The Sharapova drug announcement

First topic message reminder :

A big announcement on Monday night from Sharapova was not, as some thought, about her retirement but about the shock news that she had failed a drug test at this year's Australian Open.

The statement from the ITF is what I thought would solve this. I have to say though...why such an ambiguous statement? Why not state: "Rafael Nadal did not have a silent ban in 2012, 2013, or ever. Such accusations are wholly false." Instead of some vague statement like the one they put out. The strongest bit in it is "incorrect" which could be argued as amounting to the same thing, but why not be more explicit? Although if it turned out that any players did hypothetically have a silent ban, they could probably wriggle out of it given the statement they have put out, saying "we were referring to current actions in place at the time of the statement" or some other BS to try and make out it wasn't technically a lie. If the accusation is a conspiracy, stronger language is needed.

As to the commentary above, no they did not say silent bans don't exist, they only said that they would be aware of them if they did exist! And neither did they say Nadal has never failed a test. At most they implied it, and even that is debatable. Frustrating.

Still, at least they put out something fairly strong, even if not perfect.

Roselyne Bachelot's position looks a bit weaker though. Perhaps it's time for her to present her evidence. And, since it's quite likely that her evidence is in fact nonexistent, perhaps it's time to put out a new statement backing off a bit to avoid the legal case.

With Nadal I always found believable that he had problems with his knees and the use of platelet rich technology to repair the tendons and cartilage.  In the past many athletes have ended up as crippled.  With the heavy style of Nadal's play it always seemed to be consistent.  He had a habit of playing full on.  Most said he wouldn't last and without the medical advances for tendon and cartilage repair he wouldn't have.  I may be wrong but that is the impression I have had with Nadal.  He was one of those athletes that became a man while still a boy. Wayne Rooney is another example.  He seems to have faded also with time.

I should add there is no reason to talk about Nadal on this thread.  There is enough in this Sharapova case to be the entire focus of a thread.

I thought about this as well, but we don't want to encourage a whole thread to be set up to talk about unsubstantiated accusations against Rafa, that wouldn't be appropriate, better to hide them in here (!). And there is a link between the Nadal story coming out as a result of the Sharapova one, and Sharapova arguably alluding to silent bans in her speech. So maybe it's OK - just - if we don't go on about it too much and keep more to publically reported stories and factual commentary?

Henman Bill wrote:The statement from the ITF is what I thought would solve this. I have to say though...why such an ambiguous statement? Why not state: "Rafael Nadal did not have a silent ban in 2012, 2013, or ever. Such accusations are wholly false." Instead of some vague statement like the one they put out. The strongest bit in it is "incorrect" which could be argued as amounting to the same thing, but why not be more explicit? Although if it turned out that any players did hypothetically have a silent ban, they could probably wriggle out of it given the statement they have put out, saying "we were referring to current actions in place at the time of the statement" or some other BS to try and make out it wasn't technically a lie. If the accusation is a conspiracy, stronger language is needed.

As to the commentary above, no they did not say silent bans don't exist, they only said that they would be aware of them if they did exist! And neither did they say Nadal has never failed a test. At most they implied it, and even that is debatable. Frustrating.

Still, at least they put out something fairly strong, even if not perfect.

With the specificity of her comment she put a pretty narrow point in issue - had Nadal tested positive and benefited from a silent ban on a particular occasion? She is insinuating that he's a doper generally, of course, but she's made a specific allegation and, I'd think, thereby ceded a fairly narrow field of play to Nadal.. One would like to think that whoever is the appropriate authority could make an absolutely clear point in response that there was no silent ban and put this one to bed. The nature of the ITF response suggests that it is not that body - if they say they would not know it seems that they aren't; then the point is that Nadal has to chase up all the bodies who might have tested him in the relevant window and get them to say what the position is. I imagine that one possible body is the relevant Spanish authority who would be doing out-of-competition testing, others will be testers at tournaments during the period or any other body charged with out of competition testing. He may need to put together a few statements, but unless she's got something specific I'd reckon it's game over for her.

So in other words Nadal now has to do the running (while traipsing the world playing tennis... you know... his job?) because of an off hand comment made by a woman with nothing by way of evidence? Brilliant

She's admitted she doesn't have any evidence, this is just getting a bit silly.

kingraf wrote:So in other words Nadal now has to do the running (while traipsing the world playing tennis... you know... his job?) because of an off hand comment made by a woman with nothing by way of evidence? Brilliant

In England the defendant has to prove the allegation so the claimant can lie back in theory, but if the Defendant does enough to raise a case then the Claimant needs to respond or risk losing; I don't know where he would try to proceed against her and what the rules are there.

