PDA

View Full Version : Your opinion of the Wickmayer ban


pov
Nov 7th, 2009, 06:38 PM
Yanina Wickmayer has been given a one year suspension for failing to report her whereabouts to anti-doping officials three times during 2009. What's your opinion about this?

TTomek
Nov 7th, 2009, 06:43 PM
the ban is fair but 1 year is too long!

Chrissie-fan
Nov 7th, 2009, 06:45 PM
She should at the most have been given a warning, and since there obviously are holes in the system probably not even that. A ban is ridiculous, but I guess I've already said enough about how I feel about the issue. Let me just say that if Yanina had been born anywhere else in the world than on this little landscape we call Flanders she wouldn't be in this mess.

Julian.
Nov 7th, 2009, 06:46 PM
I'm furious. It's so unfair for her.

A-Bond
Nov 7th, 2009, 06:48 PM
Well I'm not a fan of her but that's definitely too hard. I mean Gasquet got 2 months :o Suddenly I miss the "Whoopieee". She really reached a lot in 2009 and she will have to start from 0 in 2011.

Jorn
Nov 7th, 2009, 06:56 PM
She should only have been giving a warning, one year is much much too much.

Ballbasher
Nov 7th, 2009, 06:58 PM
They should ban her until Paris or something. 1 year seems slightly too long.

rnwerner
Nov 7th, 2009, 06:59 PM
I dont know why but i have the feeling she will play the whole next season. I can't imagine that she won't play AO.

Chrissie-fan
Nov 7th, 2009, 07:03 PM
Well I'm not a fan of her but that's definitely too hard. I mean Gasquet got 2 months :o Suddenly I miss the "Whoopieee". She really reached a lot in 2009 and she will have to start from 0 in 2011.
ANY sort of a ban is wrong. People who vote for "A ban should have been given but 1 year is way out of proportion" honestly think that they are reasonable, I'm sure. But they are not. To the average person it doesn't matter whether she's suspended for two weeks or five years. In their minds she will always be that girl who was suspended for a doping offence related issue. Any sort of suspension means that her reputation is in shatters for the rest of her career.

frenchie
Nov 7th, 2009, 07:04 PM
I couldn't care less

I never liked this girl because of her on court behaviour, grunt and uninspired game
And her ban allowed Kimiko to play the SF in Bali

A'DAM
Nov 7th, 2009, 07:06 PM
I have not enough info to have an oppinion!

madmax
Nov 7th, 2009, 07:11 PM
dunno, don't care...

A-Bond
Nov 7th, 2009, 07:12 PM
ANY sort of a ban is wrong. People who vote for "A ban should have been given but 1 year is way out of proportion" honestly think that they are reasonable, I'm sure. But they are not. To the average person it doesn't matter whether she's suspended for two weeks or five years. In their minds she will always be that girl who was suspended for a doping offence related issue. Any sort of suspension means that her reputation is in shatters for the rest of her career.

Well, that's true. Whoopieee.

sammy01
Nov 7th, 2009, 07:16 PM
maybe a year is harsh, but having another mindless grunting ballbasher not on tour isnt exactly a bad thing.

A-Bond
Nov 7th, 2009, 07:20 PM
maybe a year is harsh, but having another mindless grunting ballbasher not on tour isnt exactly a bad thing.

:lol::lol: I love ballbashers! By the exception of Whoopieemayer. But a year is too much. Imagine Anna would be banned for a year :eek:

sammy01
Nov 7th, 2009, 07:23 PM
:lol::lol: I love ballbashers! By the exception of Whoopieemayer. But a year is too much. Imagine Anna would be banned for a year :eek:

if that was the punishment fitting her 'crime' so be it. i love anna and hope she never breaks the rules so doesn't have to be punished, but if it happens she will have to lump it. yep im harsh.

skanky~skanketta
Nov 7th, 2009, 07:23 PM
:lol::lol: I love ballbashers! By the exception of Whoopieemayer. But a year is too much. Imagine Anna would be banned for a year :eek: Well, it wouldn't really make a difference as she's never present in her matches anyway! :tape:

sammy01
Nov 7th, 2009, 07:30 PM
Well, it wouldn't really make a difference as she's never present in her matches anyway! :tape:

:sad: shush she'll be back.............................................. ...................... maybe

A-Bond
Nov 7th, 2009, 07:31 PM
Well, it wouldn't really make a difference as she's never present in her matches anyway! :tape:

:lol::lol: Nicole also would better be banned, so she would have a reason not to play ;)

Michael!
Nov 7th, 2009, 07:35 PM
Ban is fair, it was her fault, 1 year is probably a bit too long, 6 months would have been also ok!

Illusionist
Nov 7th, 2009, 07:57 PM
A ban should have be given but 1 year is way out of proportion

I'd give her 4 months max. One year is too much!

GeeTee
Nov 7th, 2009, 09:14 PM
AS with most polls, the options for voting are slanted...

Where's the option that says 'it seems unfair, but they're the rules every other international sportsperson has to comply with'?

AnomyBC
Nov 7th, 2009, 09:17 PM
So is she actually banned from everything or is it just Belgian events? I don't think she should have gotten a ban at all, but if it's just Belgian events then it's really no big deal.

Aaric
Nov 7th, 2009, 09:19 PM
I couldn't care less

I never liked this girl because of her on court behaviour, grunt and uninspired game
And her ban allowed Kimiko to play the SF in Bali

What a mature statement :rolleyes::weirdo:

anon57
Nov 7th, 2009, 09:24 PM
The whereabouts system is in place for a reason, it's a necesary evil to when trying to combat doping. But in this case a one year ban seems very harsh imo, it seems that at least part of the problem with Wickmayer was the failing computer system. Surely there was anothe way of punishing Wickmayer and Malisse that did include potentially ruining their careers.

MH0861
Nov 7th, 2009, 09:26 PM
She should be banned 1 month for each time they couldn't find her, so three months ban seems fair to me :p Let her finish Bali and come back in Indian Wells :shrug:

danieln1
Nov 7th, 2009, 09:33 PM
It´s way out of proportion, I think it would be fair to ban her just for the australian circuit, and it wouldn´´t damage her a lot because she doesn´t have a lot to defend... Yeah, she did a wrong thing acording to belgian tribunal, but 1 year is way too harsh...

