Troicki banned for 18 months....

BBC Sport Twitter:

Serbian tennis player Viktor Troicki banned for 18 months by ITF for refusing to provide a blood sample at a drugs test.

Interesting.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2013/07/30/Troicki-Decision.aspx

Hasn't failed a test but failed to give a sample, still doesn't look good.

Is blood testing new in tennis? Asking as a) I don't know and b) historically testing in tennis has been patchy, believe they've just introduced a bio passport.

This is what Troicki had to say:

I was feeling awfully bad on April 15th before, during and after the 1st round match against Jarkko Nieminen. I was selected for urine and blood test after the match and went to the doping control station after showering and stretching. I gave the urine samples and told the doctor I was feeling really bad and I believed that drawing blood would make me feel even worse. I always feel awful when I need to draw blood and that day I was scared I would end up in hospital.
The doctor in charge of the testing told me that I looked very pale and ill, and that I could skip the test if I wrote an explanation letter to ITF about it. She dictated the letter to me and let me go without giving blood. She was very helpful and understanding…. Now I am being charged for refusing to undergo a blood test without justification. This is a real nightmare. I was 100% sure everything was okay, just like my coach Jack Reader who was in the doping control station room with me during at least half of the procedure.

Not the best excuse!

well done to the ATP, but I have this nagging feeling that if the doctor really did give him the letter, he will be cleared in arbitration. Bets anyone?

legendkillarV2 wrote:This is what Troicki had to say:

I was feeling awfully bad on April 15th before, during and after the 1st round match against Jarkko Nieminen. I was selected for urine and blood test after the match and went to the doping control station after showering and stretching. I gave the urine samples and told the doctor I was feeling really bad and I believed that drawing blood would make me feel even worse. I always feel awful when I need to draw blood and that day I was scared I would end up in hospital.
The doctor in charge of the testing told me that I looked very pale and ill, and that I could skip the test if I wrote an explanation letter to ITF about it. She dictated the letter to me and let me go without giving blood. She was very helpful and understanding…. Now I am being charged for refusing to undergo a blood test without justification. This is a real nightmare.  I was 100% sure everything was okay, just like my coach Jack Reader who was in the doping control station room with me during at least half of the procedure.

Not the best excuse!

In fairness, either he's the biggest hot air maker ever or he has a case. Whilst ultimately it was pretty stupid to leave it so open, I now have some sympathy

However, I don't think you can make an exception and he will be told so

kingraf wrote:well done to the ATP, but I have this nagging feeling that if the doctor really did give him the letter, he will be cleared in arbitration. Bets anyone?

Only if there was a letter

Telegraph wrote:“He asserted to an independent tribunal that he was assured by the Doping Control Officer that it would be acceptable not to provide a sample on account of him feeling unwell that day.

"However, the tribunal concluded that the DCO told Mr Troicki that she could not advise him as to whether his reason for not providing a blood sample was valid, and that no such assurances were given by her.

“Accordingly, the tribunal determined that Mr Troicki’s actions constituted a failure and a refusal to provide a blood sample, and that his explanation for not doing so did not constitute compelling justification under Article 2.3.

“However, the tribunal accepted that the stress that Mr Troicki was under at the time entitled him to mitigation under Article 10.5.2.”

If he can't face the responsibility of giving blood he doesn't deserve to make his living playing tennis. He's lucky it was not two years.

barrystar wrote:

Telegraph wrote:“He asserted to an independent tribunal that he was assured by the Doping Control Officer that it would be acceptable not to provide a sample on account of him feeling unwell that day.

"However, the tribunal concluded that the DCO told Mr Troicki that she could not advise him as to whether his reason for not providing a blood sample was valid, and that no such assurances were given by her.

“Accordingly, the tribunal determined that Mr Troicki’s actions constituted a failure and a refusal to provide a blood sample, and that his explanation for not doing so did not constitute compelling justification under Article 2.3.

“However, the tribunal accepted that the stress that Mr Troicki was under at the time entitled him to mitigation under Article 10.5.2.”

