• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • Entertainment
  • Sport
The Tennis Thread (Part 31)
<<
<
292 of 420
>>
>
Jenny1986
01-10-2016
Originally Posted by Irishguy123:
“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.

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.”

The Lepchenko thing does make me think they chose to make an example of Sharapova, I think they went after her for 3 reasons.

1. Her profile in the sport, and sport in general.
2. She has 5 slams, so use of meldonium is treated harshly because it may have contributed to her success. People care more about Sharapova because they have actually heard of her for a start. People like Lepchenko can be ignored because they aren't any where near as successful.
3. That ridiculous press conference!

Meldonium use goes far beyond Maria, yet nobody seems interested in them. Thats my issue with the ban, why Maria? Why just her? If they were going to come down hard on the players caught using it, they should have punished them all.
Jenny1986
01-10-2016
Its a shame BT Sport aren't showing the tennis at the moment. It would have been nice to see Garbine actually winning a match.
CLL Dodge
01-10-2016
Originally Posted by Jenny1986:
“Its a shame BT Sport aren't showing the tennis at the moment. It would have been nice to see Garbine actually winning a match.”

Even Lisicki won a match.

Strange tournament.
amelia_lee
01-10-2016
IG, sorry short on time, but yes, I do feel exactly the same about what Lepchenko did with the 'legal doping'.
amelia_lee
01-10-2016
Originally Posted by Irishguy123:
“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 ”

Isn't it just that if you qualify, you deserve to be there?

I mean it's not uncommon for people to cram their schedules on both sides in an effort to try to make it. If your points get you there, you deserve it.
seansnotmyname@
01-10-2016
Originally Posted by amelia_lee:
“IG, sorry short on time, but yes, I do feel exactly the same about what Lepchenko did with the 'legal doping'.”


I just don't get this, it was legal,everyone takes drugs that are legal. You can't just say that any drug is doping, caffeine has been on the WADA watchlist for years. More evidence that causes a Performance Enhancing effect then Meldonium, where again WADA have admitted the only reason they put it on the list ,despite the drug being on the watchlist for years and being around since the 70s, is a lot of people (Russians) were taking it.

TUE's, Barometrics, Eggs, all Performance enhancing, but all legal.
Lisa.B
01-10-2016
Meh you can be banned twice and somehow be completely exonerated... *cough*Yulia Efimova*cough* and she's now in full 'I'm an innocent victim honest' mode.

According to the CAS if you get caught and lie about it, not to worry, a slap on the wrist and on your merry way. If you jump before you're pushed and admit you screwed up you get punished even more for it? At least be consistent about it.

Anyway on a lighter note, this gif from the Satan v Satan match today amused me.
amelia_lee
01-10-2016
Originally Posted by seansnotmyname@:
“I just don't get this, it was legal,everyone takes drugs that are legal. You can't just say that any drug is doping, caffeine has been on the WADA watchlist for years. More evidence that causes a Performance Enhancing effect then Meldonium, where again WADA have admitted the only reason they put it on the list ,despite the drug being on the watchlist for years and being around since the 70s, is a lot of people (Russians) were taking it.

TUE's, Barometrics, Eggs, all Performance enhancing, but all legal.”

That's fine, I don't get the opposite.

I agree with Andy, an athlete shouldn't be using heavy duty heart meds off the court. Everyone may take drugs that are legal like paracetamol, but this is more then that.
She clearly has no heart issues, or any of the other nonsense she came up with, she was not only taking these, but a lot of other drugs too.

If a lot of athletes are taking them, then there is a reason and it's not that they all have dodgy hearts, it's because it's performance enhancing and it was technically legal to take. There's no way so many athletes across all sports are all in congestive heart failure. Doesn't that just prove that it has been used for a PED? If a huge volume of people are taking it?

It doesn't matter anyway, because she legally doped for years, but also illegally used them too, so a doper in every sense of the word.