Imagine, she would be back only in November 2010, ranked 800+, because she only would have in her ranking the win against Kimiko in MM Bali! She would have to start practically from zero... it´s unfair

gentenaire
Nov 7th, 2009, 09:36 PM
AS with most polls, the options for voting are slanted...

Where's the option that says 'it seems unfair, but they're the rules every other international sportsperson has to comply with'?

That's not an option considering those are not the rules every other international sportsperson has to comply with. Flemish rules are stricter.

And I'm pretty certain that in other countries, they would have judged according to what the rules are intended for, not to the letter of the law.

This was the tribunal's very first case! Yanina's a victim of an overzealous judge who wants to set an example in its first case.

Shvedbarilescu
Nov 7th, 2009, 09:37 PM
AS with most polls, the options for voting are slanted...

Where's the option that says 'it seems unfair, but they're the rules every other international sportsperson has to comply with'?

Just as well that option doesn't exist because it would be wrong. They are only the rules Flemish tennis players need to comply with, not everyone else.

As for me, I don't particularly like Wickmayer, infact she is one of the players in the top 50 I would be least fond off. But I would totally defend her in this instance. There is no way on earth I think it is right that she should be banned for any length of this at all.

¤CharlDa¤
Nov 7th, 2009, 09:43 PM
I'll repeat what I stated before. Banning her from playing in national tournaments, or Belgium tournaments, for a year is fine.

But I don't understand how a country federation can be obnoxious enough to think that they have better rules than the international federations. The WTA and ITF are testing players, Yanina was tested and followed the WTA rules, so she should definitely be able to play the WTA as she followed all their rules. The ban is ridiculous.

Dodoboy.
Nov 7th, 2009, 09:56 PM
Yanina Wickmayer has been given a one year suspension for failing to report her whereabouts to anti-doping officials three times during 2009. What's your opinion about this?

http://i36.tinypic.com/k050uw.jpg

Mashabator
Nov 7th, 2009, 10:24 PM
thats just too much 1 year is a long time..

Shvedbarilescu
Nov 7th, 2009, 10:26 PM
I'll repeat what I stated before. Banning her from playing in national tournaments, or Belgium tournaments, for a year is fine.

But I don't understand how a country federation can be obnoxious enough to think that they have better rules than the international federations. The WTA and ITF are testing players, Yanina was tested and followed the WTA rules, so she should definitely be able to play the WTA as she followed all their rules. The ban is ridiculous.

Extremely well put. 100% agree on everything here.

Привет
Nov 7th, 2009, 10:30 PM
That's not an option considering those are not the rules every other international sportsperson has to comply with. Flemish rules are stricter.

And I'm pretty certain that in other countries, they would have judged according to what the rules are intended for, not to the letter of the law.

This was the tribunal's very first case! Yanina's a victim of an overzealous judge who wants to set an example in its first case.
I did not know this. This makes me positive that this banning is wrong. I still don't understand how a tribunal could be recommended to give her a warning, and end up deciding to ban her for a year. That does not connect.
I'll repeat what I stated before. Banning her from playing in national tournaments, or Belgium tournaments, for a year is fine.

But I don't understand how a country federation can be obnoxious enough to think that they have better rules than the international federations. The WTA and ITF are testing players, Yanina was tested and followed the WTA rules, so she should definitely be able to play the WTA as she followed all their rules. The ban is ridiculous.
:worship:

Lulu.
Nov 7th, 2009, 10:50 PM
A year does seem a little harsh.

kittyking
Nov 7th, 2009, 10:56 PM
I'm sorry to say this but I think theres more to the story than what we've heard. They wouldn't give a one year ban to a player without at least some proof of doping.

Chrissie-fan
Nov 7th, 2009, 10:59 PM
The whereabouts system is in place for a reason, it's a necesary evil to when trying to combat doping. But in this case a one year ban seems very harsh imo, it seems that at least part of the problem with Wickmayer was the failing computer system.
Maybe it would be a better idea to fix their failing computer system before they start giving anyone any sort of punishment at all. Or maybe it's them that should be punished for dragging her reputation through the mud while they themselves are at least in part responsible for the problem.

Chrissie-fan
Nov 7th, 2009, 11:07 PM
I'm sorry to say this but I think theres more to the story than what we've heard. They wouldn't give a one year ban to a player without at least some proof of doping.
I wish I had your confidence in the integrity of authority - I don't. Besides, even the Flemish anti-doping tribunal has said that she is NOT suspected of any doping offence.

Chrissie-fan
Nov 7th, 2009, 11:12 PM
She should be banned 1 month for each time they couldn't find her, so three months ban seems fair to me :p
All three times "they couldn't find her" she was playing a tournament somewhere. It seems obvious to me that they could locate her wherever those tournaments were played at the time.

Markus
Nov 7th, 2009, 11:12 PM
I'm sorry to say this but I think theres more to the story than what we've heard. They wouldn't give a one year ban to a player without at least some proof of doping.
Honestly, that sounds to me like wishful thinking. It looks for me more like set an example like anything else. If there is anything more substantial behind this story the statement of WTA would have been much more approving of the ban. WTA is basically saying nothing.

Chrissie-fan
Nov 7th, 2009, 11:18 PM
That's not an option considering those are not the rules every other international sportsperson has to comply with. Flemish rules are stricter.

And I'm pretty certain that in other countries, they would have judged according to what the rules are intended for, not to the letter of the law.

This was the tribunal's very first case! Yanina's a victim of an overzealous judge who wants to set an example in its first case.
Part of the problem is that most people here have no idea how corrupt justice is in Belgium. Hardly a week goes by without some sort of scandal. It's hard to understand or believe for those who don't live here.

Uranus
Nov 7th, 2009, 11:24 PM
Shvedbarilescu, CharlDa and Chrissie-fan: :worship:
I recommend everyone to read their posts on this page.
Any kind of ban is out of proportion. And those who said 3-4 months have to remember several athletes who actually tested positive were banned for a smaller amount of time.

kittyking
Nov 8th, 2009, 04:42 AM
I wish I had your confidence in the integrity of authority - I don't. Besides, even the Flemish anti-doping tribunal has said that she is NOT suspected of any doping offence.

