Doping in tennis

First topic message reminder :

With recent cycling events, doping in sports has gained some cover page exposure. I would like to get a sense for how much posters here think doping in tennis is a problem. But in order to avoid the infighting that this topic often brings, as well as to stay away from accusations of this player or that one, I ask that you answer one simple question:

As your best guess, how many of the current ATP top 100 do you think use banned substances?

Giving one number is all it takes to answer.

socal1976 wrote:Again julius the only way you can attempt to win the argument is by pushing the example to the extreme. At the extremes of human behavior r***, incest, murder, pedophilia society of course establishes norms. But do you really equate lance armstrong morally with a murder? There is difference between what is moral and what is legal, and everything in life is a matter of degree. The debate here is about a very grey and fuzzy area. I mean lets go back to the performing enhancements that regular people use all the time that are not good for them. Are their no costs associated with those drugs that we deem legal?

socal, you seem to mistake levity for a serious attempt to win an argument. I admit, levity is difficult to pull off in the written form, so I won't accuse you of misrepresenting my position
The 'moral compass of mankind', for want of a better phrase, had decided that murder is wrong. It has also decided that cheating is wrong and that using unnatural/artificial means to win at sport is wrong and that allowing athletes to use any PED available is wrong.
I don't think removing all rules regarding PEDs, as chydremion suggests, is either morally correct, or good for the future of sport.

You think legalising PEDs won't lead to people being literally harmed?
Taking EPO or HGH isn't without risk.
This is where PED intake is nothing like eating.
Food ingestion is natural...PEDs are noxious unnatural chemicals with potential harmful side effects.

If everyone took PEDs then new entrants to sport would also have to take them, and keep taking them. Given EPOs increase clotting risk, enhance cancer growth and other effects it just isn't going to happen. Once an elite athlete died from OD or stroke their use would be shut down overnight.

Also, when would PED use start? When would players start doping...at 18, at 16, at 12...after all they'd have such great role models to follow right...legitimised cheaters, they'd be keen to start as soon as possible to emulate their heroes. Would a 12-16 year old be at more risk of PED side effects than a 21 yr old? Of course. So when would a 16 yr old be allowed to compete vs older PED legit taking athletes? You wouldn't see young athletes anymore at elite level...so when would the human rights of 16 yr olds to compete on a level playing field come into it if they were unable to take PEDs due to medical restriction?

Wow. Here I am asking a question thinking I will get a few numbers here and there but when I return we are building a brave new world.

Much as I dislike it, I think socal's line of reasoning has a way to sound quite persuasive to society. Luckily, I think in this particular case there is hope we will never get that far (though maybe not for the right reasons).

The main reason for that, to me, is seen in socal's claim that allowing PEDs with harmful side-effects is just like allowing any other drugs with harmful side-effects. This strikes me as patently wrong. An ordinary person taking a drug is making a decision that will have little impact on others. However, a player taking a dangerous PED can make it impossible for those who are not prepared to take the risk to win. What I expect would happen is that at a club/recreational level most people would not be willing to risk their health. However, at the top level there would be enough of those who would to make it pretty much a must for those who want to succeed.

You may say "so what?" but one thing that most sports strive to keep is the semblance of sameness between the recreational and professional games. No matter how illusory that semblance in practice, sports are typically reluctant to create visible distinctions between the two versions of the game. Therefore, I think tennis would not want to be officially known as the game that requires taking unhealthy substances to succeed.

Socal I disagree with you on this one.

SB has made a good point, if some are brave enough to risk their safety and dope, it will practically force anyone else who wants to succeed to do the same.

Summerblues the situation and dilemma you laid out already exists in cycling and track and field and for all we know in tennis. The player who believes others are cheating and who feels they need that edge to make a living and stay in the game, that sounds like what we have now in all major sports. The difference under my approach is that the athlete under my system would know that responsible authority has required testing of what he is going to ingest. That the bottle comes with a warning label, that he knows who produced said medication, the side effects are detailed for him. Th regulated business of manufacturing these drug would have to submit itself to all of the laws, rules, and liabilities that all other businesses have to deal with. They would have to disclose side effects on their bottle or in advertisements. Their drugs would have to be tested by outside authority before being approved. Additionally, that ingredients, proper dosage, and side effects like legal medication are right there on the bottle. Also if the player had medical issues with side effects he could more easily attain treatement or be given alternatives by trained physician to get off the drug in time. Right now the athletes a lot of them are self medicating, and when they do have bad side effects or ODs they may not get the right treatement or alternatives in time.

It is all cost benefit analysis for me. At the end of the day like the use of other drugs the light of day and good regulation might actually ameliorate a lot of the negative costs. What we do know is that these drugs are being used now, and that the current regime has not really worked. Also if we want to clean up the problem we have to get much more serious with it. And what that means is going after sporting heroes, tearing them down, and destroying their lives. We have to live in a perpetual state of witch hunt and scandal. Pretty soon it will be like the Red Scare or the inquisition where people will have to name names and be publically shamed. Do we all want to go through with that. Because to clean up sports that is what you would have to do, get right up in everyone's favorite sports hero's bum and stay there to the day the poor BasStard crokes forever examing his archive of urine and blood against newer and more precise testing mechanisms till the end of time, as more precise methods keep being found.

socal1976 wrote:I have a larger question here, should we consider legalization of PEDs as well as other drugs? I mean if it is nearly impossible and costly to enforce, and it creates this moral hazard for sports, I mean could we regulate PEDs ban the ones that have really damaging long term effects and just let the players use certain less harmful methods? I know people will think this is a crazy idea, but if my experience as a defense attorney has taught me anything is that prohibition of people's vices rarely works and at the end of the day regulation ends up being the best option. Now I know that at the extremes you can't just accept any type of perfidy of the human species, but aren't a great deal of things in the modern world performance enhancing drugs? If you get sick isn't an antibiotic a performanc enhancing drug? If you are tired isn't coffee a performance enhancing drug? Isn't viagra a performance enhancing drug? Should we take away grandpa's erections?

