PUERTA BANNED FOR 8 YEARS! [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

PUERTA BANNED FOR 8 YEARS!

Pages : [1] 2

Xmanfan
12-21-2005, 01:46 PM
ITF have just announced.

Xmanfan
12-21-2005, 01:48 PM
ITF Anti-Doping Press Release - Decision in the case of Mariano Puerta
The International Tennis Federation announced today that an independent Anti-Doping Tribunal convened under the ITF’s 2005 Tennis Anti-Doping Programme has found that Mariano Puerta has committed a Doping Offence under the Programme.

The independent Anti-Doping Tribunal has ruled that Mr Puerta, a 27-year-old Argentine national, committed a Doping Offence under Article C.1 of the Programme (presence of a prohibited substance in a sample), in that a sample that he provided on 5 June 2005, immediately after the men's singles final of Roland Garros in Paris, tested positive for a stimulant (etilefrine), a substance prohibited in competition under the WADA Code and the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme.

The independent Tribunal, consisting of Mr Tim Kerr QC, Dr Jose Pascual and Dr Inggard Lereim, heard the matter in London on 6 and 7 December 2005. The Tribunal determined that Mr Puerta's analytical positive result was caused by an inadvertent administration of etilefrine. The Tribunal therefore confirmed the commission of a Doping Offence under Article C.1 of the Programme and automatically disqualified Mr Puerta’s results at Roland Garros, requiring forfeiture of entry ranking points, and prize money of € 440,000 in singles and € 3,282 in doubles.

Mr Puerta was banned by the ATP in 2003 for a Doping Offence (presence of clenbuterol in his sample) and served a nine-month ban from the sport for that offence. The positive test for etilefrine from Roland Garros was therefore his second offence. The independent Anti-Doping Tribunal rejected a defence of No Fault or Negligence, but accepted an alternative plea of No Significant Fault or Negligence. In accordance with the WADA World Anti-Doping Code it therefore imposed an eight-year suspension from competition, commencing 5 June 2005. It also determined that the results he obtained in events subsequent to Roland Garros should also be disqualified and the entry ranking points and prize money of US$ 330,925 gained in those events forfeited.

The tribunal's written decision with reasons is available as a PDF below. Any party wishing to appeal the decision will have three weeks to do so from receipt of the written decision.

The Tennis Anti-Doping Programme is a comprehensive and internationally recognised drug-testing programme that applies to all players competing at tournaments sanctioned by the ITF, ATP and WTA Tour. Players are tested for substances prohibited by the World Anti-Doping Agency. Charges of breach of the Programme are heard by an independent Anti-Doping Tribunal.

ReturnWinner
12-21-2005, 01:51 PM
:eek: if so bye bye forever puerta :wavey:

JBrocks
12-21-2005, 01:51 PM
:eek:

BelgianWaffle
12-21-2005, 01:53 PM
And that's that. A pity for Puerta and his fans but a strong example should be set.

Iza
12-21-2005, 01:55 PM
I'm so sorry 4 Mariano and his fans :sad:
poor guy :sad:

MissPovaFan
12-21-2005, 01:56 PM
OH MY GOD! Shocking News!

He has also been stripped of his second place at Roland Garros and all results after that.

jazz_girl
12-21-2005, 01:57 PM
OMg! :sad:

*Viva Chile*
12-21-2005, 01:57 PM
:eek:

Caralimon
12-21-2005, 01:58 PM
I thought a re-incident was a life-ban?

lau
12-21-2005, 01:58 PM
I`m very, very sorry for his fans, but I admit that if that´s his explanation, I, don´t buy it.

Springy
12-21-2005, 01:58 PM
I know he did a BIG mistake...but i will miss his game..and his face too

jazz_girl
12-21-2005, 01:58 PM
I thought a re-incident was a life-ban?
8 years for a tennis player is a life-ban...

sigmagirl91
12-21-2005, 01:58 PM
Eight years? Wow!!!

Action Jackson
12-21-2005, 01:59 PM
I thought a re-incident was a life-ban?

8 years is just a cheaper way of saying.

"You're gone for life".

sigmagirl91
12-21-2005, 02:00 PM
I thought a re-incident was a life-ban?

Like Jazz said, eight years is a life ban. Puerta will become eligible for competition on the senior tour, I guess, but these days the qualifications for that is stiffer than previously.

lorenz
12-21-2005, 02:02 PM
What a pity!!!

As I told it before, I'm very sorry and disappointed.

I think that Puerta took that medicine not only for negligence. He might be influenced by atp officials or tournament organizers. Anyway he is guilty, but something smells bad here.

Experimentee
12-21-2005, 02:04 PM
Well he couldnt really expect much leniency with an excuse like that :rolleyes:
He did the crime, so he should do the time. Even if it was just stupid carelessless, he should know not to do that twice.

Castafiore
12-21-2005, 02:04 PM
Exactly, 8 years is a life ban...how old is Puerta at the moment? 27?

I know that they have to be strict in these matters and 'if you can't do the time, don't do the crime' and all that but still...8 years... :awww:

Action Jackson
12-21-2005, 02:06 PM
Exactly, 8 years is a life ban...how old is Puerta at the moment? 27?

I know that they have to be strict in these matters and 'if you can't do the time, don't do the crime' and all that but still...8 years... :awww:

The second time a doping offence happens and it's a life ban, they just should have come out with that ruling.

Denaon
12-21-2005, 02:07 PM
And that's that. A pity for Puerta and his fans but a strong example should be set.
I hope as this setting precedent everyone on ATP gets the same treatment. I really hope that. ITF should be fair and square.

ReturnWinner
12-21-2005, 02:07 PM
the bad thing is the drug and the dosis he took were not very significant to improve his level or to gain any advantage
What a pity!!!

As I told it before, I'm very sorry and disappointed.

I think that Puerta took that medicine not only for negligence. He might be influenced by atp officials or tournament organizers. Anyway he is guilty, but something smells bad here.

kabuki
12-21-2005, 02:07 PM
Absolutely crushing. I hope that the rest of his life doesn't go down the shitter.

revolution
12-21-2005, 02:08 PM
Deary me, this is a shock to wake up to this morning.

amierin
12-21-2005, 02:09 PM
Eight years is a life ban for a twenty seven year old man. The minute he came out with he drank from the same glass as his wife it was obvious he was in deep sh*t. Did he miscalculate and think the substance would be out of his system or that they wouldn't test him?

That he loses everything, including runner up at RG and all his results after that is erasing his year from the record books.

So what happens now? Who is deemed runner up from RG and does he get the prize money and trophy? Or is there no runner up?

shotgun
12-21-2005, 02:10 PM
Yeah, early today when I saw he wasn't on the list for Vina del Mar, I figured out he would be at least suspended.

Jim Jones
12-21-2005, 02:11 PM
So l'equipe was right after all. Does that mean that they were also right about Armstrong?

AgassiDomination
12-21-2005, 02:11 PM
Good

amierin
12-21-2005, 02:14 PM
So l'equipe was right after all. Does that mean that they were also right about Armstrong?

Probably. I read that there is still one more player who tested postive at RG to make a total of four. We know about Hood, Sesil, and Mariano. I wonder who the fourth player is?

ReturnWinner
12-21-2005, 02:15 PM
yes :p
So l'equipe was right after all. Does that mean that they were also right about Armstrong?

Kat!
12-21-2005, 02:24 PM
I feel sorry for Mariano.

Yes his story wasn't all that convincing, but the tribunal agreed that the amount of the substance taken was so small that it couldn't be performance enhancing. Even if that story about using the wrong glass before the final was incorrect, it was still extremely likely that something similar took place in those couple of days.

It seems that the rules are trying to be impartial and very strict, so the tribunal doesn't have a discretion to reduce his ban based on the actual facts of the case. Yes being tough on doping is important but what happened to fairness?

R.Federer
12-21-2005, 02:27 PM
I thought a re-incident was a life-ban?
Unfortunately, 8 years is practically equal to the life ban

Terible day for tennis fans

revolution
12-21-2005, 02:28 PM
Probably. I read that there is still one more player who tested postive at RG to make a total of four. We know about Hood, Sesil, and Mariano. I wonder who the fourth player is?

Karatantcheva the Bulgarian WTA player.

TheMightyFed
12-21-2005, 02:29 PM
Who said L'Equipe was wrong ?
What about Lance ? :devil:

sigmagirl91
12-21-2005, 02:29 PM
Karatantcheva the Bulgarian WTA player.

She was already mentioned. There is a fourth unnamed player.

Denaon
12-21-2005, 02:29 PM
Karatantcheva the Bulgarian WTA player.
Joey it seems there's another important male player that tested positive on RG :shrug:

avocadoe
12-21-2005, 02:30 PM
Norman Mailer (or maybe he quotes a french philosopher?) has a line I like concerning another crime (murder): Once a philospher, twice a pervert. In this case it either is a story concocted about a concoction, or a real tragedy. I bonded with Puerta this year, hope he finds a way to keep his wits about him and make it through a difficult time, deserved, or not. It is way past too bad to see a guy work so hard to get back on track and then fall again.

amierin
12-21-2005, 02:31 PM
Karatantcheva the Bulgarian WTA player.

Karatantcheva's first name is Sesil. I read that other than the ones we know about that there is still one more player to be named in this fiasco. I'll see if I can find the info and edit this message to add it.

This was posted on MTF by jazz_girl on this thread:

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=62745&page=2

I'll translate a part of that article:
http://www.ole.clarin.com/jsp/v4/pa...p?pagId=1111410
During the week of the Copa Argentina, last week, a close person to Mariano Puerta said to Olé that the positives in Roland Garros were 4: Puerta, Mariano Hood, and other two still unknown. Yesterday, it was revealed that Sesil Karatantcheva was positive for doping, so there's still one more case to be known, which is from a well known tennis player. According to what this newspaper could find out, Puerta and the last case had had medical substances, with the organization's agreement, to ease some confirmed injuries during the second week. The explaination, like the strong rumor suggests, aims that the tournament's responsables wanted to avoid withdrawals, because of the injuries, from Puerta and the other tennis player.

TheBoiledEgg
12-21-2005, 02:31 PM
took them long enough

good riddance :wavey:

atp_rears
12-21-2005, 02:31 PM
as much as i like mariano, i thin k this is the correct decision. his better ever result co-incided with taking performance enhancing drugs and in fairness to other competitors, this cannot be condoned, not with a third chance. there has to be a big disincentive in sports to taking banned substances, otherwise those athletes not wishing to take these health-risking substances will have their success compromised.

it's sad for mariano, but he's made a lot of money and had a good career. this has to be the end, and i hope it sends out a strong message to others, especially these dodgy entourages.