Well that's a shame because frankly I think WADA are on the whole a bunch of professionals who know exactly what they are doing. Not all of Yanina's drug results have been released to the public where as other players results are available to the public - If Dinara says shes losing because of taking drugs... well her drug results could show otherwise :lol:

pascal77
Nov 8th, 2009, 04:48 AM
It's a good warning to the other players, but it's over the top for this poor girl, her tennis career will be ruined.

Привет
Nov 8th, 2009, 05:18 AM
All three times "they couldn't find her" she was playing a tournament somewhere. It seems obvious to me that they could locate her wherever those tournaments were played at the time.

Yeah I don't get this. :lol: How could they not know where she is when it takes about 30 seconds to find out what tournament she is playing in that week, her results for that week, pictures of her playing on court etc. :scratch:

Shvedbarilescu
Nov 8th, 2009, 07:56 AM
Well that's a shame because frankly I think WADA are on the whole a bunch of professionals who know exactly what they are doing. Not all of Yanina's drug results have been released to the public where as other players results are available to the public - If Dinara says shes losing because of taking drugs... well her drug results could show otherwise :lol:

And what do you base your belief in the idea that WADA are a bunch of professionals who know exactly what they are doing? Anything? Or do you just naturally trust authorities without question?

kittyking
Nov 8th, 2009, 09:17 AM
And what do you base your belief in the idea that WADA are a bunch of professionals who know exactly what they are doing? Anything? Or do you just naturally trust authorities without question?

Of course if Yaninas innocent then I'll feel like sh*t for supporting her ban... however we will never know the FULL story. WTA are staying pretty quiet for a reason. I like Yanina, I just hope she doesn't blame this on a pregnancy :tape:

gentenaire
Nov 8th, 2009, 09:22 AM
I'm sorry to say this but I think theres more to the story than what we've heard. They wouldn't give a one year ban to a player without at least some proof of doping.

Welcome to Belgium.

iceager
Nov 8th, 2009, 11:40 AM
Of course if Yaninas innocent then I'll feel like sh*t for supporting her ban... however we will never know the FULL story. WTA are staying pretty quiet for a reason. I like Yanina, I just hope she doesn't blame this on a pregnancy :tape:

The WTA is staying quiet because of their own policy of not commenting before getting their own report. Besides, they haven't exactly been staunch advocates for the players.

As for Yanina, she blamed this on not getting the warning letters that were sent to her home and returned to the sender because she was away playing tournaments, and on the password she was given not working correctly. The WADA accepted that the computerized system was not working, which is why she was widely expected to be given only a warning. You are of course joking about a pregnancy excuse, but please realize that she never tested positive, nor even missed a test; all she is accused of is not complying with the whereabouts reporting system put in place by the Flemish doping authorities, that anywhere else in the world, she needed not have worried about until she broke the top 50 a few months ago.

I never really cared for Yanina the tennis player, but no one deserves to be treated like this.

manu
Nov 8th, 2009, 12:28 PM
To all the people who support the anti-doping officials and ask respect for the rules: I think it's a logical reaction. If there is no respect for the system, then why have anti-doping services? I think anti-doping agencies are important and tennis should be clean to give everybody an honest chance. I'd like you all to have a look at this list of doping sinners from the recent past (this is copied from Bram's post in the other Wickmayer thread).



In 2005 Alex Bogomolov Jr was suspended for 1.5 months due to a positive doping test during the Australian Open.

On 9 May 2009, French sports daily L'Équipe reported that Richard Gasquet had tested positive for cocaine in March 2009, following his withdrawal from a tournament in Miami. [3] On 5 June 2009, in an interview with the same newspaper, Richard Gasquet denies having taken cocaine notably quoting the fact that the amount found accounts for 1/10th of a rail line. [4] Gasquet was provisionally suspended, but was later cleared due to his explanation that he had inadvertently consumed the drug after kissing a woman who had consumed it at a party. [5] As of 16 July 2009, he is thus able to compete again. = 2 months

Stefan Koubek tested positive for glucocorticosteroids at the 2004 French Open after receiving an injection for an injured wrist; he was subsequently suspended for three months.

Ivo Minář tested positive for methylhexanamine in 11 July 2009 and was suspended eight months.

In 2003 Mariano Puerta received a two-year doping suspension after testing positive for clenbuterol at Viña del Mar. In his defense he argued that the substance had been administered to him by his doctor to combat asthma and that it had no performance-enhancing effect. The sanction was subsequently reduced to nine months suspension and a US$5600 fine.

Belgian cyclist Tom Boonen tested positive for cocaine in a test on May 26. Since this was outside competition, and cocaine is not considered a performance enhancing drug, Boonen did not face sanctions by the UCI or WADA. During a press conference the day after, he offered his apologies and team manager Patrick Lefevere stated that, since these were considered difficulties of a private nature, team Quick Step maintained its confidence in him. In February 2009 a Belgian court found him guilty of cocaine use but decided not to hand down criminal sanctions against Boonen, saying that he has "been punished enough"
On April 27, Boonen tested positive for cocaine in an out of competition test for the third time (the first occasion, in November 2007, had not previously been made public) and was suspended by his team, Quick Step, on May 9,[10] and re-entered competition with them in the 2009 Critérium du Dauphiné Libéré.


Yanina's administrative failure (of which a part was caused due to the disfunctioning of the system itself) pales in comparison to what these guys did. And on their turn, their punishments pale in comparison to Yanina's. She never tested postive. She never even missed a doping test. I keep repeating it because I feel this punishment is very very unfair.

I understand that the WADA-rules have changed since 2009. But if this is what the rules lead to, shouldn't we have our second thoughts about these rules? Or about the completely unsensitive application of the rules? A sanction should have been given, but I hope most people realize that even a short ban would not be fair if you look at what happened to other much more serious cases in recent history.

pov
Nov 8th, 2009, 03:44 PM
Well that's a shame because frankly I think WADA are on the whole a bunch of professionals who know exactly what they are doing. Not all of Yanina's drug results have been released to the public where as other players results are available to the public - If Dinara says shes losing because of taking drugs... well her drug results could show otherwise :lol:
What are you going on about? If the VDT had any indication that would make them suspect she'd been doping, they certainly would not issue a statement saying that there was no suspicion of such. They are very clear about what the infractions are. Malisse was for missing a scheduled drug-test.