In short I am asking a larger philosophical question. The PED prohibition has not worked to keep it from happening and costs a great deal of money and damages the credibilty of sports and athletes. Should we just admit that the emperor has no clothes and offer him a towel?

No, I would not allow any PEDs as it confers an advantage to one prepared to take risks with their health. Plus they react differently with different people.

And I believe that for private use all drugs should be legal. I care not if someone chooses to fry their brains, and its nobody else's business if I wish to do so.

Yes BB they really shouldn't have been in a position to suspend and punish Gasquet for his coke abuse. They made everyone involved in the situation look stupid. Gasquet had to say "I kissed a girl" and got a contact high, the authorities had to pretend to accept his explanation and everyone else is left scratching their head. I am in agreement with you on he social drugs.

And on the PED issue my own mind is not really made up, good posts all around detailing the possible costs and pitfalls.

I do believe to really police the issue we are going to have to get a lot more aggressive and continually live in a scandal and disgrace cycle, which I find very tiring.

Chydremion wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:I try to get my kids to drink wine, but they don't like it.
You're right though - I prefer it if I'm watching sportsman who don't break the rules.
But if the rules changed to ones that I morally disagree with, with respect to what I believe sport should be about, then I would stop watching the sport - it would have no interest to me.

What do you believe sport is about? IMO public sports are about seeing who is the best, and witnessing freak performances.

Yes I agree that is why we watch sports for incredible feats of prowess. Damn straight I would tune in to watch athletes run sub 8 second 100 meters, even if I knew half the field was as dirty as week old underpants. I certainly don't watch sports for a reaffirmation of my own personal values or mores. Now of course I do care about the health of athletes but doesn't greatness always come with a steep price. Freakish talent and ability often comes from hardship and that extra sacrifice that no one else is willing to make. For example, do you think Andre Agassi enjoyed his sociopathic father and upbringing, but that is probably what made him as good as he was. I don't think it was the best thing for Novak's father for example to borrow money from loan sharks to train his son? Do you think Jockeys enjoy eating a celery stick and 5 kidney beans for dinner? Abusive disciplinarian fathers and eating disorders are also not good for you or your health, but it is the price of success. That is how the sausage of athletic greatness is created can the same thing not be said for PEDs? I mean none of the conduct I have entailed is morally great or the best idea for your health or well being but they all contribute to narrow success in sports.

I fear as the game becomes more about endurance that PEDs are inevitably going to grow in use. Some of the stuff we watch now is crazy.

There's no PED that old produce what McEnroe did;another reason why anything that tilts the game back to encouraging that is good by me.

Danny, I would tend to agree that we should tilt the balance more towards the offence being a drug in your system, rather than taking it. If "I kissed a girl" is an escape route, then it's too easy to tell a lie and get off. Obviously the danger is if someone spiked you though.

Julius, human rights are enshrined in law not created by them, it does not and should not require any laws to tell us that certain things are wrong. And yes I realised you were just being flippant even before you said, but still wanted to highlight the point which I'm sure you'll agreee with.

As for the legalisation of PEDs, I do not agree with this. The viewing public will not stomach monster freak show athletes (it would happen) dominating certain sports, and PEDs are dangerous and have side effects, creating difficulties both for the athletes that use them, and other, include children, that are inspired by them. However it's also worth acknowledging that PED use is not black and white. We would not regard a paracetemol as PED use and we would regard a steroid as one, but there is some grey area in between (calf's blood, oxygen chamber etc).

Henman Bill wrote:
Julius, human rights are enshrined in law not created by them, it does not and should not require any laws to tell us that certain things are wrong. And yes I realised you were just being flippant even before you said, but still wanted to highlight the point which I'm sure you'll agreee with.

Yes I do agree. Although there are some human rights that are enshrined in law that are also grey areas. But that's not a topic for a tennis forum, so I'll shut up.

Henman Bill wrote:Danny, I would tend to agree that we should tilt the balance more towards the offence being a drug in your system, rather than taking it. If "I kissed a girl" is an escape route, then it's too easy to tell a lie and get off. Obviously the danger is if someone spiked you though.

Julius, human rights are enshrined in law not created by them, it does not and should not require any laws to tell us that certain things are wrong. And yes I realised you were just being flippant even before you said, but still wanted to highlight the point which I'm sure you'll agreee with.

As for the legalisation of PEDs, I do not agree with this. The viewing public will not stomach monster freak show athletes (it would happen) dominating certain sports, and PEDs are dangerous and have side effects, creating difficulties both for the athletes that use them, and other, include children, that are inspired by them. However it's also worth acknowledging that PED use is not black and white. We would not regard a paracetemol as PED use and we would regard a steroid as one, but there is some grey area in between (calf's blood, oxygen chamber etc).

As I understand it, the amount of cocaine found was extremely low, consistent with that theory. It is important to note that whilst cleared, he still lost around 3 months of his career. I'd be disappointed if he had got off a ped issue on a similar basis but for a harmful drug like cocaine I feel it was fair enough to make that finding.

