itf/atp biological passport fully operational sept 2014

[GameSetAndMath]

^ It is not, GSM. "Probably doping" or even "might be doping," is complete speculation and not allowed. Here's an example: you can mention that Sara Errani went to that Dr. del Morral who has been charged with assisting cyclists to dope, because it is a fact, and she acknowledges that. You cannot, however, draw the conclusion that therefore she is "most probably doping," because she has not been charged as such in any official way.

As to freedom of speech, we're pretty liberal about it around here. But you do see there is are reasons to draw lines. On doping, the primary one is that impugning a professional athlete's integrity on an issue so volatile (and illegal) as a matter of "opinion" is unfair and, in fact, libelous. A secondary one is that allowing those opinions causes every thread that involves such talk to go down in flames.

Is it ok to say "Sarah Errani went to Dr. De Morral and Dr. De Morral has been charged with
assisting cyclists to dope. However, I will not draw any conclusions from this as she might
have gone to him to get a cough drop".

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Secondly, as said repeatedly, the main offenders are no where near qualified to make certain assumptions and have no professional training.

You don't know the posters personally, you don't know their backgrounds or what they do to even make such a ridiculous statement. One poster works for the ATP, there are others with medical degrees.

You're in the same swamp of those that say they're 110% sure "so and so" is doping. :snigger

actually, wrong. I specifically asked one poster who I consider a main offender and he clearly admitted he had NO medical degree, NO pharma degree, and NO professional training experience.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

^ It is not, GSM. "Probably doping" or even "might be doping," is complete speculation and not allowed. Here's an example: you can mention that Sara Errani went to that Dr. del Morral who has been charged with assisting cyclists to dope, because it is a fact, and she acknowledges that. You cannot, however, draw the conclusion that therefore she is "most probably doping," because she has not been charged as such in any official way.

As to freedom of speech, we're pretty liberal about it around here. But you do see there is are reasons to draw lines. On doping, the primary one is that impugning a professional athlete's integrity on an issue so volatile (and illegal) as a matter of "opinion" is unfair and, in fact, libelous. A secondary one is that allowing those opinions causes every thread that involves such talk to go down in flames.

Mox, I don't think you could have put it any clearer. This post should be framed. Anyone who does not understand what you said above in no uncertain terms has a reading comprehension problem. There is a reason you are a moderator, your gifts of articulation are rare.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

^ No. Also speculation. And it's a bit like the old question: "Are you still beating your wife?" Note that it is not ok to mention players by name in the context of the doping conversation unless that have been officially accused/sanctioned. Is that all clear now? Then we can actually discuss the topic.

Clear to anyone who can read english.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

The notion that you cannot talk about a specific player possibly indulging in doping before
he/she has failed or refused a test is a huge blow to freedom of speech. As I already
mentioned, I am for equal opportunity in suspecting players. I don't want prohibition against
suspecting only some players.

The basic philosophy should be to let people post whatever they want within reason.
If somebody is just primarily using the forum to slander players with baseless accusations,
the rest of the members will come to know of this and basically put this poster on an
ignore list or put the threads created by this person on this topic as a thread that
they are not interested.

In a discussion board it is customary to discuss evolving situations. Asking for
100% proof or using the standard of "innocent until proven guilty" is way too high.
Just take a look at various threads in "Global News and Events". Don't so many members
accuse so many politicians and even countries of doing various things? Do they have
100% proof of them? Of course not. They are just expressing their opinions based
on their knowledge of the situation and their personal feelings. If you are allowing
it on one thread, why you are not allowing it another thread. Does anyone know
with 100% certainity as to what happened to MK370? How come there is a thread
on it on this forum which discusses various conspiracy theories? Are not these
conspiracy theories slandering various entities?

This is just an attempt to thwart the freedom of speech and expression just
because some people do not like what is being said. It should not happen even
if 99.99% of the members do not like what is being said.

I hope the administrators/moderators come to sense on this issue and
revoke unnecessary prohibitions.

Sorry, you could not be further off the mark. There is no blow here to freedom of speech. Not even close.

It is a victory for common decency and respect. Accusing individuals of illegal activity without any proof, based on uninformed, and unprofessional deduction is wrong. And you would not want anyone to do that to you, now would you.

I think this forum can be held to a higher standard over a political forum where the dregs of humanity battle it out in death cage matches.

The topic has not been banned. It should be discussed, but with class, dignity, and without those totally unqualified to make accusations derailing the discussion.

The rules are clear.

Anytime a person enters public life (whether it is a politician, actor, sportsmen), the standards
of privacy for them are vastly different from standards of privacy for ordinary people. Finally,
nobody accusing in the sense of filing a law suit. People are talking about possibilities and
it should be allowed.

