PDA

View Full Version : THE ITF Doping Committee: TOO HARSH?


TeamUSA#1
Dec 21st, 2005, 03:26 PM
Just read the ITF's document on Puerto's 8 year band. What a bunch of fucking shit...... They say that they agree that Puerto did not intentionally injest the doping agent, that the doping agent is not known for sure to imporve performance, and that the amounts found in his sample were not enough to enhance his FO performance, but they are giving him the 8 year ban anyways. If had intentionally injested a doping agent in an effort to improve his performance I would be for a lifetime ban, but come on. This is stupid. Read the article here:

http://www.itftennis.com/abouttheit...le.asp?id=16082


I, as a tennis fan, do not want this group runing doping for the WTA and the ATP....

this is the same group that banned poor Alex B. for his asthma inhaler for 9 months...... :eek: :sad: :( :rolleyes:

something needs to be done about this!

vogus
Dec 21st, 2005, 03:30 PM
it's stupid that almost no players are ever caught or penalized for doping, but when one is, he is kicked out of the sport. I think he penalties should be a six month ban followed by a two year ban for 2nd offense. Those are both pretty severe.

If there's good evidence Puerta's doping was unintentional, i would think a year ban would be fitting to the crime. To end his career on unintentional use is just not right. He's taking the punch for everyone else.

vogus
Dec 21st, 2005, 03:33 PM
this is the same group that banned poor Alex B. for his asthma inhaler for 9 months......


don't agree, these inhalers can be used as steroids by everybody, not only those with asthma. It was totally justified for Bogomolov to receive a penalty, although 9 months was maybe a bit long.

Klurt
Dec 21st, 2005, 03:38 PM
Just read the ITF's document on Puerto's 8 year band. What a bunch of fucking shit...... They say that they agree that Puerto did not intentionally injest the doping agent, that the doping agent is not known for sure to imporve performance, and that the amounts found in his sample were not enough to enhance his FO performance, but they are giving him the 8 year ban anyways. If had intentionally injested a doping agent in an effort to improve his performance I would be for a lifetime ban, but come on. This is stupid. Read the article here:

http://www.itftennis.com/abouttheit...le.asp?id=16082


I, as a tennis fan, do not want this group runing doping for the WTA and the ATP....

this is the same group that banned poor Alex B. for his asthma inhaler for 9 months...... :eek: :sad: :( :rolleyes:

something needs to be done about this!
I just read it too... and yes this all seems very harsh indeed. 8 years!! But I guess they just followed the strict rules of the "Code". :rolleyes:

TeamUSA#1
Dec 21st, 2005, 03:39 PM
don't agree, these inhalers can be used as steroids by everybody, not only those with asthma. It was totally justified for Bogomolov to receive a penalty, although 9 months was maybe a bit long.


But he had a doctor's prescip and report and it had been on file witht ITF, it had just expired, so the ITF know that he had asthma and were just being overly tough.

TeamUSA#1
Dec 21st, 2005, 03:41 PM
it's stupid that almost no players are ever caught or penalized for doping, but when one is, he is kicked out of the sport. I think he penalties should be a six month ban followed by a two year ban for 2nd offense. Those are both pretty severe.

If there's good evidence Puerta's doping was unintentional, i would think a year ban would be fitting to the crime. To end his career on unintentional use is just not right. He's taking the punch for everyone else.



That's the thing though.... they addmit that the punishiment is way harsh, but it is following the code, and not worried about the proportionality to the "offenese" :rolleyes: I would sue their asses off....

Spunky83
Dec 21st, 2005, 04:07 PM
Although I am totally against doping in sports, I´d really like to see what the ITF would do if it´s one of the real tennis stars...

Savior
Dec 21st, 2005, 04:12 PM
it's stupid that almost no players are ever caught or penalized for doping, but when one is, he is kicked out of the sport.


Well, one could argue that the stiff penalties (like effectively being kicked out of the sport for breaking the rules) are working. Proof? Like you said, almost no players are ever caught. Fear of stiff penalties usually keep people in line and prevent cheating. And, I doubt the penalty for Puerta would have been as severe if he hadn't already been busted for prohibited substances once before. It's not like this is a first time offense in this case.

babolat-blast
Dec 21st, 2005, 04:13 PM
It's a bit harsh, but it's already the second time they catch him. So, no excuse then for me. One punishment should be enough I think. If they do it again, well... It's the only way to get clean players.