Denaon
12-21-2005, 02:33 PM
Who said L'Equipe was wrong ?
What about Lance ? :devil:
I'm pretty sure you're enjoying this..:rolleyes:

Experimentee
12-21-2005, 02:35 PM
The Tribunal’s Ruling
114. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the Tribunal:
(1) confirms the commission of the doping offence specified in the notice of
charge set out in the ITF’s letter to the player dated 21 September 2005,
namely that a prohibited substance, etilefrine, has been found to be
present in the urine sample that the player provided at the 2005 French
Open on 5 June 2005;
(2) orders that the player’s individual results in both the singles and doubles
competitions must be disqualified in respect of the 2005 French Open,
and in consequence rules that the prize money (half the prize money
awarded to the doubles pair, in the case of the doubles competition) and
ranking points obtained by the player through his participation in those
competition must be forfeited;
(3) orders, further, that the player’s individual results in all competitions
subsequent to the French Open shall be disqualified and all prize money
and ranking points in respect of those competitions forfeited;
(4) declares that the player shall be ineligible for a period of eight years
commencing on 5 June 2005 from participating in any capacity in any
event or activity (other than authorised anti-doping education or
rehabilitation programmes) authorised by the ITF or any national or
regional entity which is a member of or is recognised by the ITF as the
entity governing the sport of tennis in that nation or region.

So he knew about it when the L'Equipe Article was published

So he lied when he said that he hadnt heard about any positive test at the time :o

ReturnWinner
12-21-2005, 02:35 PM
36. We find on the balance of probabilities that the player was contaminated by
effortil and that this occurred during the period of about one to two days before
the final at a time and place unknown, and with a dose that is unknown, and in
circumstances that are unknown save that we find the source was Mrs Puerta’s
medication. We do not believe on the balance of probabilities that the player
was aware of the contamination. We consider that it must have occurred
through the negligent or deliberate act of an unknown person. We think that is more likely to be the case than the theory of contamination via use of the
player’s glass by Mrs Puerta for her medication.


37. We recognise that contamination via Mrs Puerta’s use of the player’s glass as
alleged by the player is not impossible. We do not rule it out. It is but one of
the possible explanations, and, we find, not the most likely. Another would be
deliberate doping by a corrupt person without the knowledge of the player, with
the intention of protecting the player from such knowledge and with the
intention that in the event of a positive test innocent the player would able to
assert innocent and non-negligent contamination by effortil. Another would be
that the player and his wife carelessly shared a glass in their hotel.
38. We will return shortly to the consequences of our findings. First, we continue
our narrative of the facts. The player lost the final in four sets. His
performance was not, we accept, enhanced. The amount of etilefrene in his
body was too small to have any effect on his performance. It later transpired
that the approximate concentration was in the region of 192 ng/ml, which is
about 50 times less than the reporting threshold of 10 micrograms per millilitre
for ephedrine.

revolution
12-21-2005, 02:35 PM
Oops!

Koubek?

TheMightyFed
12-21-2005, 02:36 PM
I'm pretty sure you're enjoying this..:rolleyes:
No, I don't care but it made me laugh to see some naive comments, I mean wake up guys, there are millions of euros at stake (prize+sponsors, etc), do you think it's hard to justify to yourself that you need a "little boost" ?

Deivid23
12-21-2005, 02:36 PM
Se coje antes a un mentiroso que a un cojo ;)

See u Mariano

ReturnWinner
12-21-2005, 02:36 PM
40. Accordingly Mr Sahlström wrote to the player on 28 July 2005 informing him
of the positive test result and of his right to have the B sample analysed. The
player was competing in Sopot, Canada and Cincinnati during the first half of
August and did not receive the letter until 21 August when he returned to
Buenos Aires before travelling to the US Open. The second line of the letter
informed him that the substance found in the A sample was “Etilefrine”. We
consider that the player is sufficiently intelligent that it must have crossed his
mind on 21 August, as soon as he read the letter, that there was at least a
possibility that his wife’s effortil was responsible for the positive test result.

R.Federer
12-21-2005, 02:37 PM
The amount of etilefrene in his
body was too small to have any effect on his performance. It later transpired
that the approximate concentration was in the region of 192 ng/ml, which is
about 50 times less than the reporting threshold of 10 micrograms per millilitre
for ephedrine.

Is it not the case that the amount must cross the threshold limit for it to be consider a offense?

Action Jackson
12-21-2005, 02:39 PM
Funny how the wheel has turned now L'Equipe are lauded for their stance on breaking the story on Puerta and is now a respectable paper, yet by the ones who are happy with this result attempted to say it was a tabloid when they went after Armstrong.

L'Equipe does have a good record with these things, they broke the story about their own French cyclist Virenque and also an American 400m runner who failed two dope tests and got banned.

As for Puerta what he took didn't give him any advantage, but he was stupid and got caught taking something he shouldn't have and has to do the time.

Hola Mr. SK
12-21-2005, 02:40 PM
8 years!!This never happened before.
so sorry for him and his fans :sad: ...
See u in Legends , Mariano :wavey: .

sigmagirl91
12-21-2005, 02:40 PM
Is it not the case that the amount must cross the threshold limit for it to be consider a offense?

That's what I thought.

TheMightyFed
12-21-2005, 02:40 PM
How can you be so careless when you got banned once ? I would be paranoid if I got banned, and even more if the first ban was not justified... this story is BS

Mrs. B
12-21-2005, 02:41 PM
That is just so harsh. :sad:

revolution
12-21-2005, 02:43 PM
Funny how the wheel has turned now L'Equipe are lauded for their stance on breaking the story on Puerta and is now a respectable paper, yet by the ones who are happy with this result attempted to say it was a tabloid when they went after Armstrong.

L'Equipe does have a good record with these things, they broke the story about their own French cyclist Virenque and also an American 400m runner who failed two dope tests and got banned.

As for Puerta what he took didn't give him any advantage, but he was stupid and got caught taking something he shouldn't have and has to do the time.


Completely agree.

Maybe Armstrong's victory against cancer provided a shield for him to avoid criticism?

Don't see it being the nationality though, as normally the media bash Americans to the end of neverland.

TheMightyFed
12-21-2005, 02:44 PM
It's tough for Puerta but it's good for ATP/ITF image because on the antidoping front they were behind. After Canas and Puerta, I think players start to shake a bit now if they are doping...

R.Federer
12-21-2005, 02:45 PM
Probably. I read that there is still one more player who tested postive at RG to make a total of four. We know about Hood, Sesil, and Mariano. I wonder who the fourth player is?
I don't know if it is during roland garos
But I read in the Australian paper that karol beck is suspected of doping this year.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,17635123%255E3162,00.html
French Open finalist Puerta and Slovakian Karol Beck have also been implicated in drug claims this year.

Beck did not play for Slovakia in the Davis Cup final, prompting suggestions he had breached anti-doping protocols.

The ITF reserves the right to strip matches in the Davis Cup final from players who have tested positive in previous rounds.

Action Jackson
12-21-2005, 02:45 PM
It's tough for Puerta but it's good for ATP/ITF image because on the antidoping front they were behind. After Canas and Puerta, I think players start to shake a bit now if they are doping...

You think so?

BelgianWaffle
12-21-2005, 02:45 PM
Is it not the case that the amount must cross the threshold limit for it to be consider a offense?
I'm not a lawyer but I know this: all medication is metabolised in the body, some substances are metabolised really quick. So after one or two days sometimes the concentration of the substance would already be under the threshold limit. In that case it would be really easy for players to take performance enhancing drugs (because they would know after one day they are already considered 'clean').

lau
12-21-2005, 02:47 PM
Funny how the wheel has turned now L'Equipe are lauded for their stance on breaking the story on Puerta and is now a respectable paper, yet by the ones who are happy with this result attempted to say it was a tabloid when they went after Armstrong.

L'Equipe does have a good record with these things, they broke the story about their own French cyclist Virenque and also an American 400m runner who failed two dope tests and got banned.

As for Puerta what he took didn't give him any advantage, but he was stupid and got caught taking something he shouldn't have and has to do the time.
I heard today that they even have an specialized journalist in doping...(don´t remember the name).
To be fair, apparently they published today (I don´t know enough French to read and tell if it´s true, but Arg. sports newspaper Ole "quoted" them) that Puerta´s ban wouldn´t be so long.

amierin
12-21-2005, 02:47 PM
I don't know if it is during roland garos
But I read in the Australian paper that karol beck is suspected of doping this year.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,17635123%255E3162,00.html
French Open finalist Puerta and Slovakian Karol Beck have also been implicated in drug claims this year.

Beck did not play for Slovakia in the Davis Cup final, prompting suggestions he had breached anti-doping protocols.

The ITF reserves the right to strip matches in the Davis Cup final from players who have tested positive in previous rounds.

Yes. I forgot about the Beck situation. From the post on the other thread by Jazz_Girl I thought it was at RG and that the player was playing in Argentina if not another Argentine.

Experimentee
12-21-2005, 02:48 PM
What the Tribunal are basically saying in their reasons is that they accept that Puerta may have taken the drug unintentionally, but he should have been more careful, and the doping laws are intended to be strict so that it is an effective deterrence. They recognise that its a very harsh result for Puerta and express a lot of sympathy, but they must apply the rules.

sigmagirl91
12-21-2005, 02:49 PM
Beck's case came out during DC.

The unnamed player (male) was competing during the second week of the FO, according to L'Equipe's report.

sigmagirl91
12-21-2005, 02:51 PM
I even heard today that they even have an specialized journalist in doping...(don´t remember the name).
To be fair, apparently they published today (I don´t know enough French to read and tell if it´s true, but Arg. sports newspaper Ole "quoted" them) that Puerta´s ban wouldn´t be so long.

Unfortunately, that was not the case. Eight years is a cold, hard sentence, but....and I say this strongly....the players know the rules and the consequences for breaking them.

R.Federer
12-21-2005, 02:51 PM
What the Tribunal are basically saying in their reasons is that they accept that Puerta may have taken the drug unintentionally, but he should have been more careful, and the doping laws are intended to be strict so that it is an effective deterrence. They recognise that its a very harsh result for Puerta and express a lot of sympathy, but they must apply the rules.
Yes you are corect
There is not way to separate a player who unknowingly makes a mistake from a player who lies about a mistake he purposely makes.
Only very very few players come out and say "Yes, sorry I took it purposely. Ban me"

TheMightyFed
12-21-2005, 02:52 PM
You think so?
Yep, a 8 years' ban because you reportedly drank in your wife's glass, that's scary !
To really scare dopers, ITF should put in place retroactive tests and keep samples, because it's unfair that the Canases and the Puertas get caught while other guys can afford undetectable products. If you know your titles could be taken back in a few years, maybe it will be more efficient...

1sun
12-21-2005, 02:52 PM
bad luck mate but you should have learned.
btw, just out of curiosity, what do you reckon would happen if a big name such as federer or roddick tested positive? would they cover it up?

amierin
12-21-2005, 02:53 PM
Beck's case came out during DC.

The unnamed player (male) was competing during the second week of the FO, according to L'Equipe's report.

Thanks SG91. I edited my original post to add the information from the Argentine press.

Aleksa's Laydee
12-21-2005, 02:53 PM
When will the guy ever learn NOT to take/use drugs??? :rolleyes:

Action Jackson
12-21-2005, 02:53 PM
bad luck mate but you should have learned.
btw, just out of curiosity, what do you reckon would happen if a big name such as federer or roddick tested positive? would they cover it up?

