Why are players against out of comp. drug testing? - TennisForum.com

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 18 (permalink) Old Jul 15th, 2002, 03:29 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 349
                     
Why are players against out of comp. drug testing?

I'd be interested to know if anyone had any thoughts on the issue as to why players would be (are?) against out of competition drug testing?

Forgetting which players have spoken out about it - pretend they don't have names guys lol - coz this isn't an attack on any players personally... not from me anyway

In my opinion, it has the *potential* to cast a bit of a black mark on tennis
Rachel is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 18 (permalink) Old Jul 15th, 2002, 03:39 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,671
                     
Reason 1) 'Out of competition' is one thing. A stranger showing up at your door is something else. The same guy has been arrested in two different countries trying to get to Serena. Think she's keen to have unannounced visits at home?

Reason 2) The tests aren't always correct. There's another thread around here with examples.

Reason 3) 'Recreational' drugs vs 'Performance enhancing' drugs. THe players who smoke a bowl at night aren't interested in being discovered. Did cocaine and Marijuana help McEnroe's game? Probably not. But I doubt at the time he'd have favored drug testing.

If the companies signing $50 million endorsement contracts want drug testing, there will be testing. If they don't care, the WTA will continue as they have.

Proud to be an American
Not blind. Not uninformed. We are party to atrocities. But the response of the world after 9/11 is worth noting. Even our most dire enemies offered aid. We should all be so lucky.
Volcana is offline  
post #3 of 18 (permalink) Old Jul 15th, 2002, 03:44 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,115
                     
Actually there are no good excuses. Just smoke and mirrors.
treufreund is offline  
post #4 of 18 (permalink) Old Jul 15th, 2002, 06:30 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 349
                     
Quote:
Reason 1) 'Out of competition' is one thing. A stranger showing up at your door is something else. The same guy has been arrested in two different countries trying to get to Serena. Think she's keen to have unannounced visits at home?
The following is from Drug Testing : The Facts
Quote:
...For "out of competition" testing athletes are normally notified by telephone that they will have to have a drug test done within the next 24 hours. ASDA can, however, conduct some "no notice - out of competition testing" if an International Sporting Federation requests "Out of competition" tests are normally carried out at training sessions.
Quote:
Reason 2) The tests aren't always correct. There's another thread around here with examples.
I couldn't find that thread, yeah I'm blind , so i won't comment...

Rachel is offline  
post #5 of 18 (permalink) Old Jul 15th, 2002, 06:37 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 349
                     
This may have already been posted ... but anyway Venus, Capriati unhappy about random drug tests - MSNBC
Rachel is offline  
post #6 of 18 (permalink) Old Jul 15th, 2002, 07:29 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 274
                     
Quote:
Originally posted by Volcana
Reason 1) 'Out of competition' is one thing. A stranger showing up at your door is something else. The same guy has been arrested in two different countries trying to get to Serena. Think she's keen to have unannounced visits at home?

Reason 2) The tests aren't always correct. There's another thread around here with examples.

Reason 3) 'Recreational' drugs vs 'Performance enhancing' drugs. THe players who smoke a bowl at night aren't interested in being discovered. Did cocaine and Marijuana help McEnroe's game? Probably not. But I doubt at the time he'd have favored drug testing.

If the companies signing $50 million endorsement contracts want drug testing, there will be testing. If they don't care, the WTA will continue as they have.
Guys from WADA are no strangers and the tests are 99,999% correct. In Mongolia they can screw those up. Companies who have signed $50 million endorsement contracts don't want any testing done cause there's always the risk that sameone fails the test and that would not be a good thing for them.
CappyMania is offline  
post #7 of 18 (permalink) Old Jul 15th, 2002, 09:21 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 238
 
Venus never said she was against the testing. Please read her press comference. She was in favor of testing, but she would not let anyone in her house that she did not know. She said people had tried to get in her house before, saying they were drug testers, which was not true. That article took what she said out of context.
Roseie is offline  
post #8 of 18 (permalink) Old Jul 15th, 2002, 09:51 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,671
                     
There's the link to the other thread about perf. enh'rs in tennis.

Women's tennis 'riddled' with drugs

'As for 99% accurate', here's how it feels to be in 1%.