Savior
Dec 21st, 2005, 04:17 PM
Also, it seems like this question is a prelude to complaining about whatever sentence or decision is made in regard to Karatantcheva's recent situation. In her case, given it's a first offense, I doubt she'll get eight years. Lourdes Dominguez Lino was busted for coke and she only got 2 years (or so.) But, if Karatantcheva was really (actually, not just reported by the suspicion-becomes-fact L'Equipe) caught with nandrolone - an out and out, no-getting-around-it STEROID - she can't go with the "it was medication" defense.

Wannabeknowitall
Dec 21st, 2005, 04:21 PM
We need to bring the ITF Doping Committee to America. I estimate there wouldn't be a drug problem in America after 3 years. Most of the people would be in jail but the boring I mean good citizens would be free.

croat123
Dec 21st, 2005, 04:58 PM
so it's just a coincidence that he's been caught on doping twice? once could be a mistake, but it's highly unlikely they'd make the same mistake twice

Wojtek
Dec 21st, 2005, 05:03 PM
He cheated twice. Maybe once it was mistake. In other sports even if it's mistake the second ban is life time so he is lucky

TheBoiledEgg
Dec 21st, 2005, 05:06 PM
punishment for Puerta is exactly what he deserves,
2nd time he got caught, he cant get away this time.


** the WTA hasnt signed upto the WADA anti-doping with the ITF so it wont be the same **

AlexB
Dec 21st, 2005, 05:16 PM
someone should sue these drug gestapo groups and put them out of their misery...i for one dont care who is doping or nor, in other words its should be a persons right to ingest whatever they want whenever...in other words doping is not so bad as its made out...if you WILLINGLY want to risk your life taking drugs, everyone should respect that....i also dont see it as cheating...and i also dont believe the deterent claim cause the people who know what they are doing are decades ahead of the testers...not testing positive doesnt mean you are clean it means you can fool the tests...look at how far ahead BALCO was in relation to the testers...they had stuff the testers never even dreamed of....doping has been going on as long as there has been competition and evidence has surfaced that olympians at the turn of the century were doping as well...and i blame the atp and wta for not showing any courage and letting the drug fools run their tours and banning the players for no good reason (yes, doping is not a good reason to get banned) if you play the match fairly using legal raquets/clothing etc and you win, then that result should be final...and to those who use the cheating argument, then i propose this: you should make it mandatory fof the doper to admit what he/she took and give the opponent an option to match or beat that drug, or do nothing at all. and no, i also dont buy the protect the athlete from himself justification either, the tours should not be a babysitter, not the drug test clowns..

TeamUSA#1
Dec 21st, 2005, 05:27 PM
He cheated twice. Maybe once it was mistake. In other sports even if it's mistake the second ban is life time so he is lucky


The first time he was busted for an asthma inhaler... come on people.... it's not like he is in the locker room with a needle full of steriods........ Did you guys even read the Tribunal's report..... they basically admit that this was unintentional error by Puerta, and that what was in his system was not even close to being performance enhancing, but he still gets the 8 year ban.... whatever.....


I think their decision seriously damages their credibility

LH2HBH
Dec 21st, 2005, 05:33 PM
He got what he deserved, it was high time they sent a message to the field. The ITF just better put their money where their mouths are and do the same to a popular star who gets caught the same.

Capriatifan1
Dec 21st, 2005, 05:41 PM
He got what he deserved, it was high time they sent a message to the field. The ITF just better put their money where their mouths are and do the same to a popular star who gets caught the same.

I agree, rules are rules and these cheaters should be banned for life. If you get caught the first time you desrve a second chance, if you get caught again then you should be banned for life.

TeamUSA#1
Dec 21st, 2005, 05:41 PM
The code is so ridiculous... you cant even take over the counter cold medication without violating the rules. No one is getting busted for steriods, or heavy shit... it is all bougs bull shit.... asthma drugs ( I hava asthma, and it is no joke.. you need your inhaler to survive), a lower version of ephedrine (like having 2 cups of coffee.... yep that is gonna make you win a match)


I hate cheaters, and am totally against steriods, true doping agents.. but come on, this is petty bull shit...

harloo
Dec 21st, 2005, 05:42 PM
I always wondered about Puerta because his style of play exerted so much energy. The possibility of doping was in the back in my mind when it came to him, I also have my suspensions of Rafeal Nadal.;)

TeamUSA#1
Dec 21st, 2005, 05:43 PM
I agree, rules are rules and these cheaters should be banned for life. If you get caught the first time you desrve a second chance, if you get caught again then you should be banned for life.


