PDA

View Full Version : Wickmayer/Malisse Case: CAS Suspended Procedure for Formal Reasons


Tennis Observer
Aug 20th, 2011, 05:03 PM
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) informed (http://www.tas-cas.org/en/infogenerales.asp/4-3-5130-1092-4-1-1/5-0-1092-15-1-1/) "that the arbitration involving the Belgian tennis players Xavier Malisse and Yanina Wickmayer and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), the Flemish Doping Tribunal (Vlaams doping Tribunaal) and the Flemish tennis federation is currently suspended. The athletes Malisse and Wickmayer have filed appeals at the Swiss Federal Court to appeal against the CAS decision to accept jurisdiction to decide the dispute in question. Accordingly, the hearing that was scheduled to take place on 12 September 2011 has been cancelled.

The CAS opened four arbitration procedures at the beginning of 2010 following appeals by Xavier Malisse and Yanina Wickmayer on the one hand and WADA on the other hand against the decision of the Flemish Doping Tribunal to impose a suspension of one year on each of Belgian tennis players for breach of their duties in terms of location (whereabouts)."

JamieMU30
Aug 20th, 2011, 08:06 PM
So, does this mean they are going to be suspended for a year or not?

SoBizarre
Aug 20th, 2011, 08:11 PM
So, does this mean they are going to be suspended for a year or not?

No, not for now.

Jane Lane
Aug 20th, 2011, 08:17 PM
I thought this was over with. :facepalm: Biggest failure in the history of sports arbitration. THEY DIDN'T EVEN DO ANYTHING.

simonsaystennis
Aug 20th, 2011, 08:20 PM
I thought this was over with. :facepalm: Biggest failure in the history of sports arbitration. THEY DIDN'T EVEN DO ANYTHING.

This. :help:

Elwin.
Aug 20th, 2011, 08:20 PM
Yanina couldn't fill in her 'whereabouts' because the system didn't work :weirdo:
So stupid.

Corswandt
Aug 20th, 2011, 09:24 PM
The athletes Malisse and Wickmayer have filed appeals at the Swiss Federal Court to appeal against the CAS decision to accept jurisdiction to decide the dispute in question.

So now they can challenge the jurisdiction of the CAS over this matter - after having appealed to it themselves, and thus implicity accepted its jurisdiction? That's pretty rich, even for Belgian lawyers.

And would they be doing so if those rumours that the final decision of the CAS would be to uphold the suspensions hadn't begun leaking out?

hablo
Aug 20th, 2011, 11:11 PM
Yanina couldn't fill in her 'whereabouts' because the system didn't work :weirdo:
So stupid.

How is it to do that though? Come on now... :shrug:

dsanders06
Aug 20th, 2011, 11:13 PM
Is this saga still going on? :lol: I forgot all about it.

*JR*
Aug 21st, 2011, 12:22 AM
So now they can challenge the jurisdiction of the CAS over this matter - after having appealed to it themselves, and thus implicity accepted its jurisdiction? That's pretty rich, even for Belgian lawyers.

Sorry my friend, you don't fully understand the system. Specifically, an athlete governed by any sporting body that's a signatory to the WADA Convention must appeal to CAS (a figleaf "arbitration" body that WADA uses for a veneer of objectivity) first, and only after that can appeal a judgment to the Suisse courts.

You need to understand how WADA's reign of terror came 2B. In 2001 the late Franco enforcer Juan Antonio Samaranch retired as head of the IOC, and Jacques Rogge (BEL) beat Dick Pound (CAN) to succeed him. So Dick got control of WADA (then about 2 years old and quite weak) and turned it into one of the most Draconian bodies in sports history.

The Whereabouts Rule is a prime example. Nina was on tour, where they could find her most of the time just by checking drawsheets. If one is doping, the evidence doesn't leave their system that quickly, which is why in 2005 "someone I shall not name" :tape: had a positive B sample for Nandrolone taken around 10 days after the A sample, thus the "little bit pregnant" :o story.

I could write a book about WADA's deficiencies, but I'll wrap up here by saying that their "big brother" (the IOC) allows NBA basketball players to compete in the Olympics, despite the NBA never having been WADA compliant. Early in 2011 for example, OJ Mayo of the Memphis Grizzlies was suspended 10 games (during the 82 game regular season) for a PED violation, and also was eligible for the playoffs.

roelc
Aug 21st, 2011, 04:19 AM
in 2005 "someone I shall not name" :tape: had a positive B sample for Nandrolone taken around 10 days after the A sample, thus the "little bit pregnant" :o story.


:confused:

TheAllan
Aug 21st, 2011, 09:54 AM
This reeks of desperation. They lost in the Belgian court system following similar legal arguments of questioning the legality and jurisdiction of the international anti-doping system. In that sense, their appeal to the Swiss Federal Court is consistent with their argument.

I also understand Malisse's logic as he is in the latter stages of his career. But ultimately they haven't accomplished anything other than stalling for time, and their chances of a successful appeal are minuscule as the Swiss Federal Court frequently accepts jurisdiction over CAS cases - though only after a verdict.

Eventually, both cases are destined for CAS. I always thought Wickmayer should have separated herself from Malisse and went there immediately. She has a very clear-cut line of defence questioning how she was informed about her entry in the whereabouts system. She only needs to have rendered one of her three warnings invalid to escape punishment.

Malisse's defence seems a lot harder, and he could very well risk a doubling of his original one-year suspension.

The Whereabouts Rule is a prime example. Nina was on tour, where they could find her most of the time just by checking drawsheets.
That obviously doesn't exempt her from filling out whereabouts. And if she loses in the first round, who knows where she is for the rest of that week? Not to mention the weeks where she didn't have tournaments scheduled. The whereabouts system has been fine-tuned continuously after feedback from the athletes and largely appears to be well-implemented.

Serenaluv
Aug 21st, 2011, 01:16 PM
This reeks of desperation. They lost in the Belgian court system following similar legal arguments of questioning the legality and jurisdiction of the international anti-doping system. In that sense, their appeal to the Swiss Federal Court is consistent with their argument.

I also understand Malisse's logic as he is in the latter stages of his career. But ultimately they haven't accomplished anything other than stalling for time, and their chances of a successful appeal are minuscule as the Swiss Federal Court frequently accepts jurisdiction over CAS cases - though only after a verdict.

Eventually, both cases are destined for CAS. I always thought Wickmayer should have separated herself from Malisse and went there immediately. She has a very clear-cut line of defence questioning how she was informed about her entry in the whereabouts system. She only needs to have rendered one of her three warnings invalid to escape punishment.

Malisse's defence seems a lot harder, and he could very well risk a doubling of his original one-year suspension.


That obviously doesn't exempt her from filling out whereabouts. And if she loses in the first round, who knows where she is for the rest of that week? Not to mention the weeks where she didn't have tournaments scheduled. The whereabouts system has been fine-tuned continuously after feedback from the athletes and largely appears to be well-implemented.

They sent signed documents to Yanina's home all the time, since nobody was home, they didn't get signed. When they called the sporting officials in Belgium they constantly got the answer, we'll forward it by post to you, and they always kept sending them to their house, where nobody ever was home. Not their fault, they didn't miss any tests afaik and even the WADA knew where they were. So the least to say is that CAS and WADA are quite hypocrite, but don't worry both of these things will not be involved in sporting anymore in the near future.

*JR*
Aug 21st, 2011, 05:24 PM
in 2005 "someone I shall not name" :tape: had a positive B sample for Nandrolone taken around 10 days after the A sample, thus the "little bit pregnant" :o story.

:confused:

Sesil Karatancheva.



That obviously doesn't exempt her from filling out whereabouts. And if she loses in the first round, who knows where she is for the rest of that week? Not to mention the weeks where she didn't have tournaments scheduled. The whereabouts system has been fine-tuned continuously after feedback from the athletes and largely appears to be well-implemented.

