Seeker
Sophomore
@seeker
Posts: 606
Likes: 252
|
Post by Seeker on May 9, 2017 2:21:29 GMT
Maria Sharapova was defeated by Canadian Eugenie Bouchard today at her second tournament back since her ban was lifted. Bouchard is known as a particularly vocal critic of Sharapova's since she has been allowed to return. www.cbc.ca/sports/tennis/bouchard-sharapova-madrid-open-second-round-1.4104682It looks like most of the controversy is not only that she has been allowed to return, but that she has already benefited from wildcard entries instead of having to go through qualifying rounds. I don't know if the French Open and Wimbledon have yet announced how they will handle this issue, but many players are most outraged about her wildcard entries. I was curious about how some of you sports fans felt about this issue. (It should be noted that my link doesn't cover the specific circumstances of her ban and the lifting of it. It is not necessarily the most black-and-white case of cheating/doping, which has further muddied the waters when it comes to Sharapova.)
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on May 9, 2017 19:28:56 GMT
As much as I hate her (because of her shrieking, mainly), she has done her time and I see no reason she shouldn't be allowed back.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2017 19:57:33 GMT
Either you get serious about drug cheats and hand them all lifetime bans, or you don't bother at all and legalise all drugs. At the moment the risk/reward ratio for drug cheats is too good, even if you get caught, you will probably just get a ban for 12-24 months and then you can come back. That will not do.
As for it not being a black and white issue with Sharapova, I disagree, she was guzzling performance enhancing drugs down her gullet for 10 fucking years! Then she lied about having these phantom ailments. So maybe she didn't realise one of these drugs were illegal, she still concealed the fact she was taking them to the authorities prior to their ban, so she knew what she was doing was dubious at best. Lifetime ban, no exceptions.
It's not like cheating during a game of football, where you might make the decision in the spur of the moment, when you take PEDs you are making a concious decision well in advance to defraud the authorities, the fans and your opponents out of a fair game and money.
|
|
|
Post by NewtJorden on May 10, 2017 0:27:21 GMT
As much as I hate her (because of her shrieking, mainly), she has done her time and I see no reason she shouldn't be allowed back.Yeah, i agree
|
|
Seeker
Sophomore
@seeker
Posts: 606
Likes: 252
|
Post by Seeker on May 10, 2017 4:28:00 GMT
Either you get serious about drug cheats and hand them all lifetime bans, or you don't bother at all and legalise all drugs. At the moment the risk/reward ratio for drug cheats is too good, even if you get caught, you will probably just get a ban for 12-24 months and then you can come back. That will not do. As for it not being a black and white issue with Sharapova, I disagree, she was guzzling performance enhancing drugs down her gullet for 10 fucking years! Then she lied about having these phantom ailments. So maybe she didn't realise one of these drugs were illegal, she still concealed the fact she was taking them to the authorities prior to their ban, so she knew what she was doing was dubious at best. Lifetime ban, no exceptions. It's not like cheating during a game of football, where you might make the decision in the spur of the moment, when you take PEDs you are making a concious decision well in advance to defraud the authorities, the fans and your opponents out of a fair game and money. Let me begin by saying that I share your frustration over how professional sports deal with the problem of PED cheaters, as do most sports fans I know and encounter. However, I do think that rigorous bans are a good start. In Sharapova's case, her suspension was overturned after some months, if I recall correctly. When I mentioned that her case was not as black-and-white as others, I recall it happening somewhat like this: she had long been prescribed meldonium (which had been controversial for some time, but was not yet on the rules-violation list for tennis, and was in her case prescribed by a doctor - whether ethically or not, I cannot say) for a period of many years, perhaps most of her professional career. At the beginning of the year, meldonium was to become officially disallowed in professional tennis, and Sharapova was notified by a standard email. She claimed not to have read the email and tested positive for the drug during the Aussie Open. Tennis in general has been known for particularly long and strict bans for PED violations. As far as I know, a compelling case needs to be presented to get a ban overturned or shortened. I know of one other case where a ban was overturned and it seemed at the time the player had some grounds for refutation, but I personally do not know how common it is. Meldonium has long been popular among eastern European (particularly Russian) athletes, but in some cases is prescribed. I hope I have these facts straight - most of what I've explained here depends on my accurate recall of what I've read in the past.
|
|
|
Post by Carl LaFong on May 10, 2017 8:58:23 GMT
Should have been banned for shrieking when she started on the tour.