So you think the WADA has a bunch of professionals. Okay and?? Anyone and everyone with a profession is a professional. So what's your point?

Chrissie-fan
Nov 8th, 2009, 04:06 PM
What are you going on about? If the VDT had any indication that would make them suspect she'd been doping, they certainly would not issue a statement saying that there was no suspicion of such. They are very clear about what the infractions are. Malisse was for missing a scheduled drug-test.

So you think the WADA has a bunch of professionals. Okay and?? Anyone and everyone with a profession is a professional. So what's your point?
There's an exibition tournament called the Belgian Masters going on right now. Today the Flemish pee collectors were there at the tournament for a doping control. It is seen by players and media alike as a tasteless provocation. They are truly obsessed.

SoClose
Nov 9th, 2009, 05:42 AM
The 1 year ban seems fair and just

Shvedbarilescu
Nov 9th, 2009, 07:31 AM
Of course if Yaninas innocent then I'll feel like sh*t for supporting her ban... however we will never know the FULL story. WTA are staying pretty quiet for a reason. I like Yanina, I just hope she doesn't blame this on a pregnancy :tape:

Right. So, with you admittedly not knowing the full story, you prefer to automatically assume the party in question is even guiltier than anyone is saying. I hope if I ever get taken to court I don't find you on my jury. :tape:

FFS
Nov 9th, 2009, 07:41 AM
This time I agree 100% with the ITF President :

"These cases create discussion because they're not reliant on positive tests, but there are rules to respect," Ricci Bitti added. "We're awaiting the details from the Belgian federation. These kids need to wake up. They're professionals and they earn a lot of money. They don't need to merely know the rules, they should also respect them."

Talula
Nov 9th, 2009, 07:55 AM
Why didn't she just report her whereabouts?

iceager
Nov 9th, 2009, 08:50 AM
Why didn't she just report her whereabouts?

Oh, she tried. When the Flemish authorities decided that every player (not just top 50) should report, they just sent her a letter at her home address to notify her. No one was home since she and her father were training abroad, and the letter was returned to the sender. She only found out about the rule change from other Flemish players, and emailed the VDT to ask how to report her whereabouts.

She received a password, but it didn't work, so she called again. They sent her a new password, but to her home address where she couldn't pick it up. It turns out her password was reset several times, so she was only able to get it to work in June. She has never missed reporting since then.

If you listen to her explanations, it's clear that she had every intention of reporting her whereabouts. The Flemish authorities were the ones that made it difficult through their administrative incompetence. And yet it is she who gets to pay the price.

Miranda
Nov 9th, 2009, 10:07 AM
Oh, she tried. When the Flemish authorities decided that every player (not just top 50) should report, they just sent her a letter at her home address to notify her. No one was home since she and her father were training abroad, and the letter was returned to the sender. She only found out about the rule change from other Flemish players, and emailed the VDT to ask how to report her whereabouts.

She received a password, but it didn't work, so she called again. They sent her a new password, but to her home address where she couldn't pick it up. It turns out her password was reset several times, so she was only able to get it to work in June. She has never missed reporting since then.

If you listen to her explanations, it's clear that she had every intention of reporting her whereabouts. The Flemish authorities were the ones that made it difficult through their administrative incompetence. And yet it is she who gets to pay the price.

thanks for the detailed description, how silly is this ban, she didn't do anything bad or wrong!:rolleyes::mad:

sammy01
Nov 9th, 2009, 11:24 AM
This time I agree 100% with the ITF President :

"These cases create discussion because they're not reliant on positive tests, but there are rules to respect," Ricci Bitti added. "We're awaiting the details from the Belgian federation. These kids need to wake up. They're professionals and they earn a lot of money. They don't need to merely know the rules, they should also respect them."

exactly how i feel. i think wickmayer has treated the rules without respect, like shes a school girl and her password didn't work so she kind of tried to do something about it, but thought whatever slap on the wrist at most cus i have the 'password excuse'.

Wimanna
Nov 9th, 2009, 12:05 PM
exactly how i feel. i think wickmayer has treated the rules without respect, like shes a school girl and her password didn't work so she kind of tried to do something about it, but thought whatever slap on the wrist at most cus i have the 'password excuse'.

Get ur facts straight! Yesterday, Yanina prooved the e-mail traffic about the whereabouts and passwords (6 times reset) on belgian TV. Its not an excuse, it's only the truth :rolleyes:

Jacob#1
Nov 9th, 2009, 12:14 PM
It seems as if the location reporting was the requirement of the WADA (http://www.itftennis.com/antidoping/news/pressrelease.asp?articleid=20612) ( ? ) From what I understand all players -- or at least the top players -- are required to do something similar to this location reporting. (this is outsourcing???) There have been complaints from players (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/williamssisters/4606356/Serena-Williams-joins-clamour-against-drug-testing.html).

It does seem like more than just an inconvenient chore (to predetermine where you will be for an hour). I don't know exactly how it works. If one is able to change the time/location at the moment in question or not. I had heard a phone web-browser could do the job.



There is a technological solution that would work. GPS is available globally. Cellular access is available globally. OK.

Track the player. When the time comes, call him and say "I'm coming to get you specamins."



The current system requires some input. ie Hiking in the alps, Boating

In 2008 there were 91 out-of-competition tests performed. (http://www.itftennis.com/antidoping/news/statistics.asp) In all likelihood these were the least inconvenient samples to obtain (based upon the collectee's thoroughness and proximity).



1000+ urine samples were taken in-competition. How many of those were tested and how *complete* were the tests?

