Tennis Forum banner

ITF Board member to propose wildcard restrictions

6K views 95 replies 36 participants last post by  N/E1Four10/S? 
#1 ·
Thomas Kønigsfeldt, one of the ITF's Board of Directors 16 members, has stated in the Danish press that rules about wildcards need to be tightened. He said that current rules allow wildcards to be decided by tournaments without consideration to what caused the players' absence or loss of ranking. Instead, a period of one year without wildcards should be enforced for players returning from bans for anti-doping rule violations, so that they are not viewed as being treated favorably by the tennis system.

"We need clear rules, and it is clear that this is not the case here. I have a clear sense that the ITF Board of Directors has agreed that we must do everything possible to combat doping."

He has found other ITF Board members he has spoken to in agreement and he believes that many players are concerned about this matter as well (he refers to Murray, Wozniacki, and Watson in the article).

He anticipates his proposal to be discussed at ITF's Board's meeting in the early summer, and the matter to possibly be decided at the ITF's Annual General Meeting in Vietnam in August.

Full articles in Danish here and here.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
thxforsharing
 
#5 ·
This is fantastic news!!! Thanks for sharing! It's a no brainer really to ensure that a loss of ranking points as part of the penalty during a ban, is not circumvented for SOME players who get unfair preferential treatment. There is no protected ranking for a returning player banned for a Doping violation, and there is a reason for that!! So totally agree, cut out these loopholes that allow banned players a road back as though they had not lost ranking points through their ban, especially where interested parties are just after money with no ethical considerations. The Grand Slams already have displayed this view. However, the WTA tournament Directors have just been chasing the money in their own self-interests, not caring about the fight against Doping. It may be too late to restrict the WTA from giving Wild Cards in Stuttgart, Rome and Madrid, but it is great for the future where the WTAs hands would then be tied to comply with the fight against Doping, and would not have the authority to grant Wild Cards to Dopers. :yeah:
 
#6 ·
I'm more concerned about US tournaments like IW giving so many WCs to US players and fucking up these rankings
We dont need US teens getting opportunities other teens around the world dont get
And to have so many US mugs in these draws for a round or 2
They are going to give Gibbs 20 WCs? What a waste!

Regarding Sharapova, I thought the level of Halep/Konta and Venus/Kerber were good, and those were only QFs
i want to see if Sharapova can get thru a draw. I know these US players cant, beside the Williams sisters
 
#8 ·
I'm more concerned about US tournaments like IW giving so many WCs to US players
that is natural. madrid tournamament will give wc to spanish players, rome tournament will give wc to italian players, beijing tournament will give wc to chinese players, moscow tournament will give wc to russian players, so on and so on. that's natural. you can't equate preferential treatment between nationalism and doping lol.
 
#7 ·
Good. Of course Maria is the inspiration for this, but if passed, it will be too late to affect her.

But it means that anyone else falling fall of the doping rules would know what they faced on their return. And there would be less chance of more influential players receiving what is effectively a lighter sentence for a given misdeamour by lobbying for WCs.

I'd widen it actually, to include returns from any disciplinary infringement, such as match fixing, or bans due to unsportsmanlike conduct, etc.

Maybe in the case of unsportsmanlike conduct, I'd have a shorter WC ban, equivalent to the length of the playing ban - it'd seem weird to ban someone like Kyrgios for 8 weeks, and have him still paying the price a year later.
 
#11 ·
That's nice. But how far are we willing to go with this.

The case against giving former dopers wildcards for a while is somewhat convincing (as is the case for not placing any restrictions here).

But then, on the other hand, is it okay to give wildcards based on how f**kable a female player is?

Just be careful with the selective outrage...

Maybe the solution is to get rid of wildcards entirely?
 