As I noted above Allan, the NBA's pro basketball players aren't kept out of the Olympics because the NBA (like the NFL, Major League Baseball, etc) aren't "WADA compliant", and would tell the IOC where to stick the Olympics B4 agreeing to even the "fine-tuned" Whereabouts Rule. (Same with the NHL, whose players do participate in the Winter Olympics).

And sure those sports are continuous for 6 to 8 months a year (depending on one's team making the playoffs and how far it advances) but besides the months off, players go on injured reserve during the season for weeks @ a time. Besides (as Sesil's case showed, with her B sample taken @ a Fed Cup tie ova a week after that RG) the drug residues don't leave one's system so quickly. And of course even "masking agents" designed to thwart the tests are also banned.

Corswandt
Aug 22nd, 2011, 11:52 AM
their chances of a successful appeal are minuscule as the Swiss Federal Court frequently accepts jurisdiction over CAS cases - though only after a verdict.

I.e. on appeal.

I suppose that the Swiss Federal Court can accept appeals from CAS decisions if:

La sentence, notifiée par le Greffe du TAS, tranche définitivement le litige. Elle n’est susceptible d’aucun recours dans la mesure où les parties n’ont ni domicile, ni résidence habituelle, ni établissement en Suisse et ont expressément renoncé au recours dans la convention d’arbitrage ou dans un accord écrit conclu ultérieurement, notamment en début de procédure.

So I guess neither Malisse nor Wickmayer ever renounced their right to appeal the decision of the CAS? I assumed that appeals to the CAS were only admitted if the appellant renounced his/her right to appeal to ordinary courts, something that often happens in arbitration.

chuvack
Aug 22nd, 2011, 12:26 PM
Sorry for the open speculation here, but there are several players in the WTA Top 30 who have "doping" written all over them, and Wickmayer is one of them. The WADA should do whatever they can to investigate her, and ban her appropriately if they find violations. Claiming no CAS jurisdiction is not getting it done. Serious issues are at stake.

*JR*
Aug 22nd, 2011, 12:49 PM
I.e. on appeal.

I suppose that the Swiss Federal Court can accept appeals from CAS decisions if...

So I guess neither Malisse nor Wickmayer ever renounced their right to appeal the decision of the CAS? I assumed that appeals to the CAS were only admitted if the appellant renounced his/her right to appeal to ordinary courts, something that often happens in arbitration.

No, @ least as far back as 2005 (when I started following the case of BUL's then Wild Child) CAS ratifications of whatever WADA wants I mean "decisions" ;) could be appealed there, as the IOC (boss of both) is based in Lausanne.

But besides being the home of FIFA (maybe the most tainted sports body in the world) the Suissies haven't even been able to get a Career Conman, Deadbeat Dad, Frankfurt Felon, etc. like Herr Hofmann out of their sports scene. :help:

TheAllan
Aug 22nd, 2011, 07:16 PM
As I noted above Allan, the NBA's pro basketball players aren't kept out of the Olympics because the NBA (like the NFL, Major League Baseball, etc) aren't "WADA compliant", and would tell the IOC where to stick the Olympics B4 agreeing to even the "fine-tuned" Whereabouts Rule. (Same with the NHL, whose players do participate in the Winter Olympics).

And sure those sports are continuous for 6 to 8 months a year (depending on one's team making the playoffs and how far it advances) but besides the months off, players go on injured reserve during the season for weeks @ a time.
While not fully WADA compliant any time soon, Even the North American professional sports leagues with their powerful players associations are moving in the right direction. NFL recently implemented HGH testing. The international ice hockey (IIHF) and basketball federations (FIBA) are both WADA members. During the Olympic Games and a period leading up to them, players fall under the WADA code. It's the same for World Championships. But ideally they should be covered the entire year. You are certainly right about that.

I assumed that appeals to the CAS were only admitted if the appellant renounced his/her right to appeal to ordinary courts, something that often happens in arbitration.
In sports arbitration, I think it's reasonable that an athlete can't forfeit the right to appeal even if they are contesting the jurisdiction of the same court they are appealing to. With its rugged path through the Belgian justice system, this case is already highly unusual and hopefully not a sign of things to come. On the other hand, I expect their appeal to be unequivocally denied at the Swiss Federal Court, which probably will stop others from trying a similar tactic in the future. I certainly don't think the Wickmayer/Malisse legal teams will find it very comforting to go over the Swiss Federal Court's final ruling in the Claudia Pechstein case. They were highly supportive of how the case was handled at CAS and shot down any attempt to turn it into a human rights issue - which has largely been the Belgian angle as well.

If they aim to exhaust all options, we could see one or both of the cases go to the Swiss Federal Court a second time if they lose at CAS. And this is where it gets funny - or maybe tragic. If they are finally successful at that stage, the case is most likely to be returned to CAS for renewed arbitration.

The WADA should do whatever they can to investigate her, and ban her appropriately if they find violations.
They have asked to have her banned for two years already. Which is not an impossible scenario as we are still treading new ground when it comes to sanctions for whereabouts infractions. Cyclist Michael Rasmussen had an initial two-year ban upheld, but his case was different as he admitted to lying about his whereabouts. CAS may find that the Flemish anti-doping agency made some mistakes, while still maintaining that Wickmayer was negligent enough to justify her warnings. Or that she didn't do enough to protest her warnings at the time (whereabouts warnings can be contested).

*JR*
Aug 22nd, 2011, 08:46 PM
While not fully WADA compliant any time soon, Even the North American professional sports leagues with their powerful players associations are moving in the right direction. NFL recently implemented HGH testing. The international ice hockey (IIHF) and basketball federations (FIBA) are both WADA members. During the Olympic Games and a period leading up to them, players fall under the WADA code. It's the same for World Championships. But ideally they should be covered the entire year. You are certainly right about that.

No Allan, I did not say that the team sports guys (or anyone else for that matter) should fall under the WADA Code as it's now administered. Again, I cite OJ Mayo (now with the Cleveland Cavs when the strike is settled, with the Memphis Grizzlies last year).

The OJ without a white Ford Bronco :tape: was found guilty of using a Performance Enhancing Drug in early 2011, was suspended for 10 of the 82 games (equivalent to lets say 6 weeks in tennis, as players take time off) and was on-court for my favorite NBA coach (Lionel Hollins) in the playoffs.

Or take Major League Baseball, where the penalty for a first-time drug offender is a little harsher: 50 games out of a 162 game season. In the NFL, a first offense is 4 games out of the 16 in a season, and I forgot what it is in the NHL. Of course 2 aren't Olympic sports, but the IIHF and FIBA are far from the "pacesetters" in their sports, like the ITF (which works far more closely with the WTA and ATP, and runs the anti-doping regime for both) is in tennis.

And Nina wasn't in the Top 50 @ the end of the prior year anyhow, so should not have been subject to the Whereabouts Rule in 2009 even were it not offensive to decency, etc. etc. Much of the reason for her big jump in 2009 was making the US Open semi's and they needed scapegoats after the already retired Agassi admitted doping in his book!

http://www.itftennis.com/womens/players/player.asp?player=100041250

YEAR-END WTA RANKING

Singles Doubles
2010 23 168
2009 16 89
2008 69 149
2007 221 145
2006 534 363

TheAllan
Aug 22nd, 2011, 09:44 PM
In the NFL, a first offense is 4 games out of the 16 in a season, and I forgot what it is in the NHL. Of course 2 aren't Olympic sports, but the IIHF and FIBA are far from the "pacesetters" in their sports, like the ITF (which works far more closely with the WTA and ATP, and runs the anti-doping regime for both) is in tennis.
In fairness, FIBA is not tied to the NBA in the same way the ITF is historically tied to the WTA/ATP. The difference between global tours that are frequently forced to play by international rules as opposed to national private leagues is also quite substantial.

Political pressure on the major North American sports will increase over time. After the baseball steroid scandals, I think the organizations are beginning to realize the risks of lackadaisical testing.


