Tsai Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 pa da realno, ona prica kao krenuo kod dr cetojevica pa napravio niz od 43:0 je verovanju u deda mraza Link to comment
Arkadija Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 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. 4 Link to comment
Shan Jan Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 Svi se rade samo neki to rade bolje od drugih. Realno bi trebalo dozvoliti doping. 1 Link to comment
Tsai Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 ali evo sinner recimo da je zaista bio narokan na IW, rutinski ga izbacio alkaraz u SF Link to comment
utilitarist Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 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 2 Link to comment
Filozof manijak Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 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... Link to comment
utilitarist Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 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. Link to comment
Ros Posted September 10 Author Share Posted September 10 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? Link to comment
utilitarist Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 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. Link to comment
reg Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 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. Link to comment
Profesionalac Posted September 11 Share Posted September 11 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. 3 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now