#86 ·
CAS will have a field day on any of this, but thanks for coming.
I gave some consideration to this, and here are my thoughts. Article 10 of the WADA code per se does not prohibit an international sports federation like the ITF from sanctioning ADRV offenders beyond what the WADA code specifies. The commentary at the end of article refers to harmonization of penalties across sports, but recognizes that harmonization "has been one of the most discussed and debated areas of antidoping". Article 10.10 specifically allows international federations to impose additional financial sanctions using their own additional rules, provided that the maximum period of ineligibility has been given. However, article 23.2.2 of the WADA code may have a bearing on a penalty that alters the ban time, since it requires that


No additional provision may be added to a Signatory’s rules which changes the effect of the Articles enumerated in this Article [a list that includes article 10 which outlines the ban times].​

So the legal question on whether ITF can prohibit wildcards for a period after returning from a doping ban depends on whether this is (a) an extension of the ban time, (b) an additional penalty for ADRV offenders, or (c) something that simply enforces ethics and priorities of the organization. Interpretation (a) will be probably disallowed by CAS; (b) might or might not; and (c) is safe.

I think that interpretation (a) is clearly incorrect and will not be accepted by CAS. Refusing such an athlete a wildcard clearly does not extend the ban time, since the athlete can still participate in events that their ranking allows just as any other athlete returning from a long absence or a freshly starting athlete. Adopting interpretation (a) and disallowing this under the WADA code leads to absurdities like giving the legal right to protected ranking to ADRV offenders too.

Whether the board member's proposal is (b) or (c) is I believe a matter of interpretation. Certainly an organization has the right to impose additional requirements for participation in events it organizes; for example, no one has successfully went to CAS because they want to play on the WTA circuit at age 12. In my opinion, a prohibition of wild cards for a limited time after a doping ban can be justified as serving three purposes, all within the spirit of (c):

1. ITF wants to promote clean sport, and does not like it when ADRV offenders do not suffer the full consequences of their ban, so they prohibit the practice.
2. Making wildcards available to such offenders generates negative publicity for the sport, therefore ITF acts to protect the sport's interests.
3. Wildcards are a privilege, not a right for anybody, therefore ITF is entitled to set its own rules for them.

It is interesting here to examine prior related CAS rulings. There are no such rulings about wildcards, but the story of the "Osaka rule" in the Olympics is instructive. At their meeting in Osaka in 2007, the International Olympic Committee's Executive Board enacted the following rule:


Any person who has been sanctioned with a suspension of more than six months by any anti-doping organization for any violation of any anti-doping regulations may not participate, in any capacity, in the next edition of the Games of the Olympiad and of the Olympic Winter Games following the date of expiry of such suspension.​

Now this rule is much stronger than the proposed prohibition of wildcards. It actually extends the ban of affected athletes from the Olympics for up to four years beyond what the WADA code specifies. There is no alternative means of entering, unlike with wildcards.

The IOC sought and obtained a concurring advisory opinion from CAS that the "Osaka rule" was consistent with the WADA code. The arbitrators on the panel found that the intent of the Osaka rule was not to extend the ban, but to clarify eligibility criteria for athletes.

However, a later CAS panel reversed the judgment on the grounds that the rule prevented the athlete's entry by any means, and therefore had the effect of extending the period of ineligibility beyond the WADA code proscriptions and generated "double jeopardy" conditions for the athletes. Even then, with CAS divided, they noted that


“If the IOC issued a rule that persons convicted of a violent felony were not eligible to participate in the Olympic Games, such a rule would likely not violate the principle of ne bis in idem, because the effective purpose of that sanction would be different from the purpose of the criminal penalty associated with that violent felony.”​

I conclude from the above that as long as the ITF bases the prohibition of wildcards on ethical criteria about what is best for the sport and its image, and not as a sanction for ADRV offenders, the new rule should be safe from challenge in CAS.
 
#13 ·
Simple question: Can the ITF actually influence WTA or ATP wild card policy, and if so, to what extent? It's not clear that the ITF has any legal power or other form of leverage.
 
#19 ·
I am making a point about WCs being financially driven. Doesnt matter who deserves to be in those last spots in draws on merit if someone thinks they can make more money with someone else
 
#23 ·
"We need clear rules, and it is clear that this is not the case here. I have a clear sense that the ITF Board of Directors has agreed that we must do everything possible to combat doping."
How are the rules not clear exactly? Everyone knows the tournaments decide the wildcards. The rules are actually clear as day, it's just people disagreeing with those rules.
 
