PDA

View Full Version : "Cold theory" can't explain ephedrine's presence in Kuznetsova's body!


turt
Jan 19th, 2005, 08:19 AM
I've read in my newspaper that you test positive with ephedrine if you have more than 10mg/l. They explained that it can't be explained by cold medication, since the concentration would be much much less important than that!

They also talked about the fact that if it's used in big quantity, it's like amphetamins, so maybe everybody is a little bit quick on dismissing Sveta's guilt...

Also the attitude of Larry Scott does bother me! He claims her girls didn't do anything wrong and won't be punished! But don't forget the WTA didn't even sign the World code for anti-doping from the WADA, why is this? Do Larry Scott or the WTA have something to hide? The ATP did sign it...

So far, this story looks quite strange and I think everybody was quick to charge the poor Claude Eerdekens, who was really clumsy in this case, but who was forced to intervene because of leakages in the press. It was really wrong to say it was not Justine and let the suspicion on the other 3 girls, and worse to finally release the name before the B-sample was tested, but he's not the one to blame entirely. He didn't conduct the tests himself, and he didn't take ephedrine! Had Sveta really been on ephedrine because of her cold, she should have said so when she had her testing but as far as we know she didn't. She said it herself.

Some people here claim ephedrine is permitted outside competition, but who's to say Charleroi's tournament wasn't one? There was a prize-money depending on the performances, so it's not that clear whether it was a "competition" or not... And it's not because Larry Scott says so, that everyone has to believe him! He's criticized for his bullshit week in week out...

Well, just my 2 cents, because even though I think Eerdekens is an idiot and didn't act by the rules, there's so much weird declarations or facts in all this, that maybe there's really something behind this...

JonBcn
Jan 19th, 2005, 08:31 AM
For the 276th time...it doesn't matter because it's not banned. She could have eaten ephedrine sandwiches if she wanted.

turt
Jan 19th, 2005, 08:42 AM
Read again my post

jlamire
Jan 19th, 2005, 08:47 AM
Read again my post
Your post is too long for this poster?

carot
Jan 19th, 2005, 08:55 AM
For the 276th time...it doesn't matter because it's not banned. She could have eaten ephedrine sandwiches if she wanted.
Then there's obviously something wrong with the rules.

Rollo
Jan 19th, 2005, 08:59 AM
Sorry Turt-but it gave Belgium a black eye when Eerdekens said it wasn't Henin and left the other3 hanging. A serious black eye.

That doesn't mean you couldn't be right about Kuzy (c'est possible)-but the whole way this was handled --plus the fact that it was an exhibition (and a charity event on top of that) makes her test irrelevent.

Now Kuzy has a perfect excuse never to play in Belgium again.

Marcus1979
Jan 19th, 2005, 09:00 AM
The WTA CEO said that since it was a exhibition and ephedrine is not on the list of banned substances no sanctions will be held agaist Svetlana. :D :yeah:

turt
Jan 19th, 2005, 09:03 AM
Sorry Turt-but it gave Belgium a black eye when Eerdekens said it wasn't Henin and left the other3 hanging. A serious black eye.

That doesn't mean you couldn't be right about Kuzy (c'est possible)-but the whole way this was handled --plus the fact that it was an exhibition (and a charity event on top of that) makes her test irrelevent.

Now Kuzy has a perfect excuse never to play in Belgium again.
First of all, the declaration was intended for Belgian media, and I don't think the guy ever thought we would be talking about it outside Belgium!

Secondly, will you please stop with this "it was a charity event" nonsense? It is not and has never intended to be. I don't know where that came from, but it's simply not.

sartrista7
Jan 19th, 2005, 09:03 AM
Some people here claim ephedrine is permitted outside competition, but who's to say Charleroi's tournament wasn't one? There was a prize-money depending on the performances, so it's not that clear whether it was a "competition" or not

No, it is perfectly clear. Exhibitions are non-events, just like playing a practice match at your local public courts is a non-event. And at non-events, ephedrine is a non-banned substance. This is perfectly understandable, as its effects are so short-term. The only reason this is a 'scandal' is because stupid Eerdekens doesn't know WTA rules, and broke the code of ethics in dealing with doping.

turt
Jan 19th, 2005, 09:11 AM
No, it is perfectly clear. Exhibitions are non-events, just like playing a practice match at your local public courts is a non-event. And at non-events, ephedrine is a non-banned substance. This is perfectly understandable, as its effects are so short-term. The only reason this is a 'scandal' is because stupid Eerdekens doesn't know WTA rules, and broke the code of ethics in dealing with doping.From the World Anti-Doping Agency code:

"In-competition: an in-competition test is a test when an athlete is selected for testing in connection with a specific Competition"

"Out-of-competition: any doping control which is not In-competition"

"Competition: A single race, match, game or singular athletic contest"


As you can see, the fact that Sveta had a test in connection of her participation in the Women's Tennis Trophy tournament, it's the definition of an In-competition test! Maybe not according to the WTA, since they didn't sign the WADA code, but for the World Anti Doping Agency, it is!

Rollo
Jan 19th, 2005, 09:19 AM
Posted by Turt First of all, the declaration was intended for Belgian media, and I don't think the guy ever thought we would be talking about it outside Belgium! Uh-excuse moi? What kind on nonsense is that? "Intended for the Belgian media?" :lol: So he just expected that it would never travel beyond Bruges or Brussels? Wake up! Tennis is an international sport. If he (and you) didn't realize it before you damn sure should realize it now. Sorry if this seems biased but that's not helping your case at all.


Secondly, will you please stop with this "it was a charity event" nonsense? It is not and has never intended to be. I don't know where that came from, but it's simply not.
__________________

That came from Kuzy herself-but as you're in Belguim and I'm not-I'll take your word on that.

JonBcn
Jan 19th, 2005, 09:22 AM
As you can see, the fact that Sveta had a test in connection of her participation in the Women's Tennis Trophy tournament, it's the definition of an In-competition test! Maybe not according to the WTA, since they didn't sign the WADA code, but for the World Anti Doping Agency, it is!
:banghead:
But it's a private event without any official sanction! Just like it wouldnt be if they had played in my back garden.

turt
Jan 19th, 2005, 09:23 AM
Uh-excuse moi? What kind on nonsense is that? "Intended for the Belgian media?" :lol: So he just expected that it would never travel beyond Bruges or Brussels? Wake up! Tennis is an international sport. If he (and you) didn't realize it before you damn sure should realize it now. Sorry if this seems biased but that's not helping your case at all.Well you have to realize tennis is the only top sport where we have top players... And this guy never made the headline outside his region... I think he just wanted to avoid rumours about Justine the national pride, without realizing that there were people outside Belgium who would be interested in that. Pretty stupid, yes, but I already said I blamed him for that.

turt
Jan 19th, 2005, 09:25 AM
:banghead:
But it's a private event without any official sanction! Just like it wouldnt be if they had played in my back garden.
Still, it matches the definition of the WADA code...

You know, there are doping tests even in amateur sports in Belgium! Cheaters are fought even at insignificant local events...

turt
Jan 19th, 2005, 09:30 AM
I thought it was a charity event. When you charge 350 euro's
a person for a VIP ticket, and you have some proceeds going
to non-profit organizations- then it's usually considered a
charity event.

The majority of exhibition events are created for this,
the player get's tax breaks etc... the sponsors too.They don't say anything about charity on the website, apart from a little lottery for Justine's charity organization, but it's not linked to the ticket or something, and I've been there without ever realizing there was a lottery. I've never heard of it being a charity event. The purpose of the competition is to allow Belgians to see Justine play in her country! Nothing else... It's a purely commercial tournament. They even intend to make it an official WTA tournament.

Rollo
Jan 19th, 2005, 09:32 AM
Well you have to realize tennis is the only top sport where we have top players... And this guy never made the headline outside his region... I think he just wanted to avoid rumours about Justine the national pride, without realizing that there were people outside Belgium who would be interested in that. Pretty stupid, yes, but I already said I blamed him for that.

Turt-Guess this will be a lesson then. I miss Henin-H and Clijsters being absent from the tour and wish them a speedy return.:)

moby
Jan 19th, 2005, 09:37 AM
"I think definitely it's unfair," she told a news conference after thrashing American qualifier Jessica Kirkland 6-1 6-1 in the first round on Monday.
"They don't know nothing for sure yet. They don't know what was the thing what player took (sic), and they don't know who."

Kuznetsova again maintained her innocence, saying she had been tested 11 times last year, and was confident the other players were clean as well.
"I'm not worried. I am definitely not using nothing to push myself up in the game... I'm pretty sure about this," she said.

"I'm pretty sure that everybody's pretty clean... because the anti-doping programme, it doesn't allow us to take nothing.

"Even when you're sick, even if somebody had some problems, we cannot take even normal pills that everybody's taking."


But she did take normal pills... Coupled with the fact that she denied being contacted initially, it is no wonder some people find it strange. However, it is true that she didn't break any rules.

turt
Jan 19th, 2005, 09:46 AM
"Even when you're sick, even if somebody had some problems, we cannot take even normal pills that everybody's taking."


But she did take normal pills... Coupled with the fact that she denied being contacted initially, it is no wonder some people find it strange. However, it is true that she didn't break any rules.she didn't break any WTA rules. So she will probably get no sanction at all. But according to the definitions of the World Anti Doping Agency, it appears she did something she wasn't allowed to do.

moby
Jan 19th, 2005, 09:55 AM
she didn't break any WTA rules. So she will probably get no sanction at all. But according to the definitions of the World Anti Doping Agency, it appears she did something she wasn't allowed to do.
I know she didn't break any rules. Which made it even stranger that she found the need to not tell the truth in its entirety.

T-T
Jan 19th, 2005, 09:59 AM
Legally, Kuzzy ain't guilty. Ethically, she is. She clearly took the drug on purpose.

~ The Leopard ~
Jan 19th, 2005, 10:28 AM
Who cares? It's a stupid rule anyway. This was goddamn ephedrine. It might as well have been a can of Coca Cola or a cup of coffee. It's not like Kuzzie was genuinely cheating, like using anabolic steroids.

I hereby predict another round of the sports authorities trying to get some sense into rules so that athletes don't suffer for taking substances that are used to treat mild ailments and have no real performance enhancement effects. At the moment, the WADA etc look like a bunch of incompetents - unable to do anything about real cheats while troubling us with this sort of trivia.

Go Kuzzie, eat those ephedrine sandwiches girl. :D

Alicia Rocks
Jan 19th, 2005, 10:49 AM
she had a cold
its in all cough medicine

she is not a cheat

veryborednow
Jan 19th, 2005, 10:51 AM
Exactly, it was for a cold, it gives a short term energy boost.... for an exhibition.

I'm sure she didn't want to win that badly.

turt
Jan 19th, 2005, 11:32 AM
she had a cold
its in all cough medicine

she is not a cheat
Do you read threads before posting? There's a report the concentration of ephedrine if way more important than quantity you get when using cough medicine...

JonBcn
Jan 19th, 2005, 11:35 AM
...and if a journalist said it, it must be true...

gentenaire
Jan 19th, 2005, 11:40 AM
Did Sveta break any WTA rules? No
Did she break any WADA rules? No
Did she break any tournament rules? No
Did she test positive for a banned substance? No

All the rest is irrelevant! Eerdekens is a fool and had no right to accuse anyone without being 100 % certain first!