Nandrolone - probably tested for
exogenous testosterone - probably not tested for



Which bring us to the issue and that is the systemic doping of athletes. In practice, it is marginally ethical. So they have up drawn a list of chemical candidates (primarily prescription drugs). It's not a bad list. There are several items that a well informed doper would avoid. There are several substances far more effective than any of this "dope". If the practice of systemic-performance-enhancement still existed, there is a whole host of ethical "dopes" to ensure the well being of athletes. And there are still plenty of poor lifestyle/medical choices no one will question.



The sport of cycling has suffered systemic doping for years. Cycling is pure exertion. The "professional level" is not obtainable through ordinary means. So they regulate.

Tennis seems to be using drug testing to aggravate players and their support personnel.



Anyways, I think missing a DT because of scheduling blanks should be a punishable offence. It's only obvious that said player could not be located because they didn't try.

iceager
Nov 9th, 2009, 12:45 PM
It seems as if the location reporting was the requirement of the WADA (http://www.itftennis.com/antidoping/news/pressrelease.asp?articleid=20612) ( ? ) From what I understand all players -- or at least the top players -- are required to do something similar to this location reporting.

Actually, the WADA required this only of players in the top 50. It was the Flemish doping authorities that decided to extend this to all professional athletes. Wickmayer was outside the top 50 at the beginning of the year, which is why they should have tried harder to notify her than just send a letter to her home address while she was away training in Australia with her father.

Anyways, I think missing a DT because of scheduling blanks should be a punishable offence. It's only obvious that said player could not be located because they didn't try.

I would agree, if the system were working as intended. The fact is, the system was newly introduced and had demonstrable flaws, so that Wickmayer couldn't report her whereabouts despite trying. The times she missed reporting, she was competing in tournaments overseas, and even called in to let them know the password wasn't working. They would have had no problem locating her. And in fact, she never missed a doping test. She was tested several times in and out of competition, and always came up clean.

Volcana
Nov 9th, 2009, 01:28 PM
Yanina Wickmayer has been given a one year suspension for failing to report her whereabouts to anti-doping officials three times during 2009. What's your opinion about this?The one year ban itself is fair. The problem is the rule.
The absence of accurate information on a player's location is treated like proof aof a failed drug test. That's an enforcment mechanism, not a punishment. They're trying to force the player's to report. Which is oay IF, and ONLY if, there is an absolutley surefire way FOR the player's to report, and to get back an assurance that they're report has been recorded.

RenaSlam.
Nov 9th, 2009, 01:32 PM
She knew the rules. Deal with it.

iceager
Nov 9th, 2009, 01:42 PM
She knew the rules. Deal with it.

Except she didn't, which is precisely the point. According to WADA rules, only the top 50 have to report their whereabouts, and she wasn't top 50 at the beginning of the year. The Flemish authorities decided to extend this to all professional athletes, but then didn't do enough to notify Wickmayer, who was training in Australia at the time. She only found out by talking to other Flemish players.

So many people who read about this assume that she was judged according to the same rules as everyone else, when the truth is that were she born anywhere outside of one region of Belgium (Flanders), she wouldn't have been in this mess.

manu
Nov 9th, 2009, 02:19 PM
The one year ban itself is fair. The problem is the rule.
The absence of accurate information on a player's location is treated like proof aof a failed drug test. That's an enforcment mechanism, not a punishment. They're trying to force the player's to report. Which is oay IF, and ONLY if, there is an absolutley surefire way FOR the player's to report, and to get back an assurance that they're report has been recorded.

Could you explain why this ban is fair?

First of all, I'd like to point out that I'm not an obsessed Yanina fan. Neither am I someone who wants to laugh with the anti-doping service. We need them. But consider this:

Several players have tested positive on drugs in the past. Most if not all of them received much lighter punishments than Yanina. (eg Gasquet got 2 months for actually testing positive on cocaine, Hingis got 6 months, Koubek got 3 months for testing positive on glucocorticosteroids, Mariano Puerta got 9 months for testing positive on a performance-enhancing drug. All of this within the past 5 years).

Wickmayer never tested positive. She was tested 10 to 15 times this year and ALWAYS tested negative. She never even missed a test. The system's administration showed clear defects, with them sending letters, warnings to a house she resides at most 10 weeks a year. Not fixing her password correctly, despite her repeated efforts to contact them politely and ask them to fix it.

Although I agree that Wickmayer's administrative sloppiness deserves a warning or a light punishment (eg a fine), she doesn't deserve to be banned when there's not even the slightest proof of doping. The Doping Tribunal actually mentioned in the same statement as the punishment, that she wasn't even SUSPECTED of using drugs. The absence of accurate information on a player's location should actually NEVER be equal to a failed drugs test. Especially when she was easily traceable at the time by any random person in the world who had access to a news paper with a sports section. The two things are different 'crimes' and worlds apart in judgement.

These WADA-rules should be interpreted VERY case sensitive when being applied in practice. It's also very obvious that the Flemish judge, who filed his 1st case with this one, clearly wanted to send out a message that they 'mean business'. Instead the anti doping tribunal make themselves look like obsessed fools. They don't only damage Yanina's reputation, but also damage their own reputation as fighters of injustice and doping.

I don't get why some people completely lose their sense of judgement over this case. Wickmayer's defenders are NOT against an anti-doping service. On the contrary, clean sports are the basis of fairness in sports. But this is a MINOR offence, an administrative and communication problem, NOT something that has to do with doping.

I'd like some people to think of the (emotional) consequences of this case: What will become of Wickmayer now? She'll need the whole of 2011 to get back in top-100, top-50 if she's very lucky. She doesn't lose just 1, but 2 years over this. Who knows whether she might ever again reach a Slam semifinal again in order to receive a good ranking that can lead to favourable draws to have a chance at cracking the top-10? She might never get in that position again. She's lost everything she's worked for so hard, all over an administrative issue that was partly caused by a malfunctioning organisation. Where's your empathy, people? What if this happened to you or someone of your family, friends? Do you think any of these anti-doping judges care about this, or do you think they know what it feels like to work every day of your life for 15 years, live for your sport, be totally devoted to it, and have it all ripped apart by a bunch of short-sighted judges who only stick to their rules and books and can't look at the bigger picture, while you never even thought of doping yourself? I'm not a fan of Wickmayer as a tennis player, but it's not hard to see the unfairness of it all... It would be nice to see some people take the emotional side of this matter into account too instead of that 1 sentence in the WADA-code, which seems to be holier than anything to 14% of this board.