If he can't face the responsibility of giving blood he doesn't deserve to make his living playing tennis.  He's lucky it was not two years.

Fair point. I suppose if he's let off then it's an extremely dangerous precedent, i.e. get any corrupt doctor to write that you are ill and are excluded

banbrotam wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:This is what Troicki had to say:

I was feeling awfully bad on April 15th before, during and after the 1st round match against Jarkko Nieminen. I was selected for urine and blood test after the match and went to the doping control station after showering and stretching. I gave the urine samples and told the doctor I was feeling really bad and I believed that drawing blood would make me feel even worse. I always feel awful when I need to draw blood and that day I was scared I would end up in hospital.
The doctor in charge of the testing told me that I looked very pale and ill, and that I could skip the test if I wrote an explanation letter to ITF about it. She dictated the letter to me and let me go without giving blood. She was very helpful and understanding…. Now I am being charged for refusing to undergo a blood test without justification. This is a real nightmare.  I was 100% sure everything was okay, just like my coach Jack Reader who was in the doping control station room with me during at least half of the procedure.

Not the best excuse!

In fairness, either he's the biggest hot air maker ever or he has a case. Whilst ultimately it was pretty stupid to leave it so open, I now have some sympathy

However, I don't think you can make an exception and he will be told so

Sorry banbro people up and down the land have given blood at some stage when 'feeling unwell'

He had lost the match the day before at MC and had a week at least to recover.

Poor excuse and as barry said lucky it is not longer.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:This is what Troicki had to say:

I was feeling awfully bad on April 15th before, during and after the 1st round match against Jarkko Nieminen. I was selected for urine and blood test after the match and went to the doping control station after showering and stretching. I gave the urine samples and told the doctor I was feeling really bad and I believed that drawing blood would make me feel even worse. I always feel awful when I need to draw blood and that day I was scared I would end up in hospital.
The doctor in charge of the testing told me that I looked very pale and ill, and that I could skip the test if I wrote an explanation letter to ITF about it. She dictated the letter to me and let me go without giving blood. She was very helpful and understanding…. Now I am being charged for refusing to undergo a blood test without justification. This is a real nightmare.  I was 100% sure everything was okay, just like my coach Jack Reader who was in the doping control station room with me during at least half of the procedure.

Not the best excuse!

In fairness, either he's the biggest hot air maker ever or he has a case. Whilst ultimately it was pretty stupid to leave it so open, I now have some sympathy

However, I don't think you can make an exception and he will be told so

Sorry banbro people up and down the land have given blood at some stage when 'feeling unwell'

He had lost the match the day before at MC and had a week at least to recover.

Poor excuse and as barry said lucky it is not longer.

 
This excuse is an offense to intelligence and to the idea of being serious and responsable on anti-doping policies. The fact that a top player  has failed a test is very disturbing imo, considering how sporadically these tests are carrying oout. Well done to the ATP for finally doing some much awaited checks  

Some thoughts.

Troicki lost 6-1 6-2 that day, so I can believe that he was unwell.

The claim is that the doctor "dictated" the letter. Not wrote the letter. So does this mean she told him what to say? This seems a bit odd. If she endorsed his action, one would assume she'd write a signed note herself.

Perhaps Troicki felt ill, refused to give blood and asked her advice about what to put in an explanatory letter? The doctors response may have been along the lines of "you can say this but I can't guarantee there won't be a problem".

My gut feeling is that Troicki has been stupid rather than taking anything. His career trajectory over the last couple of years certainly does not suggest a performance enhancer!

But ultimately it is the player's responsibility to know the rules and comply with them. You're not banned only for being proved to have taken drugs. You're also banned for not complying with the testing rules. He may be innocent of the first but he's definitely guilty of the latter.

The rules are known in advance, so he has nobody to blame but himself.

I once donated blood while feeling a tad unwell, didnt really make a difference to my overall health. But Im a layman, and Trick is an elite athlete. Don't think its a just comparison.

That said, if the lady told him its his decision, and he took the dumb one. He didn't refuse the urine test, so Id like to think he was just a bone-head who was to lazy to give a sample, but I don't understand how stupid you have to be for this to happen like it did.