There is a huge difference between discussing the possibilities and declaring you are "100% sure" that some one is cheating.

I think the guidelines made it clear that discussing the possibilities are allowed.

Being pro tennis fans, we should respect the rights of ATP players to be treated just like anybody else.

Anyone has the perfect right to be suspicious of any player. But those suspicions should not be able to steer the whole discourse. Secondly, as said repeatedly, the main offenders are no where near qualified to make certain assumptions and have no professional training.

To repeat, I think we can hold Tennis Frontier to a higher standard than the forums you mention.

So, is it OK to post a message saying, player X is most probably doping under the current
rules of TF? Just asking.

By discussing the possibilities I meant the possibilities of how a (hypothetical) player COULD cheat, not the possibilities they are cheating.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

The notion that you cannot talk about a specific player possibly indulging in doping before
he/she has failed or refused a test is a huge blow to freedom of speech. As I already
mentioned, I am for equal opportunity in suspecting players. I don't want prohibition against
suspecting only some players.

The basic philosophy should be to let people post whatever they want within reason.
If somebody is just primarily using the forum to slander players with baseless accusations,
the rest of the members will come to know of this and basically put this poster on an
ignore list or put the threads created by this person on this topic as a thread that
they are not interested.

In a discussion board it is customary to discuss evolving situations. Asking for
100% proof or using the standard of "innocent until proven guilty" is way too high.
Just take a look at various threads in "Global News and Events". Don't so many members
accuse so many politicians and even countries of doing various things? Do they have
100% proof of them? Of course not. They are just expressing their opinions based
on their knowledge of the situation and their personal feelings. If you are allowing
it on one thread, why you are not allowing it another thread. Does anyone know
with 100% certainity as to what happened to MK370? How come there is a thread
on it on this forum which discusses various conspiracy theories? Are not these
conspiracy theories slandering various entities?

This is just an attempt to thwart the freedom of speech and expression just
because some people do not like what is being said. It should not happen even
if 99.99% of the members do not like what is being said.

I hope the administrators/moderators come to sense on this issue and
revoke unnecessary prohibitions.

Sorry, you could not be further off the mark. There is no blow here to freedom of speech. Not even close.

It is a victory for common decency and respect. Accusing individuals of illegal activity without any proof, based on uninformed, and unprofessional deduction is wrong. And you would not want anyone to do that to you, now would you.

I think this forum can be held to a higher standard over a political forum where the dregs of humanity battle it out in death cage matches.

The topic has not been banned. It should be discussed, but with class, dignity, and without those totally unqualified to make accusations derailing the discussion.

The rules are clear.

This qualification business is nonsense. If not, one can say, you are only a 4.0 player
and what right you have to talk about Federer's shanks.

Apart from being nonsense, it is simply not enforceable. For all I know, you could
be a 10 year old kid. Are the administrators collecting our resumes when we join
the board and then decide who is qualified to talk about what? Get real.

When you have the audacity to present your self as authority it is NOT nonsense.

 

[britbox]

The notion that you cannot talk about a specific player possibly indulging in doping before
he/she has failed or refused a test is a huge blow to freedom of speech. As I already
mentioned, I am for equal opportunity in suspecting players. I don't want prohibition against
suspecting only some players.

The basic philosophy should be to let people post whatever they want within reason.
If somebody is just primarily using the forum to slander players with baseless accusations,
the rest of the members will come to know of this and basically put this poster on an
ignore list or put the threads created by this person on this topic as a thread that
they are not interested.

In a discussion board it is customary to discuss evolving situations. Asking for
100% proof or using the standard of "innocent until proven guilty" is way too high.
Just take a look at various threads in "Global News and Events". Don't so many members
accuse so many politicians and even countries of doing various things? Do they have
100% proof of them? Of course not. They are just expressing their opinions based
on their knowledge of the situation and their personal feelings. If you are allowing
it on one thread, why you are not allowing it another thread. Does anyone know
with 100% certainity as to what happened to MK370? How come there is a thread
on it on this forum which discusses various conspiracy theories? Are not these
conspiracy theories slandering various entities?

This is just an attempt to thwart the freedom of speech and expression just
because some people do not like what is being said. It should not happen even
if 99.99% of the members do not like what is being said.

I hope the administrators/moderators come to sense on this issue and
revoke unnecessary prohibitions.

Sorry, you could not be further off the mark. There is no blow here to freedom of speech. Not even close.

It is a victory for common decency and respect. Accusing individuals of illegal activity without any proof, based on uninformed, and unprofessional deduction is wrong. And you would not want anyone to do that to you, now would you.