I have no doubt there are players in the top 100 who use PEDs. I have to say, naive though I may be, I do find it unlikely any of the top 4 are doing so. Their career paths all seem consistent with players of incredible natural talent who have made the best of what they have.

Henman Bill wrote:Danny, I would tend to agree that we should tilt the balance more towards the offence being a drug in your system, rather than taking it. If "I kissed a girl" is an escape route, then it's too easy to tell a lie and get off. Obviously the danger is if someone spiked you though.

Julius, human rights are enshrined in law not created by them, it does not and should not require any laws to tell us that certain things are wrong. And yes I realised you were just being flippant even before you said, but still wanted to highlight the point which I'm sure you'll agreee with.

As for the legalisation of PEDs, I do not agree with this. The viewing public will not stomach monster freak show athletes (it would happen) dominating certain sports, and PEDs are dangerous and have side effects, creating difficulties both for the athletes that use them, and other, include children, that are inspired by them. However it's also worth acknowledging that PED use is not black and white. We would not regard a paracetemol as PED use and we would regard a steroid as one, but there is some grey area in between (calf's blood, oxygen chamber etc).

Yes your position is very close to mine as well. There are grey areas in the debate and it isn't as morally black and white as people like to make it. However while I have played devil's advocate and the reason I asked the questions and put forward the responses I did was because, I am so tired of the constant inneundo and cycle of scandal and witch hunt. And also to really clean up the problem we are going to have to become very aggressive and intrusive and go out and destroy as many athletes as possible. To me the whole thing is distasteful that is why I am tring to see if there maybe a different tack we could take. But the pitfalls are large indeed so I am very conflicted. I can't say that I advocate legalization, or oppose it at this point. I will say that my position to legalization has become more amenable then the past.

Born Slippy wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:Danny, I would tend to agree that we should tilt the balance more towards the offence being a drug in your system, rather than taking it. If "I kissed a girl" is an escape route, then it's too easy to tell a lie and get off. Obviously the danger is if someone spiked you though.

Julius, human rights are enshrined in law not created by them, it does not and should not require any laws to tell us that certain things are wrong. And yes I realised you were just being flippant even before you said, but still wanted to highlight the point which I'm sure you'll agreee with.

As for the legalisation of PEDs, I do not agree with this. The viewing public will not stomach monster freak show athletes (it would happen) dominating certain sports, and PEDs are dangerous and have side effects, creating difficulties both for the athletes that use them, and other, include children, that are inspired by them. However it's also worth acknowledging that PED use is not black and white. We would not regard a paracetemol as PED use and we would regard a steroid as one, but there is some grey area in between (calf's blood, oxygen chamber etc).

As I understand it, the amount of cocaine found was extremely low, consistent with that theory. It is important to note that whilst cleared, he still lost around 3 months of his career. I'd be disappointed if he had got off a ped issue on a similar basis but for a harmful drug like cocaine I feel it was fair enough to make that finding.

I have no doubt there are players in the top 100 who use PEDs. I have to say, naive though I may be, I do find it unlikely any of the top 4 are doing so. Their career paths all seem consistent with players of incredible natural talent who have made the best of what they have.

Actually I was trying to make a general point about easy escape routes whether it be I didn't realise a friend put drugs in my drink, the meat was contaminated, it was in a provided supplement, it was in a prescribed medicine, etc. I just think we have to be a bit harsh and make the offence to have it in your system might be worth considering otherwise there's no way to get anyone almost. I wasn't trying to make a specific Gasquet point. His story might be true, it might not, although it seems dubious and convenient to me. Anyway, taking cocaine and other hard drugs is very bad because by taking it you are (knowingly probably) supporting crack-addicted whores, smuggling, violence, a network of opression in developed countries and the whole criminal empire and culture around all this. However any taking cocaine should be dealt with by the police, not the tennis authorities, in my opinion. From a tennis perspective, a PED user is surely worse than a recreational drugs user, at least to me.

Also, I am glad to see the moderators tolerating this topic and helping to make this good forum a place to freely discuss all topics of interest.

How many of the ATP top 100 dope?

I would go with 20.

Let's just be sensible for a moment. 20 may seem low to some, but barring that tithead Greg why would anyone dope to only reach as high as 50 in the world? This is the whole thing with doping. I cannot see that doping would make a player any better in the skills department. Yes they could run and hit for longer, but it doesn't improve their hitting accuracy.

Now in terms of the legislating drugs in sports, big no no. Why encourage youngsters or current players to push their bodies beyond their capabilities? The health risks of doping are plain to see. Long term use and abuse can lead to health problems further down the line. I am pretty sure many would not sacrifice their future health for success.

Look to the past. Borg retired due to pressures the tour had and obviously the impact it was having on his body. If he was feeling that in 1981, what must the players be feeling now? It begs the question how on earth did Connors and McEnroe play on for so long? Surely in this day and age we would point the finger of doping.

Doping for me is susbstance abuse. Taking substances for the sake of success. In everyday life you wouldn't take un-necessary substances. This is the whole thing with doping. It is un-necessary.

The message it sends out. If your not good enough cheat? Cheat your fellow professionals who are much better than you?

It for me causes too much damage.

The main reason for anti-doping activity in any sport is to keep the faith with the public and sponsors, who want to follow or be associated with a 'clean' sport. Provided they do enough to just about keep a straight face when they say the sport is clean and everybody is prepared to suspend disbelief that's enough for most sports.