I'm serious.
If a life ban was possible because of her drug infraction I'd have been right behind it.
|
|
|
Post by OrsonSwelles on May 10, 2017 10:18:30 GMT
As much as I hate her (because of her shrieking, mainly), she has done her time and I see no reason she shouldn't be allowed back. Her time wasn't long enough.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2017 22:58:45 GMT
I hope I have these facts straight - most of what I've explained here depends on my accurate recall of what I've read in the past. Well I would add a couple of things. In January 2016 she took a banned substance, absolutely no doubt about. Then in the press conference after the failed test, she attempted to take control of the situation by telling the world a pack of lies. She "claimed" she needed this drug for a medical condition, yet if this was true she could have applied for a retrospective exemption and avoided a ban altogether. She "claimed" she was prescribed this drug by her family doctor, yet this drug is only prescribed in Russia and a few Baltic countries. She's lived in America since she was a child. So why should we believe her when she says she didn't get or open the emails, when lying is 2nd nature to her? Actually, I do believe her when she says she didn't know the drug was on the banned list, but for me, it makes no difference, whether it was stupidity, recklessness, ignorance or whatever other reason that caused her to take a banned substance, the fact remains she did take a banned substance. Life time ban, no exceptions.
|
|
Seeker
Sophomore
@seeker
Posts: 606
Likes: 252
|
Post by Seeker on May 10, 2017 23:07:26 GMT
I hope I have these facts straight - most of what I've explained here depends on my accurate recall of what I've read in the past. Well I would add a couple of things. In January 2016 she took a banned substance, absolutely no doubt about. Then in the press conference after the failed test, she attempted to take control of the situation by telling the world a pack of lies. She "claimed" she needed this drug for a medical condition, yet if this was true she could have applied for a retrospective exemption and avoided a ban altogether. She "claimed" she was prescribed this drug by her family doctor, yet this drug is only prescribed in Russia and a few Baltic countries. She's lived in America since she was a child. So why should we believe her when she says she didn't get or open the emails, when lying is 2nd nature to her? Actually, I do believe her when she says she didn't know the drug was on the banned list, but for me, it makes no difference, whether it was stupidity, recklessness, ignorance or whatever other reason that caused her to take a banned substance, the fact remains she did take a banned substance. Life time ban, no exceptions. I think most of what you wrote is more or less consistent with what I recall and tried to explain, although I didn't get into contemplating whether or not she was truthful in my posts. Certainly I agree strongly with your words I chose to highlight. That said, I am still formulating my views on whether a lifetime ban is appropriate for PED offenses (not only in Sharapova's case, but across sports), or if rigorous bans for over a season might suffice. The controversy over Sharapova in the present has focused on whether or not she is at all deserving of a wildcard spot rather than having to play through qualifying rounds. I think I have a good guess where you stand on that. Also, thanks for the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by marco26 on May 10, 2017 23:10:09 GMT
Here's a take no one has taken. I have a 147 IQ so I see things far better than others.
No, she should not be admitted into these tournaments without qualifying. And here's where it gets very uplifting for us sports fans: the players also feel that way and have vocalized their disapproval over the fact that Sharapova got a pass into these tournaments. Why is that good? Because this is really the first time in any of the major sports that the athletes themselves are calling out a fellow competitor as a cheater. Baseball? To a man every single fucking player was silent. No non-user called Bonds or Clemens or any of the roid users cheaters and scum bags. They were cowards. These girls in the tennis world have more balls than any athlete in any other sport. They have flat out called Sharapova a cheater and are angered over her kid gloves treatment upon her return. Good for them. Baseball players, bike riders were silent cowards...and it destroyed their sport.