This post has been deleted
#25 ·
Thank you for posting this RVilkas.
This at least demonstrates the desire for a cleaner sport, and they (the ITF board) knows that this sends the proper message, not to just the player who made use of this backdoor weakness in the rules and policies, but to the associations and sponsor exploiting this weakness as well.
I can only have respect for the ITF board for this gesture/proposal.

Let's just hope that it become a solid rule, and in particular, sends a message to the WTA for its incredible greed.
 
#29 ·
I think that most who object to the immediate wildcards do not want to penalize offenders more than whatever ban ITF/CAS assigns. The problem they have is that part of the ban's consequences is a loss of ranking, and the wildcards nullify that loss. If one is banned for a year or more, it is implicit in the rules and part of the normal punishment that they have to start from the beginning; the wildcards achieve the opposite. The question is if this part of the punishment is extra, or if it should be explicitly stated in a new rule that rebuilding your ranking is part of the normal punishment and you can't avoid it via wildcards.

Read Strycova's interview from yesterday that I linked in my previous post. In there she not only criticizes the current wildcard rules, she also relates her own experience playing 25K tournaments to rebuild her ranking (and she was only banned for six months). She considered this normal and acceptable.

If a player is denied wildcards for one year and tournament organizers want to give one to him/her later, I am fine with that. This is unlikely because any player of consequence would have rebuilt his/her ranking by that time; if they haven't, interest in them would have likely waned. They would still have to rebuild their ranking in the first year.
 
#36 ·
U
мяу;76736170 said:
The banned players also lose money, contracts and match practice. It is way harder to return to the tour without match practice. It's not like losing ranking points is the purpose of the ban or, at least, the only purpose.

Also, I am very sorry to say this, but Strycova is just not audience-attractive enough to receive wild cards, doping ban or not. She wouldn't get any, even if she was off due to injury. So how is her experience relevant to the Sharapova case, which obviously influenced the rules discussion?
All the consequences of the ban are a part of the ban and punishment. An athlete who has not run a time within a year, has to run this time before they can enter the big events again. There is no 'wild card's for them. Why should tennis athletes get preferential treatment? The loss of rankings and income during the ban is all part of the punishment, which is WHY there us no protected ranking allowed for Strycova, or any player returning from a ban. All players should be treated equally in terms of Doping rules. And why do you not sympathize with Strycova losing income after her ban. You cannot be biased or have preferential treatment when it comes to applying anti-doping rules!! Everyone must have the same treatment when caught violating Doping rules. Before, during and after, in every aspect that relates to the violation, including the ranking points lost during the ban. Equal treatment for ALL. This is not a fashion parade, or popularity contest - it is Anti-doping rules and regulations which HAVE to be consistent for ALL!
 
#37 ·
U

All the consequences of the ban are a part of the ban and punishment. An athlete who has not run a time within a year, has to run this time before they can enter the big events again. There is no 'wild card's for them. Why should tennis athletes get preferential treatment? The loss of rankings and income during the ban is all part of the punishment, which is WHY there us no protected ranking allowed for Strycova, or any player returning from a ban. All players should be treated equally in terms of Doping rules. And why do you not sympathize with Strycova losing income after her ban. You cannot be biased or have preferential treatment when it comes to applying anti-doping rules!! Everyone must have the same treatment when caught violating Doping rules. Before, during and after, in every aspect that relates to the violation, including the ranking points lost during the ban. Equal treatment for ALL. This is not a fashion parade, or popularity contest - it is Anti-doping rules and regulations which HAVE to be consistent for ALL!
How come the Strycova situation is discriminatory to her? She didn't receive the wild cards not because of her doping ban, but because of being not relevant enough to get them. Period.

Not to mention that, if the rule gets approved, the players banned for a year or more will get another term of punishment since, lbr, a player that has to start from 10k tournaments cannot earn money or ranking points for the next 6 months. That's double punishment.
 