I don't think any sport is really committed to removing doping 100% because even if possible (open to doubt) it could only be achieved at the expense of a huge committment of time, cost, and intrusiveness.

My feeling is that Tennis is very much at the flakey end of the spectrum of official committment to tackle doping even in what I think is an overall flakey picture; there is evidently a substantial complacency that it's not a problem in tennis, that doping can't help a sport which depends so much on hand-eye co-ordination. This complacency is reflected in the complaints that many top players make about anti-doping (Murray, Nadal, Tipsarevic, and Serena Williams are disappointing recent examples). It is also reflected in the weakness of doping controls, the paucity of information provided about doping controls and, apparently, the low numbers of tests to which the top players are subjected.

So I'd expect that there's doping in tennis, and I don't think anyone is above suspicion; the extent of it is very difficult to guess at based on my level of knowledge. I don't feel cynical about the sport, but I don't profess to be 100% confident about any players (yup - including Fed); I also think it's legitimate to be more wary about some than others. In particular, I think that Spanish athletes remain tarred with the brush of Operacion Puerto, unconventional doctors in Valencia, and governing authorities who give the appearance of being more interested in protecting reputations than stamping out cheating. I think anyone who shows a sudden improvement based on improved physicality which is put down to diet and changes to training regimes and so-on is suspect, as is any seriously 'ripped' player who plays an endurance-based game.

I'd put it another way; if Djoko, Nadal, Serena Williams, Tipsarevic, Monfils, Stosur, or Murray were busted for drugs Armstrong-style I don't think that the effect on the sport would be a fraction of what it would be if Federer were busted for PEDs Armstrong-style. Were that to happen I think tennis would face a serious meltdown situation.

Very true words although I think this is about the limit to mentioning certain names without leaning too close towards insinuation and attracting moderator attention.

A few thoughts, as someone who is a fan of many sports including tennis and cycling:

1 - There will definitely be players in the top 100 who are using PEDs, blood doping and other illegal means of gaining a performance advantage. My suspicion is that it's a fairly small minority, but that's really nothing more than a hunch.

2 - Tennis is a curious sport in terms of the physical demands, which to me don't seem to match well with what either the EPO/blood doping (increased aerobic endurance) or steroid (increased power and muscle mass) modes of doping produce. Look at the top guys and they are all quite slim (even Nadal - they aren't built like rugby players) but require good explosiveness and speed over the first few steps. Steroids would increase the power, but at the expence of increased bulk, which takes longer to get moving, so is probably not an advantage over the initial step or two. The other thing that's needed is good recovery from anaerobic efforts rather than enhanced aerobic endurance (as an aside, my understanding of the benefits of EPO are that it is most effective for working near the aerobic threshold for 15-30 minute efforts), so haematological manipulation may offer minor advantages but not the same sort of boost as for cyclists or distance runners.

3 - The ATP and WTA need to be seen to be doing more to combat doping.

4 - Any 'scandal' in tennis is not likely to be like the Armstrong/USPS case, where the entire team was committed to an extensive programme of drug taking (and as an aside, while this may have been the 'most extensive' USADA investigations have ever shown, it probably wasn't much more than several of their contemporary cycling teams were involved in).

5 - Henman Bill made a comment up thread that the spectators wouldn't be interested in watching the 'monster freak show athletes'. I'm not so convinced: they do in the NFL (anyone who thinks there isn't a huge steroid problem there has their eyes shut) and did for years in Major League Baseball. Indeed, many fans have expressed disappointment at the changes in performance following the introduction of more stringent drugs testing in baseball (while simultaneously booing the proven cheats).

6 - My suspicion is that the next big PED scandal will come from football. Now there's a sport where:
Rewards for success are immense
Improved endurance will be hugely beneficial to players (i.e. EPO / blood doping would be somewhat effective)
Testing to date has been a joke that makes even the ATP look good
Strong rumours exist both about involvement of some teams with Dr Fuentes and of players arriving at new clubs after transfers with shall we say 'unusual' blood profiles (Wenger for one has commented about this).

barrystar wrote:This complacency is reflected in the complaints that many top players make about anti-doping (Murray, Nadal, Tipsarevic, and Serena Williams are disappointing recent examples).

From todays papers. Looks like Murray is taking this more seriously now.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-2225022/Andy-Murray-Tennis-tough-drugs.html

Good to see these comments from Murray. He does seem rather naive and only beginning to learn about the subject though.

The question of legalising PEDs and other similar substances is not the same as pharmaceutical industry working on diseases like HIV or Ebola or Small Pox.

Netherlands has legalised personal use, but no one asks where the source of such material is. Is it in Afghanistan? Does Holland indigenously grow this stuff?

Abuse, rather than use, is what needs to be ascertained. Socal you remember prohibition. It was legalised, and now there is talk about responsible drinking.

One interesting example is texting while driving, vs texting which can send Amber Alerts (a US notification). It is the same tool being used or abused.

PEDs, Asthma inhalers, Salbutamol, Nandrolone can be used to address problems for subjects if the quality of life can be made better. For Tennis players, providing the same can provide unfair advantage.

It is a question of Use or Abuse.

In a sport, substances that enhance performance, which can be quantitatively and qualitatively measured, should be banned. Outside the context of sport, let a knowledgeable professional make an informed decision in consultation with the person receiving the treatment.

