In the year 24 25 - US Open 2024

[Tsai]

pa da realno, ona prica kao krenuo kod dr cetojevica pa napravio niz od 43:0 je verovanju u deda mraza

[Arkadija]

18 minutes ago, Tsai said:

sta mislite, dal se svi rade necim, pa koga uhvate uhvate?

da

 

i ne samo u tenisu, nego u svakom sportu

meni prosto deluje neljudski da neko može da vozi bicikl po 250 kilometara i tako 20 etpa, po brdima najčešće.

[Shan Jan]

Svi se rade samo neki to rade bolje od drugih. Realno bi trebalo dozvoliti doping.

[Tsai]

ali evo sinner recimo da je zaista bio narokan na IW, rutinski ga izbacio alkaraz u SF

[utilitarist]

https://sportklub.n1info.rs/tenis/atp/janik-siner-oslobodjen-svih-optuzbi-za-doping/

 

sviđa mi se što se odluka donosi u skladu sa okolnostima a ne brojki zapisanih u kamenu. ako čoveku supstanca nije uticala na igru to ne samo što govori da nije bio dopingovan u onom bukvalnom smislu kako laici doživljavaju doping pre nego što padne mrak na oči zbog infa da su brojke veće od dozvoljenih, nego i o njegovim namerama i da mu je objašnjenje na mestu jer zašto bi neko uzimao doping samo da bi pao na doping kontroli.  

ostaje naravno pitanje šta sa onima koji su pali, koliko je njihova situacija identična i da li je siner usamljen primer. po tome što se ne diže galama hrabro bih zaključio da sinerov slučaj nije jedinstven.  

zbog što ne mogu da se vide jasno sinerove loše namere mi je galama koja se digla ne samo ovde od starta bullshit, imam dovoljno iskustva da su mi takve povike operisane od dobre volje da se sagleda cela situacija i da mogu na vreme da ih uočim

[Filozof manijak]

32 minutes ago, utilitarist said:

ako čoveku supstanca nije uticala na igru to ne samo što govori da nije bio dopingovan u onom bukvalnom smislu kako laici doživljavaju doping 

 

Vrlo smela tvrdnja, ako pogledamo kako je Siner eksplodirao u poslednjih godinu dana...

[utilitarist]

58 minutes ago, Filozof manijak said:

 

Vrlo smela tvrdnja, ako pogledamo kako je Siner eksplodirao u poslednjih godinu dana...

ne vidim što bi i sa te strane bila smela, u godinama je kada se postiže peak a njegovi rezultati do ove sezone su slutili da može postići mnogo.

[Ros]

5 hours ago, utilitarist said:

ne vidim što bi i sa te strane bila smela, u godinama je kada se postiže peak a njegovi rezultati do ove sezone su slutili da može postići mnogo.

 

a kako se meri uticaj zabranjene supstance na neciju igru?

[utilitarist]

3 minutes ago, Ros said:

 

a kako se meri uticaj zabranjene supstance na neciju igru?

kreće se od standardne kontrole a završava brojkama za koje se zna da podižu performanse.  ako te zaista zanimaju detalji to će morati neko stručniji da ti objasni. prateći finalno mišljenje stručnjaka konzenus je da sporna supstanca nije uticala na sinerovu igru.

[reg]

 

4 hours ago, utilitarist said:

kreće se od standardne kontrole a završava brojkama za koje se zna da podižu performanse.  ako te zaista zanimaju detalji to će morati neko stručniji da ti objasni. prateći finalno mišljenje stručnjaka konzenus je da sporna supstanca nije uticala na sinerovu igru.

 

Prateci argumentaciju svakome dostupne odluke, uticaj na igru nije relevantan.

 

Quote

 

(c) Lex Sportiva Issues
111. The Tribunal must consider a number of key legal issues arising from the TADP and CAS
case law in order to finalise its determination of this matter. It is appropriate to list these
as sub-headings and deal with them individually:

a. Was a Prohibited Substance or any of its metabolites or markers found in either the
Player’s First Sample or Second Sample?

The answer to this question is yes and as such constitutes a violation of TADP Articles
2.1 and 2.2, given that both of these offences are strict liability matters.

b. What is the sanction for breaches of TADP Articles 2.1 and 2.2?

As set out within TADP Articles 10.2.1 and 10.2.2, the benchmark sanction is four
years of Ineligibility unless the Player rebuts the presumption of intentionality. In such
cases, the sanction is reduced to two years of Ineligibility.

c. Was the presence or Use of a Prohibited Substance intentional?

A definition of “intentional” is set out in TADP Article 10.2.3. However, the ITIA have
accepted that the presence or Use of the Prohibited Substance was not intentional in
this case. The starting point for the sanction to be applied is a period of Ineligibility of
two years.

d. Is the period of ineligibility to be eliminated or further reduced?

