Drug Testing and Anti-Doping Violations

Another one bites the dust...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-4767802/Sara-Errani-accused-failing-drugs-test-Italian-media.html

Tennis is facing its most significant doping case since the exposing of Maria Sharapova after former French Open finalist Sara Errani was reported to have failed a drugs test.


The 30-year-old Italian, once ranked No 5 in the world but now down at 98, is reported by newspaper Corriere della Serra to have tested positive for Anastrozole earlier this year.


The substance is more commonly known as a treatment for breast cancer, but is on the banned list due to its qualities as a masking agent.


Errani is said to have been subjected to an out-of-competition test at her home, and has dropped out of this week's Rogers Cup in Montreal.


In 2012 she admitted to have been treated by Spanish cycling doctor Luis Garcia Del Moral, who also worked with Lance Armstrong, shortly after the International Tennis Federation issued a directive that no players should associate with him....

Guys, could we perhaps distinguish between doping - ie performance enhancing and PED-masking drugs such as have been referred to with Lance Armstrong. Sharapova and Errani and the use of recreational drugs that aren't going to benefit your performance at all - such as crystal meth as used by Agassi and therefore is not doping, but drug-abuse, or drug-taking. Cocaine, as Gasquet managed to get away with, could be seen as performance enhancing if he'd used it before a match, but he was using it - as have other players, when they are partying - and partying isn't exactly going to enhance your performance.

I am making no comment on the use of recreational drugs - however inadvisable I think it is for an athlete to mess with any of them regardless of whether they are banned or not, it is just dumb. But, I really do see a big difference between someone letting his hair down on his off-time and relenting to temptation to enjoy themselves or celebrate once in a while (or in Agassi's case to escape his depression and confusion about his career/life choices) and someone intentionally - and systematically - taking PEDs to get an advantage over the competition.
The two are very different animals IMO and while the use of both are banned and players should therefore be penalised in both cases, the moral issues are very different and I for one don't see them as the same and don't think the punishments should be equal either.

But if those drugs aren't performance enhancing then why are they banned? I believe methamphetmine's affect is somewhat similar to adrenaline, which would perhaps be performance-enhancing in small doses.

Speaking of 'letting one's hair down' ... Martina Hingis offered to have her hair tested years back when accused of using cocaine.  Oddly enough the levels of coke in Hingis sample were lower than Gasquet who claimed that the stuff got into his system through kissing.  Hingis suffered something like a 2-year ban having less of the stuff in her body than Gasquet who must have been making out with a date who was snorting all night long.  

I actually have to laugh at some of the excuses these players come up with. According to something I've read today (although I can't remember where now) Errani claims that somehow her mother's cancer drugs got into her food. Really? 
why is it always mother's fault? 8)

edit: I found the article... http://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/40854182

Errani's mother had been using the drug as part of her treatment for breast cancer and had left pills on a kitchen worktop where food was prepared.
A tribunal panel accepted the player probably ingested the substance through accidental food contamination.

OMG I've now heard it all.

Well- if she was grating cheese or chopping up a salad and scooped the pills up along the way.... I guess it could have happened Gasquet was just laughable but Hingis' ban was tough if her levels were so low.

rogerNo19 you'd be right if the stuff was ingested before a match but Agassi was using it after playing his matches or on his off days - his drug use may or may not have contributed to his performance but he was dropping in the rankings and losing regularly because he'd lost his motivation totally so his drug use couldnt posdibly have been performance enhancing and was all about mood-enhancing. Which doesnt make him less of an idiot for going there but I dont see it in the same light as Armstrong or dare I say it, Sharapova's long term use of drugs which are used to give the person a physical advantage not to lift their spirits.

No further need to hypothesize, conjecture etc.  

Stephanie Myles has written an excellent article on the case, which has been made public by the ITF.  Errani receives 2 months beginning Aug 3 - with a backdating of loss of prize money and ranking points between Feb 16 (date of +ve test) to June 7 (date of -ve test)

http://tennis.life/2017/08/07/sara-errani-busted-positive-test/

She also linked to the complete tribunal ruling which I found very helpful in navigating the ins and outs of the case.

http://www.itftennis.com/media/267586/267586.pdf

Here is the ITF press release, as well.

http://www.itftennis.com/news/267585.aspx

I'm sorry but two months is a joke. She took a masking agent. Masking agents are exactly what they purport to be. They mask the evidence of PED use. Two months is a slap in the face to the clean players. I don't care what her excuse was. It's a friggin' joke. How does Sharapova now feel that she got a year suspension and Errani gets a slap on the wrist? 