But the bottom line for me is that he doesn't need to sue, I don't know why he'd bother because she has no credibility with sensible people, and if he does decide to sue his case is that what she says is untrue, he has not tested positive and there are no ghost results &c. If he wants to issue proceedings and make that his case, he's better off producing the supporting evidence unless she completely caves in don't you think?

Henman Bill wrote:... Sharapova arguably alluding to silent bans in her speech. ...

I don't think there is anything to argue at all about that - she did allude to silent bans.  On that matter I would hope good investigative journalists would press her to elaborate exactly why she mentioned it and what she meant by it.  There was an awful lot of revelatory stuff in that press conference of hers that she can now be held to.  The thing with this issue is that it has a wider context and ideally it should be also considered in that wider context (the fact that so many were using it).  I just hope the ITF look into this properly. I also hope she and others will start to agree to do a "Chris Froome" release of records.

Maybe there is someone in the tennis authorities now who is in the processing of photocopying or keeping an electronic record of hundreds of documents and emails. Soon to resign and come up with a blockbusting, truth-revealing Wikileaks or Snowden-esque revelation. Well, you never know.

Nore Staat wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:... Sharapova arguably alluding to silent bans in her speech. ...

I don't think there is anything to argue at all about that - she did allude to silent bans.  On that matter I would hope good investigative journalists would press her to elaborate exactly why she mentioned it and what she meant by it.  There was an awful lot of revelatory stuff in that press conference of hers that she can now be held to.  The thing with this issue is that it has a wider context and ideally it should be also considered in that wider context (the fact that so many were using it).  I just hope the ITF look into this properly. I also hope she and others will start to agree to do a "Chris Froome" release of records.

I think she was alluding to players who, on receiving a positive on the A sample ask for the B sample to be tested and withdraw from tournaments citing a fictitious injury pending the outcome of the B sample despite knowing that they have tested positive and, in most cases, having at the very least a good idea of why they have tested positive.  I don't think it was any more than that.

Jeez, you guys are still talking about this stuff? If Maria Sharapova was found to be the Zodiac Killer or was punching black protesters in the face at a Trump rally I don't think we would have this many posts.

socal still with dumb jokes, git

What happned to your thread about your silly solution to doping?

Djokos turn will be soon, so dont go to far away

socal1976 wrote:Jeez, you guys are still talking about this stuff? If Maria Sharapova was found to be the Zodiac Killer or was punching black protesters in the face at a Trump rally I don't think we would have this many posts.

That's an ad Hominem: complaining about the fact "guys" are still talking about the stuff and then using a false comparison. Your comment doesn't add to the debate it tries to close it down. Look it is a thread about Sharapova - you can't complain people are debating this Sharapova revelation in a thread designed to debate Sharapova's revelation. Sorry that is my opinion.

barrystar wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:... Sharapova arguably alluding to silent bans in her speech. ...

I don't think there is anything to argue at all about that - she did allude to silent bans.  On that matter I would hope good investigative journalists would press her to elaborate exactly why she mentioned it and what she meant by it.  There was an awful lot of revelatory stuff in that press conference of hers that she can now be held to.  The thing with this issue is that it has a wider context and ideally it should be also considered in that wider context (the fact that so many were using it).  I just hope the ITF look into this properly. I also hope she and others will start to agree to do a "Chris Froome" release of records.

I think she was alluding to players who, on receiving a positive on the A sample ask for the B sample to be tested and withdraw from tournaments citing a fictitious injury pending the outcome of the B sample despite knowing that they have tested positive and, in most cases, having at the very least a good idea of why they have tested positive.  I don't think it was any more than that.

Yes, there's no way Sharapova can be seriously claiming that if not for her admission no one would have found out... she's not an angel.

Nore Staat wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Jeez, you guys are still talking about this stuff? If Maria Sharapova was found to be the Zodiac Killer or was punching black protesters in the face at a Trump rally I don't think we would have this many posts.

That's an ad Hominem: complaining about the fact "guys" are still talking about the stuff and then using a false comparison.  Your comment doesn't add to the debate it tries to close it down.  Look it is a thread about Sharapova - you can't complain people are debating this Sharapova revelation in a thread designed to debate Sharapova's revelation.  Sorry that is my opinion.