Alicia Rocks
Jan 19th, 2005, 11:43 AM
Do you read threads before posting? There's a report the concentration of ephedrine if way more important than quantity you get when
using cough medicine...
ur obviously in luv with this guy
95% of people r against u
so u should just give up

turt
Jan 19th, 2005, 11:46 AM
ur obviously in luv with this guy
95% of people r against u
so u should just give upActually 99% of the world doesn't give a darn... And I have said numerous times that I don't agree with what the minister did, and he was stupid!

And to answer to gentenaire, yes a WADA rule was broken, and she did test positive for a banned substance (see post #10)

JonBcn
Jan 19th, 2005, 11:47 AM
:yawn:

Alicia Rocks
Jan 19th, 2005, 11:49 AM
u must b da 1% that actually give a darn :rolleyes:
y would u make this thread if no one gives a darn :rolleyes:



Actually 99% of the world doesn't give a darn...

And to answer to gentenaire, yes a WADA rule was broken, and she did test positive for a banned substance (see post #10)

gentenaire
Jan 19th, 2005, 11:50 AM
Turt, it's the tournament doctor who gave her the cold drug in the first place and who told her it was okay to take it since it wasn't a competition! These kind of exhibitions are NOT competition! It's not up to you or Eerdekens to change the rules. You know, they shouldn't even have checked for ephedrine since it's not a banned substance!!

turt
Jan 19th, 2005, 11:52 AM
u must b da 1% that actually give a darn :rolleyes:
y would u make this thread if no one gives a darn :rolleyes:
I meant that outside the tennis world nobody gives a darn. Actually 99% of the world doesn't give a shit about any of our discussions in this board, but that doesn't mean we should stop discussing it!

JonBcn
Jan 19th, 2005, 11:55 AM
Oh, let's all stop arguing and go feed the homeless or something, I'm bored.

turt
Jan 19th, 2005, 11:56 AM
Turt, it's the tournament doctor who gave her the cold drug in the first place and who told her it was okay to take it since it wasn't a competition! These kind of exhibitions are NOT competition! It's not up to you or Eerdekens to change the rules. You know, they shouldn't even have checked for ephedrine since it's not a banned substance!!
How do we know for sure it's the pills from the tournament doctor? She was ill before the tournament, as far as we know...

And here's a little reminder of definitions according to the WADA code:
Competition: A single race, match, game or singular athletic contest.

In-competition: an in-competition test is a test when an athlete is selected for testing in connection with a specific Competition.

Out-of-competition: any doping control which is not In-competition.

I don't make anything up, these are the rules!

Alicia Rocks
Jan 19th, 2005, 11:57 AM
I meant that outside the tennis world nobody gives a darn. Actually 99% of the world doesn't give a shit about any of our discussions in this board, but that doesn't mean we should stop discussing it!
y is it on the front page of every Australian Newspaper then

turt
Jan 19th, 2005, 11:59 AM
y is it on the front page of every Australian Newspaper then
Maybe because it's the Australian Open? :rolleyes:

Alicia Rocks
Jan 19th, 2005, 12:03 PM
Maybe because it's the Australian Open? :rolleyes:
its actually not about the Australian Open its about an exhibition in Belgium

turt
Jan 19th, 2005, 12:04 PM
You know, they shouldn't even have checked for ephedrine since it's not a banned substance!!
You know, the tests were conducted by the WADA. The simple fact that they checked for ephedrine is a proof that the WADA considered this as an In-Competition test, and yes according to their rules it is an In-competition test, hence here's why they checked that substance in the first place...

JonBcn
Jan 19th, 2005, 12:06 PM
Are you a traffic warden, by any chance?

TheBoiledEgg
Jan 19th, 2005, 12:06 PM
Turt, is he your uncle ???

turt
Jan 19th, 2005, 12:09 PM
Turt, is he your uncle ???
:rolleyes:

Will you please give me an explanation to the question: why would the WADA look for ephedrine if they considered it's a legal substance?
My answer is: since, according to their rules, it was indeed an "In-competition testing", they checked for that substance. Why would they, otherwise?

Alicia Rocks
Jan 19th, 2005, 12:11 PM
lol @ TheBoiledEgg

starr
Jan 19th, 2005, 12:12 PM
Thank goodness for that post Turt. I was pulling out my hair reading this.

Ephedra is a banned substance. What Scott was referring to is that ephedra/ephedrine is not on the list of substances that are tested for in OUT-of-competition testing. Scott views the time period in which Kuntesova was tested as OUT of competition.

Ephedrine reaches it's peak effect after four hours.

There can be testing that will determine if it was cold medicine, however if it were cold medicine she must have been taking it by the handful because as Turt pointed out, the cut off amount for reporting a positive is fairly high.

TheBoiledEgg
Jan 19th, 2005, 12:12 PM
turt

In-Competition means it is a SANCTIONED event, by the governing body of your sport ( WTA or ITF)

This was not, so it was out of competition, therefore not under the WADA ruling.

turt
Jan 19th, 2005, 12:16 PM
turt

In-Competition means it is a SANCTIONED event, by the governing body of your sport ( WTA or ITF)

This was not, so it was out of competition, therefore not under the WADA ruling.
It is under the WADA ruling because the tournament took place in the Belgium French-Speaking Community, which has ratified the WADA code and has the ability to conduct WADA doping tests on their territory. whether the WTA or the ITF doesn't recognize it is not relevant.

And for your information, and once again, the WADA code explains exactly what is an in-competition testing and you're just denying the truth...

~|Naomi|~
Jan 19th, 2005, 12:19 PM
Eerdekens is a fool and had no right to accuse anyone without being 100 % certain first!

Exactly:worship:

justine&coria
Jan 19th, 2005, 12:21 PM
Of course, the Belgian minister did a bad job.
But if Sveta took dope, it's really bad ! I mean, it's not fair that she quickly increases her abilities, her muscles during the off-season with using drugs. Then at the beginning of the year, during "real tournaments", of course, she's clean, but that's really unfair.

Sportsmen should be tested even when the season is over as Lindsay said it.

TheBoiledEgg
Jan 19th, 2005, 12:25 PM
It is under the WADA ruling because the tournament took place in the Belgium French-Speaking Community, which has ratified the WADA code and has the ability to conduct WADA doping tests on their territory. whether the WTA or the ITF doesn't recognize it is not relevant.

And for your information, and once again, the WADA code explains exactly what is an in-competition testing and you're just denying the truth...
LMAO at your theory what is/isnt a tournament :tape:
(by that theory all your homework would be classified as an Exam as well as its testing you :lol: )

It doesnt matter where it took place, could have been in Mars or an exhibition at Wimbledon.
as long as its not an Official tournament it doesnt count.



you must be about 0.0001% of people on this planet who take sides with Eerdekens :o

Kart
Jan 19th, 2005, 12:25 PM
I've read in my newspaper that you test positive with ephedrine if you have more than 10mg/l. They explained that it can't be explained by cold medication, since the concentration would be much much less important than that!
Based on what exactly ? Do they know how much she was taking ?

A lot of people self medicate and sometimes over medicate ... that doesn't mean she wasn't taking it for a cold.

turt
Jan 19th, 2005, 12:38 PM
you must be about 0.0001% of people on this planet who take sides with Eerdekens :oFor the last time I don't take side with Eerdekens, he made a big mistake by releasing the name in these conditions!

But you have to understand that these tests were conducted by the WADA, and rightly so, and even if it's not recognized by the WTA or ITF it doesn't change the fact that it was, according to the WADA code, an In-Competition test, and that's why ephedrine is a banned substance they looked for.

Actually there's nothing the French-speaking government will do, because they didn't want to have sanctions in the law, they prefered transferring the case to the sports federations. So in this case I doubt Sveta will get any sanctions, since the WTA doesn't seem to recognize this competition in its own rules.

But for instance in Flanders (Northern part of Belgium), they can sanction players! (Antwerp comes to my mind)... Did you know that a cyclist (Frank Vandenbroucke) had a one-year ban from competitions only in Flanders! There was a funny story about this because he took part in a race that was bordering Flanders, and he had to stay on the left of the street during a few kilometers because if he would have been on the right side he would have been in Flanders, risking further sanctions! :haha:

Natasc
Jan 19th, 2005, 12:55 PM
I read...that Kuzna was just not punished 'cause that wasn't an official competition
But that's weird, for doping is doping don't matter when or where
Like someone said here: "theres something wrong"

Volcana
Jan 19th, 2005, 12:59 PM
Turt - For the moment, forget YOUR interpretation of the rules. The WTA is treating it as 'out-of-competiton', Kuznetsova clearly thought she was 'out-of-competition'. Therefore taking ephedrine is not banned in this case.

I understand you WNAT it to be treated a 'in-competiton', but that just isn't how this is going down. This was like the Williams sisters McDonald's Tour. If one of them had taken ephedrine for cold and had been tested, there'd be more hoopla (a LOT more), but the result would be the same.

She didn't break the rules.

turt
Jan 19th, 2005, 01:04 PM
Turt - For the moment, forget YOUR interpretation of the rules. The WTA is treating it as 'out-of-competiton', Kuznetsova clearly thought she was 'out-of-competition'. Therefore taking ephedrine is not banned in this case.

I understand you WNAT it to be treated a 'in-competiton', but that just isn't how this is going down. This was like the Williams sisters McDonald's Tour. If one of them had taken ephedrine for cold and had been tested, there'd be more hoopla (a LOT more), but the result would be the same.

She didn't break the rules.
It's not a question of interpretation. It's a matter of legislation. It's not "my" interpretation of the rules, I just report facts.

justine&coria
Jan 19th, 2005, 01:09 PM
So taking doping out of a competition is legal ? If it is, then it's not good at all.

AnDyDog621
Jan 19th, 2005, 01:11 PM
It's not a question of interpretation. It's a matter of legislation. It's not "my" interpretation of the rules, I just report facts.
yes u keep reporting ur facts again and again...but we don't want to hear those facts...we want to hear other facts like the WTA has said that the exhibition was out-of-competition event so she will not be fined for anything

JonBcn
Jan 19th, 2005, 01:14 PM
So taking doping out of a competition is legal ? If it is, then it's not good at all.You have to understand that some drugs are banned because they belong to families of drugs which are much more harmful. For example caffeine, alcohol, ephedrine...any reasonable person who knows at least a tiny bit about chemistry would not object to their presence during the off season.

not all drugs are anabolic steroids.

~ The Leopard ~
Jan 19th, 2005, 01:18 PM
^Want join me in bashing my head against the computer screen?

Experimentee
Jan 19th, 2005, 01:21 PM
lol get over it. Its obvious it was an exo. The players dont care about it, it doesnt count for anything. No one would want to take performance enhancers just to win an exhibition!

Greenout
Jan 19th, 2005, 01:22 PM
Funny, how this turned out to be so huge? Really slow news
everywhere, huh?