We can have a separate discussion on what is 'natural'. Is an Oxygen tent at sea level a 'natural' occurrence? Is a BMR machine or an Egg Chamber a 'natural'?

To answer SB's OP, I would say 0. The fear of being caught especially as you are higher in the food chain can be very stressful. (Will someone now quote the LA example, Schleck, or Contador, or others... ).

To answer SB's OP, I would say 0. The fear of being caught especially as you are higher in the food chain can be very stressful. (Will someone now quote the LA example, Schleck, or Contador, or others... ).

You're crazy LF

I think there are some, just not at the top end of the scale like so many hope for

legendkillarV2 wrote:

To answer SB's OP, I would say 0. The fear of being caught especially as you are higher in the food chain can be very stressful. (Will someone now quote the LA example, Schleck, or Contador, or others... ).

You're crazy LF

I am happy to be labelled crazy and naive.

legendkillarV2 wrote:I think there are some, just not at the top end of the scale like so many hope for

I will gladly accept being proven wrong. A public domain proof is perfect, like in LA's case.

I do understand that Fuentes/Galea/Ferrari/Moral and many others have provided medical help, but it is for the athletes and players to say no.

In the light of all the cycling revelations, it would be very naive not to consider that there is doping in all sports.

It is the methods to improve stamina and the testosterone patches to really fire up the competitive/fighting instinct used by the cyclists that would be of most obvious use to tennis players.

Is anyone in the top ten doping? - I am not sure that I am 100% confident that the current testing procedure is rigorous enough or serious enough about actually making sure that the sport is a total free zone

time please wrote:In the light of all the cycling revelations, it would be very naive not to consider that there is doping in all sports.

It is the methods to improve stamina and the testosterone patches to really fire up the competitive/fighting instinct used by the cyclists that would be of most obvious use to tennis players.

Is anyone in the top ten doping? - I am not sure that I am 100% confident that the current testing procedure is rigorous enough or serious enough about actually making sure that the sport is a total free zone

Samples are now being frozen to allow future tests to reveal substance abuse, like in LAs case. There is no statute of limitations. Heaven forbid, if a player is dead, his/her titles can still be revoked. I am hoping for deterrence to be a better solution with such provisos making it clear that there is not much leeway for stupidity.

Now imagine, I have to live to see Laver lose all his titles because a sample from 1962 had a banned substance which was detected in 2069. (Even though I know such a sample never existed ).

laverfan wrote:Samples are now being frozen to allow future tests to reveal substance abuse, like in LAs case. There is no statute of limitations. Heaven forbid, if a player is dead, his/her titles can still be revoked.

That is your deterrent!

time please wrote:That is your deterrent!

I agree it is not a perfect solution. Testing, even more aggressive, is not helping, because, as this thread indicates, there is still a significant suspicion, both of players and authorities (read Dick Pound's book and the underworld culture).

Unscrupulous doctors will always take advantage of players. Legalization has it's own issues.

There is a larger social context, one, of a pop-a-pill culture, which mirrors this specific issue.

I have even suggested that such rogue doctors become part of WADA and actually help WADA address this and also provide a view into the inner world of doping.

Does anyone recall Joe Valachi and Cosa Nostra?

Ex-dopers, like David Millar (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19956995) are willing to step forward and clean up. Personally, this is a fantastic opportunity.

I think it is a perfect solution - what is wrong with storing blood samples? If you are taking blood from veins anyway, what does it matter if the vial is kept rather than instantly disposed of?

It is the only way to have a 'deterrent' which deals with the fact that so far doping has been more sophisticated than the testing, ie EPO.

http://www.itftennis.com/antidoping/education/antidopingcartoon.asp?cartoonname=Whereabouts

Difficult to debate a topic like that without any substantial evidence to prove anything. On the other hand I believe that the opinions from people in the game should be taken into account seriously.

For example:
http://www.thenational.ae/sport/tennis/after-cycling-and-armstrong-tennis-could-hold-centre-court

One thing is for sure: with the current antidoping procedures, if someone is doing it, it is a near certainty he won't get cought.

dummy_half wrote:A few thoughts, as someone who is a fan of many sports including tennis and cycling:

1 - There will definitely be players in the top 100 who are using PEDs, blood doping and other illegal means of gaining a performance advantage. My suspicion is that it's a fairly small minority, but that's really nothing more than a hunch.

2 - Tennis is a curious sport in terms of the physical demands, which to me don't seem to match well with what either the EPO/blood doping (increased aerobic endurance) or steroid (increased power and muscle mass) modes of doping produce. Look at the top guys and they are all quite slim (even Nadal - they aren't built like rugby players) but require good explosiveness and speed over the first few steps. Steroids would increase the power, but at the expence of increased bulk, which takes longer to get moving, so is probably not an advantage over the initial step or two. The other thing that's needed is good recovery from anaerobic efforts rather than enhanced aerobic endurance (as an aside, my understanding of the benefits of EPO are that it is most effective for working near the aerobic threshold for 15-30 minute efforts), so haematological manipulation may offer minor advantages but not the same sort of boost as for cyclists or distance runners.

3 - The ATP and WTA need to be seen to be doing more to combat doping.



4 - Any 'scandal' in tennis is not likely to be like the Armstrong/USPS case, where the entire team was committed to an extensive programme of drug taking (and as an aside, while this may have been the 'most extensive' USADA investigations have ever shown, it probably wasn't much more than several of their contemporary cycling teams were involved in).