And Nina wasn't in the Top 50 @ the end of the prior year anyhow, so should not have been subject to the Whereabouts Rule in 2009 even were it not offensive to decency, etc. etc. Much of the reason for her big jump in 2009 was making the US Open semi's and they needed scapegoats after the already retired Agassi admitted doping in his book!

http://www.itftennis.com/womens/players/player.asp?player=100041250

YEAR-END WTA RANKING

Singles Doubles
2010 23 168
2009 16 89
2008 69 149
2007 221 145
2006 534 363
It's seems unfounded to suggest they needed scapegoats. I doubt the average Flemish doping official cared about or even read Agassi's book. Your point about Yanina not being in the Top 50 will have no importance in the case as she was entered into the Flemish whereabouts programme on different grounds than those used by the ITF (WTA/ATP Top 50) for their registered testing pool. It really makes no difference who entered her. Although, her defence will surely argue that Flemish anti-doping agency did an awful job of informing her about the actual entry. But that's a different point.

Adrian.
Aug 22nd, 2011, 10:12 PM
so will they play or not? :unsure:

Raiden
Aug 23rd, 2011, 12:55 AM
Sorry my friend, you don't fully understand the system. Specifically, an athlete governed by any sporting body that's a signatory to the WADA Convention must appeal to CAS (a figleaf "arbitration" body that WADA uses for a veneer of objectivity) first, and only after that can appeal a judgment to the Suisse courts.

You need to understand how WADA's reign of terror came 2B. In 2001 the late Franco enforcer Juan Antonio Samaranch retired as head of the IOC, and Jacques Rogge (BEL) beat Dick Pound (CAN) to succeed him. So Dick got control of WADA (then about 2 years old and quite weak) and turned it into one of the most Draconian bodies in sports history.Except that in this case the WADA rules were not broken but the more stricter "Flemish WADA" (actual acronym VDT). So then Malisse & Wickmayer and one or two other (non tennis) athletes want to invalidate VDT's right to enforce more stricter-than-international rules. Then the Belgian civil courts blocked VDT initially (that was the last time this issue was in the headlines) but then (without a lot of people noticing) the VDT appealed against that ruling and the Flemish appeals court agreed and struck down the previous courts rulings on the grounds that it's non of their business to force the VDT to just only enforce the minimum required international standards that all other (non-Flemish) players fall under. So now the argument moves to Switzerland and the courts there have to decide whether the VDT had the authority and right it thinks it has.

Tennis Observer
Aug 23rd, 2011, 02:11 AM
[...]ultimately they haven't accomplished anything other than stalling for time, and their chances of a successful appeal are minuscule as the Swiss Federal Court frequently accepts jurisdiction over CAS cases - though only after a verdict.
I am under the impression that the reason for their appeal was stalling for time as the hearing on 9/12 was on the horizon & there are rumors out that CAS will not rule in their favour.

chuvack
Aug 23rd, 2011, 08:17 AM
Much of the reason for her big jump in 2009 was making the US Open semi's and they needed scapegoats after the already retired Agassi admitted doping in his book!




You have stated an out and out falsehood here. In his book Agassi admitted to recreational drug use, specifially crystal meth. He did not under any definition admit to doping. I don't saying he never used roids, because in fact I think he likely did at some point earlier in his career, but there was no admission.

*JR*
Aug 23rd, 2011, 11:32 AM
You have stated an out and out falsehood here. In his book Agassi admitted to recreational drug use, specifially crystal meth. He did not under any definition admit to doping. I don't saying he never used roids, because in fact I think he likely did at some point earlier in his career, but there was no admission.

My apologies to Andre and the rest of the crystal meth community :tape: but its clearly a stimulant (far stronger than caffeine or ephedrine, and the latter even requires a Therapeutic Use Exemption for an athlete with asthma as a result). I presume there are times in the proverbial "day match after a night match", etc. that a player wishes s/he could take a stimulant.



I am under the impression that the reason for their appeal was stalling for time as the hearing on 9/12 was on the horizon & there are rumors out that CAS will not rule in their favour.

Were I them I wouldn't want the distraction of a hearing (and appeal if I lost, including for a stay until the next level of court) during the season, would you? You weren't using Euro dating and meaning December 9th, not September 12th were you? Which would suck anyway, as early-mid November would allow the most time to get it done B4 2012.

To some extent I blame the passivity of the players themselves for their being under the thumb of these dictators. There have been tentative efforts to form a real union ova the years (including one where I had some email communication with the esteemed Martina I, and this was B4 her bout with breast cancer) but there was never the follow-thru (by the players) there is in team sports. :shrug:

chuvack
Aug 23rd, 2011, 12:12 PM
To some extent I blame the passivity of the players themselves for their being under the thumb of these dictators. There have been tentative efforts to form a real union ova the years (including one where I had some email communication with the esteemed Martina I, and this was B4 her bout with breast cancer) but there was never the follow-thru (by the players) there is in team sports. :shrug:


Tennis players naturally have harder time than team sports to band together against the regulations. But you forget the flip side - that its much harder to catch tennis players for doping, because they haven't got teammates to rat them out. Look at how Lance Armstrong and Robert Clemens got caught doping - not from drug testing, but from teammate eyewitnesses.

Tennis Observer
Aug 23rd, 2011, 02:13 PM
Were I them I wouldn't want the distraction of a hearing (and appeal if I lost, including for a stay until the next level of court) during the season, would you? You weren't using Euro dating and meaning December 9th, not September 12th were you? Which would suck anyway, as early-mid November would allow the most time to get it done B4 2012.
As CAS (http://www.tas-cas.org/en/infogenerales.asp/4-3-5130-1092-4-1-1/5-0-1092-15-1-1/) informed that the hearing that was scheduled to take place on 12th September 2011 has been cancelled (see also openig post) I used the date the hearing was scheduled.

If both players feel that a hearing between the end of US Open and P5 Tokyo is inappropiate, they could have asked CAS to postpone the hearing into off season. However, it will be interesting to watch players movements if Swiss Federal Court don't rule in their way (case dated January 2010).

Tennis Observer
Mar 3rd, 2012, 10:03 PM
The Belgian tennis players Xavier Malisse and Yanina Wickmayer have filed appeals at the Swiss Federal Court to appeal against the CAS decision to accept jurisdiction to decide their dispute involving World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), the Flemish Doping Tribunal (Vlaams doping Tribunaal) and the Flemish tennis federation.

Swiss Federal Court has denied these appeals in a decision made on 2/13/2012 which was published yesterday (http://www.bger.ch/index/juridiction/jurisdiction-inherit-template/jurisdiction-recht/jurisdiction-recht-urteile2000neu.htm) (in French).

Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) didn’t announce its next actions so far.

Corswandt
Mar 3rd, 2012, 11:11 PM
Direct link to the decision:

http://jumpcgi.bger.ch/cgi-bin/JumpCGI?id=13.02.2012_4A_428/2011

It's hardk0re procedural stuff - not for the faint of heart.

Only DRAMA (sort of) is the part where the Federal Court accused the appellant's counsel of mauvaise querelle for invoking conflict of interests w/r/t WADA's counsel since one of the firm's recent members was also a director with WADA.

The arguments presented by the VTV hint that they won't execute any sanctions against Wickmayer/Malise even after a decision by the CAS for as long as the procedures before the Belgian courts, and the decision to prevent the VTV from executing the sanctions given to Wickmayer/Malisse by the VDT, remain pending.

Sammo
Mar 3rd, 2012, 11:14 PM
This is so dumb.

*JR*
Mar 4th, 2012, 12:10 AM
I'll just add one more thing to this thread for now. Wild Wicky (and the X-Man) were represented by "doping case lawyers" like Johnny Maeschalck, etc. Who are basically hated by WADA, CAS, etc. (which can only "punish" said lawyers by finding against their clients in "gray areas"). Nina had a decent "out" on the Whereabouts Rule being applied to her in 2009, but I don't really care anymore; as her father Marc insisted on putting his full faith in these guys, despite the doping tribunals' dislike for them. :shrug:

Raiden
Mar 4th, 2012, 12:16 AM
The Belgian tennis players Xavier Malisse and Yanina Wickmayer have filed appeals at the Swiss Federal Court to appeal against the CAS decision to accept jurisdiction to decide their dispute involving World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), the Flemish Doping Tribunal (Vlaams doping Tribunaal) and the Flemish tennis federation.