It's not like this is 1966 and we're talking busting the ROLLING
STONES and especially that Brian Jones! :lol:

Mick- JHH
Keith- Elena
Bill Wyman- Nat Dechy
Brian Jones- Sveta
http://img68.exs.cx/img68/552/rollingstonestheunstoppables12.jpg


:p

turt
Jan 19th, 2005, 01:24 PM
yes u keep reporting ur facts again and again...but we don't want to hear those facts...we want to hear other facts like the WTA has said that the exhibition was out-of-competition event so she will not be fined for anything
I know the WTA won't sanction her. It's their problem. I remember a lot of athletes have been covered up by their federations in the past, it doesn't make it legitimate...

Experimentee
Jan 19th, 2005, 01:25 PM
And for those who dont understand the ones that are not banned out of competition are those with short term effects. If they took the medication outside of competition then it will have worn off by the time the season has started, so they are not gaining any advantage.

turt
Jan 19th, 2005, 01:27 PM
And for those who dont understand the ones that are not banned out of competition are those with short term effects. If they took the medication outside of competition then it will have worn off by the time the season has started, so they are not gaining any advantage.
Even if it has short term effects, a drug can benefit for the competition too: if you take short-term stuff during the trainings, you can train harder and so you will be more fit thanks to the drugs.

Kart
Jan 19th, 2005, 01:32 PM
Even if it has short term effects, a drug can benefit for the competition too: if you take short-term stuff during the trainings, you can train harder and so you will be more fit thanks to the drugs.I believe you would have to use the drug for a significant length of time to reap those kind of long term benefits - longer than an off season of three weeks.

Pamela Shriver
Jan 19th, 2005, 02:40 PM
Thank the giraffes, no one ever found out about those neck hormones for that extra heeeeeeeeeeight. They weren't banned substances mind you, because as I fully illustrated, they were actually perfomance de-enhancers.

JonBcn
Jan 19th, 2005, 02:53 PM
It must have been quite difficult for you to pee into a cup, I assume? ;)

veryborednow
Jan 19th, 2005, 03:01 PM
It must have been quite difficult for you to pee into a cup, I assume? ;)
You just need a bigger cup, that's all...

anthonyqld
Jan 19th, 2005, 03:05 PM
I have no idea what her intent was, but if I was told a player was on drugs (even before all this happened) that a player in the top-250 had tested positive to drugs with no other information, I'd think it was her. Although it's unfair to do this, a lot of the signs point to drug use.

veryborednow
Jan 19th, 2005, 03:07 PM
turt - pour vous http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=tennisNews&storyID=7368451

Nice, Razor. Really smooth.

Kelly
Jan 19th, 2005, 03:14 PM
what i dont understand is why the wta are not part os WADA when the atp are?? i remember ages ago a wta player was banned because her caffine levels were too high cos she admitted she drank alot of coffee.....seems strange u can get banned for coffee but not other things.

there was a british skier who got his winter olympic medal took off him cos he failed a drugs test....he had a cold and used a nasel spray from a local chemist which made him fail teh test.....it seems odd that in some sports this drug is legal and others it isnt.

turt
Jan 19th, 2005, 03:18 PM
turt - pour vous http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=tennisNews&storyID=7368451

Nice, Razor. Really smooth.
Yeah, with a lot of factual errors :rolleyes:

anthonyqld
Jan 19th, 2005, 03:21 PM
Nice, Razor. Really smooth.


* Wears braces at her age
* Has a deep voice for a female
* Looks very masculine for a female (even a pro sportswoman)
* Her mother, father, brother were all Olympic cyclists and we know what cyclists and drugs are like.

Not saying she is, but those 4 points all point to drug use. No other player in the top-250 show those 4 signs, which is why she'll be the player who I think it would be. Why do you think it was belieived to be Kuznetsova before the player or substance was named?

Kelly
Jan 19th, 2005, 03:32 PM
acne is also a facter in steroid use as is enlargement of the female genitals....but i doubt anyone on here can give us that info on kuzzy. i dont care really...if she is on drugs she'll be caught at some point...if not then she hasnt got anything to worry about. i never suspected her...if anything i always thing christine is on something...just for various reason.

JonBcn
Jan 19th, 2005, 03:44 PM
* Wears braces at her age
* Has a deep voice for a female
* Looks very masculine for a female (even a pro sportswoman)
* Her mother, father, brother were all Olympic cyclists and we know what cyclists and drugs are like.

Not saying she is, but those 4 points all point to drug use. No other player in the top-250 show those 4 signs
It's great that you are able to tell what a druggie she is just by listing some of her physical characteristics. I guess if she complied with your conventional views of how a woman should look, there would be no suspicion.

The "signs" you listed are some possible signals of steroid use. The systematic steroid use necessary to show effects like that require a high dose, over a prolonged time. It is impossible for someone to consume that much and not be discovered at some point in a 12 month period if they were taking regular tests (11 last year, in her case). Idle uninformed gossip like this is exactly why Kuznetsova needs to sue.

gentenaire
Jan 19th, 2005, 03:51 PM
It's not a question of interpretation. It's a matter of legislation. It's not "my" interpretation of the rules, I just report facts.

If they're facts, how come 99% disagrees with you about them? How come even Dick Pound, someone who's very hard on doping, disagrees with what you call facts?

The only fact I see in this case is that this silly matter is actually damaging the fight against doping. Accusing innocents isn't the way to go if you want to catch cheats!

sartrista7
Jan 19th, 2005, 03:53 PM
* Wears braces at her age

Teenager in wearing braces shocker. Don't know any teenagers who wear braces, oh no, none :tape:

Volcana
Jan 19th, 2005, 03:55 PM
It's not a question of interpretation. It's a matter of legislation. It's not "my" interpretation of the rules, I just report facts.And the FACT is that the WTA says that Charleroi was 'out-of-competition'. The FACT is that, that IS the WTA's decision to make. The FACT is, therefore, no rule was broken.

And, I might add, nothing is being covered up. We know exactly what she tested positive for. It just turns out no rule was broken.

veryborednow
Jan 19th, 2005, 04:49 PM
I'm one month older than Kuzzie, and have just had my braces taken off.

My God, I must be on steroid :rolleyes: God knows what Myskina must be on...

JonBcn
Jan 19th, 2005, 04:51 PM
crack, quite possibly...

It's not illegal if you take it on a wednesday, you know.

Martian Willow
Jan 19th, 2005, 05:01 PM
Perhaps it's time phrenology was introduced to doping tests.

griffin
Jan 19th, 2005, 05:38 PM
Why do you think it was belieived to be Kuznetsova before the player or substance was named?

Because you're not the only crackpot who thinks those kinds of things really point to drug use?

Voevoda
Jan 19th, 2005, 05:48 PM
First of all, the declaration was intended for Belgian media, and I don't think the guy ever thought we would be talking about it outside Belgium!
What a stupid argument. In our modern world no one can realistically expect, that such a statement stays within Belgium and those Belgian minister surely knew this. The way he acted was absolutely disgusting and against all processual and ethical rules.

Moreover, I wonder why it's the Belgians, who do things like that or protect them in this forum the most impulsively. Is it because Russian girls stole the "Belgian babes" the show in recent months?

fammmmedspin
Jan 19th, 2005, 06:00 PM
* Wears braces at her age
* Has a deep voice for a female
* Looks very masculine for a female (even a pro sportswoman)
* Her mother, father, brother were all Olympic cyclists and we know what cyclists and drugs are like.

Not saying she is, but those 4 points all point to drug use. No other player in the top-250 show those 4 signs, which is why she'll be the player who I think it would be. Why do you think it was belieived to be Kuznetsova before the player or substance was named?
Because stupid people draw stupid conclusions with no reason - thats what stupid people do. Its how we tell stupid people from non stupid people. stupid is as stupid does. Ever watched "12 angry men"

If acne was a sign 99% of teenagers must be on something. If sportsmen in the family was a sign half the WTA would be. If looking masculine was a sign about 20% of females would be in trouble. If having a husky voice was a sign half the actresses who won Oscars would be drug takers. Justine for example would qualify too.

goldenlox
Jan 19th, 2005, 06:04 PM
Everyone knew Sveta had a cold before this exo.
Sveta was tested at least 10 times in 2004. All negative.

Pamela Shriver
Jan 19th, 2005, 06:11 PM
It must have been quite difficult for you to pee into a cup, I assume? ;)
Ah-ha this WAS a problem during my salad days. Then they built a specially sized apparatus to aid me.
http://www.showshown.com/shoshone-water-tower.jpg
Voila. Lift the lid, perfect size!

Crazy Canuck
Jan 19th, 2005, 06:15 PM
^Want join me in bashing my head against the computer screen?


I would. Some people are just really lame and would like to spend their days painting Kuz as guilty, even though her own organization has made it clear that she didn't break their rules. Whatever. I'll just be happy that I'm not them. I'm pretty lame, but really, the line has to be drawn somewhere.

Crazy Canuck
Jan 19th, 2005, 06:18 PM
* Wears braces at her age
* Has a deep voice for a female
* Looks very masculine for a female (even a pro sportswoman)
* Her mother, father, brother were all Olympic cyclists and we know what cyclists and drugs are like.

Not saying she is, but those 4 points all point to drug use. No other player in the top-250 show those 4 signs, which is why she'll be the player who I think it would be. Why do you think it was belieived to be Kuznetsova before the player or substance was named?

I think that the "braces" link to drug use may be the stupidest thing that I've read today. Mind you, I was a doper when I wore them, so I guess that it happens!

Crazy Canuck
Jan 19th, 2005, 06:20 PM
acne is also a facter in steroid use as is enlargement of the female genitals....but i doubt anyone on here can give us that info on kuzzy. i dont care really...if she is on drugs she'll be caught at some point...if not then she hasnt got anything to worry about. i never suspected her...if anything i always thing christine is on something...just for various reason.

If your reasons are nearly as "solid" as Razor's, please post them. I could use a laugh.

Don't tell me:

1) Her muscles! They got bigger! CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT? Muscles dont' just get bigger without drugs!
2) HER MUSCLES GOT BIGGER!
3) I DON"T LIKE HER AND SHE WINS SOMETIMES, DAMNIT!
4) DID I already sayd that her muscles got bigger??~?!?#@!#FSDaf!?!
5) :retard:

Crazy Canuck
Jan 19th, 2005, 06:22 PM
Perhaps it's time phrenology was introduced to doping tests.

:haha:

fammmmedspin
Jan 19th, 2005, 06:23 PM
Even if it has short term effects, a drug can benefit for the competition too: if you take short-term stuff during the trainings, you can train harder and so you will be more fit thanks to the drugs.
But she wasn't training - she was playing in an exhibition which counted for precisely absolutely nothing.

She had a cold, she took something to relieve the symptoms - thats what they sell it for.

The drug isn't banned when not in competition.


Someone has to decide what is banned - those people are the tennis authorities - they say it isn't.

It may be in Belgium because some french socialist jobsworth wrote some legislation without referencing it to the rest of humanity - but Belgium doesn't make the rules for anyone else and someone else is responsible for enforcing the rules. its like me deciding littering my backward is a hanging offence - people would think I was a loon and nothing would happen.