Dennis^^
Nov 9th, 2009, 02:24 PM
It's absolutely ridiculous. No one ever told her how the system works. She had to find it out herself, which is absolutely ridiculous. And they sent her letters?! Why do they send letters in 2009, when players like Wickmayer are going from one tournament to another..?

pov
Nov 9th, 2009, 02:51 PM
http://www.live-tennis.com/category/Tennis-News/Wickmayer-shocked-at-doping-ban-200911090002/

Yanina Wickmayer revealed her shock at her one year ban in an interview on Belgian TV.

The US Open semi-finalist was competing in an end of year tournament in Bali for the players who have scored the most points in lower tier WTA events when she heard that she had been banned for not fulfilling her whereabouts requirements.

"I learned the news around 2:00 a.m. on Thursday night," Wickmayer told VRT's Sportweekend. "I think I woke up the whole hotel with my screams and I didn't stop crying for two days. It was not until June that I learned from the federation that my whereabouts had not been in order. Since July, my whereabouts have been in order daily and let's be clear: I have never failed or refused a test. I have been tested 10 to 15 times this year. I find it such a pity that my name is now associated with doping."

After seeing that, I really think the ban is beyond BS!!

Jacob#1
Nov 9th, 2009, 04:00 PM
Actually, the WADA required this only of players in the top 50. It was the Flemish doping authorities that decided to extend this to all professional athletes. Wickmayer was outside the top 50 at the beginning of the year, which is why they should have tried harder to notify her than just send a letter to her home address while she was away training in Australia with her father.



I would agree, if the system were working as intended. The fact is, the system was newly introduced and had demonstrable flaws, so that Wickmayer couldn't report her whereabouts despite trying. The times she missed reporting, she was competing in tournaments overseas, and even called in to let them know the password wasn't working. They would have had no problem locating her. And in fact, she never missed a doping test. She was tested several times in and out of competition, and always came up clean.


From these rules she would have been regulated by the ITF itself had they not been able to outsource. It would seem that once you are in the system, you are tested until you retire and have to give the whereabouts. (at least that is how I read it -- G.2.6)


Results management in relation to a Doping Offence under Article C.4
of this Programme:
(a) Unless the ITF agrees or WADA provides that the Player’s
National Anti-Doping Organisation may take such
responsibility, results management in respect of an apparent
Filing Failure by a Player in the International Registered
Testing Pool shall be conducted by the ITF in accordance with
Article 11.6.2 of the International Standard for Testing (with
the administrative review, if any, carried out by the Review
Board) in order to determine whether the failure should be
declared a Filing Failure for purposes of Article C.4.
(b) Results management in respect of an apparent Missed Test by a
Player in the International Registered Testing Pool as a result of
an attempt to test the Player by or on behalf of the ITF under
this Programme shall be conducted by the ITF in accordance
with Article 11.6.3 of the International Standard for Testing
(with the administrative review, if any, carried out by the
Review Board) in order to determine whether the failure should
be declared a Missed Test for purposes of Article C.4.
(c) Where, in any eighteen-month period, a Player in the
International Registered Testing Pool is declared to have three
Filing Failures, or three Missed Tests, or any combination of
Filing Failures and Missed Tests adding up to three in total,
whether under this Programme, or (in accordance with Article
11.1.5 of the International Standard for Testing) under the rules
of any other relevant Anti-Doping Organisation, then (save only
where Article 11.6.5(a) of the International Standard for
Testing provides otherwise) the matter shall be referred to the
Review Board to determine, in accordance with Article 11.6.5
of the International Standard for Testing, whether the Player
has a case to answer under Article C.4.
G.2.6 A Player in the International Registered Testing Pool shall continue to
be subject to the requirements of this Article G.2 unless and until:
(a) further to Article B.5, the Player is deemed under the rules
applicable to him/her to have retired from the sport; or
(b) the Player is notified that he/she no longer satisfies the criteria
established by the ITF pursuant to Article G.2.1 for inclusion in
the International Registered Testing Pool.
http://www.itftennis.com/shared/medialibrary/pdf/original/IO_38259_original.PDF


That being the case the INTERNATIONAL STANDARD FOR TESTING (A4.*) suggests that the whereabout are only required quarterly which would mean nine months of not getting a password and ass the testing is done in-competition this is really a regulation to prevent out-of-competitioners (Olympics, etc.) from doping.

Chrissie-fan
Nov 9th, 2009, 04:13 PM
She knew the rules. Deal with it.
Nothing personal, but I wonder if those that make these sort of comments base their posts on any actual knowledge of the case or on the fact that they just don't like Yanina Wickmayer. People should try to imagine what their opinion would be if their own favorite player was suspended given the same set of circumstances.

Chrissie-fan
Nov 9th, 2009, 04:23 PM
http://www.live-tennis.com/category/Tennis-News/Wickmayer-shocked-at-doping-ban-200911090002/

Yanina Wickmayer revealed her shock at her one year ban in an interview on Belgian TV.

The US Open semi-finalist was competing in an end of year tournament in Bali for the players who have scored the most points in lower tier WTA events when she heard that she had been banned for not fulfilling her whereabouts requirements.

"I learned the news around 2:00 a.m. on Thursday night," Wickmayer told VRT's Sportweekend. "I think I woke up the whole hotel with my screams and I didn't stop crying for two days. It was not until June that I learned from the federation that my whereabouts had not been in order. Since July, my whereabouts have been in order daily and let's be clear: I have never failed or refused a test. I have been tested 10 to 15 times this year. I find it such a pity that my name is now associated with doping."

After seeing that, I really think the ban is beyond BS!!
I agree, and I must confess that I'm a bit disappointed by the results of the poll. About half of the members here think that some sort of ban is the way to go, which in essence means that they think she's guilty. That basically means that her reputation is in shatters. Even in the unlikely event that the suspension will be overturned, there will always be people out there who think she was guilty of taking performance enhancing drugs. It's so unfair. People are heartless.