Nothing.

lau
12-21-2005, 02:54 PM
Unfortunately, that was not the case. Eight years is a cold, hard sentence, but....and I say this strongly....the players know the rules and the consequences for breaking them.
Yes, of course. As I said I`m sorry for his fans, but, I can´t buy his explanation.
I was talking about L´equipe because I though it says a lot of L´equipe having an specialized journalist in doping.

sigmagirl91
12-21-2005, 02:54 PM
Yep, a 8 years' ban because you reportedly drank in your wife's glass, that's scary !
To really scare dopers, ITF should put in place retroactive tests and keep samples, because it's unfair that the Canases and the Puertas get caught while other guys can afford undetectable products. If you know your titles could be taken back in a few years, maybe it will be more efficient...

Perhaps. We hope so.

1sun
12-21-2005, 02:55 PM
Nothing.
nothing as just dismiss it or nothing as just do nothing to cover it up?

sigmagirl91
12-21-2005, 02:55 PM
Yes, of course. As I said I`m sorry for his fans, but, I can´t buy his explanation.
I was talking about L´equipe because I though it says a lot of L´equipe having an specialized journalist in doping.

I can't buy the explanation either. Personally, I thought it was a crock of shit. Apparently, the ITF thought it was too and applied the rule accordingly.

MariaV
12-21-2005, 02:57 PM
Is it not the case that the amount must cross the threshold limit for it to be consider a offense?
Wouldn't that be more reasonable, right? :shrug:

I'm so sad for him. :sad: Oh boo. :(

Action Jackson
12-21-2005, 02:57 PM
Yep, a 8 years' ban because you reportedly drank in your wife's glass, that's scary !
To really scare dopers, ITF should put in place retroactive tests and keep samples, because it's unfair that the Canases and the Puertas get caught while other guys can afford undetectable products. If you know your titles could be taken back in a few years, maybe it will be more efficient...

Well you have a rosier view of human nature than I do. I mean lets be honest Puerta is disposable in a tennis sense, this doesn't reflect my personal view of what I think of him.

The thing I like is it seems to be players caught from non-tennis powerhouses. Argentina is cause of players produced but not on a financial scale.

Actually WADA should just take it over the testing and it will be more independent.

amierin
12-21-2005, 02:58 PM
Rumors have been circulating for years about Agassi but nothing is done and no one seems to care despite the evidence in front of our eyes which are apparently wide shut. I think that a zero tolerance policy should apply to ALL players regardless of whether they're "journeymen" or "icons/legends".
If Roddick tested positive I think it would be covered up. If Federer tested positive I think it would get publicity and his sentence would be as stiff as Puerta's.
I say this as an American and I'm not proud to say it either.

avocadoe
12-21-2005, 02:58 PM
after reading the tribinal's thought...and reconsidering, i feel the penalty was too harsh...

MariaV
12-21-2005, 02:59 PM
I can't buy the explanation either. Personally, I thought it was a crock of shit. Apparently, the ITF thought it was too and applied the rule accordingly.
I mean regardless of the excplanation, if the amount of the substance was so small and meaningless to the performance there should be some other measures. :(

Action Jackson
12-21-2005, 02:59 PM
nothing as just dismiss it or nothing as just do nothing to cover it up?

Sorry not to make it clear, lets say a cover up is the most likely scenario in your case and would only be broken if a disgruntled employee would come forward.

~EMiLiTA~
12-21-2005, 02:59 PM
woah...sad, but rules need to be enforced...hopefully this will be a lesson to others in future

i wonder who the 4th person is

Galaxystorm
12-21-2005, 03:00 PM
I have never liked worlwide anti-doping policies since i understand that the player should be only banned in the case that he had taken the substance with the intention of improving his physical level . I mean a player who makes a negligence and takes a forbidden substance without being awareness , for me this isn't doping . A player who takes a social drug as for example : marijuana , cocaine etc , just because he's an addict or only in a wild party- night he took that substance , for me this isn't doping either.

I mean my " own " definition for " doping " is very different from how anti-doping agencies define it because for me a doping case must have two characteristics : 1)aware consumption of the substance , 2) substance taken with the intention of improving the level . ( Obviously the player should corroborate the unexistence of these two facts with proves to avoid the ban )

All the cases without these two characteristics i would consider them as " negligences " or " acts of irresponsibility " and i would sanction them with " economic sanctions " and " loss of points " , but never never a ban without playing for months or years , because i think that kind of sanctions are an aberration/injustice since the player never wanted to improve his level or cheat , he just made a negligence.

My personal impression about Puerta's case is that he never wanted to take a forbidden substance in his two positives , so for me he's innocent, and i think he's just one of the many victims of this non-sence doping policies ( i repeat according my opinion ) , this non-sense doping policies where if a forbidden substance is found inside your body you're a gonna be banned for month or years although you can prove it wasn't your intention to improve your level. :retard:

But my defence towards Puerta doesn't mean that i don't consider him as a great dumbass . He has made two times the same negligence . Puerta , what is in your head ?? :silly:

star
12-21-2005, 03:00 PM
I'm not a lawyer but I know this: all medication is metabolised in the body, some substances are metabolised really quick. So after one or two days sometimes the concentration of the substance would already be under the threshold limit. In that case it would be really easy for players to take performance enhancing drugs (because they would know after one day they are already considered 'clean').

That's right.

The "reporting limits" sometimes stem from the time before very sensitive monitoring was available.

What I thought was unusual about the decision was they thought the source was Mrs. Purerta's medication, but they didn't believe she used the players glass to disolve her medication and he inadvertently drank from it, but they also don't think Puerta knew he was taking the medication and they do believe someone gave him the medication without him knowing. :confused:

1sun
12-21-2005, 03:00 PM
Sorry not to make it clear, lets say a cover up is the most likely scenario in your case and would only be broken if a disgruntled employee would come forward.
lol, why do you think it would be covered up though>?

sigmagirl91
12-21-2005, 03:01 PM
I mean regardless of the excplanation, if the amount of the substance was so small and meaningless to the performance there should be some other measures. :(

Perhaps, but the rules are the rules.

TheMightyFed
12-21-2005, 03:01 PM
I can't buy the explanation either. Personally, I thought it was a crock of shit. Apparently, the ITF thought it was too and applied the rule accordingly.
Beyond the doping case, it's amazing how far this guy can go in terms of lies... after the first ban, to the press in September, after the 2nd ban... wake up Mariano, your success comeback story from Satellite to RG finals is over ! Now it just looks like a sad and pathetic doping case as it was from the beginning...

1sun
12-21-2005, 03:02 PM
I have never liked worlwide anti-doping policies since i understand that the player should be only banned in the case that he had taken the substance with the intention of improving his physical level . I mean a player who makes a negligence and takes a forbidden substance without being awareness , for me this isn't doping . A player who takes a social drug as for example : marijuana , cocaine etc , just because he's an addict or only in a wild party- night he took that substance , for me this isn't doping either.

I mean my " own " definition for " doping " is very different from how anti-doping agencies define it because for me a doping case must have two characteristics : 1)aware consumption of the substance , 2) substance taken to improve the level . ( Obviously the player should corroborate these two facts with proves to avoid the ban )

All the cases without these two characteristics i would consider them as " negligences " or " acts of irresponsibility " and i would sanction them with " economic sanctions " and " loss of points " , but never never a ban without playing for months or years , because i think that kind of sanctions are an aberration/injustice since the player never wanted to improve his level or cheat , he just made a negligence.

My personal impression about Puerta's case is that he never wanted to take a forbidden substance in his two positives , so for me he's innocent, and i think he's just one of the many victims of this non-sence doping policies ( i repeat according my opinion ) , this non-sense doping policies where if a forbidden substance is found inside your body you're a gonna be banned for month or years although you can prove it wasn't your intention to improve your level. :retard:

But my defence towards Puerta doesn't mean that i don't consider him as a great dumbass . He has made two times the same negligence . Puerta , what is in your head ?? :silly:
but how do you identify whether the person was taking a drug to enhance themselves or not and whether they new what they were taking?

star
12-21-2005, 03:03 PM
I have never liked worlwide anti-doping policies since i understand that the player should be only banned in the case that he had taken the substance with the intention of improving his physical level . I mean a player who makes a negligence and takes a forbidden substance without being awareness , for me this isn't doping .

If you apply this standard, everyone could get out of any doping charge. It's impossible for anyone to prove the player took it knowingly barring someone coming forward and saying "I saw him do it" or "He discussed it with me." You aren't likely to have that situation. Everyone who takes performance enhancing drugs denies it. It's always inadvertent if you believe their stories.

Aleksa's Laydee
12-21-2005, 03:03 PM
OH MY GOD! Shocking News!

He has also been stripped of his second place at Roland Garros and all results after that.

Good, serves him right in my opinion! If you take/use drugs then you suffer the consequences!

sigmagirl91
12-21-2005, 03:03 PM
That's right.

The "reporting limits" sometimes stem from the time before very sensitive monitoring was available.

What I thought was unusual about the decision was they thought the source was Mrs. Purerta's medication, but they didn't believe she used the players glass to disolve her medication and he inadvertently drank from it, but they also don't think Puerta knew he was taking the medication and they do believe someone gave him the medication without him knowing. :confused:

This is almost like Rafael Palmeiro's assertion that he took no steroids.

LaTenista
12-21-2005, 03:03 PM
OMG :tears:

Action Jackson
12-21-2005, 03:03 PM
lol, why do you think it would be covered up though>?

Basic economics.

Federerthebest
12-21-2005, 03:04 PM
Cheaters get what they deserve and good riddance to him. I especially feel sorry for those countries which Argentina, with Puerta's assistance, beat in the Davis Cup. This makes it even more clear that there is a culture of doping in Argentine tennis and their very participation in the Davis-Cup competition should be called into question (sorry, but that's how I feel).

sigmagirl91
12-21-2005, 03:04 PM
Beyond the doping case, it's amazing how far this guy can go in terms of lies... after the first ban, to the press in September, after the 2nd ban... wake up Mariano, your success comeback story from Satellite to RG finals is over ! Now it just looks like a sad and pathetic doping case as it was from the beginning...

And a trip to the annals of "Where Is He Now?"

1sun
12-21-2005, 03:05 PM
If you apply this standard, everyone could get out of any doping charge. It's impossible for anyone to prove the player took it knowingly barring someone coming forward and saying "I saw him do it" or "He discussed it with me." You aren't likely to have that situation. Everyone who takes performance enhancing drugs denies it. It's always inadvertent if you believe their stories.
exactly and with the right lawyers(and considering these guys are millionaires, they wont be out of reach), if these laws were put in place, then nobody would be charged with doping.

Denaon
12-21-2005, 03:05 PM
I agree with Galaxy :yeah;
Now I wonder:
1) had Mariano improved his level due to that injestion??
2) was that test the only one made to Mariano and the rest of players during the 2nd week of RG?? If not...... how many and when??

1sun
12-21-2005, 03:06 PM
Basic economics.
so not wanting to lose demand of the sport then.

Action Jackson
12-21-2005, 03:08 PM
so not wanting to lose demand of the sport then.

$$$$$$$$$$ is what it's about, look after the ones who bring in the most of it, hence basic economics in this case.

brujyster
12-21-2005, 03:09 PM
I mean regardless of the excplanation, if the amount of the substance was so small and meaningless to the performance there should be some other measures. :(

I think the Tribunal considered the (insignificant) amount of drug in the prove was due to the fact that he doped before the SF-match. Since only the loser of QF- and SF are tested, he thought he would come away with it. They didn´t buy his explanation....