They get as little as a tea spoon of blood for sample testing, how does this harm a players health??

To be honest, I have heard this excuse (drawing blood weakens them) from a few athletes now, many of whom gave their sample regardless, so I believe there is something in it. Whether its physiological or psychological I don't know.

He's either been cunning (knows that a urine sample is safe but that a blood test would reveal something so concocts a story about being ill) or stupid.

I find stupid the easier of the two to believe.

No complaints about the ban though.

On balance, 18 months seems harsh. I'm inclined to believe he genuinely thought the doctor was telling him all was ok (as has been said above you would have to be utterly stupid to refuse if the message you got was it was going to cause a problem). It seems to be accepted he was stressed presumably due to his illness so he may have somewhat misunderstood exactly what was being said. He obviously has to be banned (on the dangerous precedent basis) but I would hope its reduced, as 18 months at this stage is nearly a career ender.

Born Slippy wrote:On balance, 18 months seems harsh. I'm inclined to believe he genuinely thought the doctor was telling him all was ok (as has been said above you would have to be utterly stupid to refuse if the message you got was it was going to cause a problem). It seems to be accepted he was stressed presumably due to his illness so he may have somewhat misunderstood exactly what was being said. He obviously has to be banned (on the dangerous precedent basis) but I would hope its reduced, as 18 months at this stage is nearly a career ender.

It doesn't really matter though does it.

I felt aggrieved when I was doing 35mph in what I thought was still a 40 zone, because there was no new 30 sign. I still got a fine and points though. Pointless me appealing as, if successful, that means everyone can do what I did, knowingly

Likewise this case - there would be numerous players who would exploit this

18 months is correct and yes I do feel a bit sorry for him

Thats a real shame... still if hes telling the truth and he can produce the letter and the doctor, he might have a case to appeal for a lower sentence. Its a shame he was given such a ban for missing a test as opposed to taking something, i thought you were given 2 strikes on this. Still a tough stance is a good thing, but hopefully theyll be lenient if his story holds out. The cynic in me wonders though if theyd be that strict if it was a more top player...

Im inclined to think he was just stupid, honestly. Doesnt the ATP allow one to miss two tests in succession? If he was doping, he could have just avoided the testing doctor like the plague, skipped the urine test, get notified, and be tested on a later (cleaner) date. This just smells of stupidity.

kingraf wrote:Im inclined to think he was just stupid, honestly. Doesnt the ATP allow one to miss two tests in succession? If he was doping, he could have just avoided the testing doctor like the plague, skipped the urine test, get notified, and be tested on a later (cleaner) date. This just smells of stupidity.

I presume there's quite a difference between breaching the "whereabouts" rules though, hence missing an out-of-competition test, and actually refusing a test when selected at a tournament. You'd expect the rules to be tougher for the latter.

HM Murdoch wrote:Troicki lost 6-1 6-2 that day, so I can believe that he was unwell.

Or perhaps a scoreline indicative of someone who'd be enjoying the Monte Carlo nightlife the night before? It wouldn't seem unlikely for a tennis player to find recreational drugs in Monte Carlo, and then panic about a drugs test the next day...

HM Murdoch wrote:Perhaps Troicki felt ill, refused to give blood and asked her advice about what to put in an explanatory letter? The doctors response may have been along the lines of "you can say this but I can't guarantee there won't be a problem".

This does sounds like what happened to me, and so I'm not unsympathetic to him, but a professional athlete really should know the rules and do whatever tests are required of them. The rules are strict though, so it is not impossible for a clean athlete to fall foul of them - hence why I can feel sympathy even though I feel the ban is right thing.

Troicki is 27, he's not a child, he's earned $4.5m on tour, he's been on tour for 7 years.  Despite that huge privilege he appears to have difficulties taking personal responsibility over the simplest matters.  At the very best you might want (generously) to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was not dishonestly attempting to conceal cheating.  If you take that extremely lenient approach towards what he has done he's a fool who has no place in a world where adults need to take responsibility for enjoying the huge privileges he has enjoyed in his life and respecting the integrity of their sport.  
 