5 - Henman Bill made a comment up thread that the spectators wouldn't be interested in watching the 'monster freak show athletes'. I'm not so convinced: they do in the NFL (anyone who thinks there isn't a huge steroid problem there has their eyes shut) and did for years in Major League Baseball. Indeed, many fans have expressed disappointment at the changes in performance following the introduction of more stringent drugs testing in baseball (while simultaneously booing the proven cheats).

6 - My suspicion is that the next big PED scandal will come from football. Now there's a sport where:
Rewards for success are immense
Improved endurance will be hugely beneficial to players (i.e. EPO / blood doping would be somewhat effective)
Testing to date has been a joke that makes even the ATP look good
Strong rumours exist both about involvement of some teams with Dr Fuentes and of players arriving at new clubs after transfers with shall we say 'unusual' blood profiles (Wenger for one has commented about this).

Excellent post Dummy I highly recommend people read this article. As I have said before most tennis players are wirey strong and fit, so of course steroids is not a huge issue as well the physical aerobic requirements of tennis while strenous are not of such a level like triathlons or cycling where to compete at the highest levels you almost have to dope. In my mind I don't have illusions in that tennis is a clean sport however my gut tells me it isn't as bad as track, NFL football, what baseball used to be, or cycling because the pay off of the doping isn't as directly beneficial to being the best tennis player.

It is time we end the cycle, because it is so predictable:
1. Athlete cheats
2. rumor mill starts the inneundo
3. endless sometimes years long investigations
4. And now someone's sports hero gets destroyed and shamed publically while said sport suffers a black eye

And of course people will turn out to watch the physical freaks. The NFL is a great example I would say at least 60 percent of the league is on PEDs, the human body is just not that naturally big and fast at the same time. The NFL has the longest and most established record of great players using PEDs dating back to widespread meth use in the 70s. Teams had big bowls of speed pills in the locker rooms before the popularization of steroids in the late 70s and early 80s. By far the NFL is the most popular team sport in the USA, and in terms of revenue generation you could take hockey, basketball, baseball, tennis, and boxing and combine their revenues and it still wouldn't match what the NFL makes the undisputted kings of US sports.

What will turn the people off more is creating a system where no one knows who is using and in order to compete and earn a living you may feel the need to cheat because you have suscipicions about the guys ranked above you. To me it is the deceit and cheating that is the problem not the drug use, take the deceit out of the question and the problem isn't that big a deal.

As I have said before we lost the war on drugs society wide, it is time we see if we can stop inflicting further wounds on sports by destroying the lives of hundreds of athletes, it is time to move towards a regulation and monitoring model and away from the cycle of witch hunt and scandal.

time please wrote:I think it is a perfect solution - what is wrong with storing blood samples? If you are taking blood from veins anyway, what does it matter if the vial is kept rather than instantly disposed of?

It is the only way to have a 'deterrent' which deals with the fact that so far doping has been more sophisticated than the testing, ie EPO.

Here is what is wrong with it. Lets say we store Federer's blood and test it now and then with ever increasingly more accurate tests, for 50 years Roger goes on to be an exemplary citizen and help his fellow man like he has. All of sudden while he is on his death bed a new scientist discover yet another way to scan his blood, turns out Roger Federer doped when he 23 or 24 years old. Should we now destroy the man and all he has done because of a 60 year old mistake. Is that justice, because victory in the war against doping is going to look like that, hounding every single athlete basically till the day he dies and even after he dies his reputation still is not safe because you still can test his old samples. Even a r***ist can rely on statute of limitations under Common law is a doping tennis player worse than a r***ist?

We already have a regulation and monitoring model. Certain substances are banned and certain others are not. That's the regulation.
Tests are carried out to see if athletes are using the banned ones. That's the monitoring.
Some PEDs are dangerous, but more effective. In your new model, what would stop althetes taking those?
Would atheletes have to declare exactly what they took - maybe give handicaps to those that can afford the better PEDs, to level the playing field?
Or have 2 events - one for PED athletes, one for non-PED athletes?

I sort of agree on a statute of limitations, - maybe 20 years or so - after any other players who played against them have also retired. On the other hand, if an ex-player is truly exemplary later in life, they would admit to cheating.

Julius

With regard to storage and statue of limitations, at the moment the IOC have an 8 year maximum. The thinking is that any potential doping product just invented* will have an effective test developed within those 8 years.

*It should be noted that recombinant EPO was created in the mid 80s and first became available for medical use in the US in 1989 (Wikipedia - I believe I have read elsewhere that it was licenced slightly earlier in Europe). It is commonly thought that it was first used as a PED in cycling in either 1989 or 1990, and there were a cluster of deaths amongst amateur cyclists in Belgium and Holland in 90-91 thought to relate to EPO abuse (there is a suggestion that some cross country skiers were using EPO as early as the 1988 winter olympics). Certainly by 1993 and 1994 the Ariostea / Gewiss cycling team under the guidance of Dr Ferrari was routinely and effectively using EPO and largely dominating the sport. My point here is that some PEDs get picked up very quickly by those who seek to gain advantage.

I don't know Dummy, it seems like Lance Armstrong has been out of the game for a long time, of course his example is much more recent but it is very easy to see how these things never end. I mean every one talks about how these PEDs hurt the credibility of the game. The main reason they hurt the credibility of the game is the deceit and lying involved in their actions and not the actual substance abuse. As we have seen people do turn in to watch OBVIOUSLY JUICED ATHLETES, ie the NFL is THE MOST OBVIOUSLY DOUBTED PRO LEAGUE IN THE WORLD, and probably the richest single pro league in the world. This is the point that you made that I think shows most sports fans don't hate the drug use and health issues with doping they don't like cheats.