And, yes, I know why they were silent -- they or their teammates were users, too. But someone in those sports was clean...and yet they didn't have the balls to speak up. These tennis girls do. Good for them.
|
|
Seeker
Sophomore
@seeker
Posts: 606
Likes: 252
|
Post by Seeker on May 10, 2017 23:16:30 GMT
Here's a take no one has taken. I have a 147 IQ so I see things far better than others. No, she should not be admitted into these tournaments without qualifying. And here's where it gets very uplifting for us sports fans: the players also feel that way and have vocalized their disapproval over the fact that Sharapova got a pass into these tournaments. Why is that good? Because this is really the first time in any of the major sports that the athletes themselves are calling out a fellow competitor as a cheater. Baseball? To a man every single fucking player was silent. No non-user called Bonds or Clemens or any of the roid users cheaters and scum bags. They were cowards. These girls in the tennis world have more balls than any athlete in any other sport. They have flat out called Sharapova a cheater and are angered over her kid gloves treatment upon her return. Good for them. Baseball players, bike riders were silent cowards...and it destroyed their sport. And, yes, I know why they were silent -- they or their teammates were users, too. But someone in those sports was clean...and yet they didn't have the balls to speak up. These tennis girls do. Good for them. Thank you - I meant to mention at some point the stiff criticism from her colleagues. It's sort of why I framed the OP within the context of Bouchard's position. And you're right, it has been pretty much categorical and somewhat unique among PED scandals I recall across different sports. For the record, it's not just the women, but also many of the men in the sport who have been vocal. I think Serena made some sympathetic remarks (perhaps ironically, given their past history), but that's about it. Her longtime friend Djokovic seemed somewhat kind/sympathetic when he was asked, but was specific that she should pay the price for breaking the rules.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2017 23:23:16 GMT
Well I would add a couple of things. In January 2016 she took a banned substance, absolutely no doubt about. Then in the press conference after the failed test, she attempted to take control of the situation by telling the world a pack of lies. She "claimed" she needed this drug for a medical condition, yet if this was true she could have applied for a retrospective exemption and avoided a ban altogether. She "claimed" she was prescribed this drug by her family doctor, yet this drug is only prescribed in Russia and a few Baltic countries. She's lived in America since she was a child. So why should we believe her when she says she didn't get or open the emails, when lying is 2nd nature to her? Actually, I do believe her when she says she didn't know the drug was on the banned list, but for me, it makes no difference, whether it was stupidity, recklessness, ignorance or whatever other reason that caused her to take a banned substance, the fact remains she did take a banned substance. Life time ban, no exceptions. I think most of what you wrote is more or less consistent with what I recall and tried to explain, although I didn't get into contemplating whether or not she was truthful in my posts. Certainly I agree strongly with your words I chose to highlight. That said, I am still formulating my views on whether a lifetime ban is appropriate for PED offenses (not only in Sharapova's case, but across sports), or if rigorous bans for over a season might suffice. The controversy over Sharapova in the present has focused on whether or not she is at all deserving of a wildcard spot rather than having to play through qualifying rounds. I think I have a good guess where you stand on that. Also, thanks for the discussion. Another thing to add, not related directly to Sharapova, but we have a crazy situation now in sport where athletes are able to take banned substances as long as they get a note from their doctor. Clearly, this is open to so much abuse. My fellow countryman for example, the cyclist and Tour De France winner Sir Bradley Wiggins, it emerged (thanks to the Russian hackers) that he took a banned substance before 3 big races that is only supposed to be prescribed when you are having a severe asthma attack. Other cyclists have been banned for taking exactly the same substance. His response was "yeah, but when they took it they were gaining an unfair advantage". Come off it Bradley, so when you took it you were only gaining a fair advantage? These people are cheating, Wiggins is probably even worse than Sharapova, yet technically he didn't break any rules. That is mental!
