Kvitova having a run in Wuhan, first time all year she's won four matches at one tournament. As JoJo once sang, it's all a bit "too little, too late".
The Tennis Thread (Part 31)
291 of 419
Originally Posted by dduk:
“I can't see Konta making Singapore now. Still been a good year for her though.”
“I can't see Konta making Singapore now. Still been a good year for her though.”
It's tight from 7th-11th, but with the likes of Cibulkova and Kuzzy maintaining their consistency it makes it difficult to gain any inroads. Garbine in 6th is doing her best to help everyone in qualifying contention, but she has a good buffer against the chasing pack. Still at least Konta is well placed for the Zhuhai rejects event.
Originally Posted by Irishguy123:
“Kvitova having a run in Wuhan, first time all year she's won four matches at one tournament. As JoJo once sang, it's all a bit "too little, too late".”
“Kvitova having a run in Wuhan, first time all year she's won four matches at one tournament. As JoJo once sang, it's all a bit "too little, too late".”
The post-coach dumping flourish. Petra's got through a few this year. I see she's swiped Wim Fissette on a trial basis, although he's not with her this week. Meanwhile her old coach is now with Safarova who's parted ways with Rob Steckley.
Originally Posted by dduk:
“I can't see Konta making Singapore now. Still been a good year for her though.”
“I can't see Konta making Singapore now. Still been a good year for her though.”
She will almost certainly be in the draw for the second tier End of Year Event though?
Originally Posted by Mike Teevee:
“Another example of Rafa being a terrible terrible person*
*yes I'm being sarcastic”
“Another example of Rafa being a terrible terrible person*
*yes I'm being sarcastic”
Well it was a meaningless exhibition match....
The result of Sharapova's appeal is next week, what are our honest expectations? I'm thinking she'll have to get a reduction of some form, particularly when they ruled that she didn't intentionally break the rules.
Originally Posted by Irishguy123:
“The result of Sharapova's appeal is next week, what are our honest expectations? I'm thinking she'll have to get a reduction of some form, particularly when they ruled that she didn't intentionally break the rules.”
“The result of Sharapova's appeal is next week, what are our honest expectations? I'm thinking she'll have to get a reduction of some form, particularly when they ruled that she didn't intentionally break the rules.”
Hopefully a reduction of some sort, Lepchenko tested positive 4 times and still had her silent ban quashed.
She's bound to get a reduction, because that's what CAS always does. However, they can't get away from the fact that Sharapova was apparently taking medication for a heart problem, and chose not to tell her physio, trainer, nutritionist, coach or her official doctor. Nor did she ever write it on the form under the section where you are supposed to list the drugs you are taking that you presume are legitimate.
The only reasonable conclusion is that she was taking it for performance enhancing reasons, and even if she thought it was technically legal, she knew it was morally murky.
The only reasonable conclusion is that she was taking it for performance enhancing reasons, and even if she thought it was technically legal, she knew it was morally murky.
Originally Posted by *Sparkle*:
“She's bound to get a reduction, because that's what CAS always does. However, they can't get away from the fact that Sharapova was apparently taking medication for a heart problem, and chose not to tell her physio, trainer, nutritionist, coach or her official doctor. Nor did she ever write it on the form under the section where you are supposed to list the drugs you are taking that you presume are legitimate.
The only reasonable conclusion is that she was taking it for performance enhancing reasons, and even if she thought it was technically legal, she knew it was morally murky.”
“She's bound to get a reduction, because that's what CAS always does. However, they can't get away from the fact that Sharapova was apparently taking medication for a heart problem, and chose not to tell her physio, trainer, nutritionist, coach or her official doctor. Nor did she ever write it on the form under the section where you are supposed to list the drugs you are taking that you presume are legitimate.
The only reasonable conclusion is that she was taking it for performance enhancing reasons, and even if she thought it was technically legal, she knew it was morally murky.”
All true, and its complicated further by their treatment of other players found using meldonium. Has anyone else even been banned? It looks like they decided to make an example of Sharapova because she is Sharapova. If anything I think that will get it reduced.
Does anyone know what excuses the other players gave? I imagine they didn't all claim to have long term illnesses, which was a bad move from Sharapova, well the whole press conference was. Another reason for her to get a longer ban, she went off script doing that.
I'm surprised Petra has never beaten Simona before, although they have only played 3 times. That in itself is weird.
Originally Posted by Jenny1986:
“I'm surprised Petra has never beaten Simona before, although they have only played 3 times. That in itself is weird.”
“I'm surprised Petra has never beaten Simona before, although they have only played 3 times. That in itself is weird.”
I love Petra when she plays like this. Unstoppable.
Originally Posted by smude:
“I love Petra when she plays like this. Unstoppable.”
“I love Petra when she plays like this. Unstoppable.”
Me too, but it's also frustrating knowing she can play like this, its makes you wonder what might have been. If only she could have been more consistent throughout her career.
Peak Petra right there! It would be just like her to rise from the dead and somehow qualify for Singapore.
Originally Posted by Jenny1986:
“I'm surprised Petra has never beaten Simona before, although they have only played 3 times. That in itself is weird.”