Julius at least we agree Statute of limitations but jeez 20 years? There are serious legal procedural issues with defending a case that old. Additionally, I think the vast majority of athletes if provided with a safe and approved alternative WHICH HAS BEEN TESTED AND SIDE EFFECTS AND POSITIVE EFFECTS ARE KNOWN, will take that over NON-PREAPPROVED PED, which the athlete has no idea if it is safe or not, where it was made, or if it will or won't work. Keeping this issue in the dark will actually cost the lives of more athletes than legalization would in my opinion.

Why not 20 years (unless, as dummy says, it can all be detected within 8 years). We're not putting them in prison, just removing results from a record book. They've gone back 13 years for Armstrong (stripped of 1999 TdF), which seems reasonable, so maybe 15 years then.
If they don't want to run that risk, then they shouldn't cheat in the first place - quite simple really.

As for the majorty of athletes etc - that's exactly how it is now. But the example of Armstrong and cycling in general shows that many athletes will take whatever they can get, wherever they can get it. It's not in the dark currently - athletes can choose not to take dangerous stuff - but they still choose to take it.

The Chinese and German Swimming teams know very well that side of effects of controlled doping can show up later and haunt athletes for years.

@SoCal... The statute of limitation is derived from jurisprudence and makes sense in criminal offences. Are you suggesting that criminalization of doping should be the first step in sport prior to a statute of limitation being in place?

@Dummy_half... Oxygen tents are legalised versions of EPO, AFAIK. The end goal is the same. Natural high-altitude training provides benefits without the negative side effects of EPO. Enrichment and subsequent blood transfusion (similar to Fuentes technique) is in the same category.

That is the issue Julius, you can sit back and judge and say why do they take the stuff probably because like all of use they know a significant percentage of their competitors will use for that edge. Secondly, the problems with a 20 year old charge is that witnesses recollections fade, documentary evidence or exculpatory evidence is lost. It may even become more and more difficult to prove that samples have or have not been tampered with in said time period. A host of issues general and specific make defense of an old allegation very hard and that is why the law for the most part doesn't allow it.

Civil violations like fraud, breach of contract, or injury claims have even a more limited Statute of limitations than criminal matters.

I disagree on one point in particular. I think the vast majority of the athletes in a choice between an approved PED that works, is safe, and has been tested, and has no legal sanction; would take that PED over another PED B that has not gone through the proper testing, could be made anywhere, and may not work or be dangerous.

No laverfan, that is not what I am suggesting. I am suggesting for decriminilization and regulation with more testing of said substances and monitoring of the health impact on the athlete. Statutes of limitation apply NOT JUST IN CRIMINAL CASES they apply in criminal, civil, and administrative hearing where any possible penalty or sanction could be applied.

socal1976 wrote:

time please wrote:I think it is a perfect solution - what is wrong with storing blood samples? If you are taking blood from veins anyway, what does it matter if the vial is kept rather than instantly disposed of?

It is the only way to have a 'deterrent' which deals with the fact that so far doping has been more sophisticated than the testing, ie EPO.

Here is what is wrong with it. Lets say we store Federer's blood and test it now and then with ever increasingly more accurate tests, for 50 years Roger goes on to be an exemplary citizen and help his fellow man like he has. All of sudden while he is on his death bed a new scientist discover yet another way to scan his blood, turns out Roger Federer doped when he 23 or 24 years old. Should we now destroy the man and all he has done because of a 60 year old mistake. Is that justice, because victory in the war against doping is going to look like that, hounding every single athlete basically till the day he dies and even after he dies his reputation still is not safe because you still can test his old samples. Even a r***ist can rely on statute of limitations under Common law is a doping tennis player worse than a r***ist?

Of course that would be justice. If you're guilty you're guilty. However, in reality, the unwritten rule is that you can get away with a crime even if you are found guilty or admit to it, given enough years have passed. Stepping away from tennis, let's take some examples.

For murder and raype and being a child molester, it doesn't matter the length of time. 50 years can still pass and they will still want to get you.

But what about if they find you guilty of a parking fine 50 years ago and try to prosecute you. Clearly not.

The worse the crime the longer the period before ignorance is applied. That is the unofficial common sense rule.

How long for stealing something for a shop? A few years? 20?

So it seems to me obvious that there is a certain length of time. But they would go after a $10 million bank robber 20 years later, so why not someone who effectively stole $10 million in prize money and sponsorchip, cheating all his peers and fans in the process?

At the end of the day watch my prediction people will always fnd away around even the most stringent regimes and more athletes will die and suffer debillitating side effects as a result of PEDs being illegal than if they were legal, tested more, and the athletes health monitored for possible unintended consequences. One day in the not so distant future after thousands of athlete lives are ruined and sports gets black eye after black eye, people will come to the realization of what I have been saying. Do any of you feel like Lance Armstrong and his case is a victory of any kind, for anyone involved? Or do you seriously believe it deters anyone? No it just destroys whatever good the man accomplished and gives cycling another black eye, wow what a victory.

I would be in favour of keeping sample and testing them again and again with new methods. I do thing it would be fair to have multiple vials from the same test day and to keep them in different locations to avoid an administrative mistake or someone deliberating manipulating a false result. The second location could be an indendent body with no allegiance to any sport.