I didn't mean to offend, just making a joke, I thought you would appreciate the humor but if not then cheers please enjoy the topic, I am never one for shutting down any debate as I hope you are aware, no offense intended. Hell I contributed to the thread myself.

socal1976 wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Jeez, you guys are still talking about this stuff? If Maria Sharapova was found to be the Zodiac Killer or was punching black protesters in the face at a Trump rally I don't think we would have this many posts.

That's an ad Hominem: complaining about the fact "guys" are still talking about the stuff and then using a false comparison.  Your comment doesn't add to the debate it tries to close it down.  Look it is a thread about Sharapova - you can't complain people are debating this Sharapova revelation in a thread designed to debate Sharapova's revelation.  Sorry that is my opinion.

I didn't mean to offend, just making a joke, I thought you would appreciate the humor but if not then cheers please enjoy the topic, I am never one for shutting down any debate as I hope you are aware, no offense intended. Hell I contributed to the thread myself.

Okay.  I didn't read it as humour - my error.  I recognise humour is a difficult art to master especially when it comes to plain text.  Maybe I have a tendency to read things too seriously.  When it comes to humour I tend to see a lot of humour in Jahu's comments and he usually also has a serious element in it as well.

Nore Staat wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Jeez, you guys are still talking about this stuff? If Maria Sharapova was found to be the Zodiac Killer or was punching black protesters in the face at a Trump rally I don't think we would have this many posts.

That's an ad Hominem: complaining about the fact "guys" are still talking about the stuff and then using a false comparison.  Your comment doesn't add to the debate it tries to close it down.  Look it is a thread about Sharapova - you can't complain people are debating this Sharapova revelation in a thread designed to debate Sharapova's revelation.  Sorry that is my opinion.

I didn't mean to offend, just making a joke, I thought you would appreciate the humor but if not then cheers please enjoy the topic, I am never one for shutting down any debate as I hope you are aware, no offense intended. Hell I contributed to the thread myself.

Okay.  I didn't read it as humour - my error.  I recognise humour is a difficult art to master especially when it comes to plain text.  Maybe I have a tendency to read things too seriously.  When it comes to humour I tend to see a lot of humour in Jahu's comments and he usually also has a serious element in it as well.

Jahu's primary concern when the news broke was whether or not Dimi would get a refund for the money he spent on her

Nore, you are right, socal does humour only when he does not like something, and sugarcoats it with usually a stale joke.

So yes, since his thread got taken down about his PED solution, now socal came here to devalue this thread too

He's just lonely in a foreign country so be patient with him

Nore Staat wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Jeez, you guys are still talking about this stuff? If Maria Sharapova was found to be the Zodiac Killer or was punching black protesters in the face at a Trump rally I don't think we would have this many posts.

That's an ad Hominem: complaining about the fact "guys" are still talking about the stuff and then using a false comparison.  Your comment doesn't add to the debate it tries to close it down.  Look it is a thread about Sharapova - you can't complain people are debating this Sharapova revelation in a thread designed to debate Sharapova's revelation.  Sorry that is my opinion.

I didn't mean to offend, just making a joke, I thought you would appreciate the humor but if not then cheers please enjoy the topic, I am never one for shutting down any debate as I hope you are aware, no offense intended. Hell I contributed to the thread myself.

Okay.  I didn't read it as humour - my error.  I recognise humour is a difficult art to master especially when it comes to plain text.  Maybe I have a tendency to read things too seriously.  When it comes to humour I tend to see a lot of humour in Jahu's comments and he usually also has a serious element in it as well.

Well we have a difference of opinion about humor and the poster you referred to is not one I find humorous but to each their own. No worries.

Kingraf, please refrain from deconstructing so deepley my intricate thoughts of Dimis financial loses here

kingraf wrote:... Jahu's primary concern when the news broke was whether or not Dimi would get a refund for the money he spent on her

To be fair on Jahu I also was considering whether I should claim a refund for all the ear plugs and ear mufflers I have invested in over the years in following Sharapova  With regard to Dimi, personally I think Dimi may have been a beneficiary of this Meldonium use of Sharapovas.  

socal1976 wrote:... Well we have a difference of opinion about humor and the poster you referred to is not one I find humorous but to each their own. No worries.

Yes I accept different people have different views on what is humour. But with plain text it is not easy.

Pretty good analogy there, but still it harmed Dimis career, he just did nothing since she started feeding him shugarpova candies with GMO corn syrup.

