PDA

View Full Version : Authorities are getting tough in tennis, Puerta gets 8 year ban, watch out Sesil!!!


The Kaz
Dec 21st, 2005, 10:38 PM
Article from Yahoo AUS & NZ

Tennis player Mariano Puerta banned eight years for second doping offense

By CHRIS LEHOURITES, AP Sports Writer
December 21, 2005

AP - Dec 21, 10:42 am EST
More Photos



LONDON (AP) -- Mariano Puerta was a long shot when he reached the French Open final in June. Now, the Argentine is facing the longest doping ban in tennis history.

The 27-year-old Puerta was banned for eight years Wednesday for his second doping offense, effectively ending his career. He is the first tennis player to receive a ban of more than two years.

"I find it extraordinary that it could ever be thought satisfactory that a person's livelihood can be terminated in circumstances such as these," Puerta said in a statement.

Puerta tested positive for the cardiac stimulant etilefrine after losing to Rafael Nadal in the French Open final on June 5.

The three-man International Tennis Federation tribunal said the drug apparently came from effortil, a medication Puerta's wife takes for hypertension.

"We accept on the balance of probabilities that the player's contamination with effortil was inadvertent," said the ITF tribunal, which met Dec. 6-7. "The amount of etilefrine in his body was too small to have any effect on his performance."

The ITF said Puerta will be disqualified from the French Open and his results nullified, but he will keep his place in the record books as a finalist.

Puerta was banned for nine months in 2003 for using clenbuterol, an asthma medication with some steroid-like properties, and faced a possible lifetime ban for a second infraction. But an ITF tribunal said he was given a lighter penalty because the positive result in Paris was inadvertent.

Puerta did not dispute the drug was in his body, and the ITF accepted his plea of "no significant fault or negligence."

The eight-year ban is retroactive to June 5. Puerta has three weeks to appeal, but said he would not make a decision before the end of the year. The ITF panel said it expected the case to go to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

The ITF said it was unclear how and when Puerta ingested the drug, but "we cannot see how it need have occurred at all if the player had exercised the utmost caution."

"My position has always been that I did not deliberately or knowingly ingest any prohibited substance," Puerta said. "The tribunal accept that the substance ... entered my system entirely inadvertently and without my knowledge as a result of accidental contamination by an over-the-counter medicine which my wife was taking."

Besides forfeiting his prize money from the French Open, Puerta will give up his titles, prize money and ranking points won after Roland Garros. He is currently ranked No. 12 on the ATP Tour.

Since the French Open, Puerta has earned about $330,000 in prize money.


AP - Dec 21, 9:57 am EST
More Photos


The ITF's sanction was welcomed by World Anti-Doping Agency chief Dick Pound.

"You're dealing with somebody who's tested positive twice in less than two years and clearly doesn't think the rules apply to him," Pound said.

Puerta, who joined the ATP Tour in June 1997, won his third career title in April at the Grand Prix Hassan II in Casablanca, Morocco. He also won in Palermo, Italy, in 1998, and Bogota, Colombia, in 2000.

"It's awful news because Puerta is a nice guy," Argentine Tennis Association president Enrique Morea said. "They have ruined his career."

Puerta is one of six Argentine players caught up in doping cases in recent years. Guillermo Coria, Juan Ignacio Chela and Guillermo Canas served doping suspensions, and Martin Rodriguez received a warning for a positive caffeine test.

The other, doubles specialist Mariano Hood, has acknowledged testing positive for a banned drug at the French Open.

Bulgarian teenager Sesil Karatantcheva tested positive for the steroid nandrolone after losing in the quarterfinals at the French Open, the French sports daily L'Equipe reported Tuesday.

Watch out Sesil, if you did take drugs...DON'T DO IT A SECOND TIME!!!

@m@nd@
Dec 21st, 2005, 10:41 PM
i dont get it. y would players take drugs? they know they'll get caught dont they :shrug:

venus_rulez
Dec 21st, 2005, 10:44 PM
8 years for something they know he didn't do intentionally and it wasn't negligence?! That seems WAY too harsh. I understand they are tryin to send a message, but come on this is hardly an open and shut case.