Swiss Federal Court has denied these appeals in a decision made on 2/13/2012 which was published yesterday (http://www.bger.ch/index/juridiction/jurisdiction-inherit-template/jurisdiction-recht/jurisdiction-recht-urteile2000neu.htm) (in French).

Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) didn’t announce its next actions so far.Not sure what that is all about.

Last I heard the Belgian courts made a final decision and overruled the Flemish tennis body VTV's original desicion. So to my understanding there's no longer any case to appeal to CAS or any other body in Switzerland and the ball is now squarely in VTV's court: they need to throw-out/revise/adjust their whereabouts rules for all Flemish athletes (or something to that effect).

Tennis Observer
Mar 4th, 2012, 12:54 AM
Not sure what that is all about.

CAS opened four arbitration procedures more than two years ago following appeals by Xavier Malisse and Yanina Wickmayer on the one hand and WADA on the other hand against the decision of the Flemish Doping Tribunal to impose a suspension of one year on each of Belgian tennis players for breach of their duties in terms of location.
CAS scheduled a hearing that was scheduled to take place on 9/12/11. As Malisse & Wickmayer have filed appeals at the Swiss Federal Court to appeal against the CAS decision to accept jurisdiction to decide the dispute in question, this hearing has been cancelled and CAS suspended the case.
As Swiss Federal Court denied these appeals, it's on CAS to decide the dispute.

guichard
Mar 22nd, 2012, 07:05 PM
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has fixed the hearing in the case of the Belgian tennis players Xavier Malisse and Yanina Wickmayer on 30 May 2012
http://www.tas-cas.org/en/infogenerales.asp/4-3-5803-1092-4-1-1/5-0-1092-15-1-1/

Tennis Observer
Mar 23rd, 2012, 07:50 PM
While CAS initially fixed the hearing after US Open for 9/12/11, now it is scheduled during the French Open (R2) on Wednesday, 5/30/12.

By no later than 6/21/12 the NOCs/National Associations shall advise the ITF which of their eligible players have been selected to compete in the Olympics.

World Anti-Doping Code (http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World_Anti-Doping_Program/WADP-The-Code/WADA_Anti-Doping_CODE_2009_EN.pdf)

*JR*
Mar 25th, 2012, 01:42 PM
While CAS initially fixed the hearing after US Open for 9/12/11, now it is scheduled during the French Open (R2) on Wednesday, 5/30/12.

The players wouldn't have 2B there, as this will be lawyers (for both sides) arguing about procedural stuff. If either or both players are needed there to testify, CAS can adjourn the hearing until after they're out of RG, the finals being June 9-10. Though I realize that the sword hanging ova their heads probably won't help either's results until the case is ova.

pov
Mar 25th, 2012, 03:36 PM
To keep this going on for so long with the inane back and forth is vile. Especially when it's all about whereabouts rather than a specific suspicion of doping. It must be mental wearying for the athletes involved.

Tennis Observer
Mar 27th, 2012, 07:09 AM
The players wouldn't have 2B there, as this will be lawyers (for both sides) arguing about procedural stuff. […]
After Wickmayer/Malisse’s appeal we talked about the purpose of their actions:
[...] ultimately they haven't accomplished anything other than stalling for time, and their chances of a successful appeal are minuscule […]
I am under the impression that the reason for their appeal was stalling for time as the hearing on 9/12 was on the horizon & there are rumors out that CAS will not rule in their favour.
And this was your response:
[...]Were I them I wouldn't want the distraction of a hearing (and appeal if I lost, including for a stay until the next level of court) during the season, would you? […]
While CAS scheduled the hearing AFTER the US Open in the first place, now it takes place DURING very early stage (R2) of French Open. After Swiss Federal Court rules as expected, everybody can judge if this appeal was a smart move.

To keep this going on for so long with the inane back and forth is vile.[…]
Here is CAS’ explanation (http://www.tas-cas.org/en/infogenerales.asp/4-3-5803-1092-4-1-1/5-0-1092-15-1-1/) why the case is pending for more than two years (bolding is mine):
The CAS opened the four procedures at the beginning of 2010 following the appeals of Xavier Malisse, Yanina Wickmayer and WADA against the decision taken by the Flemish Doping Tribunal to impose a sanction of one year on each of the players for breach of their duties with respect to the provision of ‘whereabouts’ information. Since then, the arbitration procedures have been interrupted on multiple occasions due to various procedural incidents.

nicky
Mar 29th, 2012, 01:57 PM
Good news for Yanina & Xavier :bounce: : WADA has withdrawn its appeal with CAS, since there is no legal ground anymore. Flemish legislation regarding whereabouts & doping has been declared void by our "Raad van State" (sort of supreme court).

They can still face a suspension by the Flemish Doping agency, but this probably works in their advantage. The Flemish minister of sports is working on new legislation.

Let's just hope Nina finally gets this monkey of her back...

link: Sporza http://www.sporza.be/cm/sporza/tennis/120329_WADA_teruggetrokken

PS: for the ignorant ones (and the haters) I'd like to point out Nina never violated ITF (or WTA?)whereabouts rules! Flemish regulations were more strict, which was the start of a lot of misunderstandings & problems.

Corswandt
Mar 29th, 2012, 04:26 PM
Flemish legislation regarding whereabouts & doping has been declared void by our "Raad van State" (sort of supreme court).

How convenient.

Tennis Observer
Mar 29th, 2012, 11:42 PM
[...] WADA has withdrawn its appeal with CAS, [...]
but CAS has not withdrawn hearing scheduled for 5/30/12 (http://www.tas-cas.org/en/infogenerales.asp/4-3-5803-1092-4-1-1/5-0-1092-15-1-1/) because Xavier Malisse & Yanina Wickmayer appealed against the decision taken by the Flemish Doping Tribunal (Vlaams Doping Tribunal) to impose a sanction of one year on each of the players for breach of their duties with respect to the provision of ‘whereabouts’ information. The Flemish Tennis Federation is also involved in the case.

CAS Hearings (http://www.tas-cas.org/en/infogenerales.asp/4-3-544-1092-4-1-1/5-0-1092-15-1-1/):

30 May 2012
CAS 2009/A/1994 Xavier Malisse v. Vlaams Doping Tribunaal
CAS 2009/A/1995 Yanina Wickmayer v. Vlaams Doping Tribunaal
CAS 2009/A/2020 AMA v. Vlaams Doping Tribunaal, VTV & Xavier Malisse
CAS 2009/A/2021 AMA v. Vlaams Doping Tribunaal, VTV & Yanina Wickmayer

guichard
Apr 23rd, 2012, 10:24 AM
The hearing is no longer on CAS schedule. Maybe it has just been postponed once again...

bobito
Apr 23rd, 2012, 03:26 PM
No, @ least as far back as 2005 (when I started following the case of BUL's then Wild Child) CAS ratifications of whatever WADA wants I mean "decisions" ;) could be appealed there, as the IOC (boss of both) is based in Lausanne.

But besides being the home of FIFA (maybe the most tainted sports body in the world) the Suissies haven't even been able to get a Career Conman, Deadbeat Dad, Frankfurt Felon, etc. like Herr Hofmann out of their sports scene. :help:

Seedy and corrupt though FIFA is, surely that title still belongs to the IOC.

Wiggly
Apr 23rd, 2012, 04:02 PM
Tennis's anti-doping system is a joke.
They only catch 1-2 insignificant players per year. If a global superstar was doping, there's no way in hell he/she'll be suspended.