***

Modahl 'robbed of her best years'
Vivek Chaudhary, sports correspondent
Thursday July 26, 2001
The Guardian

The athlete Diane Modahl was unfairly treated and robbed of a chance of winning a gold medal when she was banned from athletics by the sports governing body for allegedly being involved in a drugs scandal, the court of appeal heard yesterday.

Modahl, 35, was also robbed of the best years of her sporting life, the three judges were told at the start of her appeal against a high court ruling last year that she was not entitled to £1m compensation for the way she was treated by the British Athletics Federation (BAF).

Anthony Julius, representing Modahl, said that the high court was wrong to rule against her last year and failed to recognise that some mem bers of the BAF's disciplinary committee were biased against her case.

Modahl hit the headlines after testing positive for drugs prior to the 1994 Commonwealth Games and was subsequently banned for four years by the BAF. The court was told yesterday that even though an independent appeal panel lifted the ban in July 1995 and Modahl was cleared of drug taking, she never had the chance to recover lost earnings or legal costs.

Mr Julius said: "The court's reluctance to intervene in cases involving sporting bodies must be overcome in cases such as the claimant's which is in truth a livelihood case."

The court was told that Modahl and her husband had sold their house to pay for the legal costs of the case and that she had never received an apology from the BAF, which went into liquidation as a result of challenging her legal case. The organisation has been superseded by UK Athletics, the governing body for athletics in the country.

Mr Julius said that the high court should have intervened in Modahl's case because her livelihood had been affected by the BAF's decision and because it had been independently proved that she was innocent of the drugs allegations.

Modahl, who was the 1990 Commonwealth Games 800m champion, is claiming £480,000 spent on legal fees and medical advice plus a similar figure in damages over the way her case was handled by the BAF.

Mr Julius also told the court that the BAF's decision to ban Modahl prevented her from winning the gold medal at the Commonwealth Games in Canada in 1994, for which she was favourite and that this deprived her of valuable income.

Modahl said in a statement that she was considering running next year at the Commonwealth Games.

The case continues.

Proud to be an American
Not blind. Not uninformed. We are party to atrocities. But the response of the world after 9/11 is worth noting. Even our most dire enemies offered aid. We should all be so lucky.
Volcana is offline  
post #9 of 18 (permalink) Old Jul 15th, 2002, 10:32 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Posts: 298
                     
The only reason to be against out of competition drug testing is that you're doing something you wouldn't want to find out. Since any drug rumours destroy the sport, and the top players (who are the ones who should be tested) earn plenty of millions as compensation for this lack of privacy, I see no other reason.

Now, unnoticed drug tests is a different thing. Of course, anyone would be unhappy if the testers just showed up on your door to perform a test. However, a couple of hour's notice should be enough. If the player doesn't make herself available during that time, she doesn't want to be tested, thus she's got something to hide.

Working against cheat control means you're cheating, there is no other reason.

[And I agree that that Venus/Jennifer articles were misinterpreted. It wasn't the tests they were against, it was the surprise visits..s]
smygelfh is offline  
post #10 of 18 (permalink) Old Jul 15th, 2002, 10:34 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Posts: 298
                     
In response to 'erronous' drug busts. Once you get caught, there's two things to do. Admit it and take your punishment, or deny it and try to get away with every means possible.

I'm not saying erronous drug tests exist, but believe the vast majority of them are attempts do get away from the ahtlete, not an erronous test.
smygelfh is offline  
post #11 of 18 (permalink) Old Jul 15th, 2002, 10:41 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 275
   
i'd take that 1% risk, if it means wiping out somebody who is cheating. i can't believe that some people are against it.

the girls (jennifer and venus) in hindsight i believe shouldve come out more strongly in support of out of competition testing. it wouldve done much more for the image of the sport.
juggler is offline  
post #12 of 18 (permalink) Old Jul 15th, 2002, 11:08 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 274
                     
Quote:
Originally posted by Volcana
There's the link to the other thread about perf. enh'rs in tennis.

Women's tennis 'riddled' with drugs

'As for 99% accurate', here's how it feels to be in 1%.