What I am not in favour of is testing samples after an athlete has passed away. As an athlete I would not like to worry that someone could make a mistake or try and frame me after my death, not giving the chance to defend myself.

I think I would be in favour of keeping samples for 10 or 20 years and then destroying them.

Henman Bill wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

time please wrote:I think it is a perfect solution - what is wrong with storing blood samples? If you are taking blood from veins anyway, what does it matter if the vial is kept rather than instantly disposed of?

It is the only way to have a 'deterrent' which deals with the fact that so far doping has been more sophisticated than the testing, ie EPO.

Here is what is wrong with it. Lets say we store Federer's blood and test it now and then with ever increasingly more accurate tests, for 50 years Roger goes on to be an exemplary citizen and help his fellow man like he has. All of sudden while he is on his death bed a new scientist discover yet another way to scan his blood, turns out Roger Federer doped when he 23 or 24 years old. Should we now destroy the man and all he has done because of a 60 year old mistake. Is that justice, because victory in the war against doping is going to look like that, hounding every single athlete basically till the day he dies and even after he dies his reputation still is not safe because you still can test his old samples. Even a r***ist can rely on statute of limitations under Common law is a doping tennis player worse than a r***ist?

Of course that would be justice. If you're guilty you're guilty. However, in reality, the unwritten rule is that you can get away with a crime even if you are found guilty or admit to it, given enough years have passed. Stepping away from tennis, let's take some examples.

For murder and raype and being a child molester, it doesn't matter the length of time. 50 years can still pass and they will still want to get you.

But what about if they find you guilty of a parking fine 50 years ago and try to prosecute you. Clearly not.

The worse the crime the longer the period before ignorance is applied. That is the unofficial common sense rule.

How long for stealing something for a shop? A few years? 20?

So it seems to me obvious that there is a certain length of time. But they would go after a $10 million bank robber 20 years later, so why not someone who effectively stole $10 million in prize money and sponsorchip, cheating all his peers and fans in the process?

Yes that is the concept the more serious the crime or violation the more likely it is that they will come after you even if a long time has passed. In the end I don't think it is justice the scenario I laid out and I think the vast majority of people would agree with the hypothetical federer analogy I posted that they would at that point feel that prosecution would be wrong.

Henman Bill victory in he war against PEDs will cost millions if not billions, will destroy thousands of lives, will tarnish the image of sports and pollute all of us with this constant cycle of cheating, deceit, inneundo, witch hunt, never ending investigation, and then the final destruction of someone's sporting hero. In the end victory in the war against PEDs will require literally thousands of such battles that I would just prefer not to fight.

Henman Bill wrote:I would be in favour of keeping sample and testing them again and again with new methods. I do thing it would be fair to have multiple vials from the same test day and to keep them in different locations to avoid an administrative mistake or someone deliberating manipulating a false result. The second location could be an indendent body with no allegiance to any sport.

What I am not in favour of is testing samples after an athlete has passed away. As an athlete I would not like to worry that someone could make a mistake or try and frame me after my death, not giving the chance to defend myself.

I think I would be in favour of keeping samples for 10 or 20 years and then destroying them.

10 is much more reasonable than 20. But as you know I have recently changed my position on this issue 180 degrees. We won't clean the problem up, we will just continue to pay the costs for what people falsely believe is this ideal level playing field that does not exist. A level playing field doesn't exist in life, doesn't exist in sports either.

socal1976 wrote:I disagree on one point in particular. I think the vast majority of the athletes in a choice between an approved PED that works, is safe, and has been tested, and has no legal sanction; would take that PED over another PED B that has not gone through the proper testing, could be made anywhere, and may not work or be dangerous.

I do agree with that (don't think I said otherwise) just as I think the majority now are clean. But let's say 5% still take the dangerous and more effective ones. Either you let them get away with it by allowing it, in which case the winners are decided by who is willing to take the health risk, not by talent/natural ability. Or you keep banning the dangerous ones and keep testing, which is the same as now.

We currently have regulation and monitoring. The only way to change that is to allow everything, however dangerous.

socal1976 wrote:Do any of you feel like Lance Armstrong and his case is a victory of any kind, for anyone involved?

Absolutely - it is a victory over cheating at a grossly widespread level. LA totally deserves to be stripped of all his titles, which he won by deliberately breaking the rules.

socal1976 wrote: Do any of you feel like Lance Armstrong and his case is a victory of any kind, for anyone involved? Or do you seriously believe it deters anyone? No it just destroys whatever good the man accomplished and gives cycling another black eye, wow what a victory.

What????

Are you saying that you would rather let the cheater retain all of his trophies? Are you on drugs?

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

socal1976 wrote: Do any of you feel like Lance Armstrong and his case is a victory of any kind, for anyone involved? Or do you seriously believe it deters anyone? No it just destroys whatever good the man accomplished and gives cycling another black eye, wow what a victory.

What????

Are you saying that you would rather let the cheater retain all of his trophies? Are you on drugs?

No I would rather create a system that is more transparent, filled with less witch hunts, less scandal, and an end to never ending speculation. I never bought a bracelet, and never watched one second of lance armstrong's races. I could care less about him retaining his trophies or not. But this continous fiasco situation has to end. Tell me how many more public shamings and multimillion dollar investigation are needed before we attain the mythical level playing field that we all say we want? So lance Armstrong is destroyed like dozens of athletes before him are you any closer to that level playing field and a clean sport? No, because nothing is done to address the fundamental issue, most of us really dislike the dishonesty and cheating it isn't so much the drug aspect that is disturbing.