Denaon
12-21-2005, 03:10 PM
Cheaters get what they deserve and good riddance to him. I especially feel sorry for those countries which Argentina, with Puerta's assistance, beat in the Davis Cup. This makes it even more clear that there is a culture of doping in Argentine tennis and their very participation in the Davis-Cup competition should be called into question (sorry, but that's how I feel).
And I think you have just a little less intelligence than a bird (sorry, but that's how I feel).

Dumbass...........I'm getting really mad :mad:

Pigpen Stinks
12-21-2005, 03:10 PM
I feel sorry for Mariano.

Yes his story wasn't all that convincing, but the tribunal agreed that the amount of the substance taken was so small that it couldn't be performance enhancing. Even if that story about using the wrong glass before the final was incorrect, it was still extremely likely that something similar took place in those couple of days.

It seems that the rules are trying to be impartial and very strict, so the tribunal doesn't have a discretion to reduce his ban based on the actual facts of the case. Yes being tough on doping is important but what happened to fairness?

In FAIRNESS to the players that don't cheat, I think this sends a very strong message. It's pretty funny, but I can only think of a small handful of players in any sport who have actually admitted fault when getting caught for doping.

One was a football player from Northwestern who took a banned substance before the NFL draft to help him recover faster from an injury. He felt compelled to do this since the leaugue conducts trials before they hold their draft, and how high you get drafted equates to how much money you make on your initial contract. He got busted before the draft and immediately admitted his guilt and wrote to the management of each NFL team explaining his situation. This was a refreshing change from the denials or excuses you hear from virtually every other athelete in this regard. Granted, first time offense in the NFL is not nearly as strict as in tennis (only a four week suspension), although it still equates to a quarter of one season.

I'm also reminded of a comment from Jose Canseco during the US Congrssional hearings on steroid abuse in Major League Baseball. While Mr. Canseco's integrity is cetainly highly questionable, he had the best line of the hearings when he said "According to what I'm hearing today, I'm the only MLB player that's ever used steriods."

I understand that the penalties in tennis are severe, but the players have to be ultimately responsible for what they put in their bodies. If I was out there spilling my guts on the court and putting everything I could into training, competing for tremendous amounts in prize money and prestigious titles, I'd be pretty pissed to know that there are others gaining an unfair advantage. I'd feel cheated.

sigmagirl91
12-21-2005, 03:10 PM
I agree with Galaxy :yeah;
Now I wonder:
1) had Mariano improved his level due to that injestion??
2) was that test the only one made to Mariano and the rest of players during the 2nd week of RG?? If not...... how many and when??

Which brings up another important. What of the players he beat during that two week period? Someone brought up Davydenko. While I think Davydenko will choose the high road and decide to stay out of the courtroom, the ITF should consider taking Mariano's prize money and offering Davydenko the difference between what he earned as a semifinalist and what he would have earned as a finalist. I think this is equitable. And other players (save Cañas maybe) who lost to him in the FO should get similar compensation.

Deboogle!.
12-21-2005, 03:12 PM
Actually, it seems to me like the ITF or whoever actually did buy his story at least in part. The problem is that:

1) it seems like they DID accept a defense of "No significant fault or Negligence".... which would still carry a ban. And because it was a 2nd offense, it was as long a ban as available, and because there were no life bans in place when he had his first offense, he got the 8 years.

If they hadn't bought his story at all, they would've found him completely liable and stuff, I'd assume? :shrug:

Too bad for him but he should've and could've been more careful.

Carlita
12-21-2005, 03:12 PM
OMG!!:sad: 8 years????????????????? Not a Puerta fan...but still :awww:


People get less in this country for killing a person!

sigmagirl91
12-21-2005, 03:15 PM
OMG!!:sad: 8 years????????????????? Not a Puerta fan...but still :awww:


People get less in this country for killing a person!

Of course, and they can become eligible for parole after 5 years.

star
12-21-2005, 03:15 PM
I think the Tribunal considered the (insignificant) amount of drug in the prove was due to the fact that he doped before the SF-match. Since only the loser of QF- and SF are tested, he thought he would come away with it. They didn´t buy his explanation....

I think you've cracked the code. :)

1sun
12-21-2005, 03:16 PM
$$$$$$$$$$ is what it's about, look after the ones who bring in the most of it, hence basic economics in this case.
hence not wanting to lose demand of the sport

star
12-21-2005, 03:16 PM
OMG!!:sad: 8 years????????????????? Not a Puerta fan...but still :awww:


People get less in this country for killing a person!

Purerta isn't going to prison.

sigmagirl91
12-21-2005, 03:17 PM
I think the Tribunal considered the (insignificant) amount of drug in the prove was due to the fact that he doped before the SF-match. Since only the loser of QF- and SF are tested, he thought he would come away with it. They didn´t buy his explanation....

He thought? Get outta here!!

1sun
12-21-2005, 03:17 PM
Purerta isn't going to prison.
:lol: thats what i was like as wel!

Federerthebest
12-21-2005, 03:18 PM
And I think you have just a little less intelligence than a bird (sorry, but that's how I feel).

Dumbass...........I'm getting really mad

Maybe you should get over your jingoism and accept the fact that I made a valid point. There's clearly a culture of doping in Argentinian tennis and with this questions of fairness arise. You may be mad, but you don't think Australian tennis fans, the country which Puerta helped defeat in the Davis Cup, don't have a right to also feel angry?

brujyster
12-21-2005, 03:19 PM
I think you've cracked the code. :)

Let´s admit his explanation is as long fetched as Karantcheva´s..... :rolleyes:

star
12-21-2005, 03:19 PM
Which brings up another important. What of the players he beat during that two week period? Someone brought up Davydenko. While I think Davydenko will choose the high road and decide to stay out of the courtroom, the ITF should consider taking Mariano's prize money and offering Davydenko the difference between what he earned as a semifinalist and what he would have earned as a finalist. I think this is equitable. And other players (save Cañas maybe) who lost to him in the FO should get similar compensation.

I still remember Puerta saying all the players were so nice to him when he came back from his first ban and that he was surprised and gratified at their reactions. I wonder how they feel now? Or do they simply think "there, but for the grace of god, go I?"

musefanatic
12-21-2005, 03:19 PM
8 years is a hell of a long time, that's his carrer over for sure. Not a fan but it's a shame but the ITF obvioulsy know he deserves it.

Brujyster- If that's true than it's fair he's got 8 years, no one in any sport should think like that.

TheMightyFed
12-21-2005, 03:19 PM
Purerta isn't going to prison.
just to vacations counting his hundreds of thousands of dollars thinking "I still got these f*****s"

Galaxystorm
12-21-2005, 03:19 PM
If you apply this standard, everyone could get out of any doping charge. It's impossible for anyone to prove the player took it knowingly barring someone coming forward and saying "I saw him do it" or "He discussed it with me." You aren't likely to have that situation. Everyone who takes performance enhancing drugs denies it. It's always inadvertent if you believe their stories.

It's obviously the duty of the player to find irrefutable proves to prove he didn't take those substances aware and with the the intention of improving his level.

If the player can prove it , i don't understand the ban . In fact there are doping cases in some sports where the sanction has been reduced , shortened , diminished because the player has could proved he made a negligence . So i don't undertand this kind of reductions :silly: . The player should be guilty or non guilty , but if the court diminishes the ban with attenuatings because of negligence , implicitly the court confirms the player didn't want to cheat , and as i have said , for me this isn't doping.

Denaon
12-21-2005, 03:22 PM
I think the Tribunal considered the (insignificant) amount of drug in the prove was due to the fact that he doped before the SF-match. Since only the loser of QF- and SF are tested, he thought he would come away with it. They didn´t buy his explanation....
So you're saying he doped and being known that both QF and SF losers are the only tested, he took the risk of not winning and get caught...yeah that makes a lot of sense.....

sigmagirl91
12-21-2005, 03:23 PM
I still remember Puerta saying all the players were so nice to him when he came back from his first ban and that he was surprised and gratified at their reactions. I wonder how they feel now? Or do they simply think "there, but for the grace of god, go I?"

Some of them may feel like Ljubicic, who wanted to file a lawsuit, and others may share the latter sentiment. Depends on which players are asked about it, I guess.

Carlita
12-21-2005, 03:23 PM
Purerta isn't going to prison.i didnt say he was now did I :ras: I was making a comparisson of punishments... why someone would get an 8 year ban for this....when when you kill someone (and break the law as well) you get less punishment.....prison and getting banned are both forms of punishment.....so that's why i said it!

star
12-21-2005, 03:23 PM
Let´s admit his explanation is as long fetched as Karantcheva´s..... :rolleyes:

Neither story is believable to me.

Carlita
12-21-2005, 03:24 PM
Of course, and they can become eligible for parole after 5 years.yeah they do....it sucks!!!

star
12-21-2005, 03:25 PM
i didnt say he was now did I :ras: I was making a comparisson of punishments... why someone would get an 8 year ban for this....when when you kill someone (and break the law as well) you get less punishment.....prison and getting banned are both forms of punishment.....so that's why i said it!

I understood what you were saying. I was simply pointing out there is a big difference between 8 years in prison and being banned from a sport.

That's why I think the comparison isn't particularly apt.

~EMiLiTA~
12-21-2005, 03:25 PM
i wonder how davydenko is feeling now

sigmagirl91
12-21-2005, 03:26 PM
Let´s admit his explanation is as long fetched as Karantcheva´s..... :rolleyes:

True. They both pulled 'em from thin air.

Denaon
12-21-2005, 03:28 PM
Maybe you should get over your jingoism and accept the fact that I made a valid point. There's clearly a culture of doping in Argentinian tennis and with this questions of fairness arise. You may be mad, but you don't think Australian tennis fans, the country which Puerta helped defeat in the Davis Cup, don't have a right to also feel angry?
Do DC players have doping tests? Has not Beck been reported to have tested positive in the match against Argentina? Had Mariano tested positive during the tie against Australia?
You don't make a valid point when you're being unfair to many other players which have not been accused or related to doping. Period.

star
12-21-2005, 03:28 PM
Maybe you should get over your jingoism and accept the fact that I made a valid point. There's clearly a culture of doping in Argentinian tennis and with this questions of fairness arise. You may be mad, but you don't think Australian tennis fans, the country which Puerta helped defeat in the Davis Cup, don't have a right to also feel angry?

I think you go a little too far saying there is a "culture of doping" in Argentine tennis.

Carlita
12-21-2005, 03:29 PM
I understood what you were saying. I was simply pointing out there is a big difference between 8 years in prison and being banned from a sport.

That's why I think the comparison isn't particularly apt.maybe, but when you look at Puerta's age...and think that this is his job....he's ruined...might as well go to prison:rolleyes: you might not see this as being apt....i do :ras: not that i really care..... i think what i want to think you don't have to agree

it was just the first thing I thought....don't take it so literally

Deboogle!.
12-21-2005, 03:30 PM
Let´s admit his explanation is as long fetched as Karantcheva´s..... :rolleyes:Well I don't think it's quite as amusing as hers, but equally hard to believe, sure. :p

I mean as I said several weeks ago in one of the other threads, he still has a wife and family and all those good things about life. it's too bad he can't play tennis professionally anymore, but he only really has himself to blame :shrug:

amierin
12-21-2005, 03:32 PM
True. They both pulled 'em from thin air.