#38 ·
мяу;76736482 said:
How come the Strycova situation is discriminatory to her? She didn't receive the wild cards not because of her doping ban, but because of being not relevant enough to get them. Period.

Not to mention that, if the rule gets approved, the players banned for a year or more will get another term of punishment since, lbr, a player that has to start from 10k tournaments cannot earn money or ranking points for the next 6 months. That's double punishment.
Doping rules are Doping rules and should be applied the same to all THE SAME! Losing ranking points is PART of the ban. Just like having no qualifying times is part of a ban for a 100m runner for example (he has no qualifying times because he could not run due to being banned, and therefore has to start from scratch qualifying for bigger events - there are no 'wild card's loopholes for Dopers in other sports, why should it be allowed in tennis?!) . Everyone must be treated the same when it comes to Doping violations. Otherwise it is unjust and unfair.

Your view that Strycova should be treated differently regarding her loss of ranking points during her ban is unjust and unfair.
 
#39 ·
Could the same board member also propose getting rid of the reciprocal arrangement between certain countries at the Grand Slams? And restricting the wild cards at these events to say 4 and make them really justifiable if we can't get rid of them completely? Then perhaps more deserving players would not have to make room for the likes of Michael Mmoh, Myrtille Georges, Laura Robson, Dan Cox etc etc
 
#50 ·
What does this have to do with ITF anti-doping rules?

People care, with their own personal bias.
When I say its unfair for these US tournaments to load them with US mugs, some say it makes them monsy.
I say its not merit based and distorts what the ranking should be if they were more merit based, and could hurt a career of a young player short on money who needs that last main draw spot and earned it the last 12 months

With Sharapova, if she's good she would roll thru anything below WTA easily
If she's not good, getting WCs now could mean a lot of early losses

But they are similar in being unfair and could be very detrimental to a player who needs these main draw spots to be able to stay in the sport, although for Maria its only 1 WC maybe to 4 or 5 events before she has the ranking, and if she is good enough, she would get the ranking anyway, just a few weeks later

US giving a shitload of WCs to Gibbs, Mattek and teens, etc, thats a lot of unfair ranking points and prize money
Again you only mention US players.. clearly you have some bias against US? Secondly, would you rather have tournaments dying when there are no local sponsors or ticket sales, than for them to promote the tournaments with locals? Which would you prefer?

Lastly, comparing the pull that a bunch of local players have, with just one returning banned player with a negative reputation on top of it, is unrealistic. Especially at Grand Slams which is the only relevance your complaint has regarding the ITF (with casual fans - majority locals - supporting their locals first and foremost). ITF do not have bearing on ATP / WTA wild cards, OUTSIDE OF THE ANTI-DOPING RULES. Or are you talking about locals who were banned for doping :confused: ITF can ONLY write Wild Card rules for banned players.. much like banned players are subject to more urine tests after returning from a ban. These are SPECIFICALLY ITF ANTI-DOPING RULES. They have nothing to do with other Wild Cards which is derailing this topic and thread.

People do care about these things. It's why all the polling that's been done is against her getting WC's.
Exactly, between 60-69% in the UK and French Polls conducted!! Very high number!!
 
#40 ·
Amazing that Strycova abiding by the rules and working her way back into the top of her sport is being dragged for not being "relevant" enough to warrant a WC when she came back from her suspension.

A system works when everyone abides by the rules, written and implied. I don't think anyone could've conceived of a player being deemed "relevant" enough by her tour to use a loophole to side step the consequences of her doping. That is the only reason the ITF is going to write it into its rules and regs. It never had to be codified before now since everyone played by the rules.
 
#41 ·
How is she being dragged?

The problem is that people don't differentiate between punishment and what comes afterwards. Both players have been punished for their violation, and as soon as the punishment is up, both players go back to being who they were before, so Maria goes back to being a career grand slam winner who's responsible for selling the lions share of tickets at events while Strycova isn't even close to that.