Someone will blow the whistle soon enough. That's too bad for the clean players.
Speeding up the courts would diminish the problem as with these slow-ass courts, you need less and less skills and more strenght and stamina.

chuvack
Apr 24th, 2012, 02:27 PM
Tennis's anti-doping system is a joke.
They only catch 1-2 insignificant players per year. If a global superstar was doping, there's no way in hell he/she'll be suspended.

Someone will blow the whistle soon enough. That's too bad for the clean players.
Speeding up the courts would diminish the problem as with these slow-ass courts, you need less and less skills and more strenght and stamina.


They will catch somebody sooner or later, but it wont be via a drug test. Somebody will get careless carrying the stuff through the airport and get busted by the police, and the WTA won't be able to keep it out of the media. The whole goal of the WTA drug testing is to make sure that no top players come up positive.

Juju Nostalgique
Apr 24th, 2012, 02:39 PM
Tennis's anti-doping system is a joke.
They only catch 1-2 insignificant players per year. If a global superstar was doping, there's no way in hell he/she'll be suspended.


That's what I always said about tennis and drugs. Puerta? Korda? Karatantcheva? Those are joke players compared to the big ones who do drugs. Of course Korda won the AO but that's not Nadull you know.

A lot of people in Spain KNOW that Nadull takes enhancies. There's no need to prove it to talk about it becuase OTOH you cannot prove he DOESN'T do drugs.

Apart from Nadull there are several female players under suspicion which I won't talk about because the hatred towards me would be endless.

What a joke. So did Malisse and Miss W do drugs or not? :weirdo:

*JR*
Apr 24th, 2012, 02:41 PM
It seemed illogical to hold the hearing during RG, even behind closed doors. It would have led to a few stories about doping in the European media then, and in the event either was still in any draw @ RG then, the pressure of knowing it was going on could have hurt their play.

X-Man will likely retire fairly soon anyhow (and he missed a test, not just failed to update his Whereabouts). Whereas Nina never missed one, and still has years on court in front of her; though her father being too much of a micro-manager isn't exactly helping her reach her full potential.

:secret: I hear that Max is organizing a tournament limited to members of the LOB. Of course Vika will be the top seed, but he'll likely rig things so Wild Wicky has a cakewalk draw. :p (Or @ least a catwalk draw) :tape:

Wiggly
Apr 24th, 2012, 02:56 PM
The whole 24/7 policy isn't real. They may have three random tests at the very best (per year) but they make sure to whine on Twitter to make it look they're tested twice a day or something.

Some players cheat when everyone's watching. Imagine what they do in the dark corners.

*JR*
Apr 24th, 2012, 03:18 PM
The whole 24/7 policy isn't real. They may have three random tests at the very best (per year) but they make sure to whine on Twitter to make it look they're tested twice a day or something.

The problem is not the tests being too frequent, being invasive, or whatever. Its the fucking Whereabouts Rule. @ least they ought to let (athletes in any sport) who want choose instead 2B subject to testing by blood and/or hair sample, where the evidence of doping presumably lasts a lot longer.

I highly doubt that the "suits" who run the various sporting bodies, TV networks, sponsoring companies etc. would be willing to submit their expected whereabouts for a 3 month period, and keep it updated. And of course the NBA and NHL guys don't have the WADA Code (as they have "real unions") and still get to play in the Olympics. :shrug:

guichard
Apr 24th, 2012, 03:59 PM
I e-mailed CAS , here is their response:


Please be advised that the hearing that was scheduled to take place on 30 May 2012 has been cancelled. A new hearing date has not yet been fixed

miffedmax
Apr 24th, 2012, 04:05 PM
It seemed illogical to hold the hearing during RG, even behind closed doors. It would have led to a few stories about doping in the European media then, and in the event either was still in any draw @ RG then, the pressure of knowing it was going on could have hurt their play.

X-Man will likely retire fairly soon anyhow (and he missed a test, not just failed to update his Whereabouts). Whereas Nina never missed one, and still has years on court in front of her; though her father being too much of a micro-manager isn't exactly helping her reach her full potential.

:secret: I hear that Max is organizing a tournament limited to members of the LOB. Of course Vika will be the top seed, but he'll likely rig things so Wild Wicky has a cakewalk draw. :p (Or @ least a catwalk draw) :tape:

Please. We all know (barring a certain player coming out of retirement) who I would sentimentally have to rig a draw for. Said tournament would also require a "no backhand" rule for this player to win it.

I mean Wicki already has titles.

guichard
Apr 28th, 2012, 03:32 AM
Wickmayer / Malisse case : procedure suspended

In the arbitration case involving the two Belgian tennis players, Yannina Wickmayer and Xavier Malisse, as well as the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and the Flemish Tennis Federation, the situation is the following:

WADA has decided to withdraw its appeals against the two players following the decision of the Belgian Conseil d’Etat to invalidate the Flemish antidoping decree for formal reasons.

The procedure between the two players and the Flemish Tennis Federation has been suspended and the hearing which was initially scheduled to take place on 30 May 2012 has been cancelled, for the same reasons.

The decision of the Belgian Conseil d’Etat was issued after the Swiss Federal Tribunal recognised the jurisdiction of CAS to rule on this matter

http://www.tas-cas.org/en/infogenerales.asp/4-3-5868-1092-4-1-1/5-0-1092-15-1-1/

Raiden
Apr 28th, 2012, 08:06 AM
^ lol - I should be a lawyer since I had predicted that outcome earlier (weeks before the 'suits' in Switzerland did) that there was no longer a case to appeal.

When you cut thru the 'lawyery bullshit' (like procedural stuff which is relevant only for the suits because they get paid by the hour) and break it down, it becomes a matter of noticing the simple obvious fact that there was no way CAS or any other international or foreign (legally Swiss) agency was gonna dictate a dispute that is fundamentally between the autonomous Flemish government authority, i.e. VDT (upon which WADA's entire case is based upon) and the Belgian feds who delegate normally but still have final authority. The last time questioning the feds' authority was attempted (Bosman versus FIFA) the entire world of soccer went belly up.

Marlene
Apr 28th, 2012, 08:28 AM
I'm lost.

Who's winning? Wicky&X or Belgian WADA?

VeeJJ
Apr 28th, 2012, 08:41 AM
This is just like high school or college sports. The star players or best players never get tested because they just don't want to know. Everyone knows and thinks that a lot of top players do something but there would be no profit if they busted them. Who cares about integrity, money means more. :rolleyes:

guichard
Apr 28th, 2012, 10:46 AM
I'm lost.

Who's winning? Wicky&X or Belgian WADA?
Wicky&X

Tennis Observer
Apr 29th, 2012, 02:13 PM
On November 5th 2009 Belgian tennis player Yanina Wickmayer was given a one-year suspension from competition for failing to keep doping officials notified of her location by the Flemish Doping Tribunal (Xavier Malisse was also suspended for one year for missing a doping test and not keeping officials aware of where he could be located).
ITF put the pair on the list of suspended players.
The pair & WADA launched appeals to CAS and with European authorities challenging the legality of the whereabouts rules of WADA.
After the pair won an injunction in Belgium against the ban on December 14th 2009, ITF has removed both Mr. Malisse and Ms. Wickmayer from the list of suspended players, and both were eligible to participate with immediate effect (Yanina received a [WC] for 220K Auckland 2010 and was forced to play Qualifying for Australian Open 2010 as she missed entry date due to ban).
After CAS scheduled a hearing for September 11th 2011, the pair filed an appeal at the Swiss Federal Court against the CAS decision to accept jurisdiction to decide the dispute in question. Swiss Federal Court denied the appeal.
Later the Supreme Administrative Court of Belgium invalidate the Flemish antidoping decree for formal reasons. WADA withdrew its appeal to CAS & CAS suspended the procedure.

benbest
Jul 4th, 2012, 08:32 AM
Good news for Wicmayer and Malisse. The 'Vlaams Dopingtribunaal (VDT)' decided to leave the Wickmayer/Malisse case alone and has asked the 'Internationale Sporttribunaal (TAS)' to completely erase the case.

http://www.nieuwsblad.be/article/detail.aspx?articleid=DMF20120703_00209976

Juju Nostalgique
Jul 4th, 2012, 09:18 AM
What a joke. Looks like if Spanish officials ruled this case... :rolleyes: :smash:

Chrissie-fan
Jul 4th, 2012, 10:07 AM
Just my gut feeling, and there's obviously no way I can prove this, but if everyone who took PED would be caught and suspended I don't think we would watch sports anymore because the vast majority of the recognizable names would be gone. I think that not getting caught taking PED has become part of the competition, and maybe for longer than we think.