I think this forum can be held to a higher standard over a political forum where the dregs of humanity battle it out in death cage matches.

The topic has not been banned. It should be discussed, but with class, dignity, and without those totally unqualified to make accusations derailing the discussion.

The rules are clear.

This qualification business is nonsense. If not, one can say, you are only a 4.0 player
and what right you have to talk about Federer's shanks.

Apart from being nonsense, it is simply not enforceable. For all I know, you could
be a 10 year old kid. Are the administrators collecting our resumes when we join
the board and then decide who is qualified to talk about what? Get real.

I agree with this and you've made plenty of other reasonable points.

You're probably right in the application of a double standard if you look at the off-topic boards but they haven't generated anything like the number of complaints that this subject has attracted. If they did then I guess they would get looked at too.

The bottom line is that there is an element of striking a balance to keep threads as a reasonable discussion without endless "tit for tat" that derail the conversation entirely.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

The notion that you cannot talk about a specific player possibly indulging in doping before
he/she has failed or refused a test is a huge blow to freedom of speech. As I already
mentioned, I am for equal opportunity in suspecting players. I don't want prohibition against
suspecting only some players.

The basic philosophy should be to let people post whatever they want within reason.
If somebody is just primarily using the forum to slander players with baseless accusations,
the rest of the members will come to know of this and basically put this poster on an
ignore list or put the threads created by this person on this topic as a thread that
they are not interested.

In a discussion board it is customary to discuss evolving situations. Asking for
100% proof or using the standard of "innocent until proven guilty" is way too high.
Just take a look at various threads in "Global News and Events". Don't so many members
accuse so many politicians and even countries of doing various things? Do they have
100% proof of them? Of course not. They are just expressing their opinions based
on their knowledge of the situation and their personal feelings. If you are allowing
it on one thread, why you are not allowing it another thread. Does anyone know
with 100% certainity as to what happened to MK370? How come there is a thread
on it on this forum which discusses various conspiracy theories? Are not these
conspiracy theories slandering various entities?

This is just an attempt to thwart the freedom of speech and expression just
because some people do not like what is being said. It should not happen even
if 99.99% of the members do not like what is being said.

I hope the administrators/moderators come to sense on this issue and
revoke unnecessary prohibitions.

Sorry, you could not be further off the mark. There is no blow here to freedom of speech. Not even close.

It is a victory for common decency and respect. Accusing individuals of illegal activity without any proof, based on uninformed, and unprofessional deduction is wrong. And you would not want anyone to do that to you, now would you.

I think this forum can be held to a higher standard over a political forum where the dregs of humanity battle it out in death cage matches.

The topic has not been banned. It should be discussed, but with class, dignity, and without those totally unqualified to make accusations derailing the discussion.

The rules are clear.

This qualification business is nonsense. If not, one can say, you are only a 4.0 player
and what right you have to talk about Federer's shanks.

Apart from being nonsense, it is simply not enforceable. For all I know, you could
be a 10 year old kid. Are the administrators collecting our resumes when we join
the board and then decide who is qualified to talk about what? Get real.

I agree with this and you've made plenty of other reasonable points.

You're probably right in the application of a double standard if you look at the off-topic boards but they haven't generated anything like the number of complaints that this subject has attracted. If they did then I guess they would get looked at too.

The bottom line is that there is an element of striking a balance to keep threads as a reasonable discussion without endless "tit for tat" that derail the conversation entirely.

I disagree when a poster frames their comments in a technical manner with the implied notion they have some sort of professional expertise.

GSM's notion that a 4.0 player can't critique technique is silly. I know for a FACT there are ATP and WTA coaches that would lose easily to a 4.5 or 5.0 player, yet they guide an elite player in their daily routines. False equivalency.

 

[britbox]

^ The poster didn't claim to be a pharmacist and is entitled to an opinion as much as the next person. It's up to individuals to judge the quality or legitimacy of a post.

There was a backlash against naming names and in the interests of "giving the benefit of the doubt" and keeping the conversation alive some parameters were put in place.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

the bio passport in other sports has caught number of cyclists/track athletes already..

even though they didn't actually fail a test. good news. :idea:

 

[Moxie]

the bio passport in other sports has caught number of cyclists/track athletes already..

even though they didn't actually fail a test. good news. :idea:

Now that we've resolved the wherefores and wherebys of "form," it seems we can proceed with content. Huzzah!

Do you know, or can anyone explain, how they establish the baseline information on the player for the passport?