“I'm surprised Petra has never beaten Simona before, although they have only played 3 times. That in itself is weird.”
Well, not that surprising. Neither of them are the definition of consistent!
Originally Posted by *Sparkle*:
“She's bound to get a reduction, because that's what CAS always does. However, they can't get away from the fact that Sharapova was apparently taking medication for a heart problem, and chose not to tell her physio, trainer, nutritionist, coach or her official doctor. Nor did she ever write it on the form under the section where you are supposed to list the drugs you are taking that you presume are legitimate.
The only reasonable conclusion is that she was taking it for performance enhancing reasons, and even if she thought it was technically legal, she knew it was morally murky.”
“She's bound to get a reduction, because that's what CAS always does. However, they can't get away from the fact that Sharapova was apparently taking medication for a heart problem, and chose not to tell her physio, trainer, nutritionist, coach or her official doctor. Nor did she ever write it on the form under the section where you are supposed to list the drugs you are taking that you presume are legitimate.
The only reasonable conclusion is that she was taking it for performance enhancing reasons, and even if she thought it was technically legal, she knew it was morally murky.”
My feelings on the matter too. The whole excusing it away as medical was frankly, ridiculous.
I think she will get some sort of a reduction, but hope she doesn't, her time actually fits what the criteria says. She did take it deliberately, no matter if she was ignorant of the rules or not and she admitted to taking for the month of January when it was a banned substance.
On another note, my god what have they done to the AO sign? It's awful!
Originally Posted by *Sparkle*:
“She's bound to get a reduction, because that's what CAS always does. However, they can't get away from the fact that Sharapova was apparently taking medication for a heart problem, and chose not to tell her physio, trainer, nutritionist, coach or her official doctor. Nor did she ever write it on the form under the section where you are supposed to list the drugs you are taking that you presume are legitimate.
The only reasonable conclusion is that she was taking it for performance enhancing reasons, and even if she thought it was technically legal, she knew it was morally murky.”
“She's bound to get a reduction, because that's what CAS always does. However, they can't get away from the fact that Sharapova was apparently taking medication for a heart problem, and chose not to tell her physio, trainer, nutritionist, coach or her official doctor. Nor did she ever write it on the form under the section where you are supposed to list the drugs you are taking that you presume are legitimate.
The only reasonable conclusion is that she was taking it for performance enhancing reasons, and even if she thought it was technically legal, she knew it was morally murky.”
That's just nonsense though, "technically legal" is just legal. Honestly ITF going after her for taking a legal drug is bizarre, and telling us that she took it for years, could only be relevant if they release every other tennis players "legal" medications.
She took an illegal substance which has no proven Ped use for 3 weeks, a year would have been perfectly sufficient, and certainly much harsher than practically every other drug offence from them. Strycova, Gasquet, Cilic, so on. She's been making an example of, if you never liked her you are obviously are saying it's justified, but it really isn't, it has no precedents.
A year is a big ban, and an huge part of her career, she also has the taint of drug cheat forever,surely that's your pound of flesh for a drug that is over the counter in Eastern Europe.
Originally Posted by seansnotmyname@:
“That's just nonsense though, "technically legal" is just legal. Honestly ITF going after her for taking a legal drug is bizarre, and telling us that she took it for years, could only be relevant if they release every other tennis players "legal" medications.
She took an illegal substance which has no proven Ped use for 3 weeks, a year would have been perfectly sufficient, and certainly much harsher than practically every other drug offence from them. Strycova, Gasquet, Cilic, so on. She's been making an example of, if you never liked her you are obviously are saying it's justified, but it really isn't, it has no precedents.
A year is a big ban, and an huge part of her career, she also has the taint of drug cheat forever,surely that's your pound of flesh for a drug that is over the counter in Eastern Europe.”
“That's just nonsense though, "technically legal" is just legal. Honestly ITF going after her for taking a legal drug is bizarre, and telling us that she took it for years, could only be relevant if they release every other tennis players "legal" medications.
She took an illegal substance which has no proven Ped use for 3 weeks, a year would have been perfectly sufficient, and certainly much harsher than practically every other drug offence from them. Strycova, Gasquet, Cilic, so on. She's been making an example of, if you never liked her you are obviously are saying it's justified, but it really isn't, it has no precedents.
A year is a big ban, and an huge part of her career, she also has the taint of drug cheat forever,surely that's your pound of flesh for a drug that is over the counter in Eastern Europe.”
I did like Maria and I think she deserves two years under the guidelines. It states she was negligent herself, which she was, she even admitted to it herself in her big production piece. Two years mean she held significant fault but no intention of cheating. Realistically, it sounds right.
It may or may not be proven, but what it does as medication, is obviously performance enhancing. It doesn't matter either, it is banned now, it is an illegal substance and she was warned about it a few times over and every Russian athlete was warned by Russia too.
Originally Posted by amelia_lee:
“I did like Maria and I think she deserves two years under the guidelines. It states she was negligent herself, which she was, she even admitted to it herself in her big production piece. Two years mean she held significant fault but no intention of cheating. Realistically, it sounds right.