Competition has to be defined - if she played tennis with her dog that wouldn't be a competition. People have to define what a competition is. Those are the WTA and those people don't define exhibitions as competition. I

Drug dosage depends when you took it, how much and how quickly your body gets rid of it. As someone pointed out to my sensible suggestion that the level ought to be one that you wouldn't get from taking cough mixture, the level they have set is within the medicinal dosage range. Try drinking a coke five minutes before you have your sugar levels tested and you will set alarm bells ringing in your local hospital - same here with ephedrine.

Its effect is measured in hours - she wouldn't take it to be better at the AO 3 weeks later

fammmmedspin
Jan 19th, 2005, 06:31 PM
I think that the "braces" link to drug use may be the stupidest thing that I've read today. Mind you, I was a doper when I wore them, so I guess that it happens!
Its OK I think braces are the result of evolution - smaller mouths - same number of teeth.

The only two other possibilities are:

All teenagers with braces are on drugs :confused: or

If you are a creationist, God designed mouths with too little room so that dentists would prosper, multiply and inherit the earth.:eek:

minboy
Jan 19th, 2005, 06:35 PM
I knew this board was full of kids, but this is really beyond my expectations.

Quotes like " she has been tested 13 times and never failed those tests, so she's clean"...please, you can't be so naive, really. Since when are drug tests reliable ? Turt talked about Franck Van den brouck, ...he has never failed a drug test neither, we had to wait for a perquisition at his home to find drugs.
If you think tennis is a clean sport, good for you, but i would be surprised if 30% of the top 50 is clean. Tennis is a worldwide sport, there is a lot of money involved...off course there's gonna be people on drugs. Even at amateur levels there are drug-cheats.
And how come the wta hasn't signed up the WADA code? Why aren't they ANY drug test in the off-season( even if drug test are not reliable, just for the principle of looking for cheats )?
Why has Sveta tested positive for ephedrine if the amount of that substance in cold medication is not enough for a test to be positive? ( and turt is right on this)
Why has WADA looked for ephedrine if it was, as people say, not banned? Why would they look for the presence of a substance if it is allowed?
The sole fact that Sveta's coming from a family of cyclist champion makes her really suspicious, beause you just can't be a cycling champ without being using drug , it is part of the history of that sport ( now waiting for people to say those "lance armstrong has never been tested positive" bullshit )
Every single federation of any sport would always try to cover up drug case, because the sport reputation , the money involved,is way more important that making it clean. Just think of the infamous Festina case at the 98 tour de france, it wasn't the UCI or the organistion of the tour the france that has made that doping scandal emerged, it was the french police that discovered drugs in the teams' hotels.

If you're happy living in your own little world where everybody is nice, polite and act by the rules, good for you. But i have serious doubts this world exist.

Good bye, PEOPLE ( edited just for jonbcn )

veryborednow
Jan 19th, 2005, 06:47 PM
Why has WADA looked for ephedrine if it was, as people say, not banned? Why would they look for the presence of a substance if it is allowed?
It wasn't the WADA though, it was the Belgian government. If it's illegal during competition then their drugs tests will be geared this way, especially if they believed the exho to be a competition, which twat Belgian man clearly did.

JonBcn
Jan 19th, 2005, 06:54 PM
I knew this board was full of kids, but this is really beyond my expectations.

Quotes like " she has been tested 13 times and never failed those tests, so she's clean"...please, you can't be so naive, really. Since when are drug tests reliable ? Turt talked about Franck Van den brouck, ...he has never failed a drug test neither, we had to wait for a perquisition at his home to find drugs.
If you think tennis is a clean sport, good for you, but i would be surprised if 30% of the top 50 is clean. Tennis is a worldwide sport, there is a lot of money involved...off course there's gonna be people on drugs. Even at amateur levels there are drug-cheats.
And how come the wta hasn't signed up the WADA code? Why aren't they ANY drug test in the off-season( even if drug test are not reliable, just for the principle of looking for cheats )?
Why has Sveta tested positive for ephedrine if the amount of that substance in cold medication is not enough for a test to be positive? ( and turt is right on this)
Why has WADA looked for ephedrine if it was, as people say, not banned? Why would they look for the presence of a substance if it is allowed?
The sole fact that Sveta's coming from a family of cyclist champion makes her really suspicious, beause you just can't be a cycling champ without being using drug , it is part of the history of that sport ( now waiting for people to say those "lance armstrong has never been tested positive" bullshit )
Every single federation of any sport would always try to cover up drug case, because the sport reputation , the money involved,is way more important that making it clean.

If you're happy living in your own little world where everybody is nice, polite and act by the rules, good for you. But i have serious doubts this world exist.

Good bye, kids.
Wow...if being condescending was a sport, you certainly wouldnt need drugs to boost your performance.

minboy
Jan 19th, 2005, 06:54 PM
It wasn't the WADA though, it was the Belgian government. If it's illegal during competition then their drugs tests will be geared this way, especially if they believed the exho to be a competition, which twat Belgian man clearly did.
Belgium ( well at least the french speaking community, which is repsonsible for anything sport-related in fench-speaking belgium ) has signed up for the WADA legislation, so either the tests were lead by the WADA, either the tests were lead in conformity of the WADA legislation.

AnDyDog621
Jan 19th, 2005, 06:56 PM
I knew this board was full of kids, but this is really beyond my expectations.

Quotes like " she has been tested 13 times and never failed those tests, so she's clean"...please, you can't be so naive, really. Since when are drug tests reliable ? Turt talked about Franck Van den brouck, ...he has never failed a drug test neither, we had to wait for a perquisition at his home to find drugs.
If you think tennis is a clean sport, good for you, but i would be surprised if 30% of the top 50 is clean. Tennis is a worldwide sport, there is a lot of money involved...off course there's gonna be people on drugs. Even at amateur levels there are drug-cheats.
And how come the wta hasn't signed up the WADA code? Why aren't they ANY drug test in the off-season( even if drug test are not reliable, just for the principle of looking for cheats )?
Why has Sveta tested positive for ephedrine if the amount of that substance in cold medication is not enough for a test to be positive? ( and turt is right on this)
Why has WADA looked for ephedrine if it was, as people say, not banned? Why would they look for the presence of a substance if it is allowed?
The sole fact that Sveta's coming from a family of cyclist champion makes her really suspicious, beause you just can't be a cycling champ without being using drug , it is part of the history of that sport ( now waiting for people to say those "lance armstrong has never been tested positive" bullshit )
Every single federation of any sport would always try to cover up drug case, because the sport reputation , the money involved,is way more important that making it clean.

If you're happy living in your own little world where everybody is nice, polite and act by the rules, good for you. But i have serious doubts this world exist.

Good bye, kids.
We live in a world where we are suppose to be presume INNOCENT...and if we happened to be found guilty there are excuses to why we were found guilty and justifies why we were found guilty in the first place

minboy
Jan 19th, 2005, 06:57 PM
Wow...if being condescending was a sport, you certainly wouldnt need drugs to boost your performance.
and do you have any comments about the substance of my post????

JonBcn
Jan 19th, 2005, 07:02 PM
and do you have any comments about the substance of my post????Not really..you might well be right. It was your know-all tone I found more objectionable.

minboy
Jan 19th, 2005, 07:02 PM
We live in a world where we are suppose to be presume INNOCENT...and if we happened to be found guilty there are excuses to why we were found guilty and justifies why we were found guilty in the first place
Good for you. I'd rather live in a world where people are not naive. Btw, you can't proove someone guilty if proofs of guiltiness ( ?? ) vanished, or are undetectable, which is the way it goes regarding drugs and drug-tests.

minboy
Jan 19th, 2005, 07:05 PM
Not really..you might well be right. It was your know-all tone I found more objectionable.lol i know, but there are places and circumstances where you can't act differently, or people just won't listen. Turt has stayed polite all through this thread, and people say he's a fool, so I tried a different tactic;)

Nastyafan
Jan 19th, 2005, 07:06 PM
I find the behavior of WTA ... strange, to say the least. They denied to know anything until Monday and suddenly they investigated and knew all details some hours later. WTA chiefs love the label "clean sport" too much. I can't realize how the doping exists in every sport, even where the world champions take less money than a winner in ITF event, but in the sport where one single win may cost much more than the lifetime income of another athlet no one is tempted. Are tennis players superior humans to other athletes? Maybe yes if you look as some bodies and muscles. There were rumours after RG 2003 (or 2002) that 2 players were caught and one of them was one of the biggest names of women's tennis, but the story was suppressed as it seems the same will happen again. And why don't they want to sign with WADA? And who does the tests now in WTA? They themselves? I.m sure that system would be very effective in the justice for example - the boss will convict his inferior if he earns too much for the boss but not by the rules:cuckoo:

JonBcn
Jan 19th, 2005, 07:09 PM
lol i know, but there are places and circumstances where you can't act differently, or people just won't listen. Turt has stayed polite all through this thread, and people say he's a fool, so I tried a different tactic;)
At the end of the day, there's obviously two camps here, and they're not gonna agree. I keep thinking I've retired from the discussion, then get sucked back in. This is gonna end up being like 'The Hand' incident. People just need to learn to disagree without flinging libellous speculation and accusations around.

gentenaire
Jan 19th, 2005, 07:19 PM
and do you have any comments about the substance of my post????


only that it's off-topic. We're not discussing doping in tennis in general, or whether they should be tougher on drugs, we're discussing this particular case and in this case, the player is innocent! This doesn't mean tennis as a whole is a clean sport, it doesn't even have to mean that Sveta never took drugs, it simply means that she didn't fail the drug test in Belgium, so anyone accusing her has absolutely nothing to back up his claims.

turt
Jan 19th, 2005, 07:22 PM
lol i know, but there are places and circumstances where you can't act differently, or people just won't listen. Turt has stayed polite all through this thread, and people say he's a fool, so I tried a different tactic;)
It looks your methods are as efficient as mine, unfortunately... :(

I'd like to point out that my purpose is not to bash Sveta or accuse her of something she didn't do! But there are serious shadow areas surrounding all this, we've heard anything and its opposite from WTA and Sveta themselves, and I'm concerned about some things which do not look logical or "clear"...

There are a lot of questions asked in this thread which remain un-answered and that's why the controversy will go on...

minboy
Jan 19th, 2005, 07:24 PM
only that it's off-topic. We're not discussing doping in tennis in general, or whether they should be tougher on drugs, we're discussing this particular case and in this case, the player is innocent! This doesn't mean tennis as a whole is a clean sport, it doesn't even have to mean that Sveta never took drugs, it simply means that she didn't fail the drug test in Belgium, so anyone accusing her has absolutely nothing to back up his claims.Sure, but if something good can emerge from this, let's make it happen. This is a great occasion to start talking about doping in tennis in general. How many times has doping been discussed on Wtaworld? very very few times. If we're waiting for a someone being declared positive by the Wta to start talking about it, then we can wait for ever because 1. test are not effective and 2. wta hasn't signed the WADA legislation

turt
Jan 19th, 2005, 07:27 PM
only that it's off-topic. We're not discussing doping in tennis in general, or whether they should be tougher on drugs, we're discussing this particular case and in this case, the player is innocent! This doesn't mean tennis as a whole is a clean sport, it doesn't even have to mean that Sveta never took drugs, it simply means that she didn't fail the drug test in Belgium, so anyone accusing her has absolutely nothing to back up his claims.
I don't agree with you. Please tell me why would the WADA look for ephedrine and say Sveta tested positive?
You can say anything you want about Eerdekens, but he's not the one who asked to check for ephedrine! I'm pretty sure he got a report on his desk saying "Kuznetsova tested positive for ephedrine" from WADA, and then acted foolishly with this information. But the fact remains that WADA did notify Eerdekens that Sveta was positive with ephedrine and if there's a mistake made in this case, you can only blame the WADA or Sveta for this mess.

veryborednow
Jan 19th, 2005, 07:32 PM
Nastyafan, I read that one of the two players you were talking about was for cocaine, but that was a while back. But I remember that.