I don't agree with the overuse of TUE's either. As a lifelong asthmatic (mild but it can flare up to be quite bad), there is just no way someone suffering from such severe asthma that it needs such heavy doses of drugs injected into the muscle can win the tour so easily without any evidence of the disease. If it's that bad for such intervention, sport is out of the question from having my own and people around me's experience. But that's another issue and another sport.
seansnotmyname@
01-10-2016
Originally Posted by amelia_lee:
“That's fine, I don't get the opposite.

I agree with Andy, an athlete shouldn't be using heavy duty heart meds off the court. Everyone may take drugs that are legal like paracetamol, but this is more then that.
She clearly has no heart issues, or any of the other nonsense she came up with, she was not only taking these, but a lot of other drugs too.

If a lot of athletes are taking them, then there is a reason and it's not that they all have dodgy hearts, it's because it's performance enhancing and it was technically legal to take. There's no way so many athletes across all sports are all in congestive heart failure. Doesn't that just prove that it has been used for a PED? If a huge volume of people are taking it?


It doesn't matter anyway, because she legally doped for years, but also illegally used them too, so a doper in every sense of the word.


I don't agree with the overuse of TUE's either. As a lifelong asthmatic (mild but it can flare up to be quite bad), there is just no way someone suffering from such severe asthma that it needs such heavy doses of drugs injected into the muscle can win the tour so easily without any evidence of the disease. If it's that bad for such intervention, sport is out of the question from having my own and people around me's experience. But that's another issue and another sport.”

It's not an heavy duty heart med, it's a preventative drug against heart problems in the future, which is why all those Russians took it. Andy and you rather believing the hype. Maria never said she had serious heart problems. It doesn't prove it's a PED at all just it's a common preventative drug. Show me where she said she had congestive heart problems?

It does matter when you're throwing silly terms like "doper" around when she did something legal for the most part. She used a drug with no proven Performing-enhancing attributes for one Tournament, as an oversight, she admitted that, 2 years is ridiculously harsh IMHO.
amelia_lee
01-10-2016
Originally Posted by seansnotmyname@:
“It's not an heavy duty heart med, it's a preventative drug against heart problems in the future, which is why all those Russians took it. Andy and you rather believing the hype. Maria never said she had serious heart problems. It doesn't prove it's a PED at all just it's a common preventative drug. Show me where she said she had congestive heart problems?

It does matter when you're throwing silly terms like "doper" around when she did something legal for the most part. She used a drug with no proven Performing-enhancing attributes for one Tournament, as an oversight, she admitted that, 2 years is ridiculously harsh IMHO.”

Actually, the real use is for heavy duty heart problems. People who can barely walk because of cogestive heart failure use this drug. It isn't just a preventative against heart problems. Is there such a med? To prevent heart problems, a good diet and exercise are usually prescribed. That is NOT why all of those Russians were taking it.

She said she had heart issues, she said that in her big production. I am not 'believing the hype', perhaps you have rose tinted glasses on or buying into the Sharapova/Russian hype? Because this drug was never for healthy people to take as a preventative.

Actually, she will always be a 'doper' I am not throwing it around, she has been proven so. It's not a 'silly term', it's what she has been proven to be and will always be. A doper.
She took the drug illegally, it doesn't matter about the time it was legal, it wasn't when had it in her sample and was found guilty of it, that equates to doping.

Her ban actually fits the time frame of what they give out. It states that she was negligent, which she admitted to, but didn't intentionally do it. That fits with everything she said. She admitted negligence, that's a two year ban.

There has been proof of it being performance enhancing in some studies. It is commonly used in non professional sport too as a PED.
A drug which increases the blood and oxygen flow throughout the body, is of course going to benefit any athlete. But, yeah, I'm sure they were all just protecting their hearts.
amelia_lee
01-10-2016
Also, just to add, that is exactly how WADA detect doping, when an abnormal amount of athletes are taking something that isn't banned.
seansnotmyname@
01-10-2016
Anyway I guess we've all made up our minds now and unlikely to change, it's just not as clear-cut as some like to suggest for an easier narrative. I'll admit to being utterly biased too.