Wasted him for good

barrystar wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:The statement from the ITF is what I thought would solve this. I have to say though...why such an ambiguous statement? Why not state: "Rafael Nadal did not have a silent ban in 2012, 2013, or ever. Such accusations are wholly false." Instead of some vague statement like the one they put out. The strongest bit in it is "incorrect" which could be argued as amounting to the same thing, but why not be more explicit? Although if it turned out that any players did hypothetically have a silent ban, they could probably wriggle out of it given the statement they have put out, saying "we were referring to current actions in place at the time of the statement" or some other BS to try and make out it wasn't technically a lie. If the accusation is a conspiracy, stronger language is needed.

As to the commentary above, no they did not say silent bans don't exist, they only said that they would be aware of them if they did exist! And neither did they say Nadal has never failed a test. At most they implied it, and even that is debatable. Frustrating.

Still, at least they put out something fairly strong, even if not perfect.

With the specificity of her comment she put a pretty narrow point in issue - had Nadal tested positive and benefited from a silent ban on a particular occasion?  She is insinuating that he's a doper generally, of course, but she's made a specific allegation and, I'd think, thereby ceded a fairly narrow field of play to Nadal..  One would like to think that whoever is the appropriate authority could make an absolutely clear point in response that there was no silent ban and put this one to bed.  The nature of the ITF response suggests that it is not that body - if they say they would not know it seems that they aren't; then the point is that Nadal has to chase up all the bodies who might have tested him in the relevant window and get them to say what the position is.  I imagine that one possible body is the relevant Spanish authority who would be doing out-of-competition testing, others will be testers at tournaments during the period or any other body charged with out of competition testing.  He may need to put together a few statements, but unless she's got something specific I'd reckon it's game over for her.

The ITF is the correct body to comment. They are the body responsible for issuing bans and if they say that they do not issue "silent bans" (which they have done) then that is the end of the matter unless someone can show the ITF is lying. Given she has already confirmed that she had no actual knowledge, that clearly won't happen in this case.

barrystar wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:... Sharapova arguably alluding to silent bans in her speech. ...

I don't think there is anything to argue at all about that - she did allude to silent bans.  On that matter I would hope good investigative journalists would press her to elaborate exactly why she mentioned it and what she meant by it.  There was an awful lot of revelatory stuff in that press conference of hers that she can now be held to.  The thing with this issue is that it has a wider context and ideally it should be also considered in that wider context (the fact that so many were using it).  I just hope the ITF look into this properly. I also hope she and others will start to agree to do a "Chris Froome" release of records.

I think she was alluding to players who, on receiving a positive on the A sample ask for the B sample to be tested and withdraw from tournaments citing a fictitious injury pending the outcome of the B sample despite knowing that they have tested positive and, in most cases, having at the very least a good idea of why they have tested positive.  I don't think it was any more than that.

I saw it as a tip to those in the know that she knows where the bodies are buried.

Born Slippy wrote:

barrystar wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:The statement from the ITF is what I thought would solve this. I have to say though...why such an ambiguous statement? Why not state ... As to the commentary above, no they did not say silent bans don't exist, they only said that they would be aware of them if they did exist! And neither did they say Nadal has never failed a test. At most they implied it, and even that is debatable. Frustrating. ...

With the specificity of her comment she put a pretty narrow point in issue ... One would like to think that whoever is the appropriate authority could make an absolutely clear point in response that there was no silent ban and put this one to bed.  The nature of the ITF response suggests that it is not that body - if they say they would not know it seems that they aren't ...

The ITF is the correct body to comment. They are the body responsible for issuing bans and if they say that they do not issue "silent bans" (which they have done) then that is the end of the matter unless someone can show the ITF is lying. Given she has already confirmed that she had no actual knowledge, that clearly won't happen in this case.

With regard this particular issue its is a more damning statement for ITF than for Rafael Nadal. Rafael Nadal should just pass it on to the relevant body - the ITF with no further comment. We are more interested in potential institutional corruption and mal-practice than an individual tennis player within that system. Think IOC, think FIFA, think IAAF. It is time for the ITF itself to be the target - let them prove they have appropriate procedures - let them prove they are not corrupt.

Ps it has always seemed to me that for tennis there is less of a need for PEDS because there is more opportunity within tennis for resting (between points and between games) and for refuelling: high energy or slow energy release foods and multivitamins.  Within tennis one can better time manage and better fuel manage the match.  One can use the slice shot to slow the point, an attacking shot to try to finish the point off. There is the mano o mano psychological aspect of the game also.  It makes tennis fairly unique in that aspect.  I suppose a baseline repetitive style of play is more amenable to gaining an advantage by using PEDS.  But PEDS don't necessarily help in reading an opponents serve and predicting were the next shot is going etc.