MaxQue
Jul 4th, 2012, 10:09 AM
Good, because the way it was, they would be retired since long when a final decision would be reached.

stromatolite
Jul 4th, 2012, 10:23 AM
Just my gut feeling, and there's obviously no way I can prove this, but if everyone who took PED would be caught and suspended I don't think we would watch sports anymore because the vast majority of the recognizable names would be gone. I think that not getting caught taking PED has become part of the competition, and maybe for longer than we think.

Seems a tad pessimistic to me. There are sports that have been plagued by doping, but these are generally sports like cycling that require insane levels of physical strength and stamina that are scarcely possible without some kind of artificial boost. I'm not saying that there are no dopers in tennis, but if you take away all the hysterical guilty-until-proven-innocent innuendo, there really isn't much reason to believe that many players are using it. In fact, in a large proportion of case where tennis players have been linked with doping this hasn't even involved PED, but rather recreational drugs like cocaine. IMO that should be not what doping controls are used for anyway.

Chrissie-fan
Jul 4th, 2012, 10:36 AM
Seems a tad pessimistic to me. There are sports that have been plagued by doping, but these are generally sports like cycling that require insane levels of physical strength and stamina that are scarcely possible without some kind of artificial boost. I'm not saying that there are no dopers in tennis, but if you take away all the hysterical guilty-until-proven-innocent innuendo, there really isn't much reason to believe that many players are using it. In fact, in a large proportion of case where tennis players have been linked with doping this hasn't even involved PED, but rather recreational drugs like cocaine. IMO that should be not what doping controls are used for anyway.
Yes, but cocaine is easy to detect. The most sophisticated types of PED aren't.

But I'm not a guilty-until-proven-innocent type because I don't accuse any particular individual(s). But yes, maybe I'm a bit too pessimistic. But let's just say that I wouldn't be surprised if the situation was more serious than most of us think.

debby
Jul 4th, 2012, 10:51 AM
Yes, but cocaine is easy to detect. The most sophisticated types of PED aren't.

But I'm not a guilty-until-proven-innocent type because I don't accuse any particular individual(s). But yes, maybe I'm a bit too pessimistic. But let's just say that I wouldn't be surprised if the situation was more serious than most of us think.

I totally agree.

When I see how physically (and mentally as well) demanding sports have become, I don't believe high-level athletes don't take drugs at all. No way.
I don't blame Armstrong for doping, I think it would be bullshit if he has to give back his seven titles because enhancing drugs alone don't make you win 7 titles or else everyone would have tried it too. He was not the only one, so ...

It's the same for tennis, I mean Justine obviously used drugs, but I don't think she should give back her titles.. same goes for Serena, Sharapova, etc...

So yeah if you are too pess, then I am too ! :lol: ;)

bobito
Jul 4th, 2012, 10:57 AM
Just my gut feeling, and there's obviously no way I can prove this, but if everyone who took PED would be caught and suspended I don't think we would watch sports anymore because the vast majority of the recognizable names would be gone. I think that not getting caught taking PED has become part of the competition, and maybe for longer than we think.

Three or four years ago there was an article in Ace magazine in which they spoke to one one of the top men in WADA and he was convinced that tennis did not have serious problem with performance enhancing drugs. As I remember it, his reason for saying so was that if you use drugs to increase your muscle power then it is to the detriment of your stamina or vice versa. Tennis players need a balance of physical attributes, strength speed and stamina, and therefore would have little to gain from taking steroids and such.

debby
Jul 4th, 2012, 11:02 AM
Three or four years ago there was an article in Ace magazine in which they spoke to one one of the top men in WADA and he was convinced that tennis did not have serious problem with performance enhancing drugs. As I remember it, his reason for saying so was that if you use drugs to increase your muscle power then it is to the detriment of your stamina or vice versa. Tennis players need a balance of physical attributes, strength speed and stamina, and therefore would have little to gain from taking steroids and such.

There are different kind of drugs. Djokovic has power and stamina... and he is obviously doping, there is that egg stuff, it's considered as doping but no one talks about it and he doesn't have problems with the WADA, not sure why...

bobito
Jul 4th, 2012, 11:06 AM
There are different kind of drugs. Djokovic has power and stamina... and he is obviously doping, there is that egg stuff, it's considered as doping but no one talks about it and he doesn't have problems with the WADA, not sure why...

:rolleyes: And your evidence is....?

debby
Jul 4th, 2012, 11:14 AM
:rolleyes: And your evidence is....?

Asthma suddenly disappearing?
(asthma very present for doped athletes btw)

And that egg stuff, I was surprised it didn't even raise more eyebrows.

Article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904787404576532854267519860.html)

The machine, which is made by a California-based company called CVAC Systems and hasn't been banned by any sports governing bodies, is one of only 20 in the world. Unlike the increasingly trendy $5,000 hyperbaric chambers many professional athletes use to saturate the blood with oxygen and stimulate healing, the CVAC is a considerably more-ambitious contraption. It uses a computer-controlled valve and a vacuum pump to simulate high altitude and compress the muscles at rhythmic intervals.

And whatever, I don't condemn him, he is a great player. Don't :rolleyes: at me, because to last for hours on the court, and to keep that stamina and power, under the sun.... well you have to be "helped" right ?!

It's also because of us.. we always want to see better and better.. more impressive stuff.... so doping is now a must... for the biggest athletes out there.

I don't understand why everyone suspects Nadal of doping but not Nole? Isn't it a tad hypocritical?

bobito
Jul 4th, 2012, 11:36 AM
Asthma suddenly disappearing?
(asthma very present for doped athletes btw)

And that egg stuff, I was surprised it didn't even raise more eyebrows.

Article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904787404576532854267519860.html)

How is sitting in a pressurised pod performance enhancing drugs?

I don't understand why everyone suspects Nadal of doping but not Nole? Isn't it a tad hypocritical?

I don't suspect either of them.

Chrissie-fan
Jul 4th, 2012, 11:44 AM
I totally agree.

When I see how physically (and mentally as well) demanding sports have become, I don't believe high-level athletes don't take drugs at all. No way.
I don't blame Armstrong for doping, I think it would be bullshit if he has to give back his seven titles because enhancing drugs alone don't make you win 7 titles or else everyone would have tried it too. He was not the only one, so ...

Well, if there are no consequences when they are caught there really is no point in controlling athletes to begin with. Having said that, it's a complicated issue since everyone knows that many other riders were filled up to their necks with PED as well. And declaring whoever came in second as the winner like they usually do makes no sense either since cycling is also a highly tactical sport and if you remove Armstrong from the race it affects the whole outcome. Whoever came in fifth might have won because riders would have attacked at different points of the race, and so on.

In tennis it would be even more complicated. You can't declare the runner-up the winner because he or she isn't the only one affected by the cheating of the winner. Whoever lost in the QF or SF to 'the cheater' might have gone on to win it.

Chrissie-fan
Jul 4th, 2012, 11:47 AM
I don't suspect either of them.
I suspect everyone, but I don't accuse anyone.

debby
Jul 4th, 2012, 01:09 PM
How is sitting in a pressurised pod performance enhancing drugs?

No but the method is very suspicious. Only 20 of them in the world? Not fair at all. I think it's as bad as drugs.

I don't suspect either of them.

Why? Isn't it a bit naive ?

I suspect everyone, but I don't accuse anyone.

This.