Why would anyone expect them to get the same treatment after their ban is up? Their similarities end the minute the bans ends, at that point they're two players with two vastly different statues again.

I find it completely phony when players complain about not everyone being treated equally in this regard. Where do players ever get equal treatment in the tennis world? A player like Strycova never gets the same treatment as Serena, Maria, Venus on any day of the week because her status does not entitle her to it. This is not some horrible injustice, it's how the world works. The Strycova's of the world don't get the same perks as the top players because they quite simply haven't earned it.

You can call it unfair, but that's how the world works. Players are being treated different at tournaments every day, while many get their accommodation paid, others have to share rooms. Some get practice courts for themselves, others have to share. Some receive valuable welcome gifts, others don't even get transportation. There's no equality among players on tour, it all depends on status, so I have no idea why players are asking for it in this specific instance. It's absurd.It's not even unfair, since it's accomplishment-based. The good news is that everyone can move up into these ranks, you just have to warrant getting such treatment. Once Strycova starts winning slams, she'll get these perks as well.
 
#42 ·
You do understand that someone returning from a doping ban is not entitled to pick up where he or she left off because they got there by doping right? That is the idea behind starting over after a doping ban. The sport is saying "you were ranked X while doping. Let's see you get there without doping." Only tennis is trying to set a dubious precedent by trying to shoe horn a convicted doper back into the upper ranks of their sport because she is more "relevant".

SMH

I hope I'm not the reason the thread is closed.
 
#43 ·
You do understand that someone returning from a doping ban is not entitled to pick up where he or she left off because they got there by doping right? That is the idea behind starting over after a doping ban.
No, it's not. That is a misconception from people who want to see her get punished even further.

Once your ban is up, it's up, you're going back to being a normal player, and your opportunities depend on who you were before the ban.

It's like saying someone released from prison isn't allowed to take up a high-paying job but has to start working at McDonalds again, even though they've been an executive before their prison sentence :lol: What you are proposing is not how the law works, once someone has served their sentence they're rehabilitated in front of the law, there's no follow-up punishment.

Also, the "only tennis" thing is a load of crock as well. In most sports, doping bans are so short that they wouldn't even make a difference in the rankings in tennis. Look at what first-time offenders in stick & ball sports get...if Maria had gotten 3-6 months like she would have in other sports, her ranking wouldn't have been much affected.
 
#48 ·
People care, with their own personal bias.
When I say its unfair for these US tournaments to load them with US mugs, some say it makes them monsy.
I say its not merit based and distorts what the ranking should be if they were more merit based, and could hurt a career of a young player short on money who needs that last main draw spot and earned it the last 12 months

With Sharapova, if she's good she would roll thru anything below WTA easily
If she's not good, getting WCs now could mean a lot of early losses

But they are similar in being unfair and could be very detrimental to a player who needs these main draw spots to be able to stay in the sport, although for Maria its only 1 WC maybe to 4 or 5 events before she has the ranking, and if she is good enough, she would get the ranking anyway, just a few weeks later

US giving a shitload of WCs to Gibbs, Mattek and teens, etc, thats a lot of unfair ranking points and prize money
 
#51 ·
Once again stans are comparing apples and oranges.

What the USTA did at IW this year was disgraceful because none of the players they awarded WC's to could have made it past the first or second round. IIRC none did. Yes that was denying more worthy players a shot to play against top ranked players.

The situation of a doper is NOT comparable to that of a lower ranked player who is looking for their big break. A doper has often times reached the upper echelons of their sport as a result of doping. That is why in swimming and track and field, to name sports where there is one on one and not team competition, a doper has to requalify, be certified clean, and then, maybe, make their way back to the top.

The WTA had to rewrite it's own rules about how a player returning from a doping ban is treated to allow this farce to even take place. It seems as if supporters of this player getting treated completely different from others in her sport have to twist themselves into pretzels to justify it. Public opinion is against this. Her peers are against this. No one is "biased" or "hating". Rules are rules.

I wonder why there hasn't been any polling of the US public? If there has I haven't seen it.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top