Or from another part of their anatomy. :devil:

brujyster
12-21-2005, 03:32 PM
True. They both pulled 'em from thin air.


I might consider beginning writing defense scripts for players who dont pass doping tests....

OMG, even I can think out better stories than that....pregnancy, PMS... :rolleyes: they seemed like fetched from a Mexican soap-opera....

TheMightyFed
12-21-2005, 03:32 PM
I think you go a little too far saying there is a "culture of doping" in Argentine tennis.
Let's not attack one country or another. I guess when you are from Argentina the economical difficulties you can face are much bigger than say in the US, and the temptation is also bigger. Economics play an important role in all that, from the initial temptations to get the cash, to the market affected by the nationality of the player who's banned...

sigmagirl91
12-21-2005, 03:32 PM
I think you go a little too far saying there is a "culture of doping" in Argentine tennis.

"Culture of doping" would imply that all the players are doing it. There are other Argentine players who haven't been caught. The spotlight is on Argentine tennis right now, and with good reason, but to say a "culture of doping" exists is not a fair or good assessment.

Federerthebest
12-21-2005, 03:33 PM
I think you go a little too far saying there is a "culture of doping" in Argentine tennis.

Five doping cases in the last three years? I would say the term is apt.

sigmagirl91
12-21-2005, 03:34 PM
I might consider beginning writing defense scripts for players who dont pass doping tests....

OMG, even I can think out better stories than that....pregnancy, PMS... :rolleyes: they seemed like fetched from a Mexican soap-opera....

Hey, go at it. Your scripts couldn't be worse than the garbage we've read thus far.

Caralimon
12-21-2005, 03:35 PM
i wonder how davydenko is feeling now

It has been clarified that it wasn't an enhancing product, and he might knows about it (otherwise he should) so it wouldn't be positive for him feeling cheated.

He is probably more than glad about his season.

revolution
12-21-2005, 03:35 PM
I think you go a little too far saying there is a "culture of doping" in Argentine tennis.

I know, but the Argentine federation need to look into why it's always their players that seem to be involved in these cases.

Federerthebest
12-21-2005, 03:35 PM
"Culture of doping" would imply that all the players are doing it. There are other Argentine players who haven't been caught. The spotlight is on Argentine tennis right now, and with good reason, but to say a "culture of doping" exists is not a fair or good assessment.

Look, I don't want to get into some debating quagmire over whether the term 'culture of doping' is overly harsh. The simple point was that some Argentine tennis players are dopers, and they are taking part in Davis-Cup competition.

amierin
12-21-2005, 03:35 PM
Well I don't think it's quite as amusing as hers, but equally hard to believe, sure. :p

Hers may be closer to the truth than many of us know. I just read that in the 70's and 80's a doping technique used in what was called the Eastern Bloc at that time involved getting a woman pregnant and then aborting the fetus. Someone hinted at this yesterday when they got into a discussion of the hormones produced during pregnancy.

This may be the reason she's so vehemently denying that she was pregnant.

As for Mariano I'm just waiting to see who player number four was.

cris1085
12-21-2005, 03:36 PM
Five doping cases in the last three years? I would say the term is apt.

Maybe we see the doping only in Argentine because they found them guilty, but the doping culture is everywhere and not only in Argentine. It' sad that this problem is occuring so often, also in other sports.

MariaV
12-21-2005, 03:37 PM
it's too bad he can't play tennis professionally anymore, but he only really has himself to blame :shrug:
For being so naive. I think someone screwed him over as the judges seems to think. I am inclined to think it's the people around the Argentinean players that are reckless and only think of the cash benefits.

revolution
12-21-2005, 03:37 PM
Also to call Argentines dope cheats is dismissing David and Gaudio's career achievements, which they have won fair and square.

Let's have some balance in the arguments!

sigmagirl91
12-21-2005, 03:37 PM
Hers may be closer to the truth than many of us know. I just read that in the 70's and 80's a doping technique used in what was called the Eastern Bloc at that time involved getting a woman pregnant and then aborting the fetus. Someone hinted at this yesterday when they got into a discussion of the hormones produced during pregnancy.

This may be the reason she's so vehemently denying that she was pregnant.

As for Mariano I'm just waiting to see who player number four was.

OK...don't tell me they're still using this technique. It sounds like the concentration camp doctor thingy.

sigmagirl91
12-21-2005, 03:38 PM
Also to call Argentines dope cheats is dismissing David and Gaudio's career achievements, which they have won fair and square.

Let's have some balance in the arguments!

:)

Denaon
12-21-2005, 03:39 PM
Let's not attack one country or another. I guess when you are from Argentina the economical difficulties you can face are much bigger than say in the US, and the temptation is also bigger. Economics play an important role in all that, from the initial temptations to get the cash, to the market affected by the nationality of the player who's banned...
BS...tennis is not a sport for the poors and we all know that. Economics is not a role here, money itself may be. Greed, not hunger...they're not playing to feed a family if that's what you're saying.

Black Adam
12-21-2005, 03:39 PM
Damn! He can still play after his 35th birthday!shrug:, look at Andre Agassi for example.I doubt he can play on the senior tour because for that you need to have won either; Davis Cup, Grand slam tournament or having reached world Number one...... so Tennis is now over for Puerta :sad: It's far too harsh :bigcry:
I think that if some top players were found positive it would be covered but all the same they would be tempted to reveal it............imagine if Federer or Roddick tested positive....... the News papers would require double the amount of ink they use inorder to cover such stories.

revolution
12-21-2005, 03:40 PM
Damn! He can still play after his 35th birthday!shrug:, look at Andre Agassi for example.I doubt he can play on the senior tour because for that you need to have won either; Davis Cup, Grand slam tournament or having reached world Number one...... so Tennis is now over for Puerta :sad: It's far too harsh :bigcry:
I think that if some top players were found positive it would be covered but all the sma e they would be tempted to reveal it............imagine if Federer or Roddick tested positive....... the News papers would require double the amount of ink they use inorder to cover such stories.

It's reached a slam final I think, not won it, so he could get in maybe, unless they have chalked off that slam final.

Deboogle!.
12-21-2005, 03:40 PM
For being so naive. I think someone screwed him over as the judges seems to think. I am inclined to think it's the people around the Argentinean players that are reckless and only think of the cash benefits.If we are to believe the story in the decision, then it was his wife and other family who may have made the mistake, and certainly no one who's only interested in cash benefits. Maybe someone screwed him over, if so, that's too bad that he couldn't prove it. but the facts as described in the case, to me, are a sad series of events that if he had just been a little more careful to either drink from the bottle itself or get a brand new glass, he wouldn't be in this mess.

Galaxystorm
12-21-2005, 03:42 PM
Although this isn't Puerta's case , there are a lot incongruities in anti-doping policies . I have said in one of my previous message one of them is the case of social drugs.

One of the best footballers ever , Maradona , was two times banned because of positive for " cocaine " . Maradona didn't want to improve his level, Maradona was just an addict ( in fact he has been several times about to die ) . When a player has an addiction with drugs obviously he doesn't take them to improve his level, he's just a sick person . Anti-doping policies sanction this kind of positives very toughly with great bans.

Let's see , if you ban this kind of players , you are just helping him to have a deep mental depression and increase his addiction since you're forbidding him one of the most things loved for him in his life , playing his sport , this sport is his life and when a player is banned he suffers a lot mentally , so you're helping him to fisnish his life with a suicide :silly:

If a player has an addiction , the sanction should be to force him to follow a " come off drugs " program without banning him to play that sport . There isn't better reintegration than playing a sport . Instead of doing this , the anti-doping agencies sanction them with ban for playing :silly:

Wojtek
12-21-2005, 03:42 PM
The only poor players here are Ljubicic or Davydenko or other who lost to him after RG.

star
12-21-2005, 03:42 PM
maybe, but when you look at Puerta's age...and think that this is his job....he's ruined...might as well go to prison:rolleyes: you might not see this as being apt....i do :ras: not that i really care..... i think what i want to think you don't have to agree

it was just the first thing I thought....don't take it so literally


:lol: What I wrote to you was just the first thing I thought too! :lol:

I think you will find that most people would rather lose their lucrative job than go to prison -- but you go ahead and think that he might as well go to prison. I'll just keep thinking that losing your job and still being a wealthy person with ways to earn a living is much better than going to prison. :)

brujyster
12-21-2005, 03:42 PM
Originally Posted by amierin
Hers may be closer to the truth than many of us know. I just read that in the 70's and 80's a doping technique used in what was called the Eastern Bloc at that time involved getting a woman pregnant and then aborting the fetus. Someone hinted at this yesterday when they got into a discussion of the hormones produced during pregnancy.

This may be the reason she's so vehemently denying that she was pregnant.


Is she? I thought it was his line of defense...

star
12-21-2005, 03:43 PM
Although this isn't Puerta's case , there are a lot incongruities in anti-doping policies . I have said in one of my previous message one of them is the case of social drugs.

One of the best footballers ever , Maradona , was two times banned because of positive for " cocaine " . Maradona didn't want to improve his level, Maradona was just an addict ( in fact he has been several times about to die ) . When a player has an addiction with drugs obviously he doesn't take them to improve his level, he's just a sick person . Anti-doping policies sanction this kind of positives very toughly with great bans.

Let's see , if you ban this kind of players , you are just helping him to have a deep mental depression and increase his addiction since you're forbidding him one of the most things loved for him in his life , playing his sport , this sport is his life and when a player is banned he suffers a lot mentally , so you're helping him to fisnish his life with a suicide :silly:

If a player has an addiction , the sanction should be to obey him to follow a " come off drugs " program without banning him to play that sport . There isn't better reintegration than playing a sport . Instead of doing this , the anti-doping agencies sanction them with ban for playing :silly:

But this isn't a case of a player using a recreational drug. :confused:

star
12-21-2005, 03:45 PM
It's obviously the duty of the player to find irrefutable proves to prove he didn't take those substances aware and with the the intention of improving his level.



Just saying "I didn't do it on purpose" is irrefutable because how can you ever prove the player did it on purpose?

amierin
12-21-2005, 03:46 PM
Nalbandian screens everything that goes into his food, water and supplements at his own expense. It's why I was so glad to see him win the TMC at the end of the year.

I have a feeling more players are going to be taking this route so that their wives or girlfriends meds don't get ingested by mistake as Mariano claims happened here.

Galaxystorm
12-21-2005, 03:47 PM
But this isn't a case of a player using a recreational drug. :confused:

Have you read my first sentence ???

I only meant , antidoping policies a lot of times make no sense , and that was only an example .

Carlita
12-21-2005, 03:48 PM
:lol: What I wrote to you was just the first thing I thought too! :lol:

I think you will find that most people would rather lose their lucrative job than go to prison -- but you go ahead and think that he might as well go to prison. I'll just keep thinking that losing your job and still being a wealthy person with ways to earn a living is much better than going to prison. :)sure it is....... nevermind..... you don't understand how i meant it, doesnt matter ;)

but i still think 8 years is too much if his perfomance wasn't enhanced....