Tennis Ball
Jul 4th, 2012, 01:11 PM
What a joke. Looks like if Spanish officials ruled this case... :rolleyes: :smash:

Please, if you're not well informed, then don't say anything, or at least don't spread insinuations into the world. To the contrary, the Belgian anti-doping organization was "too" strict - letting players from their own nationality go, certainly is not Belgian style. Here in Holland where I live, doping officials let their athletes know beforehand when to expect a visit and even make appointments. Speaking of ""Spanish" protectionistic style" or on the other hand "keeping" (i.e. pretending) up appearences for the international world - the latter which Holland is all about.

The Xavier/Yanina case has nothing to do with doping, but with filling in whereabout papers and officials being stupid for "not knowing" at which tourn the players are playing. They were correct in 'filing for penalty' because of the improper whereabout papers, since this is a strict rule. But they weren't correct in that they themselves caused part of the problem and should have been more understanding considering the circumstances. Therefore, now they have corrected themselves.

stromatolite
Jul 4th, 2012, 01:12 PM
Why? Isn't it a bit naive ?


Blindly suspecting everybody is no less naive than blindly trusting them. This is the same fallacy that confuses indiscriminant criticism of everything and everyone with critical thinking, which is something entirely different.

debby
Jul 4th, 2012, 01:13 PM
Blindly suspecting everybody is no less naive than blindly trusting them. This is the same fallacy that confuses indiscriminant criticism of everything and everyone with critical thinking, which is something entirely different.

I disagree.
Sports became insane, it's TOO physically demanding.

stromatolite
Jul 4th, 2012, 01:15 PM
I disagree.
Sports became insane, it's TOO physically demanding.

You disagree? That's your argument???

debby
Jul 4th, 2012, 01:18 PM
You disagree? That's your argument???

So I can't say anymore if I agree or not ? I just said I disagree. We will never agree, because I've given my arguments earlier, you disagreed, fine.

I just don't see why everyone is a saint in the tennis world but all on enhancing drugs in cyclism, I really don't.... a Slam is so physically demanding, I believe everyone is on drugs to some extents. Maybe just to help them being fit in time or to train themselves or even to win matches.. I don't know because it's not general in that case.

I suspect everyone of using enhancing drugs in order to remain on the top, and I don't know the further details. As simple as that.

stromatolite
Jul 4th, 2012, 01:27 PM
So I can't say anymore if I agree or not ? I just said I disagree. We will never agree, because I've given my arguments earlier, you disagreed, fine.

I just don't see why everyone is a saint in the tennis world but all on enhancing drugs in cyclism, I really don't.... a Slam is so physically demanding, I believe everyone is on drugs to some extents. Maybe just to help them being fit in time or to train themselves or even to win matches.. I don't know because it's not general in that case.

I suspect everyone of using enhancing drugs in order to remain on the top, and I don't know the further details. As simple as that.

Well it seems to me that when you make assertions of wrong doing, there is some justification in asking you to support it with evidence. Of course you don't have to, it's a free world, as long as you realise you are contributing to the defamation of people against whom there has so far been not one shred of actual evidence offered.

Words are cheap, a lot cheaper than the countless hours these players put in in the gym, on the training courts and for my part even in egg-shaped pods, in order to get their bodies into the kind of shape they need to be in to perform on the tennis court.

The differences between cycling and tennis have already been discussed. I suggest you read Bobito's post on why tennis is different, and why there is less reason to expect tennis players to use doping.

debby
Jul 4th, 2012, 01:34 PM
Well it seems to me that when you make assertions of wrong doing, there is some justification in asking you to support it with evidence. Of course you don't have to, it's a free world, as long as you realise you are contributing to the defamation of people against whom there has so far been not one shred of actual evidence offered.

Words are cheap, a lot cheaper than the countless hours these players put in in the gym, on the training courts and for my part even in egg-shaped pods, in order to get their bodies into the kind of shape they need to be in to perform on the tennis court.

The differences between cycling and tennis have already been discussed. I suggest you read Bobito's post on why tennis is different, and why there is less reason to expect tennis players to use doping.

Of course, it's defamation when I suspect EVERYONE not particular athletes.

Of course for you, doping = disrespectful to these players who have been working. I actually think drugs might complete these trainings sessions in order to help them recovering from these sessions in most of cases.

You were not around to tell these WS fans who suspected Henin to have been suspended for doping in 2008.... at least I don't single out athletes.

stromatolite
Jul 4th, 2012, 01:47 PM
Of course, it's defamation when I suspect EVERYONE not particular athletes.

Of course for you, doping = disrespectful to these players who have been working. I actually think drugs might complete these trainings sessions in order to help them recovering from these sessions in most of cases.

You were not around to tell these WS fans who suspected Henin to have been suspended for doping in 2008.... at least I don't single out athletes.

Well you did mention both Djokovic and Nadal, and now Henin, so ...

But it's clear that you aren't judging people for using doping, and that's probably the root source of our little disagreement here. Unlike you I think doping IS inherently a bad thing, for sport as well as for individual athletes. There is a school of thought that doping should just be legalized, but I think that would be a disaster. The point is that in a world in which doping is the norm, players really have no choice but to use doping. Not only that, they have no choice but to use increasingly extreme forms of doping. That is what has happened in the world of cycling, to the detriment of both the athletes and the sport. Because the physical demands on tennis players are more complex and subtle, the temptation is less great, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

IMO sport needs strong anti-doping controls, and part of that is the shame associated with being caught out. But that is only effective if the shame is restricted to the guilty parties. If everyone with well-developed biceps is automatically branded a doping fiend you turn the whole logic of the process upside down.

bobito
Jul 4th, 2012, 01:56 PM
You were not around to tell these WS fans who suspected Henin to have been suspended for doping in 2008.... at least I don't single out athletes.

So because a few idiots spread slurs about Justine you do likewise for every other player? You don't single out individuals, you just tar them all with the same brush and you regard that as being less of a slur?

Chrissie-fan
Jul 4th, 2012, 02:38 PM
I think it's an interesting topic to discuss as long as no names are mentionned. To single out the names of certain players is unfair I think because they might be totally innocent of any wrongdoing. But it seems very likely to me that in a high profile sport like tennis with world wide fame and millions of dollars/euros at stake some (and possibly many) are tempted to use PED.

stromatolite
Jul 4th, 2012, 02:45 PM
I think it's an interesting topic to discuss as long as no names are mentionned. To single out the names of certain players is unfair I think because they might be totally innocent of any wrongdoing. But it seems very likely to me that in a high profile sport like tennis with world wide fame and millions of dollars/euros at stake some (and possibly many) are tempted to use PED.

Not sure I completely agree here. It's one thing to discuss the topic in general, and quite another thing to say that you believe that doping is widespread. Sure, you don't mention players by name, but you do lend credence to the general belief that "a lot of players" do it, so that when others do mention individual players their claims seem more believable because of this supposed general consensus.

I think it's important to take a measured approach to this whether talking about individuals or the sport in general. Unless you have more than just your gut feeling to support your beliefs, it may be best to keep them to yourself.

debby
Jul 4th, 2012, 02:58 PM
Well you did mention both Djokovic and Nadal, and now Henin, so ...

But it's clear that you aren't judging people for using doping, and that's probably the root source of our little disagreement here. Unlike you I think doping IS inherently a bad thing, for sport as well as for individual athletes. There is a school of thought that doping should just be legalized, but I think that would be a disaster. The point is that in a world in which doping is the norm, players really have no choice but to use doping. Not only that, they have no choice but to use increasingly extreme forms of doping. That is what has happened in the world of cycling, to the detriment of both the athletes and the sport. Because the physical demands on tennis players are more complex and subtle, the temptation is less great, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

IMO sport needs strong anti-doping controls, and part of that is the shame associated with being caught out. But that is only effective if the shame is restricted to the guilty parties. If everyone with well-developed biceps is automatically branded a doping fiend you turn the whole logic of the process upside down.