Well, we assume miniboy that tennis and WADA are not unified in their stance of drugs. Belgium adheres to WADA, the WTA does not. FOo a drug that has limited time for effect, if it's not coming up in competition, then the player is not illegal.

Crazy Canuck
Jan 19th, 2005, 07:36 PM
only that it's off-topic. We're not discussing doping in tennis in general, or whether they should be tougher on drugs, we're discussing this particular case and in this case, the player is innocent! This doesn't mean tennis as a whole is a clean sport, it doesn't even have to mean that Sveta never took drugs, it simply means that she didn't fail the drug test in Belgium, so anyone accusing her has absolutely nothing to back up his claims.

Ding ding!

And... is it just me, or are Turt's random bolded lines extremely annoying? I can't even bring myself to read them anymore. Bolding your points doesn't make them any more legit than the unbolded ones. It just makes them harder to read. Furthermore, if people don't understand or agree with the point in regular script, they aren't going to all of a sudden get it if you bold it.

turt
Jan 19th, 2005, 07:38 PM
Ding ding!

And... is it just me, or are Turt's random bolded lines extremely annoying? I can't even bring myself to read them anymore. Bolding your points doesn't make them any more legit than the unbolded ones. It just makes them harder to read. Furthermore, if people don't understand or agree with the point in regular script, they aren't going to all of a sudden get it if you bold it.
Moaning about my bolded lines is really, really constructive in this thread... :rolleyes:

Crazy Canuck
Jan 19th, 2005, 07:40 PM
Moaning about my bolded lines is really, really constructive in this thread... :rolleyes:
No less contructive than repeating yourself ad nauseam. You'll have to forgive me for not thinking that this thread was intended to be contructive in the first place.

turt
Jan 19th, 2005, 07:42 PM
No less contructive than repeating yourself ad nauseam. You'll have to forgive me for not thinking that this thread was intended to be contructive in the first place.
Well, it is. Too bad only a few people did understand this...

Crazy Canuck
Jan 19th, 2005, 07:43 PM
Well, it is. Too bad only a few people did understand this...
Seeing as the majority of the people who disagreed with you are not known to be complete dumbasses, maybe that should tell you something.

minboy
Jan 19th, 2005, 07:47 PM
Seeing as the majority of the people who disagreed with you are not known to be complete dumbasses, maybe that should tell you something.and everybody knows the majority is always right....:rolleyes:

turt
Jan 19th, 2005, 07:47 PM
Seeing as the majority of the people who disagreed with you are not known to be complete dumbasses, maybe that should tell you something.Yeah, it tells me that the majority is not always wise (I think people should have known that before this thread!), especially on the WTAworld board ;)




---> minboy: ;)

minboy
Jan 19th, 2005, 07:54 PM
---> minboy: ;)
maybe we should start our own board,and not spending our precious time answering people that disagree with us ;)

turt
Jan 19th, 2005, 07:56 PM
maybe we should start our own board,and not spending our precious time answering people that disagree with us ;)Well it would be of no interest, I guess...

Crazy Canuck
Jan 19th, 2005, 07:58 PM
and everybody knows the majority is always right....:rolleyes:
Did I say that the majority was always right? No. In fact I made a point of saying that the posters who are firmly against Turt's blabbering include those who tend to be logical and intelligent. I apologize sincerely for not spelling that out a little clearer for you.

Frankly, after your post that had nothing to do with what Turt was talking about (that there is drug abuse in tennis - wow! What a fantastic conclusion! I hope you didn't spend too much time working on that one, captain obvious), and Turt being a broken record... I fail to see why I should be endorsing Turt's POV.

Sitting around and endlessly speculating over a situation that was handled dreadfully and that we will probably never know the whole story on is just a stupid waste of time.

Crazy Canuck
Jan 19th, 2005, 07:59 PM
maybe we should start our own board,and not spending our precious time answering people that disagree with us ;)
Oh, please do. Be sure to call it "speculation for fucktards" or something along that lines so that nobody accidentally wanders over there without knowing what they are getting into first.

Crazy Canuck
Jan 19th, 2005, 08:01 PM
Yeah, it tells me that the majority is not always wise (I think people should have known that before this thread!), especially on the WTAworld board ;)




---> minboy: ;)
In my experience, the majority is often damn stupid. Especially here. However, when the majority is being made up of posters like VBN, Leapord, Tine, and JonBcn, just to name a few, you're starting to look awwwwfulllly little down there.

Frankly, you've said nothing to make me think that you're as wise and capable of reasoning as well as they are. The fact that you are speculating negatively over a situation that we all actually know very little about proves that point.

turt
Jan 19th, 2005, 08:06 PM
Sitting around and endlessly speculating over a situation that was handled dreadfully and that we will probably never know the whole story on is just a stupid waste of time.As a matter of fact I actually have (occasionally) some time to waste. Looks like you do too (and judging by the number of your posts, I think in your case it's not 'occasionally' ;) )...

If you think all the things I said are stupid, well you know I don't really care about your opinion in particular. I know some people who won't post in this thread because they don't want to be called "fool" or anything, but who agree totally with what I've been saying. Why won't you try to answer these questions in this thread instead of criticizing me?
There are some questions which are really interesting but, unfortunately for you, do require a little bit of thought... :tape:

ot1962
Jan 19th, 2005, 08:09 PM
I have normally avoided posting for a while...
But I have to ask this question...

Sveta submitted herself to the test right?
Why? if she cannot be held under the implied juridiction of the WADA????
I mean what they think do not matter to her?
She should have refused to take the test.

Crazy Canuck
Jan 19th, 2005, 08:12 PM
As a matter of fact I actually have (occasionally) some time to waste. Looks like you do too (and judging by the number of your posts, I think in your case it's not 'occasionally' ;) )...

Ugh. Illiteracy. How annoying.

I never said that I didn't waste time. Did I? No. I didn't. So respond to what was actually written or don't respond to me at all, dipass.

If you think all the things I said are stupid, well you know I don't really care about your opinion in particular.

Oh no, not at all. That's why you're taking the time to insult me, despite a clear inability to read and comprehend written English.

I know some people who won't post in this thread because they don't want to be called "fool" or anything, but who agree totally with what I've been saying.

Uh huh. And some people would probably agree with me if I insisted that Elvis was still alive and posted "evidence" of these claims.


Why won't you try to answer these questions in this thread instead of criticizing me?

Because they've already been answered pretty fucking clearly... unless you had problems with those posts as well? Do you want me to personally quote and post ":worship:" to each and every post on the matter that I agreed with? I thought that I made it pretty fucking clear whose opinions I was endorsing here.

There are some questions which are really interesting but, unfortunately for you, do require a little bit of thought... :tape:

A little bit of thought? That's all it would have taken for you to understand where I stood on all of this and to actually respond to words that I had written, but you struggled to do that.. didn't you? :)

Come-on-kim
Jan 19th, 2005, 08:19 PM
I have to say that I agree 100% with what minboy and turt said!!

I won't say Kuznetsova took drugs or anything like that, but what she did is suspicious...

I think it's always suspicious when you say the Sunday "no, I haven't known anything about that, I was tested, but I have no news. I know I am clean" and then the day after "I took a medicine for my cold". Like if she wanted to justify herself, if she was so sure to be clean then why lying?

Eerdekens acted badly.. but that's not the point we are discuting here. The thing is that she apparently took a drug.. and was tested positive... that's all.

And I think like Lindsay Davenport, tests must be done during the off-season! Anywhere, at anytime of the day,... that must become usual... that'd be the worst side of their lives as a tennis player but we have to fight doping!

turt
Jan 19th, 2005, 08:22 PM
I knew this board was full of kids, but this is really beyond my expectations.:worship:

To crazy_whatever, English may not be my mother tongue, but I think subtlety is not your cup of tea :) May I advise you to go and visit your local optician, or should I quote all the interesting questions not convincingly answered so far? :angel:

Crazy Canuck
Jan 19th, 2005, 08:30 PM
:worship:

To crazy_whatever, English may not be my mother tongue, but I think subtlety is not your cup of tea :) May I advise you to go and visit your local optician, or should I quote all the interesting questions not convincingly answered so far? :angel:
I was aware that English was not your first language. I was getting on your case because you can clearly write just dandy in English, so it was frusterating to see you respond to me in such a way that indicated you hadn't correctly read the post.

And seriously... "crazy whatever"? That was a very sad attempt. I think that I used a similar one on somebody once upon a time and even criticized myself for how weak it was.

Regardless, I'm done bickering with you. This is silly.

Crazy Canuck
Jan 19th, 2005, 08:37 PM
...
I won't say Kuznetsova took drugs or anything like that, but what she did is suspicious...

Not what she did, but what you think she did, based on what has been reported in the media. Seeing as the entire case has been handled so poorly, I have a hard time taking anything reported about this at face value. In fact, this is my problem with all this speculation - because the case was handled as poorly as it was and the initial reports were so sketchy, it's very difficult to come to any solid conclusions about what really happened, must less cast judgement.

I think it's always suspicious when you say the Sunday "no, I haven't known anything about that, I was tested, but I have no news. I know I am clean" and then the day after "I took a medicine for my cold". Like if she wanted to justify herself, if she was so sure to be clean then why lying?

For all we know, she had discussed the matter privately with somebody already. What she did here by denying the matter entirely could be explained by a number of things. For starters, based on how pitifully the case was being handled, it might not have been wise for her to speak out immediately and give an explanation.

Eerdekens acted badly.. but that's not the point we are discuting here. The thing is that she apparently took a drug.. and was tested positive... that's all.

And according to the wta, she didn't break their rules and she will not be penalized. Thus, the apparent "positive" drug test is absolutely meaningless. Why this continues to be a matter of debate, I have no idea.

And I think like Lindsay Davenport, tests must be done during the off-season! Anywhere, at anytime of the day,... that must become usual... that'd be the worst side of their lives as a tennis player but we have to fight doping!

I don't have a problem with offseason tests that are administered by the WTA, and dealt with in an appropriate, ethical manner. However, that isn't what happened here.

griffin
Jan 19th, 2005, 08:38 PM
And I think like Lindsay Davenport, tests must be done during the off-season! Anywhere, at anytime of the day,... that must become usual... that'd be the worst side of their lives as a tennis player but we have to fight doping!

No one is arguing they shouldn't be - even the "Charleroi 4" willingly submitted to the tests.

turt
Jan 19th, 2005, 08:39 PM
I was aware that English was not your first language. I was getting on your case because you can clearly write just dandy in English, so it was frusterating to see you respond to me in such a way that indicated you hadn't correctly read the post.