Black Adam
12-21-2005, 03:49 PM
Damn! He can still play after his 35th birthday!shrug:, look at Andre Agassi for example.I doubt he can play on the senior tour because for that you need to have won either; Davis Cup, Grand slam tournament or having reached world Number one...... so Tennis is now over for Puerta :sad: It's far too harsh :bigcry:
I think that if some top players were found positive it would be covered but all the same they would be tempted to reveal it............imagine if Federer or Roddick tested positive....... the News papers would require double the amount of ink they use inorder to cover such stories.

In a way Mariano is ruined because its like he no longer has a job and has to start afresh..........so they should at least let him keep the prize money. It's also stupid to dope yourself on the eve of a final. :rolleyes:

sigmagirl91
12-21-2005, 03:49 PM
In a way Mariano is ruined because its like he no longer has a job and has to start afresh..........so they should at least let him keep the prize money. It's also stupid to dope yourself on the eve of a final. :rolleyes:


He can enroll in university and get a degree. :o

Black Adam
12-21-2005, 03:50 PM
He can enroll in university and get a degree. :o
Did he even finnish his studies??

star
12-21-2005, 03:50 PM
Have you read my first sentence ???

I only meant , antidoping policies a lot of times make no sense , and that was only an example .

Ok, now I understand why you were talking about recreational drugs.

Deboogle!.
12-21-2005, 03:51 PM
Did he even finnish his studies??:shrug: It's never too late to do that :)

Galaxystorm
12-21-2005, 03:51 PM
Just saying "I didn't do it on purpose" is irrefutable because how can you ever prove the player did it on purpose?

Irrefutable is what a dictionary says that it means.

And obviously " I didn't do it on purpose " isn't irrefutable . It's a childish argument .

It seems you have never heard no case when the player has could prove he made a negligence and his ban was reduced :shrug:

sigmagirl91
12-21-2005, 03:51 PM
Did he even finnish his studies??

I don't know if he's ever been enrolled in a university or not; it was just a suggestion.

MariaV
12-21-2005, 03:51 PM
He can enroll in university and get a degree. :o
Let's hope he does that or at least finds something positive to do with his future.

Black Adam
12-21-2005, 03:52 PM
:shrug: It's never too late to do that :)
YEAH but it's kinda demoralising. :wavey:

Deboogle!.
12-21-2005, 03:54 PM
Nalbandian screens everything that goes into his food, water and supplements at his own expense. It's why I was so glad to see him win the TMC at the end of the year.

I have a feeling more players are going to be taking this route so that their wives or girlfriends meds don't get ingested by mistake as Mariano claims happened here.Many already do. Andy has been quoted as saying many times all he drinks is gatorade, and that he takes no supplements whatsoever. And I have heard similar, if not identical, comments, from a lot of players. If we are to believe the facts in the case, it sounds like Puerta was trying to be careful and that even his wife understood, as she tried to take that medication away from his presence. But it seems he wasn't careful enough?YEAH but it's kinda demoralising. :wavey:Demoralizing to go back to school later as an adult? I don't agree with that at all... it's quite common here in the US :shrug:

star
12-21-2005, 03:54 PM
He can enroll in university and get a degree. :o

He can also be a club pro, and when he's done with the ban become a coach.

But, I'm sure the ban will be very difficult for him and he will suffer mentally for some time.

Julio1974
12-21-2005, 03:55 PM
One of the best footballers ever , Maradona , was two times banned because of positive for " cocaine " . Maradona didn't want to improve his level, Maradona was just an addict ( in fact he has been several times about to die ) . When a player has an addiction with drugs obviously he doesn't take them to improve his level, he's just a sick person . Anti-doping policies sanction this kind of positives very toughly with great bans.

I agree with you 100%. Just one comment: Maradona's 2 doping was not for recreation drug (US World Cup 1994) and he deserved the punishment (as much as I got so depressed that fucking day).

Federerthebest
12-21-2005, 03:56 PM
Had Mariano tested positive during the tie against Australia?

Simply because a player does not test positive for performance-enhancing drugs before a Davis-Cup tie in no way cancels out the possibility that their physiology may have reaped benefits from past ingestion.

You don't make a valid point when you're being unfair to many other players which have not been accused or related to doping.

So, it is fair to let a team of players continue to participate in a competition, simply because some among their number are innocent? :rolleyes:

Black Adam
12-21-2005, 03:57 PM
Demoralizing to go back to school later as an adult? I don't agree with that at all... it's quite common here in the US :shrug:
No i meant that mentally it's gonna be a shock and it's not easy starting again from zero and it might take him some time to adjust to the situation.

star
12-21-2005, 03:58 PM
Irrefutable is what a dictionary says that it means.

And obviously " I didn't do it on purpose " isn't irrefutable . It's a childish argument .

It seems you have never heard no case when the player has could prove he made a negligence and his ban was reduced :shrug:

I've heard of those cases. :)

The problem is that it is very difficult and nearly impossible to refute a case where the player says, I didn't do it on purpose. If I were taking a proscribed drug, I would certainly have my excuse ready if I got caught. I'd make it as good as I could. Puerta's excuse wasn't even a good excuse, but it couldn't be proven that it didn't happen the way he said it happened -- therefore, "irrefutable." Irrefutable doesn't mean believable.

michelleg
12-21-2005, 03:58 PM
Its unfortunate that it happened as it did, (the player cafe was really quite crowded and chaotic at times and yes, pretty much everyone was sick at RG this past year)...so anyone who continues ranting on about this being a deliberate act - unless you were there and actually witnessed something to the contrary, you're just offering an opinion like the rest of the people here.

Rules are rules, however, as many have thoughtfully added to this conversation, the application and interpretation of those rules seem to be the big issue.

amierin
12-21-2005, 03:59 PM
It's also stupid to dope yourself on the eve of a final.

As has been mentioned upthread normally only the LOSERS of the QF and SF are tested so he thought the coast was clear.

almouchie
12-21-2005, 04:01 PM
i read the whole report from the tribunal
& its to say the least circumstancial & very concidental & even the concentration was so minimul it couldnt have affected his performances
the circumstances may never be clear
sure he was once guilty but then again that case was shabby too
he maybe should have been more careful
but in those tense moments at the highest pointof your career u wouldnt be expected to think of everything & suppose that avioding doping is the first thing on his mind

Its a shame really to rule a player's career & lively hood on such an unconvincing decision
& what about the 8 years????
that utterly ridiculous
they should have just as well said to him good bye forever
i was under the impression that whatever substance it needs to be over a certain limit to be considered an offense _ apparently not

when a murderer is on trial the defense has only to prove reasonable doubt to get him off. I would have hoped they apply such standards for shaky findings


We have heard many stories about Rusedski & several other players who tested positive only for later & ITF unexplainably deem the results erroronous
out of the blue ??
& the substance they werr talking about were anabolic steriods(if i remember correctly) the stuff that actually affects ur performances
What about Lance Armstron the US national hero
its hard to believe if anything tat after his cancer struggle & definite effect on his rogans that he would compete so well in the competitions
without a hint of drug tests
L'Equipe were among the first to spill the news but no one gave them much attention now that Lance is retired
its a disgusting double standards

several other players in different sports have had dopping offense flying over the heads like air & never got 8 years
in many american sports NFL, NHL several players 'admit' to the use of steriods
like its the drug of use

What a shame
Best of Luck to Mariano Peurta & his family in their lives

michelleg
12-21-2005, 04:02 PM
As has been mentioned upthread normally only the LOSERS of the QF and SF are tested so he thought the coast was clear.

Please do share your superhuman mindreading skills with the rest of us. Have you had that skill since birth or did you get hit by a bolt of lightning, maybe a car accident involving head trauma that brought it on???

Black Adam
12-21-2005, 04:03 PM
As has been mentioned upthread normally only the LOSERS of the QF and SF are tested so he thought the coast was clear.Poor guy but why did they exceptionally test him after the final? Paranoia??

Denaon
12-21-2005, 04:03 PM
Simply because a player does not test positive for performance-enhancing drugs before a Davis-Cup tie in no way cancels out the possibility that their physiology may have reaped benefits from past ingestion.


So, it is fair to let a team of players continue to participate in a competition, simply because some among their number are innocent? :rolleyes:

1) So in your logic, everyone is doped (and guilty), simply because a player does not test positive blah blah blah.....
2) You should not talk about fairness when you certainly do not know what the term means. End of discussion.

star
12-21-2005, 04:04 PM
Its unfortunate that it happened as it did, (the player cafe was really quite crowded and chaotic at times and yes, pretty much everyone was sick at RG this past year)...so anyone who continues ranting on about this being a deliberate act - unless you were there and actually witnessed something to the contrary, you're just offering an opinion like the rest of the people here.

Rules are rules, however, as many have thoughtfully added to this conversation, the application and interpretation of those rules seem to be the big issue.

I don't understand what the players' cafe being crowded and everyone being sick has to do with Puerta's case.

michelleg
12-21-2005, 04:07 PM
Accidentally ingesting a glass of water in the cafeteria.

The fact that someone would have medication in that glass of water.

sigmagirl91
12-21-2005, 04:08 PM
Accidentally ingesting a glass of water in the cafeteria.

The fact that someone would have medication in that glass of water.

Then he's still accountable for that. I'm sure, if that were the case, the soap opera quality of his response would still be there.

amierin
12-21-2005, 04:08 PM
I don't understand what the players' cafe being crowded and everyone being sick has to do with Puerta's case.

Part of the why it happened from Puerta's camp is that so much was going on that his wife took her medicine in a glass she didn't know was her husbands thus the low level of the drug in his system. I think it's posted further upthread.

Denaon
12-21-2005, 04:09 PM
As has been mentioned upthread normally only the LOSERS of the QF and SF are tested so he thought the coast was clear.
Please tell me:

1) How could the "coast be clear" (meaning that he doped in the final) and the result of the test showed the amount of drug would not improve his level???
2) If he doped b4, as many think so, and it's well known QF and SF losers are the only ones tested...why taking that risk???

alfonsojose
12-21-2005, 04:10 PM
:sad: .. :shrug: .. :wavey:

star
12-21-2005, 04:10 PM
Accidentally ingesting a glass of water in the cafeteria.

The fact that someone would have medication in that glass of water.

That medication isn't for a flu or a virus. It's for low blood pressure, and no one has ever explained why that medication would be disolved in water prior to taking it. I don't see the connection between everyone being sick and Puerta's testing positive for this medicationl

michelleg
12-21-2005, 04:11 PM
Part of the why it happened from Puerta's camp is that so much was going on that his wife took her medicine in a glass she didn't know was her husbands thus the low level of the drug in his system. I think it's posted further upthread.

And furthermore, my point was that despite the fact that I find it a plausible defense, I agree that it is still a violation.

mangoes
12-21-2005, 04:12 PM
Well, I'm sorry this even happened, and I'm disappointed in Puerta for doing this. I really thought he was innocent. But, his explanation was bullshit.

sigmagirl91
12-21-2005, 04:12 PM
The understanding I'm getting here, is that the level of drug in Puerta's system was not significant enough to cause performance-enhancing effects, yet the tests detected it. Whether it makes sense or not, the detection of the substance was enough to enforce the ban. The excuse offered for why it was there was the nail in the coffin, so to speak.

michelleg
12-21-2005, 04:12 PM
That medication isn't for a flu or a virus. It's for low blood pressure, and no one has ever explained why that medication would be disolved in water prior to taking it. I don't see the connection between everyone being sick and Puerta's testing positive for this medicationl

You have obviously never traveled to Europe. It is found in over the counter cold medications there.