The Kaz
Dec 21st, 2005, 10:50 PM
8 years for something they know he didn't do intentionally and it wasn't negligence?! That seems WAY too harsh. I understand they are tryin to send a message, but come on this is hardly an open and shut case.

But Puerta was caught with drug twices in 2 years - that either i bit sus' or Puerta is simply an idiot :rolleyes:

venus_rulez
Dec 21st, 2005, 10:55 PM
But Puerta was caught with drug twices in 2 years - that either i bit sus' or Puerta is simply an idiot :rolleyes:


Sure it's suspicious and he probably is an idiot for not being more careful, but they believe that this second time is purely an accident and he in no way knowingly took the substance or was negligible and now they are effectively ending his acreer? I hope they can sleep at night.

The Kaz
Dec 21st, 2005, 10:58 PM
He's a professional athlete remember they are scrupulus about what they ingest. Yes is was harsh, a fairer ban would have been 2-3 years thus not ending his career but still i respect WADA, ITF and Dick Pound's decision.

Tennace
Dec 21st, 2005, 11:00 PM
I thought it was 2 years. 8 YEARS? Thats way too much

hotandspicey
Dec 21st, 2005, 11:04 PM
That sentencing is harsh, after conceding that the amount of etilefrine was too small to have an effect on performance. Tough break for Puerta.

jrm
Dec 21st, 2005, 11:20 PM
The only right thing is to get tough!!!

I would lose all my belief in someone who took drugs!!!

TeamUSA#1
Dec 21st, 2005, 11:28 PM
inadvertant ingestions + no performance affect= 8 year ban

the equation doesn't add up

and I have a real problem with a system that does not and will not take circumstances into account. I would sue their asses off......

~ The Leopard ~
Dec 21st, 2005, 11:58 PM
inadvertant ingestions + no performance affect= 8 year ban

the equation doesn't add up

and I have a real problem with a system that does not and will not take circumstances into account. I would sue their asses off......

All true. I can't see how this can stand legally. Rubbing someone out (as this effectively does) is more appropriate for premeditated drug use with a likelihood of a genuine improvement in performance (like a regulated program of anabolic steroids). I'm suspicious about Puerta, but the sentence and the finding just don't match up. One of them has to be wrong. You can't make a finding of inadvertence then sentence on the basis that you're not sure it really was inadvertence. If they thought Puerta was lying they should have said so. If they thought it was inadvertent, the sentence should have reflected it.

bello
Dec 22nd, 2005, 12:35 AM
8 years for something they know he didn't do intentionally and it wasn't negligence?! That seems WAY too harsh. I understand they are tryin to send a message, but come on this is hardly an open and shut case.
Agreed!! its ridiculous for them to have that statement and serve out a 8 year ban in the same breathe!!

DutchieGirl
Dec 22nd, 2005, 12:39 AM
All true. I can't see how this can stand legally. Rubbing someone out (as this effectively does) is more appropriate for premeditated drug use with a likelihood of a genuine improvement in performance (like a regulated program of anabolic steroids). I'm suspicious about Puerta, but the sentence and the finding just don't match up. One of them has to be wrong. You can't make a finding of inadvertence then sentence on the basis that you're not sure it really was inadvertence. If they thought Puerta was lying they should have said so. If they thought it was inadvertent, the sentence should have reflected it.

hmm yeah it really does seem wierd...the sentence odesn't add up if they believe he didn't do it on purpose and it wasn't even enough to be performance enhacing. Not that it means there aren't still suspicions about him anyway! ;)

K-Dog
Dec 22nd, 2005, 12:44 AM
Well if he was too dumb as an ex-offender not to check out whatever he was taking, that's his own fault. Yes it is harsh and I think that if the ITF used faulty reasons and rules, he can take this to court and get the sentence changed. If they are within the bounds of the law, then he is guilty and 8 years is 8 years.

harloo
Dec 22nd, 2005, 12:45 AM
Cmon now guys, he was caught two times. After the first time of being caught drugging he should of been extra cautious. I really do believe he thought he wasn't going to get caught again doping up.:tape: :lol:

DutchieGirl
Dec 22nd, 2005, 12:53 AM
Cmon now guys, he was caught two times. After the first time of being caught drugging he should of been extra cautious. I really do believe he thought he wasn't going to get caught again doping up.:tape: :lol:

yeah it suspicious, but if the ITF have come out and said they BELIEVE him when he said he didn't take it on purpose AND that the drug in the amount they found wouldn't even be perfomance enhacing, then sorry - but the sentence doesn't add up.