This issue, to be determined by the Tribunal, is less straightforward: TADP Article 10.5
provides for the elimination of the period of Ineligibility on the grounds of No Fault or
Negligence. TADP Article 10.6 provides for the reduction of the period of Ineligibility
on the grounds of No Significant Fault or Negligence (this is not analysed further given
the conclusions in respect of TADP Article 10.5, cited above). The term “No Fault or
Negligence” is defined in the TADP Appendix One. It is crucial that the wording is
considered with great care. The key terms of the definition are that the Player must
not “know or suspect” and “could not reasonably have known or suspected even with
the exercise of utmost caution” that they had “Used or been administered the
Prohibited Substance”. The Player is also required to prove the origin of the Prohibited
Substance on the balance of probabilities, and in this case the ITIA have accepted
the Player’s explanation i.e. that the Clostebol was transmitted to him from the hands
of Mr Naldi during the massage therapy and the bandaging of his feet following the
administration of Clostebol to Mr Naldi’s finger which had previously been cut in an
accident with a scalpel.

112. The Comment to Article 10.5 in the WADC provides at sub-section (b) “the Administration
of a Prohibited Substance by the Athlete’s personal physician or trainer without disclosure
to the Athlete (Athletes are responsible for their choice of medical personnel and for
advising medical personnel that they cannot be given any Prohibited Substance)”. The
Tribunal forms the view that the comment is part of the WADC and that it should be given
a purposive interpretation so as to ensure that Article 10.5 is compliant with the overall
aims and objectives of the WADC, as intended by TADP Article 19.2. This results in the
Tribunal considering that the application of the Comment should not be limited to
“physician” or “trainer” but rather than the Comment should be interpreted in a way so as
to include any licensed/qualified healthcare or sports professional person providing
medication or supplements to an athlete. The clear intent of the comment is to ensure that
an athlete cannot evade responsibility simply because a Prohibited Substance has been
provided by a trusted medical practitioner or a person in a similar position which may in
the Tribunal’s interpretation include but is not limited to physiotherapists, chiropractors,
pharmacists, and/or nurses. In reaching its conclusions on the analysis of the Comment,
the Tribunal has taken into account the French version of the WADC, which appears to
provide for a wider interpretation of “trainer” than would be the case in English. The
Tribunal would point out that it may be prudent for the anti-doping authorities to review the
language used within the Comment in order to ensure that the issues raised by the Parties
are clarified, if necessary.

113. The Tribunal considers that the effect of the Comment to Article 10.5 on its operation does
not otherwise interfere with the clear provisions of TADP Article 10.5 and the mandatory
requirements which an athlete must satisfy in order to avail him- or herself of the relief
from sanction. The reference with the Comment to “Administration” cannot in the view of
the Tribunal encompass the scenario which arose in this case; i.e., the Player was
inadvertently cross-contaminated by the Prohibited Substance during a massage by a
physiotherapist who had used a spray containing Clostebol to treat his own wound of
which the Player was not aware and could not have been aware within the factual matrix
presented in evidence.

114. The Tribunal in its review of the substantial CAS (and other) case law provided by the
Parties makes the general comment that almost all these cases turn upon their own facts
and the relevant tribunals’ assessment of the evidence and analysis in those cases. What
is important, therefore, is not so much whether there are factual similarities or differences
between those cases and this one, but to find common points of principle and see how
those principles may have been applied in a particular case. To this end the Tribunal
considers the relevant principles in the following cases:

 

[...]

 

c. In CAS 2009/A/1926 and 1930 ITF –v- Richard Gasquet, the Appellant inadvertently
ingested cocaine through kissing a woman he had met for the first time in an Italian
restaurant. It appears that the woman had been taking cocaine without the Appellant
being aware and that the cocaine passed to him whilst they were kissing through the
intermingling of saliva. The Appellant was successful at the CAS, with the panel
determining that he did not fail the “utmost caution” test. He could not have known the
risk of ingesting cocaine from kissing someone. The CAS observed that given the
parties’ experts took some time to conclude that risk for themselves, the Appellant could
not have known of the risk of ingesting cocaine, even whilst exercising the utmost
caution, from the woman, specifically given that he did not see her taking cocaine, see
her under the influence of cocaine, or know anything about her personal circumstances.
At paragraph 5.32 of the decision, the CAS panel considered whether it could have been
the intention of the WADC or the relevant version of the TADP to seek to sanction an
athlete in circumstances where it was impossible for an athlete to have perceived an
anti-doping risk.

It seems to the Tribunal that this decision is similar to the Player’s case at hand.

 

 

[Profesionalac]

Nevezano za ovaj konkretan slučaj, meni je najjača logika da je onaj koji zna odmah da objasni svoje "sumnjive" rezultate u boljoj poziciji od onog koji ne zna.

 

Sa dobrom pripremom si u boljoj poziciji od nekoga ko stvarno nemarom/greškom unese nešto nedozvoljeno i nema pojma otkud mu to u telu.