The Untouchable
Nov 9th, 2009, 05:36 PM
If it was made in the effort of cleaning up the sport, I would have no problem with it.But, it now seems just extremely unfair to Yanina, to put her as the scapegoat and as the lone doper. :(

There is not much doubt that tennis is as doping troubled as cycling or athletics, it's a bloody hard sport and fitness means so much, especially nowadays, when matches are not decided by who plays the better tennis, then lonely by who hits harder, runs faster and has more stamina.The problem with tennis, is that even compared to cycling and athletics, the anti-doping measures and testing is incredibly ridicoulous and I don't see anyone in the tennis world willing to take the battle up.:o:o

So, either you are going to come and take the efforts to clean up the sport, and even if it hurts the sport by taking out the big doped guns like Safina, Williams', Dementieva, Wozniacki, Clijsters, Radwanska, ..., (I live in no dream world, even if it comes to my favs), or you are just going to tolerate the doping like they did for a long time in cycling, and you are simply not solely going to punish a naive young girl who sees that everyone is doping and thinks it's ok.

Also, absolutely ridicolous that she gets caught in this way, and not by a test(when she's quite clearly doped). :help::tape:

KBdoubleu
Nov 9th, 2009, 05:38 PM
From what I have read, the ban seems quite excessive and ridiculous. I look forward to the ban being revoked when the trial is done.

Elegante
Nov 9th, 2009, 05:38 PM
It is so sad but in a way the fault is also on Yanina Wickmayer and not all on the officials as some others may say. She had numerous chances and maybe she did try to complete, but she didn't try as hard as she could have for sure.

HowardH
Nov 9th, 2009, 06:06 PM
Chrissie-fan is right, people are being heartless and not understanding the situation. At this stage with the current information, it seems clear that Yanina never took drugs or tried to avoid being tested at all.

As Yanina says, she has never failed or refused a test. She tried to keep her whereabouts in order but had stupid password issues which the WADA people did not fix quickly enough.

The whereabouts rule is highly controversial anyway. People need to imagine what it is like to be a top professional player, one who believes in being clean, who has never and will never take performance enhancing drugs. Now, you need to let them know the address where you will be for an hour every day of the week, 365 days a year, year after year. Every night you go to sleep at your house you never know if the drugs testing people are going to knock on your door in the morning to test you on the spot. Every single day is like this. Even on the days you fly out, you need to make sure they can find you for an hour somewhere to test you. No matter how long the flight is. For this reason alone they should not have changed from giving whereabouts 5 days a week to 7 days a week. It's like having big brother watch over you, all the time. You don't even get a weekend free ever. What if something happens, an accident in your family and you go to the hospital to see them in a rush, and the drugs people come that day? Then that counts as a missed test. If something happens with your internet password, as happened to Yanina, oh that counts as a "filing error" which they say is just as bad as a missed test. The slightest problem with internet or cellphone and you are on the verge of very big trouble. Even though you have no desire to take drugs.

The whole system is a silly bureaucracy and assumes people are guilty unless they prove themselves innocent. To me that is unacceptable. It is terrible, and if continued will result in many clean players being banned. No wonder in the EU many people believe the whereabouts rule violates privacy laws. No wonder FIFA and UEFA refused to sign it. Can you imagine never knowing whether the drugs people will come to your house and test you? On your birthday maybe? At Christmas time? When you're on holiday somewhere? And then the rules aren't even the same for all the tennis players, some countries are more strict than others. So unfair. Everyone who has read enough of the facts out so far should support Yanina, as I will.

Chrissie-fan
Nov 9th, 2009, 06:33 PM
It is so sad but in a way the fault is also on Yanina Wickmayer and not all on the officials as some others may say.
I'm one of those "others." If her password doesn't work you can hardly blame her for it. If they send seven signed letters to her home of which she is unaware because she's on the tour playing tennis and they don't make the effort to contact her in any other way - knowing very well where she's playing she's not to blame. If she sends emails to the Flemish doping agency asking what she must do and how she must do it and they don't reply it's THEM that are to blame and not Yanina. The pee collectors had no problems finding her when they wanted to control her. They did that about fifteen times this year. If they have the time to send someone to collect her urine fifteen times one would think that they would also have the time to send someone to explain to her what is expected of her and how she should go about it. They should have done that as soon as they realized she was having problems. Instead they chose to wait until it was too late and they could have their moment in the sun with a "We've got ya!" It almost looks as if she was set up, although it's of course nothing more than incompetance on their part. Flanders let Yanina down, it's as simple as that! Nowhere else would this have happened. Do you think that the US would let the Williams sisters or Melanie Oudin botch up their whereabouts if they asked for help until it would be too late? Or the Russians Sharapova or Kuznetsova? Or the Serbs Ivanovic or Jankovic? No - of course not! They take pride in their athletes and would be happy to help them if they needed it. This is NOT the case over here.

AnnaK_4ever
Nov 9th, 2009, 07:01 PM
Nothing personal, but I wonder if those that make these sort of comments base their posts on any actual knowledge of the case or on the fact that they just don't like Yanina Wickmayer. People should try to imagine what their opinion would be if their own favorite player was suspended given the same set of circumstances.

We shouldn't as most of us don't think our favorite players would be careless enough to pull a W:rolleyes:ckmayer and choose to ignore the whole problem.
You know, it's kinda embarrassing unprofessionalism and stupidity are considered justified excuses for breaking anti-doping rules. And it's even more embarrassing Wickmayer's defenders believe other players would act as unprofessional as she did.

pov
Nov 9th, 2009, 07:03 PM
Chrissie-fan
I agree with a lot of what you've written about Wickmayer being suspended but there is one thing I think it is important to keep clear on:
Yanina Wickmayer is guilty.
The violation she has been accused of and suspended for is "three times failing to declare her whereabouts." This she agrees is so. The question at hand is whether that violation and the reasons for it constitute a valid reason for a 1-year suspension.

IMO. No, it doesn't and the fact that she has been in compliance with her declarations since July makes it even more of a ludicrous ruling.

