Biogenesis / Troicki / Cilic / Doping in Tennis

[Moxie]

if they are playing for history then it is way too risky to experiment with doping.
you could lose it all and be discredited for life. worse, you would have to give the prize money back. and some of that endorsement money back as well.
just ask lance about it.

Actually, this is a very good point: if the top guys are playing for legacy, how much are they willing to risk it all if they lost it because they got caught doping? Obviously, Lance Armstrong was willing to take the risk, and it didn't pay off in the end. I'm generally with CD on the notion that some are just more talented and dedicated than the others, and where there is doping in tennis, it's in the lower- to mid-rungs that are looking for a leg-up on the really top-tier players. (Which translates into money, to people that it matters to.) As to they players going for legacy, I'm sure, at the very least, they're incredibly cautious about the notion of cheating, and blowing the whole thing. For sure, they got to where they are "mostly" on talent, and if you think there was a bump in there, that's you, but I'm equally sure they won't blow it now by cheating. Whatever the big 4 are doing now, I'm sure it's clean. Why would you be so stupid as to risk your legacy by doping, at this point?

 

[tented]

I'd like to know when the ITF plans on looking into the oxygen egg again, which they said they would. If they decide it is blood doping, and not just against the spirit of sportsmanship (or however they put it), will they go back and take away Djokovic's US Open?

 

[Kieran]

will they go back and take away Djokovic's US Open?

Why stop there? But I think the argument may come down to whether or not the egg constitutes substance abuse. It has the same effect as drugs, but isn't drugs. That's a huge get out of jail card.

However, the spirit of the sport is their argument. But what exactly does that mean?

 

[tented]

will they go back and take away Djokovic's US Open?

Why stop there? But I think the argument may come down to whether or not the egg constitutes substance abuse. It has the same effect as drugs, but isn't drugs. That's a huge get out of jail card.

However, the spirit of the sport is their argument. But what exactly does that mean?

I'm not sure what you mean by "substance abuse" but the ITF may determine it's blood doping.

The "spirit of the sport" argument is silly. Translation: "We think it should be illegal, therefore you shouldn't be using it, but we're too wimpy to make a final decision."

 

[britbox]

I'd like to know when the ITF plans on looking into the oxygen egg again, which they said they would. If they decide it is blood doping, and not just against the spirit of sportsmanship (or however they put it), will they go back and take away Djokovic's US Open?

Not a chance. If it wasn't banned at the time, they can't do it retrospectively. It wouldn't be fair either as he wasn't operating outside of any rules at the time.

 

[Kieran]

I'm not sure what you mean by "substance abuse" but the ITF may determine it's blood doping.

What I mean by "substance abuse" is, there's no drugs involved, so technically as well as actually, it's not doping. Britbox is right too, they can't go back and change the laws players operated under.

The spirit of the sport is the most hamfisted, wishy-washy nonsense. I'd love to know what it means. It's kind of like harking back to the amateur ethic that says it's the taking part that counts. Let's all be gentlemen. If the spirit of the sport was so obviously apparent, there'd be no need for rules. You're right what you're saying: they're trying to guilt-trip mega-bucks sports stars into regulating their patterns because they're too wimpy to rule on this...

 

[August]

if they are playing for history then it is way too risky to experiment with doping.

Well, we've seen athletes with successful careers cetting caught from doping, Lance Armstrong, Tyson Gay, Asafa Powell, Yevgeny Dementiev (best skier of 2006 Olympics). Well, Armstrong obviously doped in all his Tour wins, but there are many famous atheletes whom it took much time to get caught. And those doping cases have tarnished their careers at least in my eyes. They've already gotten success, why would they dope? The only reason I can image is that they've always doped, but they finally got caught.

 

[DarthFed]

if they are playing for history then it is way too risky to experiment with doping.