He has absolutely no place whatsoever anywhere near the top table of a professional sport if he thinks he can foist his personal responsibility to his sport onto someone else on the absurdly pathetic ground that he was feeling a bit off-colour and didn't want to give a blood test despite what he has to appreciate is a fundamental obligation towards his sport and those who follow it.  
 
If this will help the ATP root out tennis players who consider that a reaction as precious as his is consistent with their obligations to the sport then I've no problem with that, even if the idiot has never cheated in his life.  
 
However, as I have indicated above, I am not at all inclined to give him the benefit of the doubts raised by this case, namely: (a) whether he was attempting to conceal deliberate doping; (b) whether what he said about the Dr. was true.  In relation to the latter the Tribunal appear to have decided it was not.
 
I hope that the schmuck never earns another penny from the sport which has treated him so well and which he has so pathetically abused and taken for granted.

If he is reporting what the Dr told him correctly, and has a copy of the purported letter, then he has a very good case to present to CAS. Could though be that he mis-understood the Dr's guidance.

As was commented above, there is a big difference between breaching the whereabouts rule (2 breaches is a warning, 3 is a de facto positive) and failing to provide a legitimate sample or failure to attend a test once notified - both of which are de facto positives and proscribed 2 year bans. That this has already been reduced to 18 months suggests that something odd was going on - strengthens Troicki's case if he does take this to CAS.

barrystar wrote:Troicki is 27, he's not a child, he's earned $4.5m on tour, he's been on tour for 7 years.  Despite that huge privilege he appears to have difficulties taking personal responsibility over the simplest matters.  At the very best you might want (generously) to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was not dishonestly attempting to conceal cheating.  If you take that extremely lenient approach towards what he has done he's a fool who has no place in a world where adults need to take responsibility for enjoying the huge privileges he has enjoyed in his life and respecting the integrity of their sport.  
 
He has absolutely no place whatsoever anywhere near the top table of a professional sport if he thinks he can foist his personal responsibility to his sport onto someone else on the absurdly pathetic ground that he was feeling a bit off-colour and didn't want to give a blood test despite what he has to appreciate is a fundamental obligation towards his sport and those who follow it.  
 
If this will help the ATP root out tennis players who consider that a reaction as precious as his is consistent with their obligations to the sport then I've no problem with that, even if the idiot has never cheated in his life.  
 
However, as I have indicated above, I am not at all inclined to give him the benefit of the doubts raised by this case, namely: (a) whether he was attempting to conceal deliberate doping; (b) whether what he said about the Dr. was true.  In relation to the latter the Tribunal appear to have decided it was not.
 
I hope that the schmuck never earns another penny from the sport which has treated him so well and which he has so pathetically abused and taken for granted.

I'm as anti-drugs as anyone else, but I do think comments like this are OTT. So are there no grey areas? Should Gasquet "never earn another penny"? How do you know that he has "pathetically abused" the sport? He might actually be just a little bit dim - his earnings on tour are totally irrelevant to his intelligence

Of course he deserves the ban, but you'd think he'd been caught with ten needles in his arm

This is someone's career we're talking about. Should it now be dismissed when it might have just been an honest error of judgment

Sorry, but I do find it a bit wearing how militant a lot of anti-drugs campaigners are, there has to be degrees of punishment

I think its probably worth pointing out he was tested the next morning as well. Is it really that unreasonable for him to have asked if he could take blood the next morning instead? If he hadn't felt that he was being assured that was ok then, no doubt, he would have grumbled but taken the test.

At the Australian Open in 2012 they were testing players after their matches! I recall Murray complaining about it. You put up with it as it is part and parcel of being an athlete. There is absolutely no place in sport for anyone to miss a drug test.

There's a rumor that Cilic might have failed bood test as well........hope they'll finally get serious in cleaning this mess up..........

Reading the links on ATP http://www.atpworldtour.com/~/media/C7522D6D10CA4FAB90DD41DE204B067D.ashx (downloads the PDF), it seems to be the case that Troicki did not realise the implications of his refusal. Reader should have suggested to him to give blood and be done with it. Hopefully, he will appeal and some common sense will prevail.

so naive..........

