I want my two favourite sports to be as clean as possible. As it is, one of them is fighting doping while the other one isn't.
Fair enough.Both are doing something about it,it's just that Cycling need to fight it harder,to clean the image of the sport,and for the simple fact that the chances of athletes using are much higher in such brutal sport.
The ATP, the ITF and international organisations have constantly shown a lenient treatment towards tennis when it comes to doping offences. Guillermo Cañas, Guillermo Coria, Mariano Puerta are just three of the Argentine players that stormed the clay circuit in the early 2000s who tested positive in doping tests. Yet all of them received reduced bans. Had it been cycling cases, you can be sure they would have got the maximum sentence.
Because Cycling is under immense pressure and scrutiny,for all the wring reasons,and i do believe Armstrong was helped by some,constantly avoiding being caught,how did that happen?
I only know about the Canas case tbh
In fact, one can compare Puerta's case with Contador's. They tested positive for the same substance, clenbuterol. Yet while Puerta got a reduced ban of 9 months, Contador got the maximum 2 years. But that's not all. He tested positive again, in a slam final at that. A second offence means life ban from the sport, but no, the ITF ruled that "the amount of etilefrine detected in the positive drugs test was too small to have any effect on his performance", and his ban was reduced to 2 years from the Court of Arbitration for Sport. That was exactly the argumentation Contador's defence used, and in his case (despite him being no second-time offender) the same court ruled it was no reason to reduce the ban.
Yeah,Contador apparently ate a infected meat or something like that i read,bit a like Gasquet kissing a girl
Yet a cyclist will be punished more,a lot of that got to do with the reputation,you might think that's not fair,but that's the reality,Cycling are corking hard on damage limitation,and they want to set an example by punishing each rider who might've taken something,being it on purpose or bad luck.
There have been other positive cases of top 100 players: Odesnik, Kendrick, Minar, Volandri, Beck... but people forget. Apparently, doping is not wrong when tennis players do it.
So yes, I have good reasons to suspect of tennis's reputation as a clean sport, of the ITF and the ATP as honest organisations who fight doping in their sport and of the fair and equal treatment of all sports on the international scene.
See this is the first time i read about those names,i knew about Odesnik though.No one said it's alright for tennis players to dope
Maybe ITF/ATP are trying to work on the doping issue quietly,without the media knowing?Sometimes it helps when things stay indoors IYWIM.
Am I saying a player can improve his performance by being able to run more and faster, hit harder, jump higher, recover more quickly? You're damn right I'm saying that.
Didn't Djokovic improve his results drastically when he became fitter and was able to endure long matches without a drop in his fitness level?
Yet all those names you mentioned got caught,didn't suddenly become multiple GS winners,unlike Cycling,where you can suddenly win stage after another
His diet change helped a lot,but before that he was still a talented player.It's not like he came from nowhere,and jumped straight to number one?
What I am saying is that reputation is not a good benchmark to use when one wants to assess the true nature of something. Jimmy Levine had a fantastic reputation for years. Wouldn't it have been wiser to have doubted his reputation a bit, hence believing what the children he abused were saying about him?
Let me use another analogy:
In a country, we have Party A, which has been constantly targeted by police and judicial investigations that have revealed widespread corruption among its members. The press are relentless on them.
Then we have Party B, which has not been monitored half as closely as Party A and has therefore had less scandals, despite the fact that members of this party have been found to have committed the same crimes as the members of Party A. The press, for some reason, are not as hard with them.
Party A would have a much worse reputation than Party B, but would you be justified in basing your assessment of both parties on the reputation they have? Would it be ok to go "oh, Party A sure has a bad image. I'm voting for Party B, they have a better image so they must be better". Wouldn't that be intellectually dishonest?
You mean Jimmy Savile?
You make sense,but image and reputation are everything nowadays
Many things can be involved,if the press have advantages for protecting Party B,politics can be equally corrupt.
Where did I say using banned substances made him a good coach? You keep putting words in my mouth that I never said. I said he is a univerally respected manager, despite testing positive while being a player. Cyclists who test positive are everything but universally respected as managers later. Double standards again.
If i was putting words into your mouth,you'll agree with me,no?
So what?Richard Vironque gets treated like a hero,despite what happened in 98
Where is this double standard?