Well, we've seen athletes with successful careers cetting caught from doping, Lance Armstrong, Tyson Gay, Asafa Powell, Yevgeny Dementiev (best skier of 2006 Olympics). Well, Armstrong obviously doped in all his Tour wins, but there are many famous atheletes whom it took much time to get caught. And those doping cases have tarnished their careers at least in my eyes. They've already gotten success, why would they dope? The only reason I can image is that they've always doped, but they finally got caught.

This is an excellent point. We can assume guys like Roger, Rafa and Djokovic wouldn't start doping after becoming the dominant #1 player in the world as all 3 have been.

Just a hypothetical here but say we find out Nole was doping: we would be pretty darn confident it would have started before the 2011 season. He'd have to be an idiot to just randomly start it now when he is the clear #1. Same with Rafa and Fed, in their cases we'd be pretty confident it started sometime before 2004 for Roger and 2008 for Rafa (the years they took over as #1). In these hypotheticals you have to remember that we are talking about players who would be near the top and/or shown great potential. Their incentive to dope would be obvious (get a huge edge that could push them over the top).

Note: Again I will say I'm not accusing anyone, the above are simply hypothetical to illustrate what incentive they would have. I think clearly the incentive would come before they became dominant #1's who had multiple slams.

 

[Kieran]

Good points, August and Darth. Absolutely, if a chap is winning, he won't change a winning formula and risk it all by doping. The only scenario I imagine is if he falls from the top and thinks drugs will get him back up there, because either he's unable to recapture his old energy levels and compete with youngsters - or he knows everyone else is doping and he has no chance to get back on top without them...

 

[tented]

I'm not sure what you mean by "substance abuse" but the ITF may determine it's blood doping.

What I mean by "substance abuse" is, there's no drugs involved, so technically as well as actually, it's not doping.

In the U.S., "substance abuse" means there's nothing but drugs involved, so it seemed weird that you would have said no drugs involved.

 

[Kieran]

I'm not sure what you mean by "substance abuse" but the ITF may determine it's blood doping.

What I mean by "substance abuse" is, there's no drugs involved, so technically as well as actually, it's not doping.

In the U.S., "substance abuse" means there's nothing but drugs involved, so it seemed weird that you would have said no drugs involved.

I was talking about the egg Novak sleeps in, there's no drugs in there, is there?

 

[tented]

I'm not sure what you mean by "substance abuse" but the ITF may determine it's blood doping.

What I mean by "substance abuse" is, there's no drugs involved, so technically as well as actually, it's not doping.

In the U.S., "substance abuse" means there's nothing but drugs involved, so it seemed weird that you would have said no drugs involved.

I was talking about the egg Novak sleeps in, there's no drugs in there, is there?

Not that I'm aware of. I think it's just oxygen.

Here's what you originally wrote which made me wonder what you meant by substance abuse:

"But I think the argument may come down to whether or not the egg constitutes substance abuse. It has the same effect as drugs, but isn't drugs."

The nature of substance abuse would require drug use, yet you say it isn't drugs, therefore I can't imagine how it could be considered substance abuse.

 

[Kieran]

Here's what you originally wrote which made me wonder what you meant by substance abuse:

"But I think the argument may come down to whether or not the egg constitutes substance abuse. It has the same effect as drugs, but isn't drugs."

The nature of substance abuse would require drug use, yet you say it isn't drugs, therefore I can't imagine how it could be considered substance abuse.

Ah right, I see what you mean now. The egg has the same effect as if he's taking drugs - but it isn't a drug, therefore it isn't substance abuse. But what I'm wondering here is will they ban all things which have the same effect as drugs? Of course, it wouldn't be substance abuse. It's egg abuse or whatever his Nigella Lawson Cookbook calls it...

 

[ClayDeath]

fascinating thread.

 

[tented]

Here's what you originally wrote which made me wonder what you meant by substance abuse:

"But I think the argument may come down to whether or not the egg constitutes substance abuse. It has the same effect as drugs, but isn't drugs."

The nature of substance abuse would require drug use, yet you say it isn't drugs, therefore I can't imagine how it could be considered substance abuse.