And seriously... "crazy whatever"? That was a very sad attempt. I think that I used a similar one on somebody once upon a time and even criticized myself for how weak it was.

Regardless, I'm done bickering with you. This is silly.I will stop with these out-of-topic discussions, but clearly I have understood your post. You didn't catch my answer, but it has nothing to do with English skills.

So please, if you don't feel like giving answers to the interesting questions in this thread, then it would be nice if you would post in other threads than this one. The "whatever" was indeed a sad attempt. So what? Will you raise the level of this thread?

Crazy Canuck
Jan 19th, 2005, 08:42 PM
I will stop with these out-of-topic discussions, but clearly I have understood your post. You didn't catch my answer, but it has nothing to do with English skills.

So please, if you don't feel like giving answers to the interesting questions in this thread, then it would be nice if you would post in other threads than this one. The "whatever" was indeed a sad attempt. So what? Will you raise the level of this thread?
Didn't I already make it clear that this thread was cast from the pits of Hell and that it's impossible to "raise it's level"? :confused:

End.

mishar
Jan 19th, 2005, 08:47 PM
Turt, from an objective point of view: Crazy Canuck is right. Your absoute stupidity would be astonishing if it were not outdone by your nasty character.

turt
Jan 19th, 2005, 08:53 PM
And according to the wta, she didn't break their rules and she will not be penalized. Thus, the apparent "positive" drug test is absolutely meaningless. Why this continues to be a matter of debate, I have no idea. I think you have too much faith in the WTA. In case you didn't notice, one of the reasons I started this thread is the behaviour of the WTA. Larry Scott was quick on saying her girls are innocent.

The WTA didn't sign the WADA code, and if you read carefully this code (you are not forced to do it, just read post #10 in this thread), there seems to be a contradiction between Larry Scott's views and the WADA rules. This contradiction is re-inforced by this simple question: "If Larry Scott is right, why on earth would the WADA look for ephedrine here?". The tests were conducted by the WADA, not by Eerdekens, and it's totally legal since the Belgian French-speaking Community ratified the WADA code, hence authorizes them to conduct doping tests on the entire territory of the community.

Maybe Sveta is not guilty in WTA's eyes, but clearly this is not obvious when it comes to the World Anti-Doping Agency's view on this topic.

AlexB
Jan 19th, 2005, 09:01 PM
My solution is simple: get rid of or refuse to go along with these anti doping/drug agencies. why should some beurocrats decide others punishments..if the wta wants drug testing letthem handle it if they don't then ill respect that as well..anybody who tries hard enough and has connections can beat the tests anyway....wada is a joke run by corrupt fools..besides whats so bad about taking drugs anyway? to me there should be no testing, if a person WILLINGLY wants to improve their performance through chemicals i say let them...just cause your on any drug doesn't mean youll play better...and i dont wan't to hear this advantage nonsense because some players have an advantage with better facilities, better coaches better air quality, etc...if someone knows the dangers of drugs and still takes them, who are we to moralize and point our fingers...if i start taking drug, will i suddenly win wimbledon? no you still need skills regardless of drugs...i just hate all these moral "drugs are bad" people telling athletes how to compete!! even if a tennis player went on center court and shot up right there with every chemical known to man and won, ide consider that win valid....how is drugs gonna make you hit down the line winners? to me its a total non issue....legalize all these performance drugs and let the individual decide for themselves if they want to go down that road

JonBcn
Jan 19th, 2005, 09:18 PM
This thread needs a health warning; I think I've just lost the will to live.

turt
Jan 19th, 2005, 09:27 PM
Again, this is why I don't think the WTA hasn't signed the WADA code. Because the WADA code is too restrictive. That any athlete would be sanctioned under WADA code for using over the counter medications with banned substances in them, even at times that have no effect on the outcome of the WTA or ITF tours. That is could be December 26th, the athlete is having an in training match with their coach, so it is 'in competition' (according to WADA) and they get charged with a doping offence because they had some cold med to feel less sick over the holidays. It is not worth signing when from January to November every year, there are enough tests that anything long term performance enhancing taken in December will be found out in the real competition season.Then why would the ATP and ITF sign it?
BTW your example is wrong, it would be an "out-of-competition" test in your example ;)

anthonyqld
Jan 19th, 2005, 09:39 PM
I think that the "braces" link to drug use may be the stupidest thing that I've read today.


It's well known that drug use can lead to the user being required to wear braces. It's a very commonly known fact.


If sportsmen in the family was a sign half the WTA would be on them


Name one other player in the top-250 who had 3 members of the immediate family as Olympic cyclists? I never said sport anyway, I said CYCLISTS, becauses cycling is certainly not a clean sport.


If acne was a sign 99% of teenagers must be on something


I never mentioned acne, so why bring it up when replying to my post?


And I never said those signs individually point to drug use. I said when combined.

turt
Jan 19th, 2005, 09:43 PM
I don't believe my example is wrong, because what you wrote from the WADA guidelines:

"Competition: A single race, match, game or singular athletic contest"

If you have training scheduled from 1pm to 2pm and you play a match in that time with your coach from 1pm to 2pm, that is a 'competition' by WADA guidelines because of all of the above.Yes, but "in-competition" means the testing is "in connection with the competition". If they come and do the testing at a training, they definitely don't know in advance there is a match instead of a training, so there is no connection. According to that, they don't come to do an "in-competition" testing. See?

turt
Jan 19th, 2005, 09:46 PM
Slightly off, but maybe Eerdekens wanted to quickly clear JHH straight away because Clijsters camp made those off 'drug' comments a while ago when JHH started lifting heavier weights to compete with the Williams sisters and bulked up.
Of course it's the reason! I'm glad finally someone not from Belgium figures this out by himself (although I said this in a few posts, not necessarily on this thread...)

turt
Jan 19th, 2005, 09:59 PM
Every training session is connected to specificially the next grand slam. (See this is a broad statement, but highlights that the code is too restrictive)
Every training session through December for every high ranked player would be in connection to the Australian Open, by the WADA code, because every match (exhibtion, training etc) is in the aim of becoming a better player to do better at the Australian Open. Why ratify something that is so restrictive.
No you get it wrong here. I don't know how to be clear enough in English but in the French version of the code it's pretty clear: If the testing takes place in the frame of a competition (that is: there's a competition and the testers are aware of the competition and they come especially to control you during that competition), then it's "in competition". In your example, the testers didn't know there was a competition, their aim was to come and have a "out of competition" test, as they were not aware of the competition. So it's indeed an "out of competition" testing.

Rocketta
Jan 19th, 2005, 10:14 PM
Wow, I'm had a great time laughing at the posts in this thread! :lol:

Just one question......I'm trying to figure out why most if not all the people who think there is something questionable about Kuzy and that this "positive" status is correct are from Belgium (of course not all Belgians believe this)? It feels like a need to defend their system or something. The system may be fine but the official reeks! We wouldn't even be having this discussion if someone followed the rules and that's one fact that we do know. Had a certain someone kept his mouth shut they would've cleared this whole mess up without anyone knowing.

Anyone "could" be a drug cheat but until someone is caught everyone has a right to be looked at as innocent.

Also, if tennis players couldn't take medicines during their off periods because they may test positive for some non-sense that has nothing to do with competition.....why would they bother to play in an exo? I wouldn't. Give me my cough medicine if I'm not in competition. Hell give me my cough medicine if I'm in competition...Seems to me the effects of a cold would surely outweigh the effects of downing a bottle of Robitussin. ;)

turt
Jan 19th, 2005, 10:18 PM
why would they bother to play in an exo? I wouldn't.$$$ (or €€€) ;)

2284
Jan 19th, 2005, 10:20 PM
Secondly, will you please stop with this "it was a charity event" nonsense? It is not and has never intended to be. I don't know where that came from, but it's simply not.

It doesn't matter if it was. Svetlana saw a doctor and was on prescription medication. Ephedrine is allowed even in competion when the player has a medical certificate.

turt
Jan 19th, 2005, 10:22 PM
It doesn't matter if it was. Svetlana saw a doctor and was on prescription medication. Ephedrine is allowed even in competion when the player has a medical certificate.
It's not clear whether she did have a medical certificate. I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have this discussion had she provided one...

2284
Jan 19th, 2005, 10:24 PM
It's not clear whether she did have a medical certificate. I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have this discussion had she provided one...
Well she claims to have seen a doctor, so if this is true, she could get one...even if she wasn't sick, it's not hard to get a medical certificate

Rocketta
Jan 19th, 2005, 10:25 PM
$$$ (or €€€) ;)
yeah but if you just won a million dollar check a few months ago somehow I suspect that $$$ aren't as important as it is to others. :)

glamorama
Jan 19th, 2005, 11:50 PM
It's well known that drug use can lead to the user being required to wear braces. It's a very commonly known fact.

After every post I think this thread can't get more stupid, and it does. :retard:

I think at this point I don't even know what the... two people left in support of Eerdekens are trying to prove. We know what substance Sveta tested positive for. We know what that substance does. We know that there is no point taking it in December if you want to play better in January, which is why it's not banned during the off season, ie when Sveta took it. We know that there IS a point taking it if you have a nasty cold, which Sveta did.

turt and minboy, what more are you exactly trying to say?

Iheartennis
Jan 19th, 2005, 11:52 PM
For the 276th time...it doesn't matter because it's not banned. She could have eaten ephedrine sandwiches if she wanted.


haha i love that! ephedrine sandwiches are so delicious! mmmmmm. I needed that since im in school and have been missing most of the AO. the fact is that the belgium guy should have shut up. he handled the situation horribly.

-Sonic-
Jan 20th, 2005, 01:34 AM
This contradiction is re-inforced by this simple question: "If Larry Scott is right, why on earth would the WADA look for ephedrine here?".
It doesn't matter if they test for ephedrine every time or not. If they tested for Big Mac traces everytime too, it wouldn't mean that Big Macs weren't allowed. It just means that they test for irrelevant things as they have nothing better to do.

And let me get this right in my head. Sveta plays her coach in her Belgian hotel garden. One person turns up and pays them $1 to watch. The winner of this match gets a good spanking and that $1. Does that mean that its IN competition, and she could get bollocked by Mr. Minister-tittyface?

-Sonic-
Jan 20th, 2005, 01:36 AM
And although I am naughty sometimes...

... how the hell do some people have a full row of green dots by their name? Amazing.

faboozadoo15
Jan 20th, 2005, 01:55 AM
maybe you have more information than i, but i know of people who have tested positive for opium due to their sporadic consumption of poppyseed bagels. i do think it's viable to assume that ephedrine could be found in trace amounts in urine if you took cold medicine over a period of time.

fammmmedspin
Jan 20th, 2005, 02:02 AM
I find the behavior of WTA ... strange, to say the least. They denied to know anything until Monday and suddenly they investigated and knew all details some hours later. WTA chiefs love the label "clean sport" too much. I can't realize how the doping exists in every sport, even where the world champions take less money than a winner in ITF event,
The simplest answer is often the true one. The story broke over a weekend. Larry would have to find out about it when everyone wasn't at work. You don't think the WTA is staffed like a massive well rubn corporation do you? One person and a phone I expect.Then he would have to ask his drugs advisers who might be in another continent, then try and contact who ever was inventing new rules and leaking premature results. This is why they have proceedures to go through before they publicise such cases.