But he didn't cheat. that's the thing....... so if a rule is set up and it is a stupid rule, and actually does harm instead of good, we should just blindly accept it??? NO WAY

LH2HBH
Dec 21st, 2005, 06:27 PM
:fiery: OK EVERYBODY who gets caught has some lame excuse!!! It has to end somewhere!!!! And that somewhere is here, with Puerta

BUBI
Dec 21st, 2005, 06:36 PM
But he didn't cheat.
You don't know that. Dopers have an explanation for everything... don't be so naive.

AkademiQ
Dec 21st, 2005, 07:49 PM
I feel sorry for Puerta and feel the penalty was too strong. Especially if they themselves admit he didn't intend to cheat. There should be some distinctions made as to intent and mistakes that can happen. 8 years for something not inteded to get over on someone is just horrible to me.

TeamUSA#1
Dec 21st, 2005, 07:55 PM
I feel sorry for Puerta and feel the penalty was too strong. Especially if they themselves admit he didn't intend to cheat. There should be some distinctions made as to intent and mistakes that can happen. 8 years for something not inteded to get over on someone is just horrible to me.


FINALLY!!! :worship: someone who makes sense and is rational

TeamUSA#1
Dec 21st, 2005, 07:56 PM
You don't know that. Dopers have an explanation for everything... don't be so naive.


It's not being niave... the tribunal themselves said he did not cheat.... read the tribunal report before rushing to judgement...

A'DAM
Dec 21st, 2005, 07:59 PM
Im wondering how much will Sesil Karatancheva get :awww:

Blonde_Ambition7
Dec 21st, 2005, 08:16 PM
8 is ridiculous if you ask me. 8 years and a lifetime might as well be the same thing. He's already 27 or something like that.

matthias
Dec 21st, 2005, 09:30 PM
it is the rule if you get cuaght once you get banned 6 month or 2 years
and if you get cuaght a second time then you get a lifetime ban
and 8years is a lifetime ban for Puerta now
so he didn´t learned his lesson, so he get what he deserve

Rexman
Dec 21st, 2005, 09:36 PM
The thing with Puerta is, as I understand it, the original "Drug" he was caught for a couple years ago is now perfectly legal.

hingis-seles
Dec 21st, 2005, 09:40 PM
That's a bit harsh considering it's unintentional. His career is over.

Andrew..
Dec 21st, 2005, 09:50 PM
I agree with vogus for the most part on this.

But if you're stupid enough to do it and get caught again, then whatever happens to you should happen.

LH2HBH
Dec 21st, 2005, 09:57 PM
Every doper pleads ignorance. There needs to be some onus on the player to make sure they are clean.

BUBI
Dec 21st, 2005, 10:05 PM
... the tribunal themselves said he did not cheat....
No, they didn't say that.

Ryan
Dec 21st, 2005, 10:06 PM
This is his second offence, with another crappy alibi. 8 years=good.

TeamUSA#1
Dec 21st, 2005, 11:06 PM
No, they didn't say that.
Yes they did! They said that the completely agree that the substance was UNINTENTIONALLY ingested, and that the amounts in the sample were insignificant. That is why the 8 year ban is so unbelievable and stupid...

TeamUSA#1
Dec 21st, 2005, 11:11 PM
I just have to laugh at the number of posters here who are so quick to pass judgement and say that "this is his 2nd offense" so he should be imprisoned for life. They haven't even read the 20 some page tribunal report nor do they even realise that his first offense was for a type of asthma inhaler that is no longer a banned substance.

The ITF are using Puerta to make a statement... kinda scary if you ask me...

jrm
Dec 21st, 2005, 11:17 PM
Canas is out for two years or still no rulling on his case?

Now he was a fine example: huffing, puffing, grimising all the time and yet running down (and returning) all the balls, playing long matches and no one ever suspected?

hwanmig
Dec 22nd, 2005, 06:27 AM
ITF ARE A BUNCH OF IDIOTS. ESPECIALLY THE FFT -I HATE THEM- WHO AS OF NOW IS CELEBRATING THE END OF PUERTA'S CAREER. THEY SAY IT WAS UNINTENTIONAL BUT THEN GIVES HIM AN 8 YEAR BAN. ITF IS ACTING LIKE MR TOUGH GUY BUT ACTUALLY THEY LOOK MORE LIKE A GROUP OF PEOPLE WITH NO AMOUNT OF INTELLIGENCE LEFT.