***

Modahl 'robbed of her best years'
Vivek Chaudhary, sports correspondent
Thursday July 26, 2001
The Guardian

The athlete Diane Modahl was unfairly treated and robbed of a chance of winning a gold medal when she was banned from athletics by the sports governing body for allegedly being involved in a drugs scandal, the court of appeal heard yesterday.

Modahl, 35, was also robbed of the best years of her sporting life, the three judges were told at the start of her appeal against a high court ruling last year that she was not entitled to £1m compensation for the way she was treated by the British Athletics Federation (BAF).

Anthony Julius, representing Modahl, said that the high court was wrong to rule against her last year and failed to recognise that some mem bers of the BAF's disciplinary committee were biased against her case.

Modahl hit the headlines after testing positive for drugs prior to the 1994 Commonwealth Games and was subsequently banned for four years by the BAF. The court was told yesterday that even though an independent appeal panel lifted the ban in July 1995 and Modahl was cleared of drug taking, she never had the chance to recover lost earnings or legal costs.

Mr Julius said: "The court's reluctance to intervene in cases involving sporting bodies must be overcome in cases such as the claimant's which is in truth a livelihood case."

The court was told that Modahl and her husband had sold their house to pay for the legal costs of the case and that she had never received an apology from the BAF, which went into liquidation as a result of challenging her legal case. The organisation has been superseded by UK Athletics, the governing body for athletics in the country.

Mr Julius said that the high court should have intervened in Modahl's case because her livelihood had been affected by the BAF's decision and because it had been independently proved that she was innocent of the drugs allegations.

Modahl, who was the 1990 Commonwealth Games 800m champion, is claiming £480,000 spent on legal fees and medical advice plus a similar figure in damages over the way her case was handled by the BAF.

Mr Julius also told the court that the BAF's decision to ban Modahl prevented her from winning the gold medal at the Commonwealth Games in Canada in 1994, for which she was favourite and that this deprived her of valuable income.

Modahl said in a statement that she was considering running next year at the Commonwealth Games.

The case continues.

Modahl? The times she was running before failing the drug test. Oh please! There were new British athletes who just failed drug test (Janine Whitlock and some other guy), let's see if their lawyers will get them into that small 1%. Let's see if they have enough money to get Johnny Cochran.
CappyMania is offline  
post #13 of 18 (permalink) Old Jul 15th, 2002, 11:40 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 492
                     
I agree with Volcana and I also agree with Andre ("I didn't know there were so many idiots out there!")
I can only add that it is not a surprise test if someone calls in advance and says "I will be coming!" Nobody of consequence has ever (or should ever have ) agreed to a surprise test it is the ultimate invasion of privacy!
It is not going to happen. But something else very qualified might be called a "surprise test"!
However I know that none of this matters. What many of you are dying to hear is that Venus and Serena are taking drugs. Many of you need to belittle them and diminish their achievements. It ain't going to happen!
Weevee is offline  
post #14 of 18 (permalink) Old Jul 15th, 2002, 12:03 PM
Team WTAworld
Senior Member
 
Williams Rulez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Venus!
Posts: 20,610
                     
Well, I believe that some medications are banned because they contain some banned substances. Like last summer, Venus couldn't take any cold medicine because it was banned! So I think players might be worried that medication they consume may get them into trouble.

VENUS
Serena
Lindsay Jelena Maria

Mary : Monica : Svetlana : Sania : Jennifer : Amelie
Roddick : Grosjean : David : Djokovic
Williams Rulez is offline  
post #15 of 18 (permalink) Old Jul 15th, 2002, 12:20 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,671
                     
smygelfh writes:

Quote:
The only reason to be against out of competition drug testing is that you're doing something you wouldn't want to find out.
Quote:
Working against cheat control means you're cheating, there is no other reason.
If I'm against giving the governement the right to invade my home without a warrant, does that mean I have something to hide?

If I want my mail unopen when I recieve it, does it mean I have something to hide?

If I don't trust the drug testers, does that mean I have something to hide?

Proud to be an American
Not blind. Not uninformed. We are party to atrocities. But the response of the world after 9/11 is worth noting. Even our most dire enemies offered aid. We should all be so lucky.
Volcana is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome