PDA

View Full Version : Hingis's ban should be ended immediately!


LoveFifteen
Jul 15th, 2009, 07:56 PM
Richard Gasquet's positive test for the cocaine metabolite was much, much higher than Hingis's, and yet the ITF is just giving him a slap on the wrist. What the hell?

Both he and Martina said they did not knowingly ingest cocaine. Why believe Gasquet and cut him a break, but give Martina the longest punishment possible? PATHETIC!

supergrunt
Jul 15th, 2009, 07:58 PM
Are you sure it is not regulated by the seperate tours?

tenn_ace
Jul 15th, 2009, 08:01 PM
I will support you only if you stop bashing Sveta every moment you are on this board

LoveFifteen
Jul 15th, 2009, 08:02 PM
I'm not sure. I will have to check. That being said I am thrilled for Gasquet. I don't think recreaional drugs should carry a strong punishment, at least not on the first offense.

BrianII
Jul 15th, 2009, 08:03 PM
doesn't matter who regulates it its the same sport ie tennis , this a huge injustice to martina i don't understand how they can be so blatant with the double standards

LoveFifteen
Jul 15th, 2009, 08:03 PM
I will support you only if you stop bashing Sveta every moment you are on this board

LOL I like Sveta. She's fun. Igor is a term of endearment.

LoveFifteen
Jul 15th, 2009, 08:05 PM
I'm pretty sure the ban has nothing to do with the separate tours. The ITF is separate from the tours and it has banned Hingis from even setting foot on the grounds of Slams for two years.

Nicolás89
Jul 15th, 2009, 08:07 PM
Isn't that something? Even more so when Martina didn't even had enough substance in her body to feel any effect.

tenn_ace
Jul 15th, 2009, 08:08 PM
Seriously though - this really is :scratch:

Martina should sue their assess off

Vaidisova Ruled
Jul 15th, 2009, 08:24 PM
I was about to post the same thing!

I don't even like Martina but why Gasquet was not banned ????? (And I'm french)
It is really disgusting.
One poor little boy was a victim (while partying)

The other one was at a party (same conditions) and 2 years later, people just remember Martina as a child progidy turned bad.

Where is the difference between Martina and Richard?

Vaidisova Ruled
Jul 15th, 2009, 08:27 PM
doesn't matter who regulates it its the same sport ie tennis , this a huge injustice to martina i don't understand how they can be so blatant with the double standards
Yes it is. I don't give a damn about Martina but this is fucking disgusting for her.

Martina should sue them.

Kworb
Jul 15th, 2009, 08:29 PM
Both are innocent and should not have been punished at all. Why do only players with beautiful games test positive for cocaine? :o

darrinbaker00
Jul 15th, 2009, 08:31 PM
Richard Gasquet's positive test for the cocaine metabolite was much, much higher than Hingis's, and yet the ITF is just giving him a slap on the wrist. What the hell?

Both he and Martina said they did not knowingly ingest cocaine. Why believe Gasquet and cut him a break, but give Martina the longest punishment possible? PATHETIC!
Richard Gasquet stood up and fought for his innocence. Martina Hingis turned tail and ran. That's the difference.

Donny
Jul 15th, 2009, 08:31 PM
Both are innocent and should not have been punished at all. Why do only players with beautiful games test positive for cocaine? :o

A nice one handed BH does not make a beautiful game.

améliemomo
Jul 15th, 2009, 08:33 PM
the fact she decided to retire and annunced it just few minutes after the ITF judgement has something to do with that.

hingis didnt even try to defend herself while gasquet did. In fact gasquet didnt play any match in miami tournament, he went to that party before retire from the tournament. Hingis played Wimbledon and got that result after being tested.

That's NOT the same case!

KournikovaFan91
Jul 15th, 2009, 08:34 PM
What was Hingis' reason for the cocaine in her system did she have an explanation.

Richard did and obviously it was proven it wasn't his fault it was in his system.

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Jul 15th, 2009, 08:39 PM
Gasquet should have been banned for 2 years

From now on he will be known as a doper at least

Vaidisova Ruled
Jul 15th, 2009, 08:40 PM
the fact she decided to retire and annunced it just few minutes after the ITF judgement has something to do with that.

hingis didnt even try to defend herself while gasquet did. In fact gasquet didnt play any match in miami tournament, he went to that party before retire from the tournament. Hingis played Wimbledon and got that result after being tested.

That's NOT the same case!
Please, Richard has lagarder. It's not like he had to pay for lawyers.

And you just say that because you are french. That's not even an argument. It's just a detail.

Zébulon
Jul 15th, 2009, 08:43 PM
Richard Gasquet stood up and fought for his innocence. Martina Hingis turned tail and ran. That's the difference.
What, you mean, by blaming a woman ? :lol: :lol: He'd better make the best of his talent, now, not like he did before his got a second chance...

Zébulon
Jul 15th, 2009, 08:45 PM
From now on he will be known as a doper at least
Actually, that he didn't take it as a performance enhancer is about the only sure fact. :lol:

KournikovaFan91
Jul 15th, 2009, 08:46 PM
Gasquet should have been banned for 2 years

From now on he will be known as a doper at least
:rolleyes:

Know he won't.

Is Ruesdski a doper he had accusations of something much worse, nadrolone.

Also once you serve your time it should all be forgotten about, e.g Karatantcheva and Pous Tio.

Vaidisova Ruled
Jul 15th, 2009, 08:46 PM
What was Gasquet's reason for having the drug in his system?
So he was drunk and he kissed a girl who has hidden cocaine in her mouth.
Yeah, right.

~Cherry*Blossom~
Jul 15th, 2009, 08:46 PM
What was Gasquet's reason for having the drug in his system?

KournikovaFan91
Jul 15th, 2009, 08:49 PM
So he was drunk and he kissed a girl who has hidden cocaine in her mouth.
Yeah, right.

No they had taken cocaine orally before the kiss. And it transferred.

Vaidisova Ruled
Jul 15th, 2009, 08:51 PM
people, go read this http://www.itftennis.com/shared/medialibrary/pdf/original/IO_42899_original.PDF


Who is the dumbass who wrote that :haha:?

Just that:
As a healthy single young man who is not often able to go out and enjoy himself socially in the evenings, it is not unnatural that he should have been attracted to Pamela, to the point of kissing her. He is not the first young man to have done such a thing with a young woman during a social night out :lol:

ITF :worship:

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Jul 15th, 2009, 08:51 PM
No they had taken cocaine orally before the kiss. And it transferred.

Hahaha :lol:

It sounds like a big :bs:

irinska
Jul 15th, 2009, 08:56 PM
IT's

~Cherry*Blossom~
Jul 15th, 2009, 08:56 PM
So he was drunk and he kissed a girl who has hidden cocaine in her mouth.
Yeah, right.

:haha:

KournikovaFan91
Jul 15th, 2009, 09:01 PM
Hahaha :lol:

It sounds like a big :bs:

how cocaine is regularly taken orally and medical experts said it could have been spread to Gasquet that way.

améliemomo
Jul 15th, 2009, 09:02 PM
Please, Richard has lagarder. It's not like he had to pay for lawyers.

And you just say that because you are french. That's not even an argument. It's just a detail.


are you saying to me that hingis has no money to pay good lawyers??oh come on! she already was on the verge of retiring before that cocaine thing. Stop it please that's becoming embarrassing.
Hingis had to battle for herself, she didntand prefered to retire. Its a shame for her but that's it.

irinska
Jul 15th, 2009, 09:03 PM
It's the same case. Gasquet tested positive during tournament as did Martina the fact that he withdrew from his match doesn't matter. The amount found in him was 3 times more than in Martina. He defended the same way as Martina in London.. Only ignorant people could write that Martina didn't fight , yes she retired but she went to the ITF tribunal to defend herself only the result is different and many people will wonder why!

starin
Jul 15th, 2009, 09:05 PM
people, go read this http://www.itftennis.com/shared/medialibrary/pdf/original/IO_42899_original.PDF


Who is the dumbass who wrote that :haha:?

Just that:
As a healthy single young man who is not often able to go out and enjoy himself socially in the evenings, it is not unnatural that he should have been attracted to Pamela, to the point of kissing her. He is not the first young man to have done such a thing with a young woman during a social night out :lol:

ITF :worship:
:rolleyes: as if Richard would kiss a girl
now we know he's lying.


but seriously if Hingis had decided to stay and fight she could've gotten out of the ban or at least made the ban shorter.

Vaidisova Ruled
Jul 15th, 2009, 09:14 PM
how cocaine is regularly taken orally and medical experts said it could have been spread to Gasquet that way.
OK, no offense, I don't know you but I guess you have never been to these kind of parties and you are right, it's not even that funny. I will teach you what I've seen

Lesson 1: You don't use your nose to "get cocaine". You put cocaine in a cup of tea and then you drink it, orally. You can put cocaine into beer, or alcohol, it's even better like that. And you drink it. It is regularly taken orally.

Vaidisova Ruled
Jul 15th, 2009, 09:22 PM
:rolleyes: as if Richard would kiss a girl
now we know he's lying.

:lol:
but seriously if Hingis had decided to stay and fight she could've gotten out of the ban or at least made the ban shorter.
Honestly, if I was her, maybe i would have done the same.

2 Possibilities:
- If she says "I didn't do that, and I decided to end my career". It means I won 5 slams, some people have said that I took cocaine but it's not true, forget about that and remember I won 5 slams.

OR

- She will fight to prove she didn't try to enhance her performance. Even though it will take years, she will fight.

Maybe she thought: Why I am going to fight? If I do that , in 5 years, nothing will change and people will still remember me as the poor girl who spends her life trying to prove that she is not a toxicomane. And I will lose money.


I was surprised that Richard was not banned. And so are lots of people. And I guess Martina is now mad that she didn't fight :shrug:

petkoan
Jul 15th, 2009, 09:24 PM
So he was drunk and he kissed a girl who has hidden cocaine in her mouth.
Yeah, right.


He kissed a girl and he liked it :D :D:

I feel so sorry for Martina...

KournikovaFan91
Jul 15th, 2009, 09:27 PM
OK, no offense, I don't know you but I guess you have never been to these kind of parties and you are right, it's not even that funny. I will teach you what I've seen

Lesson 1: You don't use your nose to "get cocaine". You put cocaine in a cup of tea and then you drink it, orally. You can put cocaine into beer, or alcohol, it's even better like that. And you drink it. It is regularly taken orally.

The several methods of consuption include rubbing it on the gums, this is how it transferred from the person in question to Richard.

LeonHart
Jul 15th, 2009, 09:27 PM
I just find it curious they would ban Martina, then raise the legal limit of cocaine a year later. And now they're bending the rules for a prodigy tennis player. Especially when his is I don't know, 10 times more than the amount found in Martina's sample.

LeonHart
Jul 15th, 2009, 09:29 PM
:lol:

Honestly, if I was her, maybe i would have done the same.

2 Possibilities:
- If she says "I didn't do that, and I decided to end my career". It means I won 5 slams, some people have said that I took cocaine but it's not true, forget about that and remember I won 5 slams.

OR

- She will fight to prove she didn't try to enhance her performance. Even though it will take years, she will fight.

Maybe she thought: Why I am going to fight? If I do that , in 5 years, nothing will change and people will still remember me as the poor girl who spends her life trying to prove that she is not a toxicomane. And I will lose money.


I was surprised that Richard was not banned. And so are lots of people. And I guess Martina is now mad that she didn't fight :shrug:

Martina did fight the case, obviously. Maybe just not as hard as someone that were heading into their prime (a la Gasquet). Martina, at that point was heading towards the end of her 2nd career with nagging injuries, then the accusation was kind of the dagger.

volta
Jul 15th, 2009, 09:39 PM
:rolleyes: as if Richard would kiss a girl
now we know he's lying.
but seriously if Hingis had decided to stay and fight she could've gotten out of the ban or at least made the ban shorter.

:haha: :haha:

AndreConrad
Jul 15th, 2009, 10:26 PM
Actually, that he didn't take it as a performance enhancer is about the only sure fact. :lol:
I don't know if this is a sure fact, he could of wanted to enhance his performance ;)

I think ITF should apologize to Martina and restore her dignity!

duhcity
Jul 15th, 2009, 10:41 PM
Tennis has some of the most lax drug rules in sports.
All this crazy testing and whatever Andy Murray twitters about is useless since it's done so infrequently.

Gasquet clearly fought his ban, and there were probably behind the scenes negotiations as well.
I get the feeling that Martina was on the verge of retiring, and thought it would've been a waste, because any common sports fan would know that cocaine would do nothing for the rest of her career

thrust
Jul 15th, 2009, 10:45 PM
Seriously though - this really is :scratch:

Martina should sue their assess off

I AGREE! THE PUNISHMENT FOR MARTINA WAS MUCH TOO SEVERE. KEEPING HER OFF THE SLAM GROUNDS WAS IDIOTIC ANC CRUEL. I WAS NEVER A HINGIS FAN, THOUGH I ADMIRED HER GAME. SHE SHOULD BE ALLOWED BACK INTO THE GAME IMMEDIATELY, IF SHE SO CHOOSES,

HRHoliviasmith
Jul 15th, 2009, 10:46 PM
I am so happy for Richard! Now I hope he gets his life and game together.

Corswandt
Jul 15th, 2009, 10:48 PM
people, go read this http://www.itftennis.com/shared/medialibrary/pdf/original/IO_42899_original.PDF


Who is the dumbass who wrote that :haha:?

Just that:
As a healthy single young man who is not often able to go out and enjoy himself socially in the evenings, it is not unnatural that he should have been attracted to Pamela, to the point of kissing her. He is not the first young man to have done such a thing with a young woman during a social night out :lol:

ITF :worship:

It's not just that. The whole decision is pure hilarity. They're clearly just there goofin' around, happy that they get the chance to play the judge.

young_gunner913
Jul 15th, 2009, 10:48 PM
:lol: at richard saying he kissed a girl.


yeah a girl named michael. :rolleyes:

Serenita
Jul 15th, 2009, 10:56 PM
:lol: at richard saying he kissed a girl.


yeah a girl named michael. :rolleyes:
:lol::lol:
Hingis should have stand up and fight the charges. She opted for the easy way out, retiring.

Good luck on your return Richard:wavey:

LightWarrior
Jul 15th, 2009, 11:21 PM
:lol::lol:
Hingis should have stand up and fight the charges. She opted for the easy way out, retiring.



Yes in hindsight it looks like Hingis took the worst option. Terrible advice from her lawyers.
It is make or break in both cases. Both obviously took coke recreationally. So given what the ITF said about Gasquet today Hingis should have done the same. She must be totally enraged right now.

LeonHart
Jul 15th, 2009, 11:25 PM
Yes in hindsight it looks like Hingis took the worst option. Terrible advice from her lawyers.
It is make or break in both cases. Both obviously took coke recreationally. So given what the ITF said about Gasquet today Hingis should have done the same. She must be totally enraged right now.

Umm what?

Hingis: 42 nanograms per milliliter

Gasquet: 1.46 microgramme ( 1460 nanograms )

Amount to fail a drug test in the U.S. military: 100 ng/ml

Nicolás89
Jul 15th, 2009, 11:29 PM
Yes in hindsight it looks like Hingis took the worst option. Terrible advice from her lawyers.
It is make or break in both cases. Both obviously took coke recreationally. So given what the ITF said about Gasquet today Hingis should have done the same. She must be totally enraged right now.

You're just a one trick pet, aren't you?
The cocaine found in Hingis' body was so insignificant that she wouldn't even notice. How is that taking coke recreationally? :weirdo:

LightWarrior
Jul 15th, 2009, 11:30 PM
Umm what?

Hingis: 42 nanograms per milliliter

Gasquet: 1.46 microgramme ( 1460 nanograms )

Amount to fail a drug test in the U.S. military: 100 ng/ml

What is your point ? She was indicted anyway...

дalex
Jul 15th, 2009, 11:32 PM
Who's Gasquet sleeping with to get away with this?! Cokehead!

The other cokehead, :hug:

Seriously, that's not right!

Volcana
Jul 15th, 2009, 11:39 PM
Martina should sue their assess offTheoretically. One wonders abot the 'backstory'/

LightWarrior
Jul 15th, 2009, 11:44 PM
You're just a one trick pet, aren't you?
The cocaine found in Hingis' body was so insignificant that she wouldn't even notice. How is that taking coke recreationally? :weirdo:

Who cares if it is just one nanogram. It's prohibited, period. My point is that she handled her case very badly as I hear the decision about Gasquet today. It's totally unfair to Hingis, double standard. But she should have proceeded the way GASQUET did at the time. Her name wouldn't be tarnished.

LeonHart
Jul 15th, 2009, 11:45 PM
Who cares if it is just one nanogram. It's prohibited, period. My point is that she handled her case very badly as I hear the decision about Gasquet today. It's totally unfair to Hingis, double standard. But she should have proceeded the way GASQUET did at the time. Her name wouldn't be tarnished.

It's not prohibited, period. The rules are changed to 50 nanograms limit :rolleyes:

Yeah, Hingis should have made a ridiculous lie to clear her name like Gasquet, however somehow I think she has better morals than that.

ITF system :weirdo:

Ackms421
Jul 16th, 2009, 12:09 AM
For all of you saying that Hingis did defend herself to the extent that Gasquet did, that is untrue.

Hingis appeared at the same tribunal hearing that Gasquet did. She personally got a hair test, just as Gasquet did, and she claimed that if she ingested cocaine, she did not know how-just as Gasquet did (his suspicion about kissing the girl is a theory, not an explanation). She stated that she would not continue the fight following the official decision of the ITF (made after the tribunal hearing). Had Gasquet been banned, he may have continued to fight it; Hingis would not have. But she did defend herself identically as Gasquet.

I really find this baffling. Their cases are almost identical, with the exception that Gasquet had a lot more in his system than Hingis. It boggles my mind how they can let him off the hook. I remember reading a quote from one of the decision makers in Hingis' case saying that her case was "very clear" or something like that.

It is not that I feel Gasquet should be banned necessarily, but they should have received the same punishment. I mean, the cases were really identical. I really hope we hear *something* about this from Hingis or someone at the ITF...surely we are not the only ones who have seen the similarity in their situations and differences in their sentencing. :shrug:

LightWarrior
Jul 16th, 2009, 12:20 AM
Funny how the rules change after Martina was banned. They just didn't want Martina to have another '97 year and dominate the tour for 5 more slams.



Oh please, look at her results back then. They were appaling.
What baffles me is that Hingis took the easy way out. She realized that her 2nd comeback was a mistake, that she could never go to the top again. That + cocaine guilty = retire. This girl is weird, I don't understand why she would take such accusations so lightly.

Optima
Jul 16th, 2009, 12:24 AM
Re-fucking-diculous.

Come back Martina! :hearts:

KournikovaFan91
Jul 16th, 2009, 12:26 AM
Even if it was reversed Hingis wouldn't comeback. Her career would have been over by this without the ban.

Joana
Jul 16th, 2009, 12:30 AM
The Romanian gymnast Andreea Raducan got stripped off her all-around gold medal she won at the Sydney Olympics after it was found out she had taken a cold pill containing an illegal substance. The gold went to her teammate who had taken the same pill, but was bigger in stature and therefore the substance was more diluted and the results came back negative. The same substance was removed from the banned list a few years later. At that time Raducan asked to have her medal returned, but although IOC confirmed that she indeed had not taken a performance-altering substance, they couldn't give the medal back due to their strict "no drugs policy". It's mind-boggling really.
So, yeah, the anti-doping policy can be really weirdly implemented sometimes, so I'm not really all that surprised the punishments for Gasquet and Hingis are so different while their cases are extremely similar.

CJ07
Jul 16th, 2009, 12:32 AM
OK, no offense, I don't know you but I guess you have never been to these kind of parties and you are right, it's not even that funny. I will teach you what I've seen

Lesson 1: You don't use your nose to "get cocaine". You put cocaine in a cup of tea and then you drink it, orally. You can put cocaine into beer, or alcohol, it's even better like that. And you drink it. It is regularly taken orally.
Uh, maybe in Europe, but in the United States most people snort cocaine. Often in the bathrooms.

I've never heard of anyone putting it in tea...part of the appeal of cocaine is doing a line. People often will roll up a $100 bill and use it to snort the cocaine. Because of the mucous membranes in the nose, it goes into the bloodstream faster and gives you a better high.

KournikovaFan91
Jul 16th, 2009, 12:34 AM
I think he was mocking my earlier post.


But it is also consumed orally when rubbed on a persons gums, it is not always snorted although it is more commonly taken that way.

An Irish model died from a cocaine overdose which was believed to be taken orally in 2007 and it was a major deal in Ireland.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katy_French

LightWarrior
Jul 16th, 2009, 12:40 AM
Uh, maybe in Europe, but in the United States most people snort cocaine. Often in the bathrooms.



Most people. Even your grand'ma ? I knwow the US is the country of hypocrisy, but this one takes the cake.

iGOAT
Jul 16th, 2009, 12:41 AM
First of all, great for Richard!!!

Second of all, WHAT THE FUCK?!?!?!?!?! Hingis had about 1/15th of the amount of Gasquet and was banned for two years. Immediately after doing that the minimum amount was increased, but all the same Gasquet was way above it. Gasquet was suspended for ten weeks when he had taken fifteen times as much. He fought it, saying he had taken cocaine unconsciously and the ITF said if it had been a few hours later, it would have been below the minimum since it was already wearing off. Even by the logic that Gasquet fought it and Hingis didn't, why the hell was one suspended for two years and one who took huge amounts more was suspended for ten weeks :tape:.

mdterp01
Jul 16th, 2009, 12:50 AM
Ummm....No!!!

égalité
Jul 16th, 2009, 01:08 AM
Funny how the rules change after Martina was banned. They just didn't want Martina to have another '97 year and dominate the tour for 5 more slams.

Racist and conspiracy I say.

Racist? :spit:

Onyx
Jul 16th, 2009, 01:09 AM
I guess Hingis should kiss Pamela(the girl that Richard "kissed") and blame her for Cocaine getting into her body. it worked for Gasquet it can work for Hingis :shrug:

Gasquet should be lucky to get away with this one.

égalité
Jul 16th, 2009, 01:14 AM
Yes this is clearly racist behavior on ITF. They are just against Martina's race.

Against which race? White? :D

égalité
Jul 16th, 2009, 01:17 AM
Oh, OK! That makes sense because Richard Gasquet is black, unlike Martina.

LightWarrior
Jul 16th, 2009, 01:19 AM
Yes this is clearly racist behavior on ITF. They are just against Martina's race.

mysogynistic is the word, for god's sakes ! Racist applies to race.

LeonHart
Jul 16th, 2009, 01:22 AM
Yes this is an outrage. I don't know why this is being taken so lightly. They didn't want her race to dominate the rankings and continue to win slams.

Can you just stop talking, please? :rolleyes:

KournikovaFan91
Jul 16th, 2009, 01:34 AM
Pamela??

That name sounds like either a cheap hooker under a fake name or a soccer mom.

No offence to any Pamela's on the board but I own a hen named Pamela and the name just doesn't seem very Miami.

Her name has been bugging me.

Joana
Jul 16th, 2009, 01:44 AM
Pamela??

That name sounds like either a cheap hooker under a fake name or a soccer mom.

No offence to any Pamela's on the board but I own a hen named Pamela and the name just doesn't seem very Miami.

Her name has been bugging me.

It's easy. Gertrude or Mildred just don't sound like the names of a girl who'd coke up and kiss with strangers. Gasquet probably remembered Pamela Anderson and thought it was a name that would sound like debauchery.

KournikovaFan91
Jul 16th, 2009, 01:45 AM
Yeah but he could have called her something more American or used her real name like Paul, John, Steve etc. :lol:

Like Danielle would have been a good name cause I can imagine a 20 something year old attractive girl named Danielle but not Pamela.

HRHoliviasmith
Jul 16th, 2009, 01:47 AM
Can you just stop talking, please? :rolleyes:

:rolls:

Vyacheslavovna
Jul 16th, 2009, 02:06 AM
Is cocaine cheating? does anyone care what they smoke/snort?



And has anyone simply said:

"Yes, I cheated, you caught me, I'm guilty"

I'm glad they never do because the stories they come out with are always enjoyable.



I hadn't heard about Gasquet's, but I can think of two others:

An Italian footballer, (don't know his name), claimed he had a high substance of something in his system, because he liked to give oral sex to his girlfriend on a very regular basis. He ingested his orally too!

Dieter Baumann, a German long distance runner, claimed he had illegally high levels of nandrolone in his system, because someone out to get him, put it in his toothpaste. I've always loved this. Tonya Harding did it the wrong way. If you were a pro-athlete, how worried would you be about what an ex-boyfriend/girlfriend might have done to your medicine cabinet.

Any other good drug cheat stories?


Wiki's not always reliable, but there's some info about Dieter here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieter_Baumann





http://i.ehow.com/images/GlobalPhoto/Articles/4831275/eHow-Toothpaste-main_Full.jpg

Can you trust it?

LightWarrior
Jul 16th, 2009, 02:23 AM
An Italian footballer, (don't know his name), claimed he had a high substance of something in his system, because he liked to give oral sex to his girlfriend on a very regular basis. He ingested his orally too!



So he could eat her pussy just because it had coke on it ? I guess this guy must have been so in love with his GF. Totally sick. And what a slut !

barbo
Jul 16th, 2009, 02:25 AM
Is cocaine cheating? does anyone care what they smoke/snort?



An Italian footballer, (don't know his name), claimed he had a high substance of something in his system, because he liked to give oral sex to his girlfriend on a very regular basis. He ingested his orally too!



Marco Borriello. His gf claimed she was taking something for like a yeast infection or some std, can't remember.

Max565
Jul 16th, 2009, 03:08 AM
Richard Gasquet stood up and fought for his innocence. Martina Hingis turned tail and ran. That's the difference.

BOTH claimed innocence and stood before a ITF tribunal.

But the results were different.

LoveFifteen
Jul 16th, 2009, 03:23 AM
Okay, first of all, it doesn't matter that Gasquet had pulled out of Miami when he tested positive. You get banned for testing positive for cocaine during the off season, too, and yes, there are tests during the off seasons.

Secondly, I am happy for Gasquet because I don't think taking cocaine at a party should destroy your career for two years.

Thirdly, it doesn't matter that Gasquet tested positive for more cocaine. That is not the issue. The issue is that Martina said she did not intentionally take cocaine, and the ITF doesn't believe her, but Richard also says that he did not intentionally take cocaine, and they believe him.

Sorry, but that's 100% pure bullshit. You can just choose to believe one player and not believe another player when their only defense is that they didn't take cocaine intentionally.

In her Swiss German speech, but not in the English version of her retirement speech, Hingis said that perhaps somehow her drink had gotten spiked at a party. People on this very board said, "Yeah right!" She probably did take cocaine at a party, but so did Gasquet ... and apparently he took more.

Anyway, it is just ridiculous, but what can you do?

Max565
Jul 16th, 2009, 03:30 AM
Anyway, it is just ridiculous, but what can you do?

It would be nice if a high-profile personality who is beyond reproach in the tennis establishment actually calls out the ITF on this heinous double standard. But it just seems to me that so many people have thrown her under the bus and the tennis establishment has ostracised her while they are probably going to welcome back another banned player back with open arms.

I mean, I love Richard and he's one of my fav players but an immature and indignant side of me thinks, "Well, Martina got two years! So he has to get the same!!:mad:"

Slutiana
Jul 16th, 2009, 03:33 AM
Martina is race minotaur remember? :weirdo:

People just don't understand jokes. It's a play on Martina v Williams Sisters.
I got it. :crying2:

HRHoliviasmith
Jul 16th, 2009, 03:34 AM
It would be nice if a high-profile personality who is beyond reproach in the tennis establishment actually calls out the ITF on this heinous double standard. But it just seems to me that so many people have thrown her under the bus and the tennis establishment has ostracised her while they are probably going to welcome back another banned player back with open arms.

I mean, I love Richard and he's one of my fav players but an immature and indignant side of me thinks, "Well, Martina got two years! So he has to get the same!!:mad:"

like whom?

Max565
Jul 16th, 2009, 03:42 AM
Navratilova immediately sprung to mind. Loads of ppl might hate her on this board but she's revered elsewhere and she defended Hingis in an article right after the ruling.

Federer is supposedly good friends with his compatriot but apparently the two haven't spoken to each other since the ban :rolleyes:

HRHoliviasmith
Jul 16th, 2009, 03:49 AM
Navratilova immediately sprung to mind. Loads of ppl might hate her on this board but she's revered elsewhere and she defended Hingis in an article right after the ruling.

Federer is supposedly good friends with his compatriot but apparently the two haven't spoken to each other since the ban :rolleyes:

Navratilova cries wolf too much for me.

But I think Martina does have a lot of support. I've read several articles defending her, wondering why the players(men & women) don't band together on this issue. Jon L. Wertheim has also written quite a bit about it.

LoveFifteen
Jul 16th, 2009, 03:56 AM
I would like someone on the ITF panel to explain why they could take Richard's word for it, but not Hingis's.

M.P
Jul 16th, 2009, 04:02 AM
Richard should be banned for his whole life

Ciarán
Jul 16th, 2009, 04:03 AM
I agree.

Polikarpov
Jul 16th, 2009, 04:11 AM
http://www.tennis.com/news/news.aspx?id=180074

The 23-year-old Frenchman, who was cleared to resume playing after completing a 2 1/2 -month ban on Wednesday, convinced the independent anti-doping tribunal that he ingested cocaine with the kiss with the woman he had just met.

The tribunal panel of three lawyers said Gasquet consumed no more than “a grain of salt” of the drug, and a long ban would be an injustice in a case which was “unusual to the point of being probably unique.”

iGOAT
Jul 16th, 2009, 05:26 AM
Martina's ban should have ended as soon as the amount she had taken was declared below the minimum, it makes no sense :o.

Junex
Jul 16th, 2009, 07:06 AM
I think it has something to do with "plea" thing.
Richard admitted having cocaine pass on to her by kissing some girl who had sniffed stuff.
Martina on the other hand, denied the allegations and never actually pursued a legal fight.

I don't know the right term, but in legal system they usually bargain lighter sentence for admitting your offenses.

But for my personal point of view, Its just stupid really... especially the excuse of Gasquet......... :rolleyes:

Vaidisova Ruled
Jul 16th, 2009, 08:20 AM
Even if it was reversed Hingis wouldn't comeback. Her career would have been over by this without the ban.
So What ? It's not the best way to end a career.

Uh, maybe in Europe, but in the United States most people snort cocaine. Often in the bathrooms.

I've never heard of anyone putting it in tea...part of the appeal of cocaine is doing a line. People often will roll up a $100 bill and use it to snort the cocaine. Because of the mucous membranes in the nose, it goes into the bloodstream faster and gives you a better high.

:lol: Yeah it was ironic. We all know that "most people snort cocaine"

Davodus
Jul 16th, 2009, 08:24 AM
Richard had 151 nanograms in his sample, not 1460, that was the reported false figure

Now, I don't agree with the 2 year ban given to Hingis at all, but there are several key differences in the case which show why they gave different rulings. Firstly, in THEIR mind, so it doesn't matter whether this is in anyone elses mind but in theirs, he had sufficient proof of HOW the cocaine entered his system, and Martina didn't have that. Secondly, he had evidence of non-metabolised cocaine in his urine sample, proving that the cocaine had entered his sytem at maximum 12 hours before the test, and toxicologists could estimate a time period (which was spent at the party) where the cocaine was ingested. With that, and taking into account his hair test showed 0 trace of cocaine, they came to the conclusion that he had not ingested cocaine willingly, due to the small amount that a regular user would not take. Martina only tested positive for a metabolite of cocaine, making it almost impossible to determine the time period where the cocaine was taken. This means it could have been taken a significant time period before hand, and still be in her system. There was no proof of when it entered her system, so they can't assume that that small amount had entered her system just the night before. That is the greatest difference between the two: Richard's was a tiny amount that had definitely been ingested within 12 hours, and such an amount would not be ingested willingly, Martina's could have been any time within the past month or 2, I'm not too sure on the time.

All that said, banning for 2 years because of a cocaine offence is pretty stupid, and Hingis should have not been banned at all IMO. But what I have stated is the reasoning of the ITF.

Vaidisova Ruled
Jul 16th, 2009, 08:42 AM
Richard had 151 nanograms in his sample, not 1460, that was the reported false figure



Yes, but still, Hingis took less than Richard !

Sarah Pitkowski was a french player (maybe you know her) and now she is a TV reporter on eurosport France. This is what she says:

Pitkowski : « Une incohérence »

La rédaction - RMC.fr, le 15/07/2009
Sarah Pitkowski, consultante sur RMC, estime que Richard Gasquet peut s’estimer heureux après sa suspension de deux mois et demi.
Sarah Pitkowski : « Il y a encore une incohérence par rapport à Martina Hingis qui avait pris beaucoup moins de cocaïne (42 ng/ml pour la Suissesse contre 151 ng/ml pour Gasquet) et qui a été suspendue 2 ans (ndlr : Hingis avait argumenté lors de l'audience que les échantillons n'étaient pas les siens mais n'avait pu produire de preuves…) J’espère que ça ne ternira pas son image. Il pourrait presque demander de l’argent en retour puisqu’il a pris moins que le temps où il a interrompu sa carrière (depuis le 27 mars) ! »

http://www.rmc.fr/edito/sport/83902/pitkowski-une-incoherence/

If someone can translate that. I'm not good at this. And I don't understand the end.
Basically, she says that there is no coherence (because Martina took less). But then she says that Richard should sue them :weirdo: I don't really get it.

Davodus
Jul 16th, 2009, 08:44 AM
Yes, but still, Hingis took less than Richard !


that is not disputed anywhere, the problem for Martina was that she could did not have any non-metabolised cocaine in her system, so the time period could not be identified as to when she took it :shrug:

Beat
Jul 16th, 2009, 09:31 AM
Most people. Even your grand'ma ? I knwow the US is the country of hypocrisy, but this one takes the cake.

she/he meant most people of the ones who take cocaine, obviously, so calm down.

ZODIAC
Jul 16th, 2009, 09:50 AM
poor Martina she was a victim of sexism

Pheobo
Jul 16th, 2009, 10:21 AM
I don't even understand why the ITF is banning players for using drugs that are from from performance enhancing.

LefandePatty
Jul 16th, 2009, 10:32 AM
Come back Martina please :sad:

Corswandt
Jul 16th, 2009, 10:37 AM
The issue is that Martina said she did not intentionally take cocaine, and the ITF doesn't believe her, but Richard also says that he did not intentionally take cocaine, and they believe him.

It all boils down to that. They didn't believe in Hingis. They believed in Gasquet. I would like the ITF and the Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal to publicly explain why.

Shvedbarilescu
Jul 16th, 2009, 11:03 AM
Navratilova immediately sprung to mind. Loads of ppl might hate her on this board but she's revered elsewhere and she defended Hingis in an article right after the ruling.

Federer is supposedly good friends with his compatriot but apparently the two haven't spoken to each other since the ban :rolleyes:

Not surprising. Image is everything to Federer.

As for the ban, I can only echo the words of all the previous posters who have said that banning a player for using a non performance enhancing drug in the 1st place is ridiculous. Couldn't agree more. I don't know and couldn't care less whether Hingis ever took concaine. But either way the ban has zero merit with me.

Polikarpov
Jul 16th, 2009, 11:09 AM
Is it possible that the panel for the tribunal was different for Gasquet? Or is it possible that they realized that what they did to Martina was ridiculous, but was too proud to take back their decision so they used Gasquet's case to right their wrongs?

Also, do you think the French Tennis Federation backing Gasquet had a big influence on the decision?

KournikovaFan91
Jul 16th, 2009, 11:51 AM
Is it possible that the panel for the tribunal was different for Gasquet? Or is it possible that they realized that what they did to Martina was ridiculous, but was too proud to take back their decision so they used Gasquet's case to right their wrongs?

Also, do you think the French Tennis Federation backing Gasquet had a big influence on the decision?

Exactly, two different juries for two different murder trials can come out with different decisions. I would imagine Richard's panel was different. Maybe his case with set a precedence for the future, its just tough luck Hingis had her's in the past.

We will see in future cases if people are given similar sentances to Richard or Martina.


Also what exactly was Martina's excuse????? Why was it in her system?
Richard had an explanation which medical experts said was perfectly plausable.

Ryan
Jul 16th, 2009, 12:26 PM
Exactly, two different juries for two different murder trials can come out with different decisions. I would imagine Richard's panel was different. Maybe his case with set a precedence for the future, its just tough luck Hingis had her's in the past.

We will see in future cases if people are given similar sentances to Richard or Martina.


Also what exactly was Martina's excuse????? Why was it in her system?
Richard had an explanation which medical experts said was perfectly plausable.



She still denies she ever took it, but I *think* she might have mentioned people at a party she was at doing it? I really don't remember though.

tennisvideos
Jul 16th, 2009, 12:48 PM
I have nothing much to add except it is a crying shame that Hingis was ever banned. The legal system's all around the world are corrupt and full of sh!t IMO and if you have the money or connections you can buy yourself out of anything.

And unless a drug can be a proven performing enhancing one than how can a sporting figure be banned? The whole thing is a load of crap and double standards and inconsistencies abound in the ITF policies and rulings.

lynxy
Jul 16th, 2009, 01:01 PM
What a coup for the WTA that they found Hingis had traces of a drug in her system. What a great opportunity to get rid of someone who actually plays a kind of tennis worth watching, and send out a message that their top sports ballbashing robots can't even aspire to party properly. Henceforth, Jelly and Ice Cream and pick them up at 9 with their free balloons.

barmaid
Jul 16th, 2009, 01:36 PM
What a coup for the WTA that they found Hingis had traces of a drug in her system. What a great opportunity to get rid of someone who actually plays a kind of tennis worth watching, and send out a message that their top sports ballbashing robots can't even aspire to party properly. Henceforth, Jelly and Ice Cream and pick them up at 9 with their free balloons.
Irregardless, this farcical claim will remain :sad:as the door shuts on this woman's brilliant career. She has admitted that the two year ban has been hurtful because she was always willing to help out in tournaments involving young players attending clinics, always willing to help recognize retiring players and competed against former "greats" of the game, her contributions to the tennis world were many and it is a shame that it had to end the way it did. But most of us will remember Martina as a great champion with unique gifts and talents and a wonderful caring human being!:hearts::kiss::worship:

Barmaid:wavey:

thrust
Jul 16th, 2009, 04:24 PM
It all boils down to that. They didn't believe in Hingis. They believed in Gasquet. I would like the ITF and the Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal to publicly explain why.

Perhaps the French Federation has much more power in the tennis government body, so that they fought harder for Gasquet than the Swiss did for Hingis. Gasquet is a young underachiever who needs to play in order to win something soon, whereas, Hingis was at the end of a great career. Politics was definitely involved, IMO.

Larrybidd
Jul 16th, 2009, 10:03 PM
Richard had 151 nanograms in his sample, not 1460, that was the reported false figure

Now, I don't agree with the 2 year ban given to Hingis at all, but there are several key differences in the case which show why they gave different rulings. Firstly, in THEIR mind, so it doesn't matter whether this is in anyone elses mind but in theirs, he had sufficient proof of HOW the cocaine entered his system, and Martina didn't have that. Secondly, he had evidence of non-metabolised cocaine in his urine sample, proving that the cocaine had entered his sytem at maximum 12 hours before the test, and toxicologists could estimate a time period (which was spent at the party) where the cocaine was ingested. With that, and taking into account his hair test showed 0 trace of cocaine, they came to the conclusion that he had not ingested cocaine willingly, due to the small amount that a regular user would not take. Martina only tested positive for a metabolite of cocaine, making it almost impossible to determine the time period where the cocaine was taken. This means it could have been taken a significant time period before hand, and still be in her system. There was no proof of when it entered her system, so they can't assume that that small amount had entered her system just the night before. That is the greatest difference between the two: Richard's was a tiny amount that had definitely been ingested within 12 hours, and such an amount would not be ingested willingly, Martina's could have been any time within the past month or 2, I'm not too sure on the time.

All that said, banning for 2 years because of a cocaine offence is pretty stupid, and Hingis should have not been banned at all IMO. But what I have stated is the reasoning of the ITF.

Thanks, this helps.

TheAllan
Jul 16th, 2009, 10:24 PM
ITF has no explaining to do as they pushed for two years in both cases. The Tribunal on the other hand has a lot of explaining to do. Especially Tim Kerr who chaired both cases. The Gasquet decision borders on the embarrassing in the way they are fawning over him at every opportunity, giving him the benefit of the doubt at almost each and every turn. His team only failed at the in-competition distinction - which incidentally is also what makes the case nearly identical to the Hingis case.

Gasquet's team legal team had a huge advantage in that they could use the Hingis case as a guide to what strategy they should most certainly avoid. Martina's team focused primarily on the technical side and tried to use sampling irregularities as her main line of defense. That line was almost completely dismissed.

Gasquet's team was highly successful in two ways:

A) Focusing on the modest amount found and his general reputation
B) Presenting a scenario in which contamination could have taken place at the party

Hingis' defense also used 'A' - which was certainly justified when you take into account that her concentration of benzoylecgonine was a modest 42 ng/ml - compared to 151 ng/ml for Gasquet (both low findings) - but it seemed to have played a much lesser role in the decision than it did in the Gasquet decision.

But the real difference was in 'B' - the so-called Pamela. The Tribunal bought that story practically without reservations. Without very solid evidence - i.e. an admission from 'Pamela' (although she could have been paid to deliver it) - I find that baffling.

This reeks of hypocrisy.

KournikovaFan91
Jul 16th, 2009, 10:34 PM
I think a bigger issue then Gasquet was that at the time of Hingis' ban she was given the same length of a ban as Karatantcheva and Pous Tio who both took preformance enhancing substances while she took something which doesn't alter preformance.

Pous Tio had her ban ended early also :confused:

Since the Gasquet case is 2 years after the Hingis case, maybe the ITF have decided to change their policy with regards cocaine and give it a lesser sentence now.

TheAllan
Jul 16th, 2009, 10:51 PM
Pous Tio had her ban ended early also :confused:

Since the Gasquet case is 2 years after the Hingis case, maybe the ITF have decided to change their policy with regards cocaine and give it a lesser sentence now.
The ITF hasn't changed its policy. They are simply following WADA who hasn't lessened their stance on cocaine. They wanted two years for Gasquet as well.

Laura Pous Tio lost her CAS appeal and her 2-year ban was upheld.

KournikovaFan91
Jul 16th, 2009, 11:12 PM
No Pous Tio ended her ban 6 months early

The ITF received an application from the Player, which it considered carefully, in accordance with the transitional provisions of the 2009 WADA Code. The ITF is of the opinion that, despite the Player’s general failure to comply with her anti-doping obligations under the Programme, it is appropriate in this case to reduce the two-year sanction imposed by the Tribunal. Specifically, the ITF has reduced the period of Ineligibility to be served by the Player by 6 months, i.e., from 24 months to 18 months. Accordingly, the Player’s ban will now end on 10 May 2009, and she will be eligible to compete again from 11 May 2009.

Pous Tio recieved her ban the same day as Hingis however has begun playing ITF again. Hingis cannot play until October 1st.

hingis-seles
Jul 16th, 2009, 11:22 PM
Excuse my language, but this is severly fucked up.

TheAllan
Jul 17th, 2009, 12:09 AM
Pous Tio recieved her ban the same day as Hingis however has begun playing ITF again. Hingis cannot play until October 1st.
Thanks for the correction. Unfortunately, that same provision used by Pous Tio on the recommendation of CAS could never be applicable to Hingis' case as it requires that the player explained how the substance entered her body. In any case, it's regretful that Hingis didn't take her case to CAS although it's doubtful she would have achieved much.

Polikarpov
Jul 17th, 2009, 12:14 AM
It's a shame that Hingis couldn't come up with ridiculous stories to save her. She could have just said that the cocaine was from kissing Stepanek's sexy lips, and the ITF tribunal would have bought it.

This is from a memo sent by ITF to players after Hingis got banned:

"Where the substance found in the player's sample is a Specified Substance and the player establishes how it got into her system and that there was no intent to enhance performance, the sanction for a first offense may be anything from a warning to a 24-month ban."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/jon_wertheim/07/16/gasquet/index.html?eref=T1

How convenient right? In Martina's case, she wouldn't still be able to establish how the cocaine got into her system because, well, she herself doesn't know how it entered her system.

TheAllan
Jul 17th, 2009, 12:36 AM
"Where the substance found in the player's sample is a Specified Substance and the player establishes how it got into her system and that there was no intent to enhance performance, the sanction for a first offense may be anything from a warning to a 24-month ban."
Cocaine is not even a specified substance, though. Which makes Richard Gasquet's "escape" seem all the more miraculous with the precedence of the Hingis case.

KournikovaFan91
Jul 17th, 2009, 12:38 AM
Could Hingis have had her sample tampered with, many sports people claim this however testers are put on such a pedastal their complaints aren't taken seriously.

I don't know if you could somehow tamper with a sample in that way, but just another suggestion.

TheAllan
Jul 17th, 2009, 12:57 AM
Could Hingis have had her sample tampered with, many sports people claim this however testers are put on such a pedastal their complaints aren't taken seriously.

I don't know if you could somehow tamper with a sample in that way, but just another suggestion.
I think it was admitted that the sampling procedures were far from optimal for the Hingis test, but they contended that it wasn't enough to cause an adverse finding. It will be interesting to see the next cocaine case. They have now provided a manual on how to get off easy if you are unlucky enough to be tested at the wrong time.

I can't blame Gasquet for doing his best to get off. Banning someone for two years because they did something stupid at a party is not fair. We are not dealing with steroids or EPO and this could have ruined his career. On the other hand, there has to be consistency and legal reason behind the decisions.

KournikovaFan91
Jul 17th, 2009, 01:11 AM
I agree the next time a player comes up on a cocaine case, I am sure their will be a next time. It will be interesting.

pascal77
Jul 17th, 2009, 02:32 AM
let's take a close look at what had been said in the independent tribunal court by the three lawyers

1)The tribunal panel of three lawyers said Gasquet consumed no more than "a grain of salt" of the drug, and a long ban would be an injustice in a case which was "unusual to the point of being probably unique."
2)"We have found the player to be a person who is shy and reserved, honest and truthful, and a man of integrity and good character," the tribunal said in its ruling. "He is neither a cheat nor a user of drugs for recreational purposes."
3)The tribunal said it was likely she had consumed cocaine during the night, though it had no direct evidence. She spent an "excessive" amount of time in the toilet at one club before emerging to kiss Gasquet on the mouth, the player told the hearing.
4)We take into account that the amount of cocaine in the player's body was so small that if he had been tested only a few hours later, his test result would be likely to have been negative," the tribunal stated.
For those who keep saying that Gas deserves to be punished lightly, please tell me of all the four reasons above, which one can be used to prove Gas's inocence? his good character, the low amount of cocaine, he has great future, he was suspected to be kissed by a girl who was likely to take cocaine that night? ITF is a joke.

pascal77
Jul 17th, 2009, 02:38 AM
I agree the next time a player comes up on a cocaine case, I am sure their will be a next time. It will be interesting.
no, it wont be interesting, because they will say, you are not shy and reserved as Gas.you are telling a lie,so we just dont believe you. so you should be given a long-time ban. i mean if you dont have money and connections, they will treat you as they did to Hingis. they can put you above the rules when you have money and connections and put your below the rules when you are nothing and useless. double standards, such an easy decision for them to make.

Amanda
Jul 17th, 2009, 02:43 AM
Go Hingis!

SM
Jul 17th, 2009, 02:47 AM
I Hope She Sues! This Is Pathetic!

pascal77
Jul 17th, 2009, 02:48 AM
double standards are not only applied by ITF, but also applied personally. current world number 2 Nadal commented on HIngis's case that HIngis's case will have a terrible influence upon tennis world, but when coming to his best friends's case, he insisted that Gas be innocent, and he believed him.so Nadal is such a clown!

Amanda
Jul 17th, 2009, 02:49 AM
it's time for Venus to present another one of her letters!

pascal77
Jul 17th, 2009, 03:12 AM
the fact she decided to retire and annunced it just few minutes after the ITF judgement has something to do with that.

hingis didnt even try to defend herself while gasquet did. In fact gasquet didnt play any match in miami tournament, he went to that party before retire from the tournament. Hingis played Wimbledon and got that result after being tested.

That's NOT the same case!

yeah, probably Gas thought since i would retire from this tournament tomorrow, so i can snort some cocaine for fun. More importantly, cocaine got into his body before his retirement, so what if he didnt withdraw and played match as planned? there is no difference between 2 cases except the amount of cocaine found inside two players.

Miranda
Jul 17th, 2009, 03:49 AM
poor Hingis, she should sue the ITF and his useless lawyers ......

SM
Jul 17th, 2009, 06:40 AM
and sue nadal for defamation :)

Miranda
Jul 17th, 2009, 07:25 AM
and sue nadal for defamation :)

was nadal bad and foolish enough to point out Hingis's name directly? if so, may be hingis should sue him too :rolleyes:, foolish nadal:rolleyes:

Miranda
Jul 17th, 2009, 07:49 AM
Perhaps the French Federation has much more power in the tennis government body, so that they fought harder for Gasquet than the Swiss did for Hingis. Gasquet is a young underachiever who needs to play in order to win something soon, whereas, Hingis was at the end of a great career. Politics was definitely involved, IMO.
I agreed with you, hingis did not have the swiss tennis federation to help her ....

Tech1
Jul 17th, 2009, 08:38 AM
Please forgive me if this has already been posted.


From tennis report.net:
Essentially, the ITF chose to belie[ve] Gasquet not because the amount of cocaine in his system was less than a grain of salt (the amount found in Hingis’ system was even less than that), but because he left a distinctive trail, full of real people, they felt that they could follow and because he appeared to be telling the truth. Hingis never did that, instead choosing to dispute the testing procedures. Had she given any type of similar reason, that she was out at night and an identifiable someone might have blown a few lines her way, she may have gotten off, but she’s so full of pride and can be so combative that she and her lawyers chose an impossible defense, one that cost her a huge amount of money and sapped her of her energy. Hence a talented yet underachieving player like Gasquet got off easy and a Hall of Famer like Hingis was shown the door. By no means is the sport a better place because of it.

Miranda
Jul 17th, 2009, 08:55 AM
Please forgive me if this has already been posted.



From tennis report.net:Essentially, the ITF chose to belie[ve] Gasquet not because the amount of cocaine in his system was less than a grain of salt (the amount found in Hingis’ system was even less than that), but because he left a distinctive trail, full of real people, they felt that they could follow and because he appeared to be telling the truth. Hingis never did that, instead choosing to dispute the testing procedures. Had she given any type of similar reason, that she was out at night and an identifiable someone might have blown a few lines her way, she may have gotten off, but she’s so full of pride and can be so combative that she and her lawyers chose an impossible defense, one that cost her a huge amount of money and sapped her of her energy. Hence a talented yet underachieving player like Gasquet got off easy and a Hall of Famer like Hingis was shown the door. By no means is the sport a better place because of it.

her lawyers are some fools :rolleyes:

martinahfan
Jul 17th, 2009, 09:05 AM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/jon_wertheim/07/16/gasquet/

While the 16 remaining players in the men's draw competed at Wimbledon on June 29, Richard Gasquet was a few miles from the All England Club, fighting for his career at a tribunal hearing. Three months earlier, the French player had tested positive for cocaine, triggering a two-year ban under the World Anti-Doping Agency code. In a sport with no guaranteed contracts and a short career shelf life, this was, potentially, akin to a professional death sentence.
But in a considerable upset, the International Tennis Federation's panel ruled Wednesday that Gasquet inadvertently took the cocaine. He was cleared to play after completing a 2½-month ban, which ended Wednesday. The three-person tribunal found credible Gasquet's defense that the trace amounts of cocaine had entered his system when he kissed a woman in a Miami nightclub.
"We have found the player to be a person who is shy and reserved, honest and truthful, and a man of integrity and good character," the tribunal said in its ruling. "He is neither a cheat nor a user of drugs for recreational purposes."
While Gasquet declared himself "elated," his fate contrasted sharply with that Martina Hingis -- odd given the symmetry between them up to that point. It was two years ago that Hingis tested positive for cocaine metabolite. Like Gasquet, it was only a trace amount, significantly less, in fact. Hingis' amount was so small that, had she registered the same amount in a test administered by the U.S. military, it would not have triggered a positive result. Like Gasquet, she claimed to be dumbfounded, vigorously denying taking the drug and being left to speculate how the substance got into her system.
As with Gasquet, the case was circumstantially suspect. Over the course of her career, Hingis had been subject to dozens of random, unannounced tests and passed them all. Would she really purposefully ingest cocaine right before Wimbledon, when she knew she would be tested? There were additional questions about the "chain of custody." Hingis' sample sat in a Wimbledon locker and was transferred to the WADA lab in Montreal, and she suggested that the specimen somehow became contaminated during that time. After all, when she later submitted to a hair follicle test for cocaine, there was no evidence of use.
But unlike Gasquet, Hingis didn't bother with a rigorous appeal. Could she have contacted the cocaine handling money or drinking out of someone else's water glass? Sure. But, really, who knew? And besides, under the strict liability standard, it didn't much matter. She tested positive, therefore she was guilty. Rather than "take on this doping machinery," as she put it at the time, Hingis declined to go through a long and expensive appeal process. Instead she quit at 27, retiring for a second time.
Her case, though, proceeded and even in retirement, Hingis, a five-time Grand Slam champion and Hall of Fame shoo-in, was hit with a two-year ban. Coincidentally, on the day Gasquet was appealing his result in London last month, Hingis was in town as well. She'd visited friends at Wimbledon but met them at a house a few hundred yards from the courts; as a condition of her ban, she isn't even allowed to attend a Grand Slam event as a spectator.
Tennis has never stood accused of doing much of anything conventionally, and on doping, it zigs where others zag. Other sports grapple with flawed protocol, obvious testing loopholes and laughably light penalties. Tennis has the opposite problem. A condition for being an Olympic sport, it abides by the rigid WADA code. And without a Don Fehr or Billy Hunter figure to advocate (not an altogether bad thing, you might argue), the players have signed off on testing that might be too rigorous. (Around the same time Gasquet was clipped for cocaine -- a banned and illicit drug, yes, but a recreational one, not generally considered to enhance performance -- Dodgers slugger Manny Ramirez was caught for a female fertility drug known to be part of a steroid regimen. His punishment? Fifty games.)
In a tacit admission that Hingis was treated too harshly, after her case, the ITF sent players a memo outlining changes to the anti-doping policy. A small clause reads: Where the substance found in the player's sample is a Specified Substance and the player establishes how it got into her system and that there was no intent to enhance performance, the sanction for a first offense may be anything from a warning to a 24-month ban.
It was this bit of discretion that likely enabled Gasquet to escape a two-year ban. The Hingis Rule, we may as well call it.
Even after spending the last three months sidelined, Gasquet is still ranked a respectable No. 32. He will resume his career in a few weeks, and, save for 75 days of unrealized income (and perhaps some sleep), he lost little. Even his reputation survived, especially given the dramatically commuted sentence and glowing praise for his character contained in the decision.
Given Gasquet's fragile and gentle nature, you can't help but be happy for him. You can't help but think justice was served. Still, when Gasquet is done thanking (and paying) his lawyers, you'd hope he'd reach out to Hingis and express a debt of gratitude for her having "taken one for the team." And you'd also hope that the ITF would contact Hingis as well, and rescind her ban immediately. That's the least it could do for a player who didn't want to fight doping machinery, but sure got caught up in its gears.

Vaidisova Ruled
Jul 17th, 2009, 10:13 AM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/jon_wertheim/07/16/gasquet/

While the 16 remaining players in the men's draw competed at Wimbledon on June 29, Richard Gasquet was a few miles from the All England Club, fighting for his career at a tribunal hearing. Three months earlier, the French player had tested positive for cocaine, triggering a two-year ban under the World Anti-Doping Agency code. In a sport with no guaranteed contracts and a short career shelf life, this was, potentially, akin to a professional death sentence.
But in a considerable upset, the International Tennis Federation's panel ruled Wednesday that Gasquet inadvertently took the cocaine. He was cleared to play after completing a 2½-month ban, which ended Wednesday. The three-person tribunal found credible Gasquet's defense that the trace amounts of cocaine had entered his system when he kissed a woman in a Miami nightclub.
"We have found the player to be a person who is shy and reserved, honest and truthful, and a man of integrity and good character," the tribunal said in its ruling. "He is neither a cheat nor a user of drugs for recreational purposes."
While Gasquet declared himself "elated," his fate contrasted sharply with that Martina Hingis -- odd given the symmetry between them up to that point. It was two years ago that Hingis tested positive for cocaine metabolite. Like Gasquet, it was only a trace amount, significantly less, in fact. Hingis' amount was so small that, had she registered the same amount in a test administered by the U.S. military, it would not have triggered a positive result. Like Gasquet, she claimed to be dumbfounded, vigorously denying taking the drug and being left to speculate how the substance got into her system.
As with Gasquet, the case was circumstantially suspect. Over the course of her career, Hingis had been subject to dozens of random, unannounced tests and passed them all. Would she really purposefully ingest cocaine right before Wimbledon, when she knew she would be tested? There were additional questions about the "chain of custody." Hingis' sample sat in a Wimbledon locker and was transferred to the WADA lab in Montreal, and she suggested that the specimen somehow became contaminated during that time. After all, when she later submitted to a hair follicle test for cocaine, there was no evidence of use.
But unlike Gasquet, Hingis didn't bother with a rigorous appeal. Could she have contacted the cocaine handling money or drinking out of someone else's water glass? Sure. But, really, who knew? And besides, under the strict liability standard, it didn't much matter. She tested positive, therefore she was guilty. Rather than "take on this doping machinery," as she put it at the time, Hingis declined to go through a long and expensive appeal process. Instead she quit at 27, retiring for a second time.
Her case, though, proceeded and even in retirement, Hingis, a five-time Grand Slam champion and Hall of Fame shoo-in, was hit with a two-year ban. Coincidentally, on the day Gasquet was appealing his result in London last month, Hingis was in town as well. She'd visited friends at Wimbledon but met them at a house a few hundred yards from the courts; as a condition of her ban, she isn't even allowed to attend a Grand Slam event as a spectator.
Tennis has never stood accused of doing much of anything conventionally, and on doping, it zigs where others zag. Other sports grapple with flawed protocol, obvious testing loopholes and laughably light penalties. Tennis has the opposite problem. A condition for being an Olympic sport, it abides by the rigid WADA code. And without a Don Fehr or Billy Hunter figure to advocate (not an altogether bad thing, you might argue), the players have signed off on testing that might be too rigorous. (Around the same time Gasquet was clipped for cocaine -- a banned and illicit drug, yes, but a recreational one, not generally considered to enhance performance -- Dodgers slugger Manny Ramirez was caught for a female fertility drug known to be part of a steroid regimen. His punishment? Fifty games.)
In a tacit admission that Hingis was treated too harshly, after her case, the ITF sent players a memo outlining changes to the anti-doping policy. A small clause reads: Where the substance found in the player's sample is a Specified Substance and the player establishes how it got into her system and that there was no intent to enhance performance, the sanction for a first offense may be anything from a warning to a 24-month ban.
It was this bit of discretion that likely enabled Gasquet to escape a two-year ban. The Hingis Rule, we may as well call it.
Even after spending the last three months sidelined, Gasquet is still ranked a respectable No. 32. He will resume his career in a few weeks, and, save for 75 days of unrealized income (and perhaps some sleep), he lost little. Even his reputation survived, especially given the dramatically commuted sentence and glowing praise for his character contained in the decision.
Given Gasquet's fragile and gentle nature, you can't help but be happy for him. You can't help but think justice was served. Still, when Gasquet is done thanking (and paying) his lawyers, you'd hope he'd reach out to Hingis and express a debt of gratitude for her having "taken one for the team." And you'd also hope that the ITF would contact Hingis as well, and rescind her ban immediately. That's the least it could do for a player who didn't want to fight doping machinery, but sure got caught up in its gears.
Good article
I really hope Martina will speak

pascal77
Jul 17th, 2009, 01:43 PM
Hingis is full of pride, and she didnt want herself to have any connection with cocaine, so she and her lawyer chose not to make up a story as Gas's team did. Instead, they insisted that the sample be someone else's. what's more, Hingis is a great champion, so she by no means would rely on telling the lie or making up stories. The fact that Gas was pubished lightly only has made Hingis look much greater. she is a real great player of principle. she didnt put herself above the rules. Constrastivly, what ITF and Gas have done just reveals the very drak side of tennis world.

Vaidisova Ruled
Jul 17th, 2009, 01:49 PM
Hingis is full of pride, and she didnt want herself to have any connection with cocaine, so she and her lawyer chose not to make up a story as Gas's team did.
I agree with that.

Davodus
Jul 17th, 2009, 01:55 PM
Hingis is full of pride, and she didnt want herself to have any connection with cocaine, so she and her lawyer chose not to make up a story as Gas's team did. Instead, they insisted that the sample be someone else's. what's more, Hingis is a great champion, so she by no means would rely on telling the lie or making up stories. The fact that Gas was pubished lightly only has made Hingis look much greater. she is a real great player of principle. she didnt put herself above the rules. Constrastivly, what ITF and Gas have done just reveals the very drak side of tennis world.

Having already explained a great deal about why each verdict was given, I will have to repeat myself. The story, while they believed it because there were witnesses (and who are you to say it is made up?) has little to do with the verdict itself. They determined that, because he has a non-metabolised trace of cocaine in his urine sample, that it had to be taken in the previous 12 hours. Given that it was so small, it couldn't have been ingested purposefully, and they stated in their report that the story given, while not definite, was the MOST LIKELY method of ingestion. Hingis only had a metabolised version of cocaine, and while it was smaller, no time period could be put on it, meaning that it was more than likely it was taken far earlier than the 12 hours before seen in Richard's case, and therefore could have entered as a much higher amount of cocaine, and therefore been intentional. It was impossible to prove.

This is not my opinion, this is fact. My opinion is that Hingis should have been given a lesser verdict, and I think it was her hearing that gave Richard the chance to get this result. But the reasons I have given are the ones that explain why Hingis was given 2 years. It has nothing to do with making up a story

pascal77
Jul 17th, 2009, 02:52 PM
Having already explained a great deal about why each verdict was given, I will have to repeat myself. The story, while they believed it because there were witnesses (and who are you to say it is made up?) has little to do with the verdict itself. They determined that, because he has a non-metabolised trace of cocaine in his urine sample, that it had to be taken in the previous 12 hours. Given that it was so small, it couldn't have been ingested purposefully, and they stated in their report that the story given, while not definite, was the MOST LIKELY method of ingestion. Hingis only had a metabolised version of cocaine, and while it was smaller, no time period could be put on it, meaning that it was more than likely it was taken far earlier than the 12 hours before seen in Richard's case, and therefore could have entered as a much higher amount of cocaine, and therefore been intentional. It was impossible to prove.

This is not my opinion, this is fact. My opinion is that Hingis should have been given a lesser verdict, and I think it was her hearing that gave Richard the chance to get this result. But the reasons I have given are the ones that explain why Hingis was given 2 years. It has nothing to do with making up a story
metabolised is a key word in what you have said for Richard. I have checked out many information about Richard case, but failed to see such a word as metabolised. can you give me a link or something. By the way, for your information, one of my best friends is a researcher on toxicology. she told me there was no way to get cocaine into your body by kissing or touching. If i am not mistaken, to make this look possible, Richard's team stressed Richard kissed that French girl for 7 times.This is highky questionable. I was just wondering how can independent anti-doping court beleieved this without taking any possible test to prove it? yes, Richard probably got cocaine into his body within 12 hours, but how can you conclude that he did it inadvertently just depending on the small amount trace. He probably took a little cocaine for fun. one thing worth noticing is Richard's retirement from the tournament. his retirement probably just shows he wanted to escape the possible test since he took cocaine on purpose last night. according to the statement i have read by the three lawyers, most of time , they were talking about bullshit. Such as how kind and reserved Richard is, how small the amount of cocaine inside his body is, but they didnt mention that important word metablised, so who the hell should i believe, you or the 3 lawyers on the court?

pascal77
Jul 17th, 2009, 03:06 PM
Given that it was so small, it couldn't have been ingested purposefully,
================================================== ====================
logically, you cant say something like that so absolutely. In Gas's urine sample, there are 150/ml, i dont know if such an amount of non-metabolised cocaine only can be acquired by inadvertent behavoir. The problem is no one has ever proved if what Gas's team has defended for Richard is practically possible and reasonable. they kept using ambiguous language to defend for Richard,(such as possible, probability, it might be concluded) which naturally invoked suspect and question.

Davodus
Jul 17th, 2009, 03:07 PM
metabolised is a key word in what you have said for Richard. I have checked out many information about Richard case, but failed to see such a word as metabolised. can you give me a link or something. By the way, for your information, one of my best friends is a researcher on toxicology. she told me there was no way to get cocaine into your body by kissing or touching. If i am not mistaken, to make this look possible, Richard's team stressed Richard kissed that French girl for 7 times.This is highky questionable. I was just wondering how can independent anti-doping court beleieved this without taking any possible test to prove it? yes, Richard probably got cocaine into his body within 12 hours, but how can you conclude that he did it inadvertently just depending on the small amount trace. He probably took a little cocaine for fun. one thing worth noticing is Richard's retirement from the tournament. his retirement probably just shows he wanted to escape the possible test since he took cocaine on purpose last night. according to the statement i have read by the three lawyers, most of time , they were talking about bullshit. Such as how kind and reserved Richard is, how small the amount of cocaine inside his body is, but they didnt mention that important word metablised, so who the hell should i believe, you or the 3 lawyers on the court?

Firstly, several toxicologists were present, on both sides, to give information in the hearing. You most certainly can exchange cocaine through kissing, just like you can by shaking someones hand who just took cocaine and then putting your hand to your mouth.

If you read the transcript report given by the ITF, you will find that it says this:

Both the A and B samples
returned adverse analytical findings for a metabolite of cocaine in a very small
quantity. During the A sample analysis, a very small amount of cocaine in
unmetabolised form was also found.

This was explained by toxicologists, who then went on to say that due to the presence of the unmetabolised form of cocaine, then it was taken within the prior 12 hours. This is the information from the hearing, not what I believe. It is a fact. Now, the small amount of cocaine in his system is the size of a grain of salt. Given that his hair test proved he is not a regular user, they concluded that he would not have willingly ingested cocaine that was no more than a single grain of salt. Therefore, it must have been unwillingly ingested. That is how they came to the conclusion that it happened at the party (given the time period which was able to be determined by toxicologists), and the most likely method was through kissing.

Your statement that he pulled out because he didn't want to get caught is a joke. He had an MRI from his doctor that showed severe inflammation of his right shoulder, and his doctor testified to the fact that they had decided to pull him out of the tournament the afternoon before going to the party. This was accepted without argument by the ITF.

All of this is in this PDF, which, if you want all the answers, take time to read, before you accuse.
http://www.itftennis.com/shared/medialibrary/pdf/original/IO_42899_original.PDF

HRHoliviasmith
Jul 17th, 2009, 03:07 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/jon_wertheim/07/16/gasquet/


good article.

pascal77
Jul 17th, 2009, 03:34 PM
It is a fact. Now, the small amount of cocaine in his system is the size of a grain of salt. Given that his hair test proved he is not a regular user, they concluded that he would not have willingly ingested cocaine that was no more than a single grain of salt. Therefore, it must have been unwillingly ingested. That is how they came to the conclusion that it happened at the party (given the time period which was able to be determined by toxicologists), and the most likely method was through kissing.
================================================== ================================================== ==================
Excuse me , but how can we come to the conclusion that he didnt take cocaine willingly just because of the relatively small amount of non-metabolised cocaine? it can be explained in either way. he ingested it inadvertently or he took very very small amount of cocaine out of curiosity since he was about to withdraw the tournament tomorrow. The most interesting question since he knew that was a notoriously cocaine-related club, why he still went there before the tournament. Probably you will say he knew nothing about this, but his friends showing his way to there must have some clues. Interestingly enough, in the last sentence of your words, ambiguous word likely is used as the three lawyers did. so you still cant deny Richard's team convinced the court by uncertain and deductive evidence. To me , this is a joke.

Davodus
Jul 17th, 2009, 03:45 PM
Excuse me , but how can we come to the conclusion that he didnt take cocaine willingly just because of the relatively small amount of non-metabolised cocaine? it can be explained in either way. he ingested it inadvertently or he took very very small amount of cocaine out of curiosity since he was about to withdraw the tournament tomorrow. The most interesting question since he knew that was a notoriously cocaine-related club, why he still went there before the tournament. Probably you will say he knew nothing about this, but his friends showing his way to there must have some clues. Interestingly enough, in the last sentence of your words, ambiguous word likely is used as the three lawyers did. so you still cant deny Richard's team convinced the court by uncertain and deductive evidence. To me , this is a joke.

Such an amount of cocaine would have no effect on the body. Why would he, realistically, take cocaine the size of a grain of salt to experiment? It would do nothing. Also, this amount of cocaine would be almost impossible to single out and then ingested, because it is so small.

The 'court' decided that the likely method of ingestion was kissing, and that the only other options were things such as shaking hand with someone who had just taken it, using the same glass as someone who had used it, and things like that. They are the only other possibilities. The word likely is used in that sense, not because it is likely he didn't take it willingly, but he still could have. In their mind, he didn't take it, and the information given to them was, in their mind, good enough to result in this sentence. If you read the article, you will see that they wanted to give him the same result as hingis, but he had the right evidence to show no significant fault of negligence.

KournikovaFan91
Jul 17th, 2009, 03:47 PM
Hingis is full of pride, and she didnt want herself to have any connection with cocaine, so she and her lawyer chose not to make up a story as Gas's team did.

So he can play and she can't, I hope her pride makes up for that :rolleyes:

*JR*
Jul 17th, 2009, 03:51 PM
Are you sure it is not regulated by the separate tours?
It is indeed not. Both tours have delegated the monitoring of their players under the WADA Code to the ITF. (WADA is short for the World Anti-Doping Agency, an affiliate of the International Olympic Committee)

EDIT: When Marti came back she won 2 Tier I's. Then the newer ball bashers "figured her out" (plus the W/S, who had even before she "retired" in 2002). She was never a Henin, who'd do Pat Etcheberry's brutal workouts to compensate for her size disadvantage, and I don't think she wanted to hang around lets say #10 (with no more Slams).

And I say this as one who liked Marti more than any player this decade except for Jen. (Though Martina I had an "encore" mostly in dubs, to me Lefty is Chrissie's great rival from another era and my original favorite, so I'm not including her here)

KournikovaFan91
Jul 17th, 2009, 03:54 PM
However is it possible the tours are some way invovled in the cases of their players or not.

irinska
Jul 17th, 2009, 05:29 PM
Hingis had the Tribunal-Chairman Tim Kerr - the same judges as in the case Gasquet , ITF just stinks!

LoveFifteen
Jul 17th, 2009, 06:37 PM
Why do you care? It's not like she's coming back to tennis.

It's not about her playing on tour again. It's about the fact that she can't even set foot on the grounds of a Slam.

KournikovaFan91
Jul 17th, 2009, 07:31 PM
Why can't she. From October ban is over anyway.

Vaidisova Ruled
Jul 17th, 2009, 08:24 PM
Why can't she. From October ban is over anyway.
:weirdo:Because She'll be 29.
We all know that if she wasn't banned (like Gasquet) she would have played at LEAST one year.

Where is my Jennifer Capriati ? Why can't she come back?

You really don't understand anything.

KournikovaFan91
Jul 17th, 2009, 11:44 PM
Well even if the ban is over turned now she won't be able to turn back time. :rolleyes:

Overturning it is pointless at this stage.

Also Hingis could play doubles and mixed if she really wanted to play.

Golovinjured.
Jul 18th, 2009, 01:51 AM
It's just bullshit. Anyone who can't see that Martina has been wronged here is ignorant and just looking to stir up her fans.

KournikovaFan91
Jul 18th, 2009, 02:38 AM
It's just bullshit. Anyone who can't see that Martina has been wronged here is ignorant and just looking to stir up her fans.

Well she could only have been wronged if her case came after Gasquet's, then it would be double standards but it has been 2 years since her case and he had a perfectly valid explanantion which she failed to provide.

Miranda
Jul 18th, 2009, 03:22 AM
Hingis is full of pride, and she didnt want herself to have any connection with cocaine, so she and her lawyer chose not to make up a story as Gas's team did. Instead, they insisted that the sample be someone else's. what's more, Hingis is a great champion, so she by no means would rely on telling the lie or making up stories. The fact that Gas was pubished lightly only has made Hingis look much greater. she is a real great player of principle. she didnt put herself above the rules. Constrastivly, what ITF and Gas have done just reveals the very drak side of tennis world.

sorry i don't understand this, if Hingis is full of pride and did not want to lie, why to said the samples are not hers, this is also a lie!

Golovinjured.
Jul 18th, 2009, 03:56 AM
Well she could only have been wronged if her case came after Gasquet's, then it would be double standards but it has been 2 years since her case and he had a perfectly valid explanantion which she failed to provide.

Hingis' sample drew a very small amount of cocaine - if tested for that amount now (after the rule change) no action would be taken. I keep hearing that Gasquet's sample showed what "a grain of cocaine" would show. What does that mean for Martina's, that was considerably less?

It's just really weird. Martina gets 104 weeks for a reading that would no longer be illegal, Richard gets 10 weeks for a reading much higher than her, and it's not as though so much time has passed that ideologies about recreational drugs in sport have changed. It's been 2 years. They're just as much frowned upon now, as was when Hingis was banned.

young_gunner913
Jul 18th, 2009, 03:57 AM
It's just bullshit. Anyone who can't see that Martina has been wronged here is ignorant and just looking to stir up her fans.

if you let them stir you up, they win. if you think martina's innocent and martina thinks shes innocent, isn't that all that matters?

Golovinjured.
Jul 18th, 2009, 03:58 AM
if you let them stir you up, they win. if you think martina's innocent and martina thinks shes innocent, isn't that all that matters?

No, because she can't play. Even if she doesn't want to, she should have that choice.... let alone the right to attend Grand Slam events.

faboozadoo15
Jul 18th, 2009, 04:18 AM
if you let them stir you up, they win. if you think martina's innocent and martina thinks shes innocent, isn't that all that matters?

She also deserves her name cleared. You can just read responses from the numerous morons in this thread who think she's a tarnished champion.

Sexysova
Jul 18th, 2009, 08:54 AM
yeah, there's a big difference in Hingis' and Gasquet's cases.. Richard fought for he's innocent while Martina looked like she's reconcilement with it..

AndreConrad
Jul 18th, 2009, 01:56 PM
She also deserves her name cleared. You can just read responses from the numerous morons in this thread who think she's a tarnished champion.
I guess this is what bothers me the most. Her name should be cleared officially so her achievements when researched in the future never have the shadow of this incident over them. Her name doesn't need clearing with her fans and no clearing will help with her haters.

KournikovaFan91
Jul 18th, 2009, 04:27 PM
I don't think all people think she is a tarnished champion. Well I don't, but I don't think her ban should be overturned without her fighting for it.
Like it wasn't preformance enhancing drug.

Like I am a fan of Karatantcheva and she did her time for the ban and came back, she also made up an excuse which ITF/WADA didn't believe but at least she fought her case also. Hingis never bothered.

Golovinjured.
Jul 18th, 2009, 04:33 PM
I don't think all people think she is a tarnished champion. Well I don't, but I don't think her ban should be overturned without her fighting for it.
Like it wasn't preformance enhancing drug.

Like I am a fan of Karatantcheva and she did her time for the ban and came back, she also made up an excuse which ITF/WADA didn't believe but at least she fought her case also. Hingis never bothered.

Yeah but we're people who post on a tennisforum. We know that Hingis tested positive to cocaine (not exactly performance enhancing) and even then it was a VERY small amount, but to everyone else - Hingis just got banned for taking an illegal substance. Her image and legacy have been tarnished a lot.

KournikovaFan91
Jul 18th, 2009, 04:39 PM
That is true. It is like Irish Swimmer Michelle Smith was only found guilty of tampering with a drug sample but some people mistakenly think she was found guilty of actually taking drugs.

The ITF/WADA should give an explination as to why the two rulings are different.

Golovinjured.
Jul 18th, 2009, 04:46 PM
Yeah, and the thing is if someone gets a 2 year ban, the general public are going to believe they did something wrong by the sport, taking a substance to get an edge over the field. Martina never did that.

So depressing. :sobbing:

KournikovaFan91
Jul 18th, 2009, 05:40 PM
Two years was always too severe, like 6 months and compulsory trips to rehab would have been more appropriate.

As I previously said people who used preformance enhancing drugs got the same sentance as Hingis which wasn't fair.

terjw
Jul 18th, 2009, 05:42 PM
She also deserves her name cleared. You can just read responses from the numerous morons in this thread who think she's a tarnished champion.

Yeah - ridiculous double standards. And she does deserve her name to be officially cleared. In practice though it's not something she will get too bothered about now. Firtst - I think she was looking to retire. And second - I don't think she is actually regarded as a tarnished champion - certainly not a cheater. So she's not going to lower herself to stirring anything up and getting involved or suing or anything.

And I certainly wouldn't take the views of morons and haters on these boards as being representatitive of what her legacy really is. She's had to endure some jokes it's true. But that doesn't mean people believe it. And anyway clearing her name won't change the minds of those posters who think she cheated or is a tarnished champion anyway.

*JR*
Jul 18th, 2009, 06:24 PM
Two years was always too severe, like 6 months and compulsory trips to rehab would have been more appropriate.

As I previously said people who used preformance enhancing drugs got the same sentance as Hingis which wasn't fair.
@ the time Marti's penalty was issued, there was very little flexibility in terms of length of penalty under the WADA code. (It was 2 years for a first offense and lifetime for a 2nd for any banned substance) Regardless of age too, so Sesil got no slack for that. Incidentally, her nandrolone levels were found 2B sky high, though I forget the #. And Tim Kerr ran her hearing too.

In terms of the then ridiculous lack of discretion in length of penalty, there was a female French wheelchair player (around 27) whose name I forget, who got the 2 years for a substance thats allowed if prescribed, and where she had a valid prescription. Her "offense" was failing to file a Therapeutic Use Exemption form on time! :rolleyes:

KournikovaFan91
Jul 18th, 2009, 06:53 PM
I didn't realise it was 2years for any banned substance.

Which seems ridiculous. :rolleyes:

Steffica Greles
Jul 18th, 2009, 06:57 PM
On the face of it Hingis has been treated unfairly.

But her fans should remember that she retired primarily because of injuries, and not the drug ban.

azinna
Jul 18th, 2009, 08:55 PM
^Which may explain why she didn't try to appeal.