Well, the ITF has said:

- It always makes bans public;
- WADA would know if it didn't anyway (as it gets the results of any testing) and would appeal.

That seems pretty comprehensive to me. Unless someone comes up with some evidence that, contrary to that position, the ITF has silently banned someone, I don't see what else the ITF needs to address. They can't prove a negative.

Born Slippy wrote:Well, the ITF has said:

- It always makes bans public;
- WADA would know if it didn't anyway (as it gets the results of any testing) and would appeal.

That seems pretty comprehensive to me. Unless someone comes up with some evidence that, contrary to that position, the ITF has silently banned someone, I don't see what else the ITF needs to address. They can't prove a negative.

Okay.  It seems to me this requires a statement also from WADA along the lines they are satisfied with ITF's procedures, record keeping etc and that  they are happy with the relevant testing and reporting of those tests during the key period in question. The IOC, UCI, FIFA, IAAF have demonstrated in the past how difficult it is to prove institutional corruption even when it was rampant.

Not unexpectedly Sharapova is suspended from her role of being a goodwill ambassador for the UN Development Programme, where she would take her tennis racket and tennis balls to Africa and elsewhere to help raise media interest in various UNDP activities and concerns:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35812083

UN Ambassador roles is a win win situation for both the UN programme as well as the sportsperson.  The UN programme gets raised media attention to its programme and issues it wishes to promote or highlight, while the sportsperson gets good media publicity that helps raise the sportsperson's brand which they gain from through private endorsements and sponsorships.

At the end of the day she has enough money never to worry about anything ever again.
My heart bleeds for her.

UN has droppes her as goodwill Ambasador.

I guess her credit card APR will go up too now

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/35860851

More fuel on the fire of Melodonium. Its gonna be a hard sell for her I think to convince them its just medical

Russians seem to be on Magnesium deficiency and prone to diabetes

For those of us who never had a minutes doubt that she was lying through her back teeth

Or maybe it's all blowing over...............

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/36034369

Bet Maria is a bit annoyed she's admitted not knowing it was banned now...

Born Slippy wrote:Bet Maria is a bit annoyed she's admitted not knowing it was banned now...

LOL, that was my first thought too when I read the news.

Yeah, but it'll be a minefield to have different treatments based on stray comments.

I feel a "right, let's start again" approach on the way.

Studies show that people that park in supermarket disabled bays that are not disabled are more likely to be a member of the criminal fraternity than those that don't.  Hence by stopping and investigating those people illegally using these bays they are more likely to identify hardened criminals.  The way it works is that criminals intuitively have a disregard for social rules so will break minor laws as well as breaking major laws.

I reckon the same applies to the female tennis players.  Those that break the social convention of shrieking and screaming in front of a paying public and television audience are more likely to break more significant sporting social conventions.  The Sharapova case has provided one likely example of this - even having the affront to stage a news conference in a hotel in which she publicly says the hotel she is in is sh$t and that she took this powerful heart drug for ten years or so that also happens to be performance enhancing because she has a family history of diabetes etc.

The fact that this drug stays in the body for longer than expected just goes to show how long lasting the benefits of taking this drug is - they are saying it lasts several months in the body.  Remember WADA warned athletes on their website in September 2015 that this drug would be banned from Jan 2016.   They also had this drug under investigation status a year before that date. Sharapova has already admitted she took the drug in Jan 2016 as part of a continuous "diabetes prevention precautionary measure". If they let her off the hook then they will look like fools after Sharapova made such a huge incident over her "mistake" throwing in veiled accusations towards other tennis players and sporting bodies that other people go on medical timeouts when found out.

bogbrush wrote:Yeah, but it'll be a minefield to have different treatments based on stray comments.

I feel a "right, let's start again" approach on the way.

The implication of that article though is that it will be a case by case approach:

"It said that athletes might be able to show that they "could not have known or suspected" meldonium would still be in their systems having taken it before it was banned.

"In these circumstances, Wada considers that there may be grounds for no fault or negligence on the part of the athlete," added the guidance."

That seems sensible to me. If so, Sharapova has no defence. She can't now come out and say she wasn't taking it this year. It would be totally contrary to her previous comments.

Nore Staat wrote:Studies show that people that park in supermarket disabled bays that are not disabled are more likely to be a member of the criminal fraternity than those that don't.  Hence by stopping and investigating those people illegally using these bays they are more likely to identify hardened criminals.  The way it works is that criminals intuitively have a disregard for social rules so will break minor laws as well as breaking major laws.