We had this discussion in a previous thread. Do your homework.

amierin
12-21-2005, 04:14 PM
2) If he doped b4, as many think so, and it's well known QF and SF losers are the only ones tested...why taking that risk???

Why indeed?

That medication isn't for a flu or a virus. It's for low blood pressure, and no one has ever explained why that medication would be disolved in water prior to taking it. I don't see the connection between everyone being sick and Puerta's testing positive for this medicationl

According to what I read this morning Mrs. Puerta took the medicine because her menstrual cycle started. I can only assume they were trying to say that she had cramps and wanted to lessen them. I have to go back and look at my recording of the FO final because I remember her wearing white. I could be wrong, it was six months ago but in this country the last color a woman wears on the first day of her cycle is white.

Bubba08
12-21-2005, 04:14 PM
Sad sad sad end for Puerta's career :unsure:

star
12-21-2005, 04:14 PM
You have obviously never traveled to Europe. It is found in over the counter cold medications there.

We had this discussion in a previous thread. Do your homework.

No need to get snippy. :lol:

Even if it is an over the counter medication why would someone take it for an illness? I thought it was for low blood pressure. And why would it be disolved in a glass?

willie
12-21-2005, 04:14 PM
great news, somebody has to stop this guys!!!
see ya in 8 years, thats in the 2013 season...

sigmagirl91
12-21-2005, 04:16 PM
No need to get snippy. :lol:

Even if it is an over the counter medication why would someone take it for an illness? I thought it was for low blood pressure. And why would it be disolved in a glass?

Correction: menstrual cramps, people. MENSTRUAL CRAMPS!!!

Duncan
12-21-2005, 04:17 PM
Once i can accept just about and maybe say he will learn from mistakes but twice? Good Riddance Mr Puerta

michelleg
12-21-2005, 04:19 PM
No need to get snippy. :lol:

Even if it is an over the counter medication why would someone take it for an illness? I thought it was for low blood pressure. And why would it be disolved in a glass?

I get snippy like that with my children when I have to repeat information that has already been discussed, yet they behave as if it is the first time that they ever heard it.

You've never taken theraflu or alka-selzer cold?

Now about the etilefrine, it is found in cold medications in Europe. There was a previous doping case involving inadvertent etilefrine ingestion, we discussed that when the Puerta story first broke.

sigmagirl91
12-21-2005, 04:19 PM
According to what I read this morning Mrs. Puerta took the medicine because her menstrual cycle started. I can only assume they were trying to say that she had cramps and wanted to lessen them. I have to go back and look at my recording of the FO final because I remember her wearing white. I could be wrong, it was six months ago but in this country the last color a woman wears on the first day of her cycle is white.

She was wearing white? Perhaps she's just as prudent in her choice of clothing as she is in her choice of medication? :aplot: Then again....let's find a picture of this lady at the FO final, shall we?

jrm
12-21-2005, 04:19 PM
I like him but i don't have sympathy for doping sinners!!! What i find most tragic is the fact that he has stripped someone's place in the F of RG, of SF, of QF and so on up to the place in the MD ... plus all the events following RG!

michelleg
12-21-2005, 04:21 PM
Correction: menstrual cramps, people. MENSTRUAL CRAMPS!!!

Have no clue what the French put in their cramp meds, I never had cramps while in France.

All I am saying is that it is found in over the counter cold meds in Europe.

jrm
12-21-2005, 04:21 PM
That is just so harsh. :sad:

Why???

In other sports, second ban means ban for lifetime so in a way he was lucky :devil:

TheMightyFed
12-21-2005, 04:21 PM
I like him but i don't have sympathy for doping sinners!!! What i find most tragic is the fact that he has stripped someone's place in the F of RG, of SF, of QF and so on up to the place in the MD ... plus all the events following RG!
By the way French federation has asked that positive results on B sample are published earlier and provoke suspension immediately to avoid this mess with a player going on to play while is under a potential ban.

BelgianWaffle
12-21-2005, 04:22 PM
Many already do. Andy has been quoted as saying many times all he drinks is gatorade, and that he takes no supplements whatsoever. And I have heard similar, if not identical, comments, from a lot of players.
Exactly. Marat said that he had a very high fever once and was scared to go to the pharmacy to buy something.

star
12-21-2005, 04:22 PM
I get snippy like that with my children when I have to repeat information that has already been discussed, yet they behave as if it is the first time that they ever heard it.

You've never taken theraflu or alka-selzer cold?

Now about the etilefrine, it is found in cold medications in Europe. There was a previous doping case involving inadvertent etilefrine ingestion, we discussed that when the Puerta story first broke.

The difference is that I'm not one of your children nor am I a child. :lol:

Is it found in a cold medication that is kept disolved in water where you sip it every now and then or is it something like alka-selzer cold where you are supposed to drink it all down (not that I would ever ever drink the nasty stuff) and if it is like alka selzer wouldn't you know after it hit your mouth and then you could spit it out?????

sigmagirl91
12-21-2005, 04:22 PM
Have no clue what the French put in their cramp meds, I never had cramps while in France.

The last part of that, I didn't need to know.

All I am saying is that it is found in over the counter cold meds in Europe.

Ok.

star
12-21-2005, 04:24 PM
Have no clue what the French put in their cramp meds, I never had cramps while in France.

All I am saying is that it is found in over the counter cold meds in Europe.


Do you have a source for that? I mean names of medication etc?

jrm
12-21-2005, 04:25 PM
Rumors have been circulating for years about Agassi but nothing is done and no one seems to care despite the evidence in front of our eyes which are apparently wide shut. I think that a zero tolerance policy should apply to ALL players regardless of whether they're "journeymen" or "icons/legends".
If Roddick tested positive I think it would be covered up. If Federer tested positive I think it would get publicity and his sentence would be as stiff as Puerta's.
I say this as an American and I'm not proud to say it either.

I couldn't agree more :worship:

look what happened in US athletics ... all of the sudden most top US athletes were falling at doping like dominos ... and there are so many stories proving how they covered top athletes in the past (Lewis, Flo Jo ..)

BelgianWaffle
12-21-2005, 04:25 PM
That medication isn't for a flu or a virus. It's for low blood pressure, and no one has ever explained why that medication would be disolved in water prior to taking it. I don't see the connection between everyone being sick and Puerta's testing positive for this medicationl
That's just how it's formulated. Effortil is available in drops or tablets and it's sold mostly as drops because it's easy for dosage. :wavey:

mangoes
12-21-2005, 04:25 PM
She was wearing white? Perhaps she's just as prudent in her choice of clothing as she is in her choice of medication? :aplot: Then again....let's find a picture of this lady at the FO final, shall we?


I wear white and I'm not afraid so maybe she has a method for dressing that allows her to wear white with comfort.

But I thought the medication was because she was hypotensive? Now it's the flu or the wife's monthly visitor?

Galaxystorm
12-21-2005, 04:25 PM
I've heard of those cases. :)

The problem is that it is very difficult and nearly impossible to refute a case where the player says, I didn't do it on purpose. If I were taking a proscribed drug, I would certainly have my excuse ready if I got caught. I'd make it as good as I could. Puerta's excuse wasn't even a good excuse, but it couldn't be proven that it didn't happen the way he said it happened -- therefore, "irrefutable." Irrefutable doesn't mean believable.

According to the Tribunal verdict : " The amount of etilefrene in his body was too small to have any effect on his perfomance ".

A player is banned for life after being recidivist ( 8 years is like for live ) because he took a substance that didn't help him to improve his level . :cuckoo:

I thought the word " justice " was something more serious than this joke of ITF verdict .

sigmagirl91
12-21-2005, 04:26 PM
I wear white and I'm not afraid so maybe she has a method for dressing that allows her to wear white with comfort.

But I thought the medication was because she was hypotensive? Now it's the flu or the wife's monthly visitor?

:shrug: I guess the bulletproof diva has ultra-absorbent maxi-pads with wings? I don't know.

sigmagirl91
12-21-2005, 04:28 PM
That's just how it's formulated. Effortil is available in drops or tablets and it's sold mostly as drops because it's easy for dosage. :wavey:

Now, something sold in drops that can alleviate menstrual cramps? Where may I find this?

mangoes
12-21-2005, 04:28 PM
I couldn't agree more :worship:

look what happened in US athletics ... all of the sudden most top US athletes were falling at doping like dominos ... and there are so many stories proving how they covered top athletes in the past (Lewis, Flo Jo ..)

Oh please......................if Agassi were dopping, the story would be broken in a heartbeat, it would be BIG news. Don't compare the doping rules of baseball and football to tennis.

michelleg
12-21-2005, 04:29 PM
Do you have a source for that? I mean names of medication etc?


Number one, if you behave like a child, then you will be treated as such.

And as I previously told you, the case itself was brought up in the original thread regarding Puerta's doping case.

All I have been trying to say is that I find his case plausible.

BelgianWaffle
12-21-2005, 04:31 PM
Now, something sold in drops that can alleviate menstrual cramps? Where may I find this?
Menstrual cramps?! it's for chronic low blood pressure or orthostatic hypotension.

Are you sure y'all aren't mixing up etilefrine with (pseudo-)efedrine that is found indeed in cold medications?
You can't buy effortil OTC in europe btw. Not in Belgium anyway and I work in a pharmacy.

sigmagirl91
12-21-2005, 04:31 PM
All I have been trying to say is that I find his case plausible.

About as plausible as the ol' "the dog ate my homework" excuse maybe?

mangoes
12-21-2005, 04:32 PM
Rumors have been circulating for years about Agassi but nothing is done and no one seems to care despite the evidence in front of our eyes which are apparently wide shut. I think that a zero tolerance policy should apply to ALL players regardless of whether they're "journeymen" or "icons/legends".
If Roddick tested positive I think it would be covered up. If Federer tested positive I think it would get publicity and his sentence would be as stiff as Puerta's.
I say this as an American and I'm not proud to say it either.


Amierin, did you have to bring my sweetheart Agassi into this? You just couldn't leave him out of this thread? :lol:

jrm
12-21-2005, 04:32 PM
What will happen to Karol Beck?

sigmagirl91
12-21-2005, 04:32 PM
Menstrual cramps?! it's for chronic low blood pressure or orthostatic hypotension.

Are you sure y'all aren't mixing up etilefrine with (pseudo-)efedrine that is found indeed in cold medications?
You can't buy effortil OTC in europe btw. Not in Belgium anyway and I work in a pharmacy.

I'm sure they're the same thing (?!).

RonE
12-21-2005, 04:32 PM
:eek:

Ouch :sad:

alfonsojose
12-21-2005, 04:33 PM
He can comeback at 35 and win a GS :yeah:

mangoes
12-21-2005, 04:34 PM
Number one, if you behave like a child, then you will be treated as such.