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:There's a rumor that Cilic might have failed  bood test as well........hope they'll finally get serious in cleaning this mess up..........

http://www.changeovertennis.com/report-marin-cilic-failed-doping-test-in-munich/

That may help our chances in the Davis Cup if true.

laverfan wrote:Reading the links on ATP http://www.atpworldtour.com/~/media/C7522D6D10CA4FAB90DD41DE204B067D.ashx (downloads the PDF), it seems to be the case that Troicki did not realise the implications of his refusal. Reader should have suggested to him to give blood and be done with it. Hopefully, he will appeal and some common sense will prevail.

What does common sense mean in this context?  It could mean a number of things.  It could mean, say

(a) common sense telling us that this was a matter of misunderstanding and he was in violation only on a technicality, given he gave a sample the next day.

(b) common sense telling us that people lie, and if a seasoned pro refuses to give a blood sample, he probably knows all too well what he is doing.

(c) common sense telling us that regardless of whether or not Troicki is actually a cheat, allowing him to go free would provide a big enough loophole for cheats to make attempts at blood tests futile.

I find a call for "common sense to prevail" in this context to be a little bit of below-the-belt hit.  The implication seems to be that the punishment is obviously too severe and those who do not agree "lack common sense".

Cilic suspension still in the rumor territory, but making its way to more serious media outlets:

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2013/07/croatian-media-cilic-serving-suspension-doping/48526/#.UfMfZIzD-70

http://www.lequipe.fr/Tennis/Actualites/Cilic-positif/388699

This would be good news in the sense that it would suggest the fight with doping may be becoming more successful.  What I would see as the sad part is the reports' mention of a three month suspension - did not realize doping suspensions could be so mild.

Well, I don't have much of an opinion as I frankly don't really care about doping anymore I think it should be regulated and monitored but legal. Still I think it sounds like a rather shallow excuse by Troicki. Especially the part about the doctor dictating to him a letter. Personally, I think this hypocritical pursuit of doping has gone a bit too far and we need to think of a better alternative. But it doesn't strike me as very convincing what Troicki is saying.

socal1976 wrote:I think this hypocritical pursuit of doping has gone a bit too far

I don't see it that way; it does not strike me like it is going very far.  If anything, it seems rather timid.  If the pursuit was really all out and yet it would yield no results, then perhaps one could give your suggestions more weight.  But at this point, it seems more like the real pursuit just has not been tried that much.

Have to say, having read the decision, I have a lot of sympathy for Troicki. Hopefully, it will get reduced down to a year, albeit I suspect this may well get upheld.

If the rumors are true and Cilic got 3 months for actually failing one and Troicki 18 for doing only half of one, well that reeks...

I suppose it does. But its interesting to note Cillic got tested twice in two weeks. Given how "rarely" ATP tests its players, Im sure he wasnt expecting to be tested again so soon. The worst thing, imo, is that he is only being banned retrospectively. That means nothing, especially since it co-incides with his worst part of the season. Might as well ban him from the WTF until Doha.

Not interested in doping until Nole and Nadal are caught. Troicki must have been annoying the ATP alot for them to bang him up  

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Not interested in doping until Nole and Nadal are caught. Troicki must have been annoying the ATP alot for them to bang him up  

They have to be doing something to be caught. I realise that constantly beating Roger, might to you and other misguided souls, be that "something" - but the rest of us thankfully live in the real world of innocent until proven guilty  

Most doctors would take a blood sample if you went to them feeling so bad, you were white and lethargic. He hasn't mentioned being physically sick, so an MD would not know exactly what was wrong, a small blood sample would be one step to finding out. Would he then say that I don't want to give one as it would make me even worse ?

It feels like concealment to me, but I have no proof apart from the news feeds, so in all probability, he's sincere about the needle fear and was fuddled enough in the brain with fever to take the wrong decision.