I reckon the same applies to the female tennis players.  Those that break the social convention of shrieking and screaming in front of a paying public and television audience are more likely to break more significant sporting social conventions.  The Sharapova case has provided one likely example of this - even having the affront to stage a news conference in a hotel in which she publicly says the hotel she is in is sh$t and that she took this powerful heart drug for ten years or so that also happens to be performance enhancing because she has a family history of diabetes etc.

The fact that this drug stays in the body for longer than expected just goes to show how long lasting the benefits of taking this drug is - they are saying it lasts several months in the body.  Remember WADA warned athletes on their website in September 2015 that this drug would be banned from Jan 2016.   They also had this drug under investigation status a year before that date.  Sharapova has already admitted she took the drug in Jan 2016 as part of a continuous "diabetes prevention precautionary measure".  If they let her off the hook then they will look like fools after Sharapova made such a huge incident over her "mistake" throwing in veiled accusations towards other tennis players and sporting bodies that other people go on medical timeouts when found out.

Very true; character will always out.

Certainly this latest development doesn't help Sharapova - as has been said , she already admitted taking it , in ignorance of its changed status , after the date it was banned.

It is interesting though ; and makes sense. The thing that puzzled me was how many Russian sportsmen and women were testing positive - as it seemed unlikely they would all have either overlooked the listing of the drug on the banned list ; or have decided to risk continuing to use it anyway : would have pointed to an epidemic of stupidity. That the drug was remaining in the system from last year seems much more logical (since it was legal , and in common use in eastern Europe , it is hardly surprising the great majority of these positive tests come from those countries)

The problem for the authorities now is just how to deal with the results. Do they go through exhaustive investigations of every case to try to establish precisely when each athlete last took the drug ? And how could they prove it one way or the other ?
They may have to declare a period of grace (not sure how they can establish that or how long it will take to do so ) and only start to penalise people after that expires - effectively revising the date when a positive test becomes evidence of a breach of doping laws from 1/1/16 to ...whenever ? Otherwise I could see lawyers having a picnic...

Would be ironic if Sharapova , by admitting taking the drug this year , were the only person to be penalised under the current rules.

Yes, If she had only said "I saw the announcement about the banned drug from 1st January, and stopped taking the medication in November." Then she would be getting off the hook, probably.

Even if she'd said NOTHING she would now be in a position to say the above and get off the hook!

Nore Staat wrote:Studies show that people that park in supermarket disabled bays that are not disabled are more likely to be a member of the criminal fraternity than those that don't.  Hence by stopping and investigating those people illegally using these bays they are more likely to identify hardened criminals.  

What else might work here? Would it work to investigate people driving motorbikes in public parks where families are having picnics? What about investigating people driving white, old, souped up Ford Fiestas revving the engine loudly? People with white trainers? Excessive swearing? People that give you ugly looks or aggro in the street? There is no end of opportunities for legitimate police work here.[/quote]

Henman Bill wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:Studies show that people that park in supermarket disabled bays that are not disabled are more likely to be a member of the criminal fraternity than those that don't.  Hence by stopping and investigating those people illegally using these bays they are more likely to identify hardened criminals.  

What else might work here? Would it work to investigate people driving motorbikes in public parks where families are having picnics? What about investigating people driving white, old, souped up Ford Fiestas revving the engine loudly? People with white trainers? Excessive swearing? People that give you ugly looks or aggro in the street? There is no end of opportunities for legitimate police work here.

Be a good citizen and read:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110220105210/rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/brf199.pdf

The article even says something along the lines of "profiling people with tattoos would probably work, but we probably shouldn't."

Henman Bill wrote:The article even says something along the lines of "profiling people with tattoos would probably work, but we probably shouldn't."

I don't know why you are using random irrelevancies in an attempt to denigrate evidence based research. You seem to have an aversion to police based work.

Are you being serious, or is this all just some whimsical teasing or winding me up?

If you're being serious, I certainly am not attempting to denigrate the research, I certainly don't have an aversion to police based work, and it's a huge leap to think that.

I don't know about you, but I am just making some light hearted musings. My comments contribute nothing to a serious debate one way or the other.

I agree with your post above, which BB also agreed with. I think we should be a little careful with how far and how vigorously we go down this route, but I think it's basically true.

I do still find it odd that she was taking a drug from Latvia when she is a US citizen where, for her 'condition' they don't prescribe Meldonium.