Ah right, I see what you mean now. The egg has the same effect as if he's taking drugs - but it isn't a drug, therefore it isn't substance abuse. But what I'm wondering here is will they ban all things which have the same effect as drugs? Of course, it wouldn't be substance abuse. It's egg abuse or whatever his Nigella Lawson Cookbook calls it...

I think this is what the ITF was trying to address with their "violating the spirit of the game" comment: technically not drugs, but producing the same effect as drugs.

It is a tricky area. I have no idea how they will resolve it, or how they should resolve it, but they need to come to a decision.

 

[Moxie]

Here's what you originally wrote which made me wonder what you meant by substance abuse:

"But I think the argument may come down to whether or not the egg constitutes substance abuse. It has the same effect as drugs, but isn't drugs."

The nature of substance abuse would require drug use, yet you say it isn't drugs, therefore I can't imagine how it could be considered substance abuse.

Ah right, I see what you mean now. The egg has the same effect as if he's taking drugs - but it isn't a drug, therefore it isn't substance abuse. But what I'm wondering here is will they ban all things which have the same effect as drugs? Of course, it wouldn't be substance abuse. It's egg abuse or whatever his Nigella Lawson Cookbook calls it...

But there are versions of boosting the oxygen/red blood cells that ARE illegal, and they don't involve any "substances," either, or "dope" if you will. No PEDs. Isn't the "spirit" of the thing the same, then? It's an artificial means of boosting oxygen in the blood, like having your blood drawn, centrifuged and put back into your body, which is illegal.

I'm not convinced it should be illegal, mind you. I'm just not clear as to why the egg is legal and the other isn't. (And both have some dangers, which you can look up.)

 

[Kieran]

Totally agree, sista! It's all artificial means. The egg also causes changes in the body which aren't natural and nor are they the result of training. It's going to be a knotty one, but already Nole has hugely benefited. He was also mentally tougher when he was sitting in the egg. He's much more brittle over the last 15 months or so...

 

[tented]

Here's what you originally wrote which made me wonder what you meant by substance abuse:

"But I think the argument may come down to whether or not the egg constitutes substance abuse. It has the same effect as drugs, but isn't drugs."

The nature of substance abuse would require drug use, yet you say it isn't drugs, therefore I can't imagine how it could be considered substance abuse.

Ah right, I see what you mean now. The egg has the same effect as if he's taking drugs - but it isn't a drug, therefore it isn't substance abuse. But what I'm wondering here is will they ban all things which have the same effect as drugs? Of course, it wouldn't be substance abuse. It's egg abuse or whatever his Nigella Lawson Cookbook calls it...

But there are versions of boosting the oxygen/red blood cells that ARE illegal, and they don't involve any "substances," either, or "dope" if you will. No PEDs. Isn't the "spirit" of the thing the same, then? It's an artificial means of boosting oxygen in the blood, like having your blood drawn, centrifuged and put back into your body, which is illegal.

I'm not convinced it should be illegal, mind you. I'm just not clear as to why the egg is legal and the other isn't. (And both have some dangers, which you can look up.)

Exactly. If oxygenating your blood in the manner which Armstrong employed is illegal, then why is another method legal, if they're both providing the same end result? It's like telling someone you're not allowed to smoke, but it's OK to stand in a roomful of smokers.

 

[Front242]

He was also mentally tougher when he was sitting in the egg.

Anyone can be a tough guy sitting in a giant Easter egg all on their own To his credit he was able to replicate that toughness on the court too.

 

[Moxie]

He was also mentally tougher when he was sitting in the egg.

Anyone can be a tough guy sitting in a giant Easter egg all on their own To his credit he was able to replicate that toughness on the court too.

Oh, for sure. And, for the record, I believe that diet change and confidence made the difference. But you know a lot about this doping stuff, Front. What do you think the position should be on the egg/hyperbaric chamber, in terms of tennis. (It seems to be used in some other sports, from a quick and anecdotal google search.)