Anyway, on a lighter note, Kris Pliskova showing the plis-bot meme utterly wrong with her beaming smile after winning her first WTA title.
seansnotmyname@
01-10-2016
Originally Posted by amelia_lee:
“Actually, the real use is for heavy duty heart problems. People who can barely walk because of cogestive heart failure use this drug. It isn't just a preventative against heart problems. Is there such a med? To prevent heart problems, a good diet and exercise are usually prescribed. That is NOT why all of those Russians were taking it.

She said she had heart issues, she said that in her big production. I am not 'believing the hype', perhaps you have rose tinted glasses on or buying into the Sharapova/Russian hype? Because this drug was never for healthy people to take as a preventative.

Actually, she will always be a 'doper' I am not throwing it around, she has been proven so. It's not a 'silly term', it's what she has been proven to be and will always be. A doper.
She took the drug illegally, it doesn't matter about the time it was legal, it wasn't when had it in her sample and was found guilty of it, that equates to doping.

Her ban actually fits the time frame of what they give out. It states that she was negligent, which she admitted to, but didn't intentionally do it. That fits with everything she said. She admitted negligence, that's a two year ban.

There has been proof of it being performance enhancing in some studies. It is commonly used in non professional sport too as a PED.
A drug which increases the blood and oxygen flow throughout the body, is of course going to benefit any athlete. But, yeah, I'm sure they were all just protecting their hearts.”

None of the science in which you've said is true, it just isn't. certainly the studies bit at the end, which is definitively not true. She said she had heart issues in her family, she never said the stuff about having congestive heart failure because that's not why she took it. Keeping on stating it as fact because of claims by it's owners when trying to flog it, which they've backtracked on, isn't fact.

Oh and of course their are literally 10,000s of preventative medications taking for further prevention, statins quite a common one, so that's an odd argument. Athletes do a lot of things ailing people do because of the stresses they put on themselves.

Yes WADA have their own rules to ban things, and fair enough they're giving largesse, but they've admitted themselves they have found no proof of it doing anything like improving blood and oxygen flow. This despite extensive testing.

When has negligence been a two-year ban in tennis recently, wasn't with countless others, Gasquet, Cilic, Strycova, it's harsh of course it's harsh.

Was agassi a doper BTW?
Jenny1986
01-10-2016
I think 2 years is harsh considering things like this...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/36726142

People could have low traces of Meldonium in their samples up to September this year and not face a ban. Because WADA don't know how long it takes to leave the system, so people could have continued to take it and got away with it. Yet Sharapova gets 2 years, which I find odd considering their lax treatment of everybody else and their flimsy science to back it up.

On the drug itself, this is my understanding of it.

Quote:
“Meldonium is currently claimed to be a relatively safe agent in patients needing anti-ischaemic therapy, but there is no compelling evidence that it may be effective in improving athletic performance, nor that its administration may be safe in healthy subjects. Therefore, action should be taken to prevent the misuse of meldonium and to identify athletes who may jeopardize their health by attempting to artificially enhance performance.”

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...95254616300473
CLL Dodge
01-10-2016
Originally Posted by seansnotmyname@:
“Anyway, on a lighter note, Kris Pliskova showing the plis-bot meme utterly wrong with her beaming smile after winning her first WTA title.”

Naff trophy, naff costume, flowers wrapped in an old sack, deserted court.

Plenty to smile about.
Jenny1986
01-10-2016
Originally Posted by CLL Dodge:
“Naff trophy, naff costume, flowers wrapped in an old sack, deserted court.

Plenty to smile about.”