|
|
|
Post by FrankSobotka1514 on May 10, 2017 23:27:19 GMT
Here's a take no one has taken. I have a 147 IQ so I see things far better than others. No, she should not be admitted into these tournaments without qualifying. And here's where it gets very uplifting for us sports fans: the players also feel that way and have vocalized their disapproval over the fact that Sharapova got a pass into these tournaments. Why is that good? Because this is really the first time in any of the major sports that the athletes themselves are calling out a fellow competitor as a cheater. Baseball? To a man every single fucking player was silent. No non-user called Bonds or Clemens or any of the roid users cheaters and scum bags. They were cowards. These girls in the tennis world have more balls than any athlete in any other sport. They have flat out called Sharapova a cheater and are angered over her kid gloves treatment upon her return. Good for them. Baseball players, bike riders were silent cowards...and it destroyed their sport. And, yes, I know why they were silent -- they or their teammates were users, too. But someone in those sports was clean...and yet they didn't have the balls to speak up. These tennis girls do. Good for them. I think there's been a few baseball players who have publicly spoken out against PED users. Not Bonds, Sosa, etc., but more recent ones. Of course I can't think of any specific examples off the top of my head, but I think I remember it happening a few times. I think Schilling might have spoken out against it as well.
|
|
Seeker
Sophomore
@seeker
Posts: 606
Likes: 252
|
Post by Seeker on May 10, 2017 23:27:26 GMT
I think most of what you wrote is more or less consistent with what I recall and tried to explain, although I didn't get into contemplating whether or not she was truthful in my posts. Certainly I agree strongly with your words I chose to highlight. That said, I am still formulating my views on whether a lifetime ban is appropriate for PED offenses (not only in Sharapova's case, but across sports), or if rigorous bans for over a season might suffice. The controversy over Sharapova in the present has focused on whether or not she is at all deserving of a wildcard spot rather than having to play through qualifying rounds. I think I have a good guess where you stand on that. Also, thanks for the discussion. Another thing to add, not related directly to Sharapova, but we have a crazy situation now in sport where athletes are able to take banned substances as long as they get a note from their doctor. Clearly, this is open to so much abuse.
My fellow countryman for example, the cyclist and Tour De France winner Sir Bradley Wiggins, it emerged (thanks to the Russian hackers) that he took a banned substance before 3 big races that is only supposed to be prescribed when you are having a severe asthma attack. Other cyclists have been banned for taking exactly the same substance. His response was "yeah, but when they took it they were gaining an unfair advantage". Come off it Bradley, so when you took it you were only gaining a fair advantage? These people are cheating, Wiggins is probably even worse than Sharapova, yet technically he didn't break any rules. That is mental! Oof, that really muddies the waters. As a sports fan, I often get so discouraged and disenchanted contemplating all the permutations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2017 23:27:32 GMT
Thank you - I meant to mention at some point the stiff criticism from her colleagues. It's sort of why I framed the OP within the context of Bouchard's position. And you're right, it has been pretty much categorical and somewhat unique among PED scandals I recall across different sports. For the record, it's not just the women, but also many of the men in the sport who have been vocal. I think Serena made some sympathetic remarks (perhaps ironically, given their past history), but that's about it. Her longtime friend Djokovic seemed somewhat kind/sympathetic when he was asked, but was specific that she should pay the price for breaking the rules. Sir Andy Murray famously said "I find it strange that all these athletes have severe health conditions". Best quote yet.
|
|
Seeker
Sophomore
@seeker
Posts: 606
Likes: 252
|
Post by Seeker on May 10, 2017 23:30:54 GMT
Here's a take no one has taken. I have a 147 IQ so I see things far better than others. No, she should not be admitted into these tournaments without qualifying. And here's where it gets very uplifting for us sports fans: the players also feel that way and have vocalized their disapproval over the fact that Sharapova got a pass into these tournaments. Why is that good? Because this is really the first time in any of the major sports that the athletes themselves are calling out a fellow competitor as a cheater. Baseball? To a man every single fucking player was silent. No non-user called Bonds or Clemens or any of the roid users cheaters and scum bags. They were cowards. These girls in the tennis world have more balls than any athlete in any other sport. They have flat out called Sharapova a cheater and are angered over her kid gloves treatment upon her return. Good for them. Baseball players, bike riders were silent cowards...and it destroyed their sport. And, yes, I know why they were silent -- they or their teammates were users, too. But someone in those sports was clean...and yet they didn't have the balls to speak up. These tennis girls do. Good for them. I think there's been a few baseball players who have publicly spoken out against PED users. Not Bonds, Sosa, etc., but more recent ones. Of course I can't think of any specific examples off the top of my head, but I think I remember it happening a few times. I think Schilling might have spoken out against it as well. Going OT here, but I love the reference in your avatar and display name. I just re-watched that season of The Wire the other week. It brought a lot of enjoyment to an otherwise very difficult time.