Yeah actually, yeah it's true I singled them out but I didn't mean for it to be like "Look they are doping, not the other athletes !" if you see what I mean ;)

Actually, thing is that I believe sports became too physically demanding, so I can't blame them for doping. :sad: I've discussed it with my mother. She is not a fan of sports because of that, she thinks it became insane. She sometimes enjoys watching tennis (I don't think it's as affected as cyclism is, I do think talent >> doping in tennis, while in cyclism, well doping has a bigger part). But yeah we've discussed it, and she thinks it's not normal at all doping became the norm in sports.

And I agree with her about that. I don't think it should be a solution to legalize drugs, I actually hope it will never happen, but I can't put the incriminated athletes to shame for that. That would be unfair because it doesn't mean they have not worked at all, they didn't make any sacrifice at all, etc...

If performance were not that hard to attain for athletes who don't take any enhancing drugs, then doping would be a bigger moral issue I guess...

So because a few idiots spread slurs about Justine you do likewise for every other player? You don't single out individuals, you just tar them all with the same brush and you regard that as being less of a slur?

Slur ? Isn't that going a bit too far ? :help:

matty
Jul 4th, 2012, 03:00 PM
Sorry my friend, you don't fully understand the system. Specifically, an athlete governed by any sporting body that's a signatory to the WADA Convention must appeal to CAS (a figleaf "arbitration" body that WADA uses for a veneer of objectivity) first, and only after that can appeal a judgment to the Suisse courts.

You need to understand how WADA's reign of terror came 2B. In 2001 the late Franco enforcer Juan Antonio Samaranch retired as head of the IOC, and Jacques Rogge (BEL) beat Dick Pound (CAN) to succeed him. So Dick got control of WADA (then about 2 years old and quite weak) and turned it into one of the most Draconian bodies in sports history.

The Whereabouts Rule is a prime example. Nina was on tour, where they could find her most of the time just by checking drawsheets. If one is doping, the evidence doesn't leave their system that quickly, which is why in 2005 "someone I shall not name" :tape: had a positive B sample for Nandrolone taken around 10 days after the A sample, thus the "little bit pregnant" :o story.

I could write a book about WADA's deficiencies, but I'll wrap up here by saying that their "big brother" (the IOC) allows NBA basketball players to compete in the Olympics, despite the NBA never having been WADA compliant. Early in 2011 for example, OJ Mayo of the Memphis Grizzlies was suspended 10 games (during the 82 game regular season) for a PED violation, and also was eligible for the playoffs.

wow--you are vey knowledgeable on this subject :hatoff:

Wiggly
Jul 4th, 2012, 03:03 PM
Lance Armstron's doctor has been linked to Sara Errani and some tennis academy in Spain where Ferrer, Kirilenko, AMG, Andreev and more are frequent clients. That's highly suspicious.

If you're training in Spain with all the rumors flying around, you're as suspect as it gets.

Chrissie-fan
Jul 4th, 2012, 03:05 PM
Not sure I completely agree here. It's one thing to discuss the topic in general, and quite another thing to say that you believe that doping is widespread. Sure, you don't mention players by name, but you do lend credence to the general belief that "a lot of players" do it, so that when others do mention individual players their claims seem more believable because of this supposed general consensus.

I think it's important to take a measured approach to this whether talking about individuals or the sport in general. Unless you have more than just your gut feeling to support your beliefs, it may be best to keep them to yourself.
1) How do you discuss any topic without saying what you believe? That's impossible.
2) Understood. This is my last post on this topic. And it will be everyone else's also because I don't think there's anyone here (including yourself btw) who has anything other than his gut feeling to go on.

matty
Jul 4th, 2012, 03:09 PM
To keep this going on for so long with the inane back and forth is vile. Especially when it's all about whereabouts rather than a specific suspicion of doping. It must be mental wearying for the athletes involved.

I agree--Wickmayer seems like a nice enough girl (although there seems to be a lot of disdain for her in TF????). Can't be very fun for her having this case in the back of her mind.

debby
Jul 4th, 2012, 03:10 PM
Lance Armstron's doctor has been linked to Sara Errani and some tennis academy in Spain where Ferrer, Kirilenko, AMG, Andreev and more are frequent clients. That's highly suspicious.

If you're training in Spain with all the rumors flying around, you're as suspect as it gets.

Kirilenko? :spit:

stromatolite
Jul 4th, 2012, 03:14 PM
Yeah actually, yeah it's true I singled them out but I didn't mean for it to be like "Look they are doping, not the other athletes !" if you see what I mean ;)

Actually, thing is that I believe sports became too physically demanding, so I can't blame them for doping. :sad: I've discussed it with my mother. She is not a fan of sports because of that, she thinks it became insane. She sometimes enjoys watching tennis (I don't think it's as affected as cyclism is, I do think talent >> doping in tennis, while in cyclism, well doping has a bigger part). But yeah we've discussed it, and she thinks it's not normal at all doping became the norm in sports.

And I agree with her about that. I don't think it should be a solution to legalize drugs, I actually hope it will never happen, but I can't put the incriminated athletes to shame for that. That would be unfair because it doesn't mean they have not worked at all, they didn't make any sacrifice at all, etc...

If performance were not that hard to attain for athletes who don't take any enhancing drugs, then doping would be a bigger moral issue I guess...

Slur ? Isn't that going a bit too far ? :help:

Tbh to some extent I think doping is a symptom of a more general malaise in the modern world, namely that people want to be amazed, but it takes more and more to amaze them. You see it in movies, but there the only problem is that each successive movie has to contain more, and more spectacular, car crashes, explosions, decapitations, etc. That's a challenge for the special effects guys, but otherwise has no negative effects, other than the fact that anything resembling an actual plot or character development gets thrown out the window.

In sports, people also want to be amazed, but the human body can only do so much, and so people again turn to "special effects", this time in the form of performance enhancing drugs. Unlike computer graphics and such, these do cause real damage.

In principle, the dilemma is easier to solve in tennis than in sports like cycling, because amazing tennis doesn't have to consist of bashing the ball at a million km/h, but can also consist of great technique, smart tactics, and so on. In that sense the homogenization of tennis surfaces hasn't helped the cause, because such skills are being systematically killed off. Even so, I don't believe that this has led to widespread doping use by tennis players.

stromatolite
Jul 4th, 2012, 03:17 PM
1) How do you discuss any topic without saying what you believe? That's impossible.
2) Understood. This is my last post on this topic. And it will be everyone else's also because I don't think there's anyone here (including yourself btw) who has anything other than his gut feeling to go on.

Sorry, I think my post came across as more harsh than I intended it. All I really wanted to say was that this is a sensitive topic, and that reputations are more easily damaged than repaired.

Chrissie-fan
Jul 4th, 2012, 03:21 PM
Sorry, I think my post came across as more harsh than I intended it. All I really wanted to say was that this is a sensitive topic, and that reputations are more easily damaged than repaired.
No problem, I understand.

dsanders06
Jul 4th, 2012, 03:40 PM
Three or four years ago there was an article in Ace magazine in which they spoke to one one of the top men in WADA and he was convinced that tennis did not have serious problem with performance enhancing drugs. As I remember it, his reason for saying so was that if you use drugs to increase your muscle power then it is to the detriment of your stamina or vice versa. Tennis players need a balance of physical attributes, strength speed and stamina, and therefore would have little to gain from taking steroids and such.

Exactly. If you handed the strongest man in the world who had never picked up a tennis racquet, a wildcard into Wimbledon, he would still be dumped out in the 1st round of Wimbledon by a British player. No matter how strong you are, or how "hard" you can hit the ball, it still takes years of training to have the technique and the racquet skills to play tennis at anything close to an elite level. In fact, there's not really any evidence muscle mass in itself is much of an advantage in tennis atall (suggestions that Djokovic's run is due to steroids are particulalry idiotic, seeing as he's actually LOST muscle mass compared to before he started dominating).

If anything the only real performance-enhancing drugs that could really have an impact on top-level tennis players is drugs that help you keep concentration (there's a booming black market among students for these around the world at the moment, so this could become a problem in sport in the coming years).