And all those people here who is actually happy with this. Please LOOK at yourselves and think for a moment if you’re the type of people who should cast the stones when many of you here are smoking pot and addicted to crack(Go to non-tennis forum and see who wins the should marijuana be legalized poll). Talk about double standards:rolleyes:
_____________________

gentenaire
Dec 22nd, 2005, 06:49 AM
But he had a doctor's prescip and report and it had been on file witht ITF, it had just expired, so the ITF know that he had asthma and were just being overly tough.

You'd be surprised how many top athletes claim to have 'asthma' ;)

vutt
Dec 22nd, 2005, 06:54 AM
You'd be surprised how many top athletes claim to have 'asthma' ;)

lil off topic, but it appears that almost entire Norwegian cross-country skiing team appears to be astmatic. At least that's what team doctors are saying and all is therefore perfectly legal :angel:

VeeDaQueen
Dec 22nd, 2005, 07:26 AM
I know this might be off subject, but who will have the title "Roland Garros 2005 Runner-Up"? Nobody, I guess? :confused:

BUBI
Dec 22nd, 2005, 11:59 AM
Yes they did! They said that the completely agree that the substance was UNINTENTIONALLY ingested, and that the amounts in the sample were insignificant. That is why the 8 year ban is so unbelievable and stupid...
So you didn't read the whole text like you asked me to do?

Here's the link:

http://www.itftennis.com/shared/medialibrary/pdf/original/IO_18181_original.PDF

BUBI
Dec 22nd, 2005, 12:01 PM
You'd be surprised how many top athletes claim to have 'asthma' ;)
true :worship:

AsGoodAsNew
Dec 22nd, 2005, 12:29 PM
Having now read the text, the decision is truly bizarre.

Puerta's wife takes her medication in the form of drops and he could easily have been contaminated - tribunal says this themselves. It was unintentional. it had no performance enhacing effects. He didn't mean to do it so there was no intent.

They say they feel very sorry for him and the harshness of the ban - then why do it?

They hope it will be appealed by CAS. Then again why be so harsh? if it is appealed and the appeal wins, they just look stupid.

It is truly the most extraordinary thing. Imagine being found not guilty of murder but sentenced to life anyway!

This decision is not dealing with the serious problem of deliberate doping, it is making a mockery out of the whole thing, and any other tribunals will be even more wary, and REAL dopers will get away with it. Puerta should have got a warning with further obligatory testing. That would be afar more effective way of dealing with it.

Experimentee
Dec 22nd, 2005, 12:44 PM
Doping is a strict liability offence, so it doesnt matter that he didnt have the intention to enhance his performance.
They found that he was negligent, and that is enough to cop the penalty. They had to give him a harsh penalty as it was his 2nd offence. It was really Puerta's fault for being so careless, even though he knew he had already doped once and faced a very harsh penalty if caught again.

JennyS
Dec 22nd, 2005, 01:33 PM
If Mariano took something that doesn't help performance then they are idiots for punishing him for it! Next they're going to ban people for taking Flinstones Vitamins!

10nisfanofruz
Dec 22nd, 2005, 01:39 PM
Doping is a strict liability offence, so it doesnt matter that he didnt have the intention to enhance his performance.
They found that he was negligent, and that is enough to cop the penalty.

I still think that it is not fair though. The punishment he gets is too harsh even though it was his 2nd offence. :shrug:

BUBI
Dec 22nd, 2005, 06:15 PM
Having now read the text, the decision is truly bizarre.

Puerta's wife takes her medication in the form of drops and he could easily have been contaminated - tribunal says this themselves. It was unintentional. it had no performance enhacing effects. He didn't mean to do it so there was no intent.

They say they feel very sorry for him and the harshness of the ban - then why do it?

They hope it will be appealed by CAS. Then again why be so harsh? if it is appealed and the appeal wins, they just look stupid.

It is truly the most extraordinary thing. Imagine being found not guilty of murder but sentenced to life anyway!