And as I previously told you, the case itself was brought up in the original thread regarding Puerta's doping case.

All I have been trying to say is that I find his case plausible.


His explanation is BULLSHIT.

RonE
12-21-2005, 04:34 PM
He can comeback at 35 and win a GS :yeah:

Right. And Pete Sampras will come out of retirement and win RG next year.

amierin
12-21-2005, 04:35 PM
Amierin, did you have to bring my sweetheart Agassi into this? You just couldn't leave him out of this thread? :lol:

Sorry honey. I just figured I'd do a pre-emptive strike.

BelgianWaffle
12-21-2005, 04:36 PM
I'm sure they're the same thing (?!).
:lol: You want to kill your patients Sigma? :p

Denaon
12-21-2005, 04:36 PM
About as plausible as the ol' "the dog ate my homework" excuse maybe?
I think so...and indeed they're both plausible...you may believe it or not

Julio1974
12-21-2005, 04:37 PM
So, it is fair to let a team of players continue to participate in a competition, simply because some among their number are innocent? :rolleyes:

That's the rule in soccer also (1 doped player does not change the result).

sigmagirl91
12-21-2005, 04:38 PM
:lol: You want to kill your patients Sigma? :p

I don't work in the medical field; I was just conjecturing here. If I'm wrong, please say so. For what it's worth, the effortil (or any of its variants, whatever they are) isn't found here either. Which, when we look at it closely, makes the whole defense as sound as a sinking ship.

ReturnWinner
12-21-2005, 04:44 PM
he is not recurrent and not argentine so he will be punished with mmmm two months
What will happen to Karol Beck?

BelgianWaffle
12-21-2005, 04:45 PM
I don't work in the medical field; I was just conjecturing here. If I'm wrong, please say so. For what it's worth, the effortil (or any of its variants, whatever they are) isn't found here either. Which, when we look at it closely, makes the whole defense as sound as a sinking ship.
I don't understand why Michelleg is saying etilefrine is found in a number of OTC cold medication in Europe. Etilefrine and efedrine are two very different chemical substances, even though the names sound alike. So if she could please name me one cold medication that contains it? Or at least post the link (she says it has been discussed before). Because I've never heard of that and I would be a shitty pharmacist if I would'nt know such things.

For what it's worth: effortil is produced by a german firm (Boehringer Ingelheim) which is why you might not find it across the ocean. A similar product is produced by the firm Abott and is called 'Regulton'.

*edit* it could be michelleg confused puerta's case with the whole kuznetsova-debacle here in belgium where she indeed had taken a cold medicine that contained pseudo-efedrine. Whole different case.

Galaxystorm
12-21-2005, 04:46 PM
I have been reading the first pages of messages in this thread and i doubt a lot the 90% of persons have read the whole pdf document-verdict . I will recommend them to read it because only reading the ITF new in its website is impossible to post an opinion with full knowledge of the facts.

After reading the whole document there is only one proved thing . Inside his body was found a forbidden substance and the amount of it wasn't enough to improve the physical level of the player during his performance.


What a doping case !!!! :eek: :eek: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Julio1974
12-21-2005, 04:48 PM
I think so...and indeed they're both plausible...you may believe it or not

I don't buy it. Sorry.

michelleg
12-21-2005, 04:50 PM
Do you have a source for that? I mean names of medication etc?

Finally found that thread....

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=2442621&postcount=372

Deboogle!.
12-21-2005, 04:50 PM
That's just how it's formulated. Effortil is available in drops or tablets and it's sold mostly as drops because it's easy for dosage. :wavey:drops, yes. I believe that's what the ITF verdict says was at issue, she put drops in her glass of water. Allegedly.

BelgianWaffle
12-21-2005, 04:54 PM
Finally found that thread....

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=2442621&postcount=372
Thank you for the link but how did you get from 'a household remedy' to an OTC specialty??
Household remedy implies he gets effortil from a pharmacy and takes it at his own initiative, when he doesn't feel well. (I'm sure effortil could make you feel better when you have a cold. But hey, so does cocaine :p )

michelleg
12-21-2005, 04:58 PM
In my little part of the US where I live, the term household remedy is the equivalent to OTC meds. OTC meaning anything I can buy in the supermarket, drugstore etc. without the requirement of a doctors prescrip.

Prescription implies a trip to the pharmacy and a scrip.

Deboogle!.
12-21-2005, 04:59 PM
In my little part of the US where I live, the term household remedy is the equivalent to OTC meds. OTC meaning anything I can buy in the supermarket, drugstore etc. without the requirement of a doctors prescrip.

Prescription implies a trip to the pharmacy and a scrip.I would agree with that classification as well:)

BelgianWaffle
12-21-2005, 05:03 PM
In my little part of the US where I live, the term household remedy is the equivalent to OTC meds. OTC meaning anything I can buy in the supermarket, drugstore etc. without the requirement of a doctors prescrip.

Prescription implies a trip to the pharmacy and a scrip.
Oh I see. There is a misunderstanding. You cannot buy OTC products such as cough sirups and simple painkillers in drugstores or supermarkets (god forbid) in Europe. Because here it is written in the law that the pharmacist should always be able to give advice, which is not possible if products are sold in supermarkets, for instance. You can only buy drugs at a pharmacy.
When that austrian guy said 'household remedy' he meant, something that you use at your own will, like your grandmother would brew her own cough sirup. Maybe that skier found that when he had a cold, effortil seemed to help him and he kept taking it. (altough that's not its indication)

I'm 100% sure there are no cough medications that contain etilefrine.
:wavey:

Deboogle!.
12-21-2005, 05:04 PM
Oh I see. There is a misunderstanding. You cannot buy OTC products such as cough sirups and simple painkillers in drugstores or supermarkets (god forbid) in Europe. Because here it is written in the law that the pharmacist should always be able to give advice, which is not possible if products are sold in supermarkets, for instance. You can only buy drugs at a pharmacy.
When that austrian guy said 'household remedy' he meant, something that you use at your own will, like your grandmother would brew her own cough sirup. Maybe that skier found that when he had a cold, effortil seemed to help him and he kept taking it. (altough that's not its indication)

I'm 100% sure there are no cough medications that contain etilefrine.
:wavey:Interesting, thanks for the explanation. I didn't know it was so hard to get simple cold medicines and stuff in Europe :)

Action Jackson
12-21-2005, 05:04 PM
I have been reading the first pages of messages in this thread and i doubt a lot the 90% of persons have read the whole pdf document-verdict . I will recommend them to read it because only reading the ITF new in its website is impossible to post an opinion with full knowledge of the facts.

What a doping case !!!! :eek: :eek: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The initials ARG don't always help, but I have saved the file and it's interesting readng, no one is arguing the amount that was found was miniscule, but his previous doesn't help him and someone had to be the example.

BelgianWaffle
12-21-2005, 05:06 PM
Interesting, thanks for the explanation. I didn't know it was so hard to get simple cold medicines and stuff in Europe :)
Personally I find that a scary thought. Drugs in supermarkets! :tape:

*edit* But then again, you guys sell guns at supermarkets :p :scared:

mangoes
12-21-2005, 05:06 PM
In my little part of the US where I live, the term household remedy is the equivalent to OTC meds. OTC meaning anything I can buy in the supermarket, drugstore etc. without the requirement of a doctors prescrip.

Prescription implies a trip to the pharmacy and a scrip.


I disagree.

Any medication that can be bought in the drugstore or supermarket without a doctor's prescription is called: "over the counter drugs".

Household remedies are things like:

For flu

Blend Garlic, lime and a dash of salt, then drink quickly.

For a sore throat

Drink some honey and lime.

mangoes
12-21-2005, 05:08 PM
Personally I find that a scary thought. Drugs in supermarkets! :tape:


Really? I find it scary to think that I can't find some cold medicine in the Pharmacy section of my local supermarket.

stebs
12-21-2005, 05:09 PM
roll on 2014.

michelleg
12-21-2005, 05:11 PM
I call those homeopathic remedies, fyi. It is a matter of semantics.

Belgian, I take over the counter allergy remedies on a daily basis, and found that when I was in Europe, I had a great deal of difficulty deciphering what was in the medications...it was a nightmare actually. I appreciate the clarification...we needed you back in that original thread!

fenomeno2111
12-21-2005, 05:12 PM
Really? I find it scary to think that I can't find some cold medicine in the Pharmacy section of my local supermarket.
HAHAHAHAHA, Go to a GNC store or a Vitamin Shoppe, probably 80 % of those substances are illegal in the world of sports :o

mangoes
12-21-2005, 05:14 PM
I call those homeopathic remedies, fyi. It is a matter of semantics.

Belgian, I take over the counter allergy remedies on a daily basis, and found that when I was in Europe, I had a great deal of difficulty deciphering what was in the medications...it was a nightmare actually. I appreciate the clarification...we needed you back in that original thread!


It's what you will call them, but if I walk down the street now and asked some people what do they call the cold medications at the supermarket, most people would call it, "over the counter drugs".

Clara Bow
12-21-2005, 05:16 PM
I didn't know it was so hard to get simple cold medicines and stuff in Europe

In the US, they are actually starting to put some stuff like Sudafed Cold behind the counter in some drug stores and maybe supermarket pharmacies as well. In large part because middle school and high school kids are abusing cold and cough medicines to get high. (What's that called- skittling?) I also read somewhere that some of the ingredients that are in some of these meds are also used in meth labs and speed is continuing to be a huge problem in some more rural areas. I'd never heard that before about the ingredients in cough/cold meds being used for meth before so I'm not sure if that's true. Not that I'm an expert on speed or anything.

All in all though, the situation with Puerta makes me kinda sad. Because it sounds like it wasn't an amount that would have effected his performance so therefore, it doesn't seem like there was intent to cheat.

mangoes
12-21-2005, 05:17 PM
HAHAHAHAHA, Go to a GNC store or a Vitamin Shoppe, probably 80 % of those substances are illegal in the world of sports :o


And? Your point is?

mangoes
12-21-2005, 05:18 PM
In the US, they are actually starting to put some stuff like Sudafed Cold behind the counter in some drug stores and maybe supermarket pharmacies as well. In large part because middle school and high school kids are abusing cold and cough medicines to get high. (What's that called- skittling?) I also read somewhere that some of the ingredients that are in some of these meds are also used in meth labs and speed is continuing to be a huge problem in some more rural areas. I'd never heard that before about the ingredients in cough/cold meds being used for meth before so I'm not sure if that's true. Not that I'm an expert on speed or anything.


At my pharmacy, if you are under 18, you can't buy medication such as sudafed cold.

El Legenda
12-21-2005, 05:19 PM
once a cheaters, always a cheater :wavey: jackass.

mandoura
12-21-2005, 05:20 PM
What a shame :eek:.

Shame for him and for waisting his talent, shame for his family, shame for his fans, shame for his opponents who were cheated, shame for the ATP/ITF for taking so long to announce/settle it. This is a very shameful and sad story.

I have very sympathetic feelings for him as a person on a "human" level, but I have none for him as a player on a professional level.

Sure we all have mistakes but when these mistakes affect others, a "price" should be paid and he is paying it with his carreer. What a waist. It was not worth it.

AgassiDomination
12-21-2005, 05:20 PM
:lol: