comparable. Being fined in one match is no way comparable to
you being "suspended" from playing for two full years (it was not
18 months for Martina).

Finally, I have no problem if HOF induction of players are done
purely based on career achievements without any regard to
character, conduct etc. But, at least be explicit and say so.
See my previous post on exact wording of the requirements for
induction. It clearly states that consideration is given to
Character, Integrity and Sportsmanship. You cannot eat
the cake and have it too.

Let us just agree to disagree.

 

[Correspondent Kiu]

No one wants to talk about Hingis playing tennis, so I guess I'll break the freakin' ice! She won her doubles match with Daniela, 1 and 1 over Julia Goerges and her partner; whoever she is in Southern California!

I talk about that!
Martina and Daniela make a formidable doubles team.
Bring it on girls.

 

[Calvy]

No one wants to talk about Hingis playing tennis, so I guess I'll break the freakin' ice! She won her doubles match with Daniela, 1 and 1 over Julia Goerges and her partner; whoever she is in Southern California!

I talk about that!
Martina and Daniela make a formidable doubles team.
Bring it on girls.

That's not the point of discussion on this forum.

 

[Correspondent Kiu]

And why not?

Here is a hall of fame'r trying her hand at the game after she was inducted, she did pretty good too, handing double bread-sticks to her opponents.
She is active again, she plays the game now.
This is an active thread about her. So we can talk about it, right?

We seem to veer off the original topic on many threads, always ending up talking about Serena. Just look at the Stanford thread from last week...
At least we're on topic here.

 

[Fiero425]

And why not?

Here is a hall of fame'r trying her hand at the game after she was inducted, she did pretty good too, handing double bread-sticks to her opponents.
She is active again, she plays the game now.
This is an active thread about her. So we can talk about it, right?

We seem to veer off the original topic on many threads, always ending up talking about Serena. Just look at the Stanford thread from last week...
At least we're on topic here.

You tell 'em! :clap :clap :clap :angel:

 

[Correspondent Kiu]

You tell 'em! :clap :clap :clap :angel:

I watch He-Man too!

 

[Calvy]

And you're the first one to always complain we're off topic. So, now I'm calling u out on it....stay on topic!!

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I think Martina actually had about one fifth of the level of cocaine that Gasquet had and he only got a few months, based on the kissing excuse. Bit of a discrepancy in the length of bans. Gasquet was allowed to provide character witnesses and hair samples... Martina wasn't allowed either of them.

Gasquet fought with ITF and appealed. Martina just accepted
the punishment and quit. It is hard to say whether acceptance
implies admission of guilt or lack of energy to fight, especially
considering her second run at the tour did not go as anticipated
and she was nowhere close to the #1 Martina.

I think she should have been banned, as should Gasquet... but even with the appeal, I don't get the difference in the bans (and I thought Gasquet's excuse was a load of rubbish). It was a recreational use drug, so the ban length should be a lot shorter than something like steroids, hgh etc...

I looked it up. Gasquet got off very easy. He served only 2.5 months
suspension. But, ITF admitted that if they had tested him after a few
hours, he probably would not have been found positive. They also
were able to figure out based on hair test that he is not a habitual
user. Gasquet did not quite appeal, he just worked it out with ITF.
Appeal is something a player does after the first verdict comes out
regarding punishment.

My guess (not a fact) is that Martina must have been a
habitual user at that time. Otherwise, it does not make sense
not to fight, especially when you can prove it by volunteering
to take a hair test.