Its like the human version of Buckaroo, they are trying to see how much crap they can put on her before she flips out.
tartan-belle
01-10-2016
Originally Posted by Jenny1986:
“Its like the human version of Buckaroo, they are trying to see how much crap they can put on her before she flips out.”

dduk
01-10-2016
I'm guessing around a 7:30am start for Jo Konta, would that be about right? I'm sure she can get past the first round. I hope BT Sport have more court coverage in Beijing, as Jo is not on the main court.
CLL Dodge
02-10-2016
Easy for Konta.
tartan-belle
02-10-2016
Originally Posted by CLL Dodge:
“Easy for Konta.”

She didn't hang around, did she?

Kyle through to MD, great stuff.
Jaccobabe
02-10-2016
Originally Posted by vaslav37:
“Not sure if it has been posted but Kimiko Date-Krumm announces divorce from Husband Michael Krumm.

I wonder if Kimiko is still planning a return to Tennis?”

Interesting
Jaccobabe
02-10-2016
Went to qualifying in Tokyo yesterday. Youzhny lost quite easily to Ebden. Had loads of chances and the match was much closer than 62 62 suggests.

Stepanek looked great against watanuki. Watanuki very young, very talented. Could easily be top 10 but you really never know.

Very bad loss for Evans against unknown Japanese
dduk
02-10-2016
Originally Posted by CLL Dodge:
“Easy for Konta.”

Just a same she couldn't beat her at the US Open.
*Sparkle*
02-10-2016
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.”

You can't have it both ways. If being 'technically legal' prior to January this year is simply legal, then being 'only just banned' since January is simply banned.

The history of her taking the drug is relevant to her own public statement that it was to deal with an ongoing medical issue. She made this claim in the hope of gaining public sympathy, but very basic investigation revealed that her own team and current medical staff didn't know about it. The other big problem, and actual breach of the rules was her failure to list the drug on her forms. Players are required to list all supplements and drugs they are taking, which applies to all of the legal ones, whenever they provide a sample. Sharapova chose not to do this.

I've no idea how diligent the other players are when it comes to filling in that portion of the form, but her failure to mention she was taking a legal prescription drug adds to body of evidence that she was taking it for performance enhancing reasons. The fact it was technically/actually legal for her to take it last year is irrelevant to her failures this year.

Without knowing the defence presented by other athletes taking the substance, it's impossible to compare. They might be able to claim they were taking it in high doses up to 31st December, and that's why it was still in their system several weeks later. Sharapova didn't come up with that excuse.

If I got done for speeding, getting a fine and penalty points after admitting to the offence, there's not much point in me whining that some other person got off with it on a technicality, so I should too.
seansnotmyname@
02-10-2016
Originally Posted by *Sparkle*:
“You can't have it both ways. If being 'technically legal' prior to January this year is simply legal, then being 'only just banned' since January is simply banned.

The history of her taking the drug is relevant to her own public statement that it was to deal with an ongoing medical issue. She made this claim in the hope of gaining public sympathy, but very basic investigation revealed that her own team and current medical staff didn't know about it. The other big problem, and actual breach of the rules was her failure to list the drug on her forms. Players are required to list all supplements and drugs they are taking, which applies to all of the legal ones, whenever they provide a sample. Sharapova chose not to do this.

I've no idea how diligent the other players are when it comes to filling in that portion of the form, but her failure to mention she was taking a legal prescription drug adds to body of evidence that she was taking it for performance enhancing reasons. The fact it was technically/actually legal for her to take it last year is irrelevant to her failures this year.

Without knowing the defence presented by other athletes taking the substance, it's impossible to compare. They might be able to claim they were taking it in high doses up to 31st December, and that's why it was still in their system several weeks later. Sharapova didn't come up with that excuse.

If I got done for speeding, getting a fine and penalty points after admitting to the offence, there's not much point in me whining that some other person got off with it on a technicality, so I should too.”

Indeed, I've no problem with it being banned now and legal before. Hence why I find all this talk of her hiding it beforehand silly, and irrelevant, because there was no reason to hide it.

EDIT, BTW I do know her reputation has quite rightly been tarnished forever, but I still feel considering the bans for others it's an harsh penalty. I am in no way saying she's blameless.
<<
<
292 of 420
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map