18 months is severe, but they have to take the line of a deterrent ban to keep players scared.

socal1976 wrote:Well, I don't have much of an opinion as I frankly don't really care about doping anymore I think it should be regulated and monitored but legal. Still I think it sounds like a rather shallow excuse by Troicki. Especially the part about the doctor dictating to him a letter. Personally, I think this hypocritical pursuit of doping has gone a bit too far and we need to think of a better alternative. But it doesn't strike me as very convincing what Troicki is saying.

There are accepted doping ingredients already about, so a discussion about legalising PE's has some credibility.

Metabolic vitamins and minerals maintain balance when naturally they deplete during exertion (http://www.powerbar.co.uk/#products) even caffeine is performance enhancing in certain conditions. I'm sure there are other chemicals that are short term PE drugs that last as long as a match and as in the case of the Wimbledon final, could give an extra energy pulse to allow players to survive what could have been a hellish 5 setter. But is that acceptable? where do you draw the line and what strengths of application do you allow before it becomes dangerous to a players short term and long term health.

I presume that there are some drugs that could be used to help players maintain a balanced level of energy throughout a match and are not life threatening with prolonged use, but this does open the door to synthesised back street drug cartels which not only is a danger to pro players but everyone who takes part in sports down to club level. Its a minefield for sure, but unless the playing field is levelled, there are going to be players who take advantage of unknown PE's and reap the benefits, because doping tests just don't cut it AFAIC.

"The doctor in charge of the testing told me that I looked very pale and ill, and that I could skip the test if I wrote an explanation letter to ITF about it."

According to Troicki the doctor suggested that Troicki himself could try and write a letter. So according to this above any such letter would be written by Troicki not any doctor. I don't think the presence of the letter is as important as some say.

Harsh as it may seem, you can't let a player skip a blood test due to illness otherwise you allow an easy get out for cheats. If a player is unwell they should give them the choice of sitting down for 30-60 minutes taking some drinks and food to boost energy or have a lie down, before then taking the test. I can't believe taking a bit of blood could further damage someone's health that much. If they were that ill they probably wouldn't have been playing in the first place.

Giving blood is no big deal.....just a little pr**k.   (Couldn't resist it)

I honestly can't see how he could play a tennis match on clay (if ill) and complete the match and then not feel up to a blood test. It just doesn't add up in my opinion.

Amusing there is an error in the undisputed facts:

"Mr Troicki had defeated Mr Nieminen on the two previous occasions when they had played a match together" - seems to ignore the match Jarrko won 7/6 6/2.

CC - Like I said in an above comnent, Ive heard athletes from across the sporting landscape claim that drawing blood makes them feel weakened. The overwhelming majority have never tested positive on a blood sample, so whether this is physiological or psychological (athletes and their superstitions), I dont know, but its not a claim I dismiss out of hand.

Read the full interview on Victor Troicki's own website or tennis has a steroid problem website. It is interesting to note that he did have the blood test the next morning.

I have read the decision. In short they say that he panicked a bit about the prospect of giving blood (he had a fear of needles) and wrongly persuaded himself that the Dr had said it would not be a problem when she had said no such thing, but had said that she was not in a position to excuse him the test. She had said that he should give a test but if he was not going to give a test he should write a letter to explain himself and she was worried later when she heard that he had not gone to another Dr to get a certificate to explain his illness but just went to bed and then gave blood the next day. In his evidence he had talked about making himself 100% sure he was OK which was not consistent with a number of things he said and did - it was untrue and self-serving.

The bottom line for me is that he showed a casual and selfish approach to his obligations and a determination that what he wanted was paramount. That was what combined to persuade him to go along with his desire not to give blood instead of complying with an obvious and fundamental obligation. It is an absurd and self-serving attitude towards a central obligation he owes to the sport that has given him so much. The tribunal was also fairly dismayed that his coach professed to know little about drug testing procedures.

It is not good enough for a former top player to have such an attitude. I don't want to see him back in tennis in any capacity unless he acknowledges that it was nobody's responsibility but his own to know his obligations and that he is sorry to have accused the Dr of such a massive dereliction of duty on her part to cover his blushes.

Schmuck is about right I'd say.