Chrissie-fan
Nov 9th, 2009, 07:41 PM
Chrissie-fan
I agree with a lot of what you've written about Wickmayer being suspended but there is one thing I think it is important to keep clear on:
Yanina Wickmayer is guilty.
The violation she has been accused of and suspended for is "three times failing to declare her whereabouts." This she agrees is so. The question at hand is whether that violation and the reasons for it constitute a valid reason for a 1-year suspension.

IMO. No, it doesn't and the fact that she has been in compliance with her declarations since July makes it even more of a ludicrous ruling.
Well, of course she's guilty of three times failing to give her whereabouts. The question is whether there was any bad intent. The system was set up to prevent players from taking performance enhancing drugs. So what matters is "did Wickmayer not declare her whereabouts with the intention of avoiding a dope test?" Anyone except for a few trolls here and there would agree that this is not so. And with that the whole case goes out the window as far as I am concerned.

pov
Nov 9th, 2009, 08:24 PM
Well, of course she's guilty of three times failing to give her whereabouts. The question is whether there was any bad intent. The system was set up to prevent players from taking performance enhancing drugs. So what matters is "did Wickmayer not declare her whereabouts with the intention of avoiding a dope test?" Anyone except for a few trolls here and there would agree that this is not so. And with that the whole case goes out the window as far as I am concerned.
Hmmm . Are you the VDT's ruling or "some people's perception of that ruling?" The VDT did state that they didn't have anything that gave them suspicion of actual doping. The ruling had nothing to do with her intent. And again I think the ruling was inane but I think you may be complicating the issue.

Chrissie-fan
Nov 9th, 2009, 08:40 PM
Hmmm . Are you the VDT's ruling or "some people's perception of that ruling?" The VDT did state that they didn't have anything that gave them suspicion of actual doping. The ruling had nothing to do with her intent.

I know that the ruling had nothing to do with her intent, only that it should have. Surely the whole purpose of whereabouts is to punish drug offenders. If they don't suspect her of taking doping there's no point in suspending her. Whether it's in their precious rule books or not - "even though we don't suspect you of taking PED we suspend you for one year because you failed to give us your whereabouts by way of our system that we know is far from perfect" sounds very lame to me. I know that this isn't how they formulate it, but if they cut the crap that's definitely what it comes down to.

pov
Nov 9th, 2009, 08:56 PM
I know that the ruling had nothing to do with her intent, only that it should have. Surely the whole purpose of whereabouts is to punish drug offenders. If they don't suspect her of taking doping there's no point in suspending her. Whether it's in their precious rule books or not - "even though we don't suspect you of taking PED we suspend you for one year because you failed to give us your whereabouts by way of our system that we know is far from perfect" sounds very lame to me. I know that this isn't how they formulate it, but if they cut the crap that's definitely what it comes down to.

Hmmmm . okay let's start with what we both agree on - the suspension is inane to say the least. Going from there:
- Think about "intent" being included in such cases, it would be a nightmarish morass.
- The point is that the rules say "do x" and she didn't do x"

Chrissie-fan
Nov 9th, 2009, 09:10 PM
- The point is that the rules say "do x" and she didn't do x"
Sure, but the question is WHY she didn't do x. Didn't she do it because...

a) She didn't want to?

or

b) Because she wasn't told what was expected of her even after she repeatedly asked and/or the system didn't work when she tried (the password thing)?

If the answer is A she should be punished. If the answer is B she's not to blame and any sort of punishment (ban OR fine) is extremely unfair because she tried to follow the rules but was unable to through no fault of her own.

Hard as I may try, I can't explain my position on the matter any better than that. ;)

asto10
Nov 10th, 2009, 12:18 PM
It is a stupid ruling cmon
they have lives

fifiricci
Nov 10th, 2009, 01:17 PM
She should at the most have been given a warning, and since there obviously are holes in the system probably not even that. A ban is ridiculous, but I guess I've already said enough about how I feel about the issue. Let me just say that if Yanina had been born anywhere else in the world than on this little landscape we call Flanders she wouldn't be in this mess.

You're wrong. Christine Ohuruogu (UK athlete) got banned for the same amount of time for exactly the same offence in 2006.

blueskye
Nov 10th, 2009, 02:33 PM
We shouldn't as most of us don't think our favorite players would be careless enough to pull a W:rolleyes:ckmayer and choose to ignore the whole problem.
You know, it's kinda embarrassing unprofessionalism and stupidity are considered justified excuses for breaking anti-doping rules. And it's even more embarrassing Wickmayer's defenders believe other players would act as unprofessional as she did.

Sorry, but I think your comments are a bit shallow and naive. I respect what you'te saying but this is a situation that could happen to anyone, even your favourite player believe it or not..:rolleyes: Yes it may have been a bit careless and actions should be taken to punish that carelesness but she has not been found guilty of doping and should therefore not be treated as a criminal. I'm sure you like to think that your favourite players are perfect, but people all make mistakes and nobody can predict actions or behaviours. Unproffesionalism is a matter of opinion and intepretation, and is in no way an excuse for anything, but human error is standard, even for you. This system needs to be revised..

manu
Nov 10th, 2009, 03:56 PM
You're wrong. Christine Ohuruogu (UK athlete) got banned for the same amount of time for exactly the same offence in 2006.
You're wrong too. Christine Ohuruogu got banned for missing 3 doping tests. Yanina never missed one.

Talula
Nov 10th, 2009, 05:47 PM
Except she didn't, which is precisely the point. According to WADA rules, only the top 50 have to report their whereabouts, and she wasn't top 50 at the beginning of the year. The Flemish authorities decided to extend this to all professional athletes, but then didn't do enough to notify Wickmayer, who was training in Australia at the time. She only found out by talking to other Flemish players.

So many people who read about this assume that she was judged according to the same rules as everyone else, when the truth is that were she born anywhere outside of one region of Belgium (Flanders), she wouldn't have been in this mess.

If this is true then the ban is unfair, period.

andrewC
Nov 10th, 2009, 06:42 PM
quelle surprise. i wondered where she sprang up from.

is1531
Nov 10th, 2009, 09:43 PM
How dare they do this to Yanina!

goldenlox
Nov 11th, 2009, 12:17 AM
The WTA wont fight the ban. They say they are committed to WADA.