I think a player would have to be standing on court injecting something into their veins in front of the umpire for WADA to take action and even then they'd buy the excuse that the player was under some kind of hypnosis that made them do it. 

I tend to agree with you.  Some of the excuses these players come up with are laughable.  The fact that they get away with it more often than not is especially egregious.

I added to that post to say that Sharapova's suspension was a year but I think it was actually 15 months in the end, reduced from 2 years I believe. She must be livid when she sees this two month ban. Not that I care. But they have to be a bit more consistent with their rulings.

From Richard Ings  

https://twitter.com/ringsau

Concerning his reputation in the antidoping field he is

Former CEO of Australian Sports Anti Doping Authority and former EVP Rules & Competition of ATP Tour with current views.

It should be noted if you follow him at all, that he is very outspoken in the field of anti-doping, and presents very rational arguments, speaking from his personal experience.  I find his take interesting.

A 2 month ban for Errani would seem very lenient to many but it seems uncommon sense to me.

Another win for @athleteslawyer

— Richard Ings (@ringsau) August 7, 2017

Just because we think something is beyond the pale doesn't mean it was.  Like Sharapova, she did not dispute the finding.  The circumstances are entirely different.  I suggest actually reading the tribunal findings, long form.  Basically they had to decide if they were looking at the 2 year or the 4 year framework - Look at how the two years was reduced based on degree of fault etc.  Read about the mother and her long term battle with breast cancer.  Read about letrozole and why it is banned (page 6 #9 and 10) It is NOT a masking agent, rather a metabolic modulator preventing

the  conversion of testosterone to estradiol and of androstenedione to estrone.

 

Nothing to suggest that it is ANY advantage to a tennis player, no evidence about athletes in general using it, and none in tennis players - This is all written out in the judgment.  This is the actual science.

Please read the entire judgement before passing judgment and understand how it was reached.
Here is the link again:  

http://www.itftennis.com/media/267586/267586.pdf

Here is where it is listed in WADA rulebook as a hormone and metabolic modulator.  

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/prohibited-list/prohibited-at-all-times/hormone-and-metabolic-modulators

For the record, this was an ITF tribunal.  WADA provides the framework/rulebook/testing facilities - It is NOT the judge and jury.  They NEVER run the actual tribunals.  The athlete can take their case to CAS if they don't agree with the ruling.  (So too can WADA)  But again, not run by WADA.

"Nothing to suggest that it is ANY advantage to a tennis player, no evidence about athletes in general using it, and none in tennis players - This is all written out in the judgment.  This is the actual science. "


Then why is it banned both in and out of competition? 

The basis of Errani's tortellini defense. Only in Italyhttps://t.co/fEjrS6HdIb pic.twitter.com/hVzroWrf4r

— Christopher Clarey (@christophclarey) August 7, 2017

I know many people here respect Christopher Clarey so it's interesting to see his take on Errani's "excuse". It's nice to see I'm in good company.

Those pills are quite expensive. I find it hard to believe someone would just be dropping them all over their kitchen counter and leaving them there. LOL. Too funny.

wcr wrote:As for Armstrong:  "But unlike other security arms races, the detectors have the ability to look into the past. A laboratory tested Lance Armstrong's urine in 2005 and found traces of the banned substance erythropoietin (EPO). What's interesting is that the urine sample tested wasn't from 2005.... It was from 1999. Back then, there weren't any good tests for EPO in urine. Today there are, and the lab took a frozen urine sample – who knew that labs save urine samples from athletes? – and tested it. Armstrong was later cleared (the lab procedures were sloppy), but I don't think people understood the real ramifications of the episode: Testing can go back in time."

There are are also procedures that can never be detected ever. Period. It takes a conversation and even then nothing is guaranteed. There is a brilliant documentary about the East German Women's swim team in the seventies. They also did not fail drug tests during the event or even after the event because the EG government conducted treatments before the athletes ever entered the sport. When they were children, these competitors had their bodies altered and they went on to accomplish what they accomplished against the women's field in 1976 (interestingly, they tried doing it with the men's team, but to no material effect). To my knowledge, the 1976 results remain on the books.

Going back in time, obviously, can have an impact, but it cannot be a blanket exoneration of wrong doing when big stakes are involved. I wrote this before the flurry of tortellini defenses, et al, below so lets see what that's all about, I'd never heard of this tortellini defense, sounds very exotic.

Is there any record of Women athletes using this hormone regulator to modify/delay/inhibit their periods???

Ive often wondered how the women manage this. Bummer if you suffer PMT or other issues with a big match coming up.