|
|
Post by johnc on Apr 27, 2017 11:26:15 GMT
I see on the BBC website that some players are stating that Sharapova is a cheat and should never be allowed back in to the sport. What do others think?
Personally, I think it depends on the specifics of each case and I think the length of the ban should be used to determine the culpability and severity of the punishment. If the Governing body believe that an athlete was deliberately trying to gain an advantage then give them a lifetime ban or 10 years or whatever is needed. On the other hand if someone buys his/her regular cough mixture in a different country and it turns out the formula is slightly different and includes an inconsequential amount of a banned substance then a shorter ban should apply - a stupidity ban.
I don't think it is right to tar everyone with the same brush and deny any second chances. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2017 11:52:22 GMT
.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2017 12:10:53 GMT
A simple NO from me, these people have a large backup team and what may seem to be a simple error can easily be a team doctor saying that performance enhancing compounds can be found in this and that medication. I also doubt the issue of Bradley Wiggins medication problems, the whole fiasco has more holes than a Swiss cheese. If someone is found guilt they should be banned for life and set an example that has some teeth to it rather than a shut up and we'll sort this in a few years/months.
The suggestion that there are bigger interests than dealing with doping has never sounded louder for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Apr 27, 2017 12:17:34 GMT
It's only tennis, who cares!
Aside form that I think John's right.
However, if the 'medication bought from a foreign country' argument were to be used I would expect the player to consult their doctor and if he gave the go-ahead then he's guilty of the crime. The player should get a stupidity ban and the doctor should be run out of town (sport) on a rail.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Apr 27, 2017 13:05:23 GMT
Keep her out - she sounds like a Thai hooker having sex when she plays.
|
|
|
|
Post by grampa on Apr 27, 2017 14:27:36 GMT
How do you know?!
|
|
|
|
Post by Stuntman on Apr 27, 2017 19:45:27 GMT
I think she definitely should be allowed back, as is her right under the current doping rules.
Whether I agree with those rules is another matter, but unless the rules become zero tolerance (i.e if there are any traces of any banned substance in your body, you're then banned for life) there will always be shades of grey.
I disagree with SimonP to the extent that I don't think we can definitely say Sharapova was taking a drug she didn't need. She claims the exact opposite.
Perhaps one day we will have two versions of all sports: one where nobody is on drugs/there iszero tolerance to doping violations, and the other where competitors can take whatever they like. I know which one I'd rather watch.
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Apr 27, 2017 20:22:28 GMT
... and then there's cycling; was it wrong to retrospectively disqualify Lance Armstrong etc? Where do you draw the line at what drugs/substances are permitted and which are not, even when some may be required to treat injuries etc?
What about snooker and IIRC Bill Werbenuik who was permitted alcohol for medical reasons when it was supposedly banned (potting under the influence....)?
What about the possibility that the body produces some of these banned substances in trace amounts naturally in some people but not others? It's a bit of a minefield to me. Sharapova at least declared what she believed had happened and I think it right that she is now allowed back onto the professional tennis circuit. Hopefully she and her team will read the rules more carefully and take note of any changes.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Apr 28, 2017 10:17:56 GMT
I thought Lance Armstrong broke the rules that were in place when he was at his peak by a significant margin? If so then he deserved the ban, etc. I agree with Stunters, I'd love to see some OTT doped up guy run the 100 metres in 2.3 seconds  He'd probably explode immediately afterwards though! |
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Apr 28, 2017 11:44:32 GMT
She is back so it matters not what we think. FWIW, I think she's fine coming back if that's the rules of the ban following a drug-based misdemeanour. Cyclists that have gained several years of training advantage whilst doping get a ban then return still over-strength due to the fact they could train like a racehorse when they were in their teens and early twenties.
I hope she goes on to do a Grand Slam in 2018 after gaining enough ranking points to get a seeding during the 2017 season. As to the wildcard argument (for it is this that is the crux of many of the arguments within tennis: she is being given a wild card entry instead of having to go through qualifying): imagine you are a tour event organiser and you have the draw of Maria Sharapova in your tournament or you can have a qualifier that will be smashed into the changing rooms in the first round. No contest.
A few friends of mine are hoping she doesn't get asked to qualify for Wimbledon as the security around the Bank Of England sports club will be INSANE. As it is at present this is a very pleasant way to see some tennis in Roehampton.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blarno on Apr 28, 2017 12:21:33 GMT
I think all athletes should be allowed to use whatever drugs they like, it might make sport more interesting. Especially when some of them take LSD and decide to stop mid-hurdles to lick the ad barriers and throw bacon at the crowd.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Apr 28, 2017 14:22:09 GMT
......Especially when some of them take LSD and decide to stop mid-hurdles to lick the ad barriers and throw bacon at the crowd. Where are they going to be carrying the bacon in this scenario? |
|
|
|
Post by Blarno on Apr 28, 2017 14:59:10 GMT
In their socks, obviously.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stuntman on Apr 28, 2017 18:01:31 GMT
I think those athletes need to buy their drugs from wherever Blarno is getting his! |
|
|
|
Post by Ben on Apr 28, 2017 18:10:55 GMT
I am of the view that her ban was somewhat harsh, and that if the drugs weren't definitely proven to be performance-enhancing then it should be OK.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stuntman on Apr 28, 2017 18:22:41 GMT
I think the rules for the ban were fair. The substance was put on the banned list, she tested positive for it, she got a ban. Doesn't matter how it got there, nor does it matter if it did or didn't enhance performance. As the athlete you are responsible - it's an absolute offence (strict liability).
Re Lance Armstrong - yes of course he should be retrospectively disqualified where his perfomances have been proved to aided by banned substances, same as in athletics and many other sports.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Apr 28, 2017 20:08:06 GMT
She took a drug that she didn't need for a medical reason but rather to enhance her performance, therefore she's a drug cheat and should be banned.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stuntman on Apr 28, 2017 21:26:37 GMT
I agree. She has now served her ban, and has properly been allowed back.
|
|
|
|
Post by PG on Apr 30, 2017 12:55:47 GMT
She admitted the crime, she (sort of) served the time under the rules as written. So there is no reason to keep her out. But I suspect she is not the only one with something to be banned for, she was just caught.
As bob said, womens's tennis has certainly been quieter with her not there. Almost watchable with less shrieking.
|
|