It may or may not be proven, but what it does as medication, is obviously performance enhancing. It doesn't matter either, it is banned now, it is an illegal substance and she was warned about it a few times over and every Russian athlete was warned by Russia too.”
“I did like Maria and I think she deserves two years under the guidelines. It states she was negligent herself, which she was, she even admitted to it herself in her big production piece. Two years mean she held significant fault but no intention of cheating. Realistically, it sounds right.
It may or may not be proven, but what it does as medication, is obviously performance enhancing. It doesn't matter either, it is banned now, it is an illegal substance and she was warned about it a few times over and every Russian athlete was warned by Russia too.”
Yes, but what about the others that have got lesser sentence. Hows that realistic if it's not been done before?
It has had constant tests by WADA, they've never found anything they could call performance enhancing it is a drug that is used to prevent heart conditions in the future, this nonsense about it being for a weak heart is a media contrivance based on claims by the manufacturer. many years ago.
The tribunal said that it was an over-sight from her, they didn't say it was deliberate.
Look she did something extremely negligent, but two years seems incredibly harsh and unprecedented to me. and political to me, if WADA wasn't going after Russians, doubt Meldonium would have even been banned with no evidence other then a lot of people wer taking it.
Originally Posted by amelia_lee:
“On another note, my god what have they done to the AO sign? It's awful!”
“On another note, my god what have they done to the AO sign? It's awful!”
They're just messing about until the proper reveal of the new logo next week.
https://twitter.com/AustralianOpen/s...02472675213312
Originally Posted by Lisa.B:
“They're just messing about until the proper reveal of the new logo next week.
https://twitter.com/AustralianOpen/s...02472675213312”
“They're just messing about until the proper reveal of the new logo next week.
https://twitter.com/AustralianOpen/s...02472675213312”
Oh good, that's a relief, that was god awful! I'll miss the old SE one though, I wonder what they've come up with?
Originally Posted by Lisa.B:
“Hopefully a reduction of some sort, Lepchenko tested positive 4 times and still had her silent ban quashed.”
“Hopefully a reduction of some sort, Lepchenko tested positive 4 times and still had her silent ban quashed.”
The fact that Lepchenko has literally suffered zero backlash has just astonished me tbh. I mean, are people not aware that this is the exact same thing Sharapova was taking? I know it was proved that she stopped taking it before 2016, but she was obviously taking it for performance enhancing purposes too, so why no backlash? Sharapova's a big doper and her whole career is a lie because she took meldonium for three weeks longer than Lepchenko did? It's a bit baffling to me tbh.
Originally Posted by amelia_lee:
“My feelings on the matter too. The whole excusing it away as medical was frankly, ridiculous.
I think she will get some sort of a reduction, but hope she doesn't, her time actually fits what the criteria says. She did take it deliberately, no matter if she was ignorant of the rules or not and she admitted to taking for the month of January when it was a banned substance.
On another note, my god what have they done to the AO sign? It's awful!”
“My feelings on the matter too. The whole excusing it away as medical was frankly, ridiculous.
I think she will get some sort of a reduction, but hope she doesn't, her time actually fits what the criteria says. She did take it deliberately, no matter if she was ignorant of the rules or not and she admitted to taking for the month of January when it was a banned substance.
On another note, my god what have they done to the AO sign? It's awful!”
Presumably you feel the same about Lepchenko then?
Originally Posted by seansnotmyname@:
“Yes, but what about the others that have got lesser sentence. Hows that realistic if it's not been done before?
It has had constant tests by WADA, they've never found anything they could call performance enhancing it is a drug that is used to prevent heart conditions in the future, this nonsense about it being for a weak heart is a media contrivance based on claims by the manufacturer. many years ago.
The tribunal said that it was an over-sight from her, they didn't say it was deliberate.
Look she did something extremely negligent, but two years seems incredibly harsh and unprecedented to me. and political to me, if WADA wasn't going after Russians, doubt Meldonium would have even been banned with no evidence other then a lot of people wer taking it.”
“Yes, but what about the others that have got lesser sentence. Hows that realistic if it's not been done before?
It has had constant tests by WADA, they've never found anything they could call performance enhancing it is a drug that is used to prevent heart conditions in the future, this nonsense about it being for a weak heart is a media contrivance based on claims by the manufacturer. many years ago.
The tribunal said that it was an over-sight from her, they didn't say it was deliberate.
Look she did something extremely negligent, but two years seems incredibly harsh and unprecedented to me. and political to me, if WADA wasn't going after Russians, doubt Meldonium would have even been banned with no evidence other then a lot of people wer taking it.”
I've never been a fan of the whole "anti-Russian propaganda!!1!" thing that gets bandied about online a lot, but it's impossible to rule it out either. Would this have really happened to Sharapova if she'd been playing for the US? Doubt it.
I'll be very disappointed if Petra makes it to Singapore from nowhere, she doesn't deserve to be there. And she's got previous form in Beijing so it's a possibility. At least Cibulkova will likely make it 
291 of 419
