First, each case is individual and will be judged differently, including by disciplinary panels/CAS and myself/other posters. I am on record condemning Mattek-Sands, Maria, Lepchenko (all US-based, two of them competing under the US flag), while supporting/finding mitigating factors for Strycova, Kozlova and Errani (Czech Republic, Ukraine, Italy), exactly because the circumstances and level of incriminating evidence was different. I have no particular sympathy for the players in the second group as tennis/personal favorites, and I couldn't care less if they come from Russia or an Eastern country in general.
:haha: Utter nonsense! Especially the last sentence. Try and stay in the real world will ya. SMHYou should also keep in mind that Sharapova benefited from the same cautious approach requiring concrete evidence of wrongdoing before assigning penalties. Both the ITF panel and the CAS panel accommodated her claims about various things that were not very plausible (medical history, "take more before matches of special importance", disappearance of meldonium packaging, lack of understanding of what to put on the doping control forms, etc) because the evidence against her on these grounds was only circumstantial. In that respect, this CAS decision is not breaking new ground. Sharapova could have been stripped of her Grand Slam titles if the ITF and individual slam boards wanted to make an example of her, under the provisions of fair play in the grand slam rules.
I know that you are a Maria fan, but please try to see things more objectively. There is nothing controversial in what I wrote in the first part of that paragraph. There were many instances where Maria's proferred explanations were accepted as fact, although circumstantial evidence or common sense reasoning might indicate otherwise. Some examples::haha: Utter nonsense! Especially the last sentence. Try and stay in the real world will ya. SMH
What do you mean by "no jurisdiction"? I gave above the specific provisions of the Grand Slam Rule Book that gives authority to the Grand Slam Board to impose fines up to the total amount won by a player for "flagrant unsportsmanlike conduct". These rules applied to Maria when she won her slams (assuming that they were in similar form on the rule book when she did so, which I can't check but is reasonable to assume). There is a process specified in the Rule Book of first judgement by the Director of the Grand Slam Board, then player appeal and final judgment by the full Grand Slam Board (Article IV - Sections C to G). Unlike gambling and doping offenses, unsportsmanlike conduct / conduct contrary to the integrity of the game is determined solely by the GSB, with no appeal to CAS allowed.Sorry, no jurisdiction there.
Why should innocence be proved? what is this neo nazi shit by WADA that every one (russian) is guilty until proven otherwise?Based on the CAS statements, I support the decision. IMO there needs to be very strong evidence to ban a person for life.
The mandate of the Cas panels was not to determine generally whether there was an organised scheme allowing the manipulation of doping control samples in the Sochi laboratory but was strictly limited to dealing with 39 individual cases and to assess the evidence applicable to each athlete on an individual basis.
"This does not mean that these 28 athletes are declared innocent, but in their case, due to insufficient evidence, the appeals are upheld, the sanctions annulled and their individual results achieved in Sochi are reinstated."
But don’t you two agree?? Ioc is saying Russians are guilty until they can prove innocence not the usual innocent until proven guilty. I say innocent until they get the phone or email records with the sending of the doping control form/ bottle numbers.This isn't WADA and "not deemed innocent" doesn't mean "deemed guilty".