Wanting to catch drugs cheats is fine but you don't worry about cough mixture in an out of competition event. You worry about players who turn up looking decidely different than they used to and look for things somewhat more sophisticated using the best technology you can find. I don't think Ben Jonson, or the latest crop of US athletes, were on cough mixture.

Volcana
Jan 20th, 2005, 02:18 AM
Is this seriously a discussion of whether or not the WTA is deliberately FAILING to sanction a guilty player? With virtually the whole tour backing NOT sanctioning the player? How many of these girls do you think Kuznetsova is eating?

Greenout
Jan 20th, 2005, 05:02 AM
Again, this is why I don't think the WTA hasn't signed the WADA code. Because the WADA code is too restrictive. That any athlete would be sanctioned under WADA code for using over the counter medications with banned substances in them, even at times that have no effect on the outcome of the WTA or ITF tours. That is could be December 26th, the athlete is having an in training match with their coach, so it is 'in competition' (according to WADA) and they get charged with a doping offence because they had some cold med to feel less sick over the holidays. It is not worth signing when from January to November every year, there are enough tests that anything long term performance enhancing taken in December will be found out in the real competition season.


Actually they had a chance to join up years ago; but my
understanding was that certain (cough, cough) players
on the Gold Exempt list during that period like Serena and
Jennifer were against it and even talked about it in
post match press conferences. They were claiming it's against
a person's civil rights if people simply showed up at their
house and made them give samples.

This lead to rumours during RG 2002, that claimed
that the WTA covered up a "positive" result of a very big
female tennis star in the draw.

cynicole
Jan 20th, 2005, 05:27 AM
Actually they had a chance to join up years ago; but my
understanding was that certain (cough, cough) players
on the Gold Exempt list during that period like Serena and
Jennifer were against it and even talked about it in
post match press conferences. They were claiming it's against
a person's civil rights if people simply showed up at their
house and made them give samples.

This lead to rumours during RG 2002, that claimed
that the WTA covered up a "positive" result of a very big
female tennis star in the draw.

It was Venus, not Serena, that they got quotes from and, from her, it sounded more like a safety issue about strangers showing up unannounced at her door. I can't exactly remember what Jennifer said...if I ever even understood what she was saying at the time. :o

And the player who tested positive at RG was Mirjana Lucic...even though, IIRC, she actually had a certificate saying that she could take what she was taking (I think it was an antidepressant that got listed because it also helps people lose weight). I think the French Federation ended up giving her a meaningless punishment (like banning her from competing in French events during a time of year where there were no French events being played).

Come-on-kim
Jan 20th, 2005, 05:28 AM
And according to the wta, she didn't break their rules and she will not be penalized. Thus, the apparent "positive" drug test is absolutely meaningless. Why this continues to be a matter of debate, I have no idea.
:lol: So... if the WTA says it's legal... Like when a country breaks the human rights... that's legal in that country, so we have to let them do...

moby
Jan 20th, 2005, 08:53 AM
Sitting around and endlessly speculating over a situation that was handled dreadfully and that we will probably never know the whole story on is just a stupid waste of time.Yes, which is why philosophy is useless and no one should ever discuss the creation of the universe, or make moral judgements. Because we will never know the whole story. :unsure:

Honestly I do think turt and minboy has a point, and most people are missing the point. If I'm not wrong, they are questioning a few things, mainly:
1) Why should ephedine not be banned by WTA if it allows one to train harder in the short-term?
2) Why does Eerdekens have to claim sole responsibility, when the WADA was also involved in the mishandling of this incident?
3) Why do several of Sveta's statements contradict one another? And why did she have an ephedrine level significantly higher than that of a person taking cold medication?
4) Why is the Chaleroi exhibition not considered in competition?

The answers to all (except 4 :o, sorry turt ) are pretty debatable IMHO, assuming that turt has presented to us the accurate facts. Everyone knows that Sveta is innocent in this instance, and neither turt or minboy is claiming otherwise. So for the last time, everyone who disagrees with turt stop repeating that ad nauseam.

gentenaire
Jan 20th, 2005, 11:20 AM
1) Why should ephedine not be banned by WTA if it allows one to train harder in the short-term?
It isn't banned, so there's no reason Sveta should be called a cheat. She didn't do anything that isn't allowed.
If you want to ban everything that allows someone to train harder, they should ban cafeďne, they should ban all those sports drinks, they should ban doctors, they should ban comfortable shoes, ban sugar full stop, ban vitamins, force all players to become vegetarians, etc.

2) Why does Eerdekens have to claim sole responsibility, when the WADA was also involved in the mishandling of this incident?
Because the WADA didn't make the official announcement, Eerdekens did.

3) Why do several of Sveta's statements contradict one another? And why did she have an ephedrine level significantly higher than that of a person taking cold medication?
What statements contradict one another? Were they her statements or rough interpretations from journalists?
I've seen only one article claiming the ephedrine level was exceptionally high, I don't consider that fact. Even so, no matter how much, it is still legal!

4) Why is the Chaleroi exhibition not considered in competition?
It's not on the WTAtour calendar, they don't get awarded points for it, it's not part of the competition!

Everyone knows that Sveta is innocent in this instance, and neither turt or minboy is claiming otherwise.
Yes they are! They are casting suspicion on Sveta when there is none! Look at the title of this thread!

moby
Jan 20th, 2005, 11:36 AM
It isn't banned, so there's no reason Sveta should be called a cheat. She didn't do anything that isn't allowed.
If you want to ban everything that allows someone to train harder, they should ban cafeďne, they should ban all those sports drinks, they should ban doctors, they should ban comfortable shoes, ban sugar full stop, ban vitamins, force all players to become vegetarians, etc.Why do they ban normal steroids/performance enhancing-drugs then? See AlexB's post. I'm sure he was half-joking though. :p

Because the WADA didn't make the official announcement, Eerdekens did.But they did the testing. They obviously didn't inform him on how to handle it, or even the exact rules (They should have told him ephedrine is not banned out of competition!). He's a minister, not some authority on doping. The WADA OTOH, is set up to test doping. I am rather sympathetic with the minister.

What statements contradict one another? Were they her statements or rough interpretations from journalists? I've seen only one article claiming the ephedrine level was exceptionally high, I don't consider that fact. Even so, no matter how much, it is still legal! One moment she says that athletes aren't allowed to take normal pills, the next she reveals that the medicine she took was of the over-the-counter variety. She also denies being informed when she clearly was. About the ephedrine level, I won't comment much because I'm not sure, but if it were exceptionally high, then it is quite strange, don't you think so, because I can't imagine her wanting to win an exo that badly?

It's not on the WTAtour calendar, they don't get awarded points for it, it's not part of the competition!Yeah, I know. Which is why I said the answer to the 4th question is not debatable. :p Unfortunately for turt, that's the cornerstone of his argument, and he rightfully got torn apart for it.

Yes they are! They are casting suspicion on Sveta when there is none! Look at the title of this thread!They are not saying that she is cheating, or breaking any rules.

glamorama
Jan 20th, 2005, 11:38 AM
:lol: So... if the WTA says it's legal... Like when a country breaks the human rights... that's legal in that country, so we have to let them do...

This post surely gets the award for Most Tenuous Analogy Of The Year.

The WTA doesn't permit ephedrine in the off-season because it wants its players to cheat, it permits ephedrine in the off-season because it'd be bloody silly not to, given that taking ephedrine while out of competition cannot provide any tangible benefits for the athlete when she returns to competition. It's a bit much to equate that with covering up human rights abuses :unsure:

glamorama
Jan 20th, 2005, 11:43 AM
Why do they ban normal steroids/performance enhancing-drugs then? See AlexB's post. I'm sure he was half-joking though. :p

It must be pointed out that ephedrine won't actually help you play better tennis! It's a stimulant, but imagine trying to play (or even train) on a caffeine high... the effect is rather similar.

One moment she says that athletes aren't allowed to take normal pills, the next she reveals that the medicine she took was of the over-the-counter variety. She also denies being informed when she clearly was.

There's no 'clearly' about it - she continues to deny that she was told, as do the WTA and her national federation. The only person who claims that she was told is Eerdekens, who has been shown to be demonstrably incompetent and ethically dubious himself.

anthonyqld
Jan 20th, 2005, 12:12 PM
After every post I think this thread can't get more stupid, and it does. :retard:

I think at this point I don't even know what the... two people left in support of Eerdekens are trying to prove.


I never defended Eerdenkens. He shoudn't have announced it, and I never said Kuz was on drugs. I don't think she is. All I said was that if a top-250 WAS on drugs, I'd believe it to be her - not saying she is.

Virginia Wade
Jan 20th, 2005, 12:30 PM
Oh dear oh dear, what a pickle this thread is. One does so miss the old days when a banned substance meant Wendy couldn't eat any more of my upside-down cakes.

rand
Jan 20th, 2005, 01:41 PM
what I find tedious about the whole "ephedrine is legal outside competition" is that if say, a cyclist got tested positive on epehedrine outside competition, EVERYONE, including the cyclist-fans (like myself)would consider them a fraud, the media would consider them doping-users (the cycling federation signed WADA and so submits to the more restrictive rules), actually it already happened a few times with some of the big "cycling doping scandals"...partly because of that (and of course partly bcause of the stronger doping cases, which also often come to light because the UCI just test their athletyes much more than for example the WTA) cycling as the image of being the dirty sport.....
now when a comparable case comes to light in tennis everyone seems to agree there's nothing wrong with it...
and it's true from the WTA point of view Sveta did nothing wrong, but the different control-systems between the two sports certainly seems to produce the difference in view of the general public of which of the sports is the "cleanest"..so even if this case is OK by the WTA, for me it DOES raise a question about the WTA policy....

moby
Jan 20th, 2005, 01:47 PM
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), meanwhile, said the allegations made against Kuznetsova should serve as a wake-up call to the WTA Tour about its testing procedures.

Although the test was conducted by a Belgian anti-doping agency at a non-WTA event, WADA's director general David Howman said the WTA had a lacklustre approach to drug testing compared to the men's tour.

"We're not so content with the WTA who haven't shown the same enthusiasm or exuberance to ensure that the testing program that they conduct on their tour is in line with the code, so we would hope this might be a stimulus to their coming on board in the right way," he said.

http://www.optusnet.com.au/news/story/abc/20050119/15/ausopen/1284194.inp

turt
Jan 20th, 2005, 01:50 PM
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), meanwhile, said the allegations made against Kuznetsova should serve as a wake-up call to the WTA Tour about its testing procedures.

Although the test was conducted by a Belgian anti-doping agency at a non-WTA event, WADA's director general David Howman said the WTA had a lacklustre approach to drug testing compared to the men's tour.