This decision is not dealing with the serious problem of deliberate doping, it is making a mockery out of the whole thing, and any other tribunals will be even more wary, and REAL dopers will get away with it. Puerta should have got a warning with further obligatory testing. That would be afar more effective way of dealing with it.
It's necessary to take a strong stand agaist doping.

They thought Puerta's story was not reliable (see parts 30-32). They thought it was possible (but not likely) that he doped himself intentionally (part 34). After he was told about the positive test, he had the B sample examined. He didn't stop competing although he was encouraged to do so (parts 46, 107). He only came up with the story about taking his wife's medication 2,5 months after he was informed about the positive etilefrine test (parts 40-45). This was his second offence. These are the reasons for harsh punishment. I don't think it was too harsh. To give just a warning would have been ridiculous.

AsGoodAsNew
Dec 22nd, 2005, 06:55 PM
They thought Puerta's story was not reliable (see parts 30-32). They thought it was possible (but not likely) that he doped himself intentionally (part 34). After he was told about the positive test, he had the B sample examined. He didn't stop competing although he was encouraged to do so (parts 46, 107). He came up with the story about taking his wife's medication only 2,5 months after he was informed about the positive etilefrine test (parts 40-45). This was his second offence. These are the reasons for harsh punishment. I don't think it was too harsh. To give just a warning would have been ridiculous.
They could have warned him and kept monitoring him - obligatory. Thie way they have gone can be appealed against, he can win, and it's another 'mistake'. And every time another player is 'caught' they claim the same excuses.

If someone is accused of shoplifting, you have to prove they put the goods in their basket, not some vague 'it may have fallen in'. I hate doping, but we are going to disagree, I think Puerta has been scapegoated - and you don't hear that too often from the English about the Argies!

BUBI
Dec 22nd, 2005, 07:12 PM
They could have warned him and kept monitoring him - obligatory. Thie way they have gone can be appealed against, he can win, and it's another 'mistake'. And every time another player is 'caught' they claim the same excuses.

If someone is accused of shoplifting, you have to prove they put the goods in their basket, not some vague 'it may have fallen in'. I hate doping, but we are going to disagree, I think Puerta has been scapegoated - and you don't hear that too often from the English about the Argies!
Still pissed about "The God's hand"? I know there was a war too, but of course that's less important :lol:

Seriously, there is a reason why etilefrine is forbidden and when it's found on players sample, they don't need more evidence. The player was not cooperative and could not prove his innocence.

gentenaire
Dec 22nd, 2005, 08:17 PM
Having now read the text, the decision is truly bizarre.

Puerta's wife takes her medication in the form of drops and he could easily have been contaminated - tribunal says this themselves. It was unintentional. it had no performance enhacing effects. He didn't mean to do it so there was no intent.

They didn't buy the whole glass story, especiallly not because they only came up with aftera few months, yet somehow remembered all the details. Also, if you know your wife is taking this medicine, you've always taken precautions so that you couldn't be contaminated with it (like they said in their hearing) and then, you get a positive test resultfor that exact substance, wouldn't your wife's medicine be the first thing you'd think of? That's not something you think about after only a few months. I wouldn't believe their version of the story either.


They do believe he may have been contaminated (on purpose or not) by his wife's medication, but not by using her glass. They think he must have taken it two days earlier....before the semifinal. It had no performing enhancing effects in the final because by that time the dosis was too low, this doesn't mean it didn't have an enhancing effect earlier.

So that fact is: he had a banned substance in his system and failed to come up with a credible explanation as to how it got there.

AsGoodAsNew
Dec 23rd, 2005, 04:13 AM
They didn't buy the whole glass story, especiallly not because they only came up with aftera few months, yet somehow remembered all the details. Also, if you know your wife is taking this medicine, you've always taken precautions so that you couldn't be contaminated with it (like they said in their hearing) and then, you get a positive test resultfor that exact substance, wouldn't your wife's medicine be the first thing you'd think of? That's not something you think about after only a few months. I wouldn't believe their version of the story either.


They do believe he may have been contaminated (on purpose or not) by his wife's medication, but not by using her glass. They think he must have taken it two days earlier....before the semifinal. It had no performing enhancing effects in the final because by that time the dosis was too low, this doesn't mean it didn't have an enhancing effect earlier.

So that fact is: he had a banned substance in his system and failed to come up with a credible explanation as to how it got there.
You have a very persuasive argument. I just wish the Tribunal's written report wasn't so wooly because the door is wide open for an appeal.