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

apart from something about accepted levels of whatever (markers)..but I don't know if everyones blood has the same amount of some stuff or weather everyones base markers are different, somefolk on here easily know more lol.

at least 4 samples are needed before its fully online, which is where we are at now apparently. there is a page in English on biological passports on Wikipedia I was found the other day..maybe link that on here if you could (itf site have tedious pdf's I think, didn't stay there too long)

front may have posted a link the the ins/outs of passport. ??? going to go through this thread now threads been sorted out.

 

[Moxie]

I'll try to do a little more research, too.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

You're probably right in the application of a double standard if you look at the off-topic boards but they haven't generated anything like the number of complaints that this subject has attracted. If they did then I guess they would get looked at too.

This explanation worries me even more. So, essentially you are admitting that these
new guidelines are not based on the principle of not allowing slanderous posts, but is
due to the fact that a large number of complaints were made.

Suppose someone posts a message that Player X played terrible today. Assuming
that most of the members this forum are fans of X and they feel offended by the remark
and complain, will there be a ruling that form now you cannot post messages that
reflect on X's play poorly.

The policies should be based on principles or quality of complaints and not merely
based on number of complaints.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

^ It is not, GSM. "Probably doping" or even "might be doping," is complete speculation and not allowed. Here's an example: you can mention that Sara Errani went to that Dr. del Morral who has been charged with assisting cyclists to dope, because it is a fact, and she acknowledges that. You cannot, however, draw the conclusion that therefore she is "most probably doping," because she has not been charged as such in any official way.

As to freedom of speech, we're pretty liberal about it around here. But you do see there is are reasons to draw lines. On doping, the primary one is that impugning a professional athlete's integrity on an issue so volatile (and illegal) as a matter of "opinion" is unfair and, in fact, libelous. A secondary one is that allowing those opinions causes every thread that involves such talk to go down in flames.

You bet. That is why one of my posts to this thread after your above message was summarily
deleted without any notice or explanation to me.

The only message I had in that post was a question seeking clarification on the new guidelines.

This is acting like a big brother even though you are my big sister.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

^^please can you stop spamming my thread with this endless guff. there is a page for concerns about the site somewhere in the forums. or start a thread yourself.

I apologize. I would appreciate if either you or the moderators can point me to the right
place to post message with concerns about the forum. I will also search for it myself.

 

[britbox]

Who said they weren't quality complaints? Some of the complaints were well reasoned and not all were made in public.

If you're prepared to use your real name and make unsubstantiated claims specifically directed toward a player and call them out as a doper - fine, I'll explain how you can set up a free site on wordpress.com which will allow you to do it and you'll also be able to carry the can if someone decides to take legal proceedings against you.

I don't agree with your second paragraph - it's been made clear that it was doping related. Calling someone out publically for being a cheat carries more responsibility than discussing how well somebody is playing.

And yes, there probably is a double standard in the Off Topic forum where there is greater flexibility on sensitive issues - but it's not a free for all either - there has been the odd thread in there that got out of control and ended up being moderated.

Principles of quality as you suggested at the end of your post DO come into it. There were back and forth accusations of trolling, racism, being anti-some player or another, bringing in other players names in retaliation etc.... Hardly up there in the quality department.

The bottom line is that it's been asked that posters do not to name specific players as doping cheats via speculation. It's a serious charge in the scheme of the sport. Other than that, I don't think anything else has changed.

 

[britbox]

^ Posted that after I saw your post JLLB. If GSM wants to continue the convo, he's welcome to create a thread in Off Topic or Chat.

 

[britbox]

GSM, if you want to carry on this conversation then there is a new thread for it:

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=2831

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Who said they weren't quality complaints? Some of the complaints were well reasoned and not all were made in public.

If you're prepared to use your real name and make unsubstantiated claims specifically directed toward a player and call them out as a doper - fine, I'll explain how you can set up a free site on wordpress.com which will allow you to do it and you'll also be able to carry the can if someone decides to take legal proceedings against you.

I don't agree with your second paragraph - it's been made clear that it was doping related. Calling someone out publically for being a cheat carries more responsibility than discussing how well somebody is playing.

And yes, there probably is a double standard in the Off Topic forum where there is greater flexibility on sensitive issues - but it's not a free for all either - there has been the odd thread in there that got out of control and ended up being moderated.

Principles of quality as you suggested at the end of your post DO come into it. There were back and forth accusations of trolling, racism, being anti-some player or another, bringing in other players names in retaliation etc.... Hardly up there in the quality department.

The bottom line is that it's been asked that posters do not to name specific players as doping cheats via speculation. It's a serious charge in the scheme of the sport. Other than that, I don't think anything else has changed.

Britbox. On behalf of any other forum members who feel the same way, my highest regards to you sir for the intelligent, smart, and decent way you have handled this situation. Your post above is another reason this is one of the best forums I have encountered. With very kind regards. LB.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.