|
|
|
Post by marco26 on May 10, 2017 23:32:52 GMT
Here's a take no one has taken. I have a 147 IQ so I see things far better than others. No, she should not be admitted into these tournaments without qualifying. And here's where it gets very uplifting for us sports fans: the players also feel that way and have vocalized their disapproval over the fact that Sharapova got a pass into these tournaments. Why is that good? Because this is really the first time in any of the major sports that the athletes themselves are calling out a fellow competitor as a cheater. Baseball? To a man every single fucking player was silent. No non-user called Bonds or Clemens or any of the roid users cheaters and scum bags. They were cowards. These girls in the tennis world have more balls than any athlete in any other sport. They have flat out called Sharapova a cheater and are angered over her kid gloves treatment upon her return. Good for them. Baseball players, bike riders were silent cowards...and it destroyed their sport. And, yes, I know why they were silent -- they or their teammates were users, too. But someone in those sports was clean...and yet they didn't have the balls to speak up. These tennis girls do. Good for them. I think there's been a few baseball players who have publicly spoken out against PED users. Not Bonds, Sosa, etc., but more recent ones. Of course I can't think of any specific examples off the top of my head, but I think I remember it happening a few times. I think Schilling might have spoken out against it as well.No, not any active baseball player spoke out against the roid users. It was retired players - Canseco being number one - who did. As far as Schilling goes, his case typifies the cowardice from the clean athletes. Yes, I do recall Schilling writing a piece in 'Sports Illustrated' against roids. (Yet, he conveniently didn't name names.) Well, some would say at least he spoke out. But here's where it gets interesting. When Congress had those hearings, there was McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, Clemens all sitting there alongside Schilling. And what did Schilling do when it was his turn to talk? That fucking coward didn't say a thing. He clammed up. He looked at who was sitting next to him and just shut his cowardly mouth. True story.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2017 23:38:23 GMT
If the authorities want to get serious about cheats, then you have to give the heaviest possible penalty, life time bans.
I'd actually throw them in prison too for fraud, or at least give them hundreds of hours of community service. I don't know if you have an equivalent to that in America, you must do, when they have to clean litter off the streets or work in an asylum or something to repay your debt to society.
|
|
Seeker
Sophomore
@seeker
Posts: 606
Likes: 252
|
Post by Seeker on May 11, 2017 0:17:47 GMT
If the authorities want to get serious about cheats, then you have to give the heaviest possible penalty, life time bans. I'd actually throw them in prison too for fraud, or at least give them hundreds of hours of community service. I don't know if you have an equivalent to that in America, you must do, when they have to clean litter off the streets or work in an asylum or something to repay your debt to society. That would be a sight to behold, driving down the freeway and seeing Maria Sharapova, orange-vested and reflecting the sun in her 6'3" glory, picking up litter off the shoulder!
|
|
|
Post by Jayman on May 12, 2017 1:55:32 GMT
Admittedly I have not done much research in the specifics of her particular case involving the ban. That being said, when it comes to tennis, if you're a name and somebody that will bring more fans to the stadium then you get a wildcard. That's how it is. That's why you get maybe an aussie kid who has a low ranking but he gets the wild card because the people want to see a hometown kid break out. Nobody is getting a free ride with a wildcard. It gets their foot in the door, but from then on they have to earn it. If she plays well, she's going to be in the top 30 within 6-8 months anyways. It's not like they're taking somebody that's hovering around the top 300 for most of their career and giving them free rides in all the tournaments. She earned that right to a wildcard from being a top name and somebody that has previously won grand slams. Just like when we saw Kim clijsters come back after leaving the game. Her ranking was out of the top 200. She went deep and won a couple of events and she was top 20 in no time. I"m not arguing over whether or no she should be banned from the game. But she isn't, so she should get the wildcard. By having to go through the qualies, all that does is put off the inevitable. So it would take her an extra couple of months to be seeded in the big events.
|
|