CoryAnnAvants#1
Dec 22nd, 2005, 12:59 AM
It's a tough break for him, I agree. But whether or not it was intentional, that dope helped him achieve his finalist performance at the French Open, which means he is eligible to compete on the senior tour when he is 35...exactly when the eight year ban ends. I'm sure he can make some major money doing exhibitions and clinics in Argentina, as well as an assistant Davis Cup coaching position.

Solitaire
Dec 22nd, 2005, 03:07 AM
8 years is a long time and I kind of feel sorry for the guy but he really should have known better. Once was bad enough and If I were him I would have made damn well sure I knew what I was taking. You would think Puerta would have been overly cautious. It's either a case of him being way too lax when it comes to what he takes or he actually took it on purpose. Either way it's a sad event.

alwayshingis
Dec 22nd, 2005, 03:41 AM
While I think 8 years was too harsh, I don't understand this inadvertant business. It was his wife's medication.
It's not like someone stuck these pills in his food without his knowledge. If he had the substance from his wife's medication in his body, he took the medicine. I don't think this is as inadventant as he would like people to believe.

careyscott
Dec 22nd, 2005, 04:01 AM
If they didn't enhance his performance - who cares. Their are lots of real drug cheats who take performance enhancing drugs but they are freaking out about this. Ridiculous over reaction as far as I'm concerned and I don't like Puerta at all.

kammgretel
Dec 22nd, 2005, 04:54 AM
What would if even one news on a top 10 or number 1 player took drug , how will be the reaction of the ITF? I think behind the case, is purely business... :(

hwanmig
Dec 22nd, 2005, 05:55 AM
It now looks like L'Equipe is telling the truth. I feel so sad because if ITF releases a decision in January and bans Sesil for 5+or-2 months I won't see her at the French and the entire clay season. I've been waiting for 06 clay season since French 05 and now this has to happen.
_____________________________

VeeReeDavJCap81
Dec 22nd, 2005, 06:09 AM
If the drug didn't have any effect on his performance, then why is he being banned? Definitely a harsh sentence, unless all the details of the case aren't being revealed. I do find it odd that an also-ran player made the finals of the French Open out of nowhere though.

Alenyaa
Dec 22nd, 2005, 10:50 AM
It's a tough break for him, I agree. But whether or not it was intentional, that dope helped him achieve his finalist performance at the French Open, which means he is eligible to compete on the senior tour when he is 35...exactly when the eight year ban ends. I'm sure he can make some major money doing exhibitions and clinics in Argentina, as well as an assistant Davis Cup coaching position.
Did you READ the article? And this goes for all the people who say this. It clearly states that the amount of the substance found was too small to influence his performance!
Sentence and findings do not correspond, period.

guyinsf
Dec 22nd, 2005, 04:05 PM
8 YEARS is insane!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If this report says that both times were "inadvertent" then why is not punished at all? I just don't understand the logic in the whole drug use issue. If a player is sick or has some condition and he/she has to take perscribed medication from the doctor, is it the player's fault that the drug companies put steroids in these drugs?

OR is the argument that the players should be more careful and tells the doctor to make sure the drug has no steroids in it.

I don't understand why they determine what is criminal and what is not, because some many athletes take medication and it's not there fault that they didn't know what's in it and more importantly, their intent was not to cheat and that the amount of steroids in these drugs can't possibly help them gain anything physically.

Someone explain all this.

PaulHopkins
Dec 22nd, 2005, 04:10 PM
Did you READ the article? And this goes for all the people who say this. It clearly states that the amount of the substance found was too small to influence his performance!
Sentence and findings do not correspond, period.

Hopefully the authorities will realise this and his appeal will reflect it...