"We're not so content with the WTA who haven't shown the same enthusiasm or exuberance to ensure that the testing program that they conduct on their tour is in line with the code, so we would hope this might be a stimulus to their coming on board in the right way," he said.

http://www.optusnet.com.au/news/story/abc/20050119/15/ausopen/1284194.inp
rand & moby: :worship:

The Crow
Jan 20th, 2005, 01:53 PM
what I find tedious about the whole "ephedrine is legal outside competition" is that if say, a cyclist got tested positive on epehedrine outside competition, EVERYONE, including the cyclist-fans (like myself)would consider them a fraud, the media would consider them doping-users (the cycling federation signed WADA and so submits to the more restrictive rules), actually it already happened a few times with some of the big "cycling doping scandals"...partly because of that (and of course partly bcause of the stronger doping cases, which also often come to light because the UCI just test their athletyes much more than for example the WTA) cycling as the image of being the dirty sport.....
now when a comparable case comes to light in tennis everyone seems to agree there's nothing wrong with it...
and it's true from the WTA point of view Sveta did nothing wrong, but the different control-systems between the two sports certainly seems to produce the difference in view of the general public of which of the sports is the "cleanest"..so even if this case is OK by the WTA, for me it DOES raise a question about the WTA policy....
:worship: :worship:

Greenout
Jan 20th, 2005, 01:54 PM
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), meanwhile, said the allegations made against Kuznetsova should serve as a wake-up call to the WTA Tour about its testing procedures.

Although the test was conducted by a Belgian anti-doping agency at a non-WTA event, WADA's director general David Howman said the WTA had a lacklustre approach to drug testing compared to the men's tour.

"We're not so content with the WTA who haven't shown the same enthusiasm or exuberance to ensure that the testing program that they conduct on their tour is in line with the code, so we would hope this might be a stimulus to their coming on board in the right way," he said.

http://www.optusnet.com.au/news/story/abc/20050119/15/ausopen/1284194.inp


Wow, boy did WADA come down on Larry Scott WTA Ceo! :tape:

gentenaire
Jan 20th, 2005, 04:12 PM
Rand, I can't remembar a case where a cyclist got caught taking ephedrine off season.

And I never attacked the fact that they checked for doping, quite the contrary. I agree the WTA should do a lot more to erase doping. If you read my posts in other threads, you'd understand where I stand on that score. I'd be surprised if tennis was a clean sport.

However, I want the cheaters to be caught, not the innocents! If you want a credible fight against doping, these kind of amateurist approaches and silly withc hunts have to go. They harm the fight against doping more than they're helping it.

rand
Jan 20th, 2005, 04:16 PM
Rand, I can't remembar a case where a cyclist got caught taking ephedrine off season.

And I never attacked the fact that they checked for doping, quite the contrary. I agree the WTA should do a lot more to erase doping. If you read my posts in other threads, you'd understand where I stand on that score. I'd be surprised if tennis was a clean sport.

However, I want the cheaters to be caught, not the innocents! If you want a credible fight against doping, these kind of amateurist approaches and silly withc hunts have to go. They harm the fight against doping more than they're helping it.
not on ephedrine, but there was for example the cases against simoni and garzelli two years back in the giro...it's the first that comes to mind....
and I didn't say I didn't agree with most of your post ;) you should know I almost always agree with you :D

rand
Jan 20th, 2005, 04:16 PM
ullrich's xtc pill was also another

Kelly
Jan 20th, 2005, 04:21 PM
just a thought..if it wasnt a wta event....and nothing to do with wta...then why cant WADA not implement its rules on doping?

goldenlox
Jan 20th, 2005, 04:27 PM
Sveta had a cold, and a doctor gave her this medication.
There is no story here.
Except that Justine and Kim have a lot to do when they get back.
It's tough coming all the way back from an injury.
And young Russians like Sveta will only continue to improve.

griffin
Jan 20th, 2005, 04:29 PM
But they did the testing.

As Tine already pointed out WADA DID NOT do the testing - WADA sets the rules and regulations, but the Belgian sports authorities carried them out and sent the samples to an accredited lab. All the lab knows is they have a jar of wee they have to test and report on. It's up to the submitting sports body (the Belgian anti-doping squad in this case) to look at the results and see if anything is amiss.

Neither WTA nor WADA - at least according to a previous post, I'm still trying to look it up - ban ephedrine out-of-competition. So the ministry never shold have reported that someone tested positive.

if it were exceptionally high, then it is quite strange, don't you think so, because I can't imagine her wanting to win an exo that badly?

I certainly can't - which is why I"m even more inclined to believe she's innocent. There's no long-term benefit to her to take the drug during the exo, and I can't imagine anyone caring enough about an exo to take those levels of drugs.

ot1962
Jan 20th, 2005, 06:29 PM
So, again, why did Sveta submit herself to be tested by a WADA affiliated body, if she or the WTA are in disagreement with their policies??

Rocketta
Jan 20th, 2005, 06:52 PM
So, again, why did Sveta submit herself to be tested by a WADA affiliated body, if she or the WTA are in disagreement with their policies??
why wouldn't she? :confused:

justine&coria
Jan 20th, 2005, 07:00 PM
It isn't banned, so there's no reason Sveta should be called a cheat. She didn't do anything that isn't allowed.
If you want to ban everything that allows someone to train harder, they should ban cafeďne, they should ban all those sports drinks, they should ban doctors, they should ban comfortable shoes, ban sugar full stop, ban vitamins, force all players to become vegetarians, etc.

So what you're saying is that if Sveta took ephedrine just to be able to train harder, then there's no problem?
Why doesn't the WTA ask their players to take ephedrine as any other sports drinks ?

JonBcn
Jan 20th, 2005, 07:06 PM
So what you're saying is that if Sveta took ephedrine just to be able to train harder, then there's no problem?
Why doesn't the WTA ask their players to take ephedrine as any other sports drinks ?I dont know how many times this has to be explained - ephedrine would, could and should NOT be used as a training aid. It would be like making a player drink three red bulls, and nothing more. It certainly wouldnt give them an advantage over another player - more than likely it would put them at a disadvantage. It might increase their heart rate, but would not help in any way. It's a joke to even suggest it. Trust me, because I've taken it.

Creatine is far more useful as a training aid (although completely different), and its perfectly legal. I dont hear anyone going on about that...

ot1962
Jan 20th, 2005, 07:32 PM
why wouldn't she? :confused:
Because she and the WTA do not approve of WADA's policies on ban substances etc??

DelMonte
Jan 20th, 2005, 07:51 PM
I dont know how many times this has to be explained - ephedrine would, could and should NOT be used as a training aid. It would be like making a player drink three red bulls, and nothing more. It certainly wouldnt give them an advantage over another player - more than likely it would put them at a disadvantage. It might increase their heart rate, but would not help in any way. It's a joke to even suggest it. Trust me, because I've taken it.

Creatine is far more useful as a training aid (although completely different), and its perfectly legal. I dont hear anyone going on about that...

JonBc, there is a reason why ephedrine is banned IN-COMPETITION. It helps to increase energy and aids in weight loss. So, it could be used as a training aid although, as you pointed out, there are drugs that are far more effective.

JonBcn
Jan 20th, 2005, 08:18 PM
Alcohol is banned in competition as well, as is an excess of caffeine. They could both be used as training aids too, but you'd have to be pretty stupid. I would class ephedrine about as useful as both of those to a professional tennis player.

sartrista7
Jan 20th, 2005, 08:21 PM
Lourdes Dominguez Lino got done for cocaine a few years back. I don't think anyone claimed she took it to help her game :lol:

Cannabis is banned in competition, too.

JonBcn
Jan 20th, 2005, 08:23 PM
Cocaine's actually quite good for increasing energy and aiding weight loss - I heartily recommend it.

sartrista7
Jan 20th, 2005, 08:26 PM
And for added on-court confidence!

DelMonte
Jan 20th, 2005, 08:27 PM
Alcohol is banned in competition as well, as is an excess of caffeine. They could both be used as training aids too, but you'd have to be pretty stupid. I would class ephedrine about as useful as both of those to a professional tennis player.


I understand your point about recreational drugs but from what I have read on ephedrine can and is actually used in order to enhance performance in the two ways I have described. It appears that it is no where near as effective as other performance-enhancing drugs, but its effects cannot be compared to alcohol or caffaine.

anthonyqld
Jan 20th, 2005, 10:17 PM
Lourdes Dominguez Lino got done for cocaine a few years back. I don't think anyone claimed she took it to help her gam


Cocaine is very helpful to your game. A lot of benefits.

pokey camp
Jan 20th, 2005, 11:46 PM
It's well known that drug use can lead to the user being required to wear braces. It's a very commonly known fact.After every post I think this thread can't get more stupid, and it does. :retard:
No, that's not stupid. HGH is known to have exactly the side effect he is talking about.

HGH commonly causes the bones along an athletes jaw line to shift and grow. Thus throwing the alignment of the teeth off. Thus the requirement of braces. That's not stupid. In track and field it's fairly common. However, since she is still a teenager I gave her a pass on that one.

And the point about the dosage being too high for the "cold medicine" excuse is completely right. Same about the cycling point. I thought the same thing. I guess there must not be too many track and field fans/ exfans here, because I've heard these types of crap excuses for years and frankly I'm sick of it.

moby
Jan 21st, 2005, 02:36 AM
Alcohol is banned in competition as well, as is an excess of caffeine. They could both be used as training aids too, but you'd have to be pretty stupid. I would class ephedrine about as useful as both of those to a professional tennis player.
According to the WADA, a substance is banned if it fulfils 2 out of the 3 criteria:
1) It is performance-enhancing
2) It is harmful to the athlete
3) It is against the spirit of sport

Since ephedrine is most certainly harmful above the legal limits, we'll have to see if it is performance-enhancing. Which it is, it increases airflow to the lungs for increased oxygen uptake, it allows for more effective anaerobic respiration, it reduces fat, increases rate of protein synthesis and facilitates skeletal muscular contractions just to name a few.

moby
Jan 21st, 2005, 02:40 AM
As Tine already pointed out WADA DID NOT do the testing - WADA sets the rules and regulations, but the Belgian sports authorities carried them out and sent the samples to an accredited lab. All the lab knows is they have a jar of wee they have to test and report on. It's up to the submitting sports body (the Belgian anti-doping squad in this case) to look at the results and see if anything is amiss.

Neither WTA nor WADA - at least according to a previous post, I'm still trying
to look it up - ban ephedrine out-of-competition. So the ministry never shold have reported that someone tested positive.
You're right that the WADA doesn't ban it. They have stated however, that the WTA has not been especially cooperative, and doesn't seem to be sympathetic with the WTA. Why is that so?

So I got the part wrong about WADA doing the testing. But my point still stands. The minister is not the only one at fault. He's probably wrongly informed by his subordinates.

Volcana
Jan 21st, 2005, 04:45 AM
You know, more stringent testing isn't unmanagable.

Obviosly, in the age of AIDS nobody is going to let a stranger knock and their door and stick a needle in their arm. If a random tester could even get into the gated communities that some of the athletes live in.

But there are some options.

For example, the athlete could draw her own blood, with her own security around her, but with the tester observing, never letting the sample out of their sight. That would take care of anybody worried about the next Gunther Parche, and insure the integrity of the sample.

Of course, if the athlete drops out of sight at the beginning of November, and doesn't turn up again til January 15th, that's just the way that is. If Silvia Farina Elia decides to vacation on a tropical island only reachable by charter plane and boat, I dooubt any testing agency is dropping the money to chase her down.