Bored Members - Guests | Media | White Bored | Interview | Bored Anthem - Songs | Boredwaani | Cartoons | Facebook | Twitter | Login

Dopehead! Wada wada wada....

by achettup

WADA's whereabouts clause continues to polarize BCC! members. Several posts have now been written on the topic which you can see here. All manner of insults have been thrown, from calling Agassi a dopehead to unnecessarily insulting WADA by calling it Canadian (sorry if I misquoted anyone, but I am not willing to stand down either :P). This furious blogger wishes to ask why some stupid events vaguely related to tennis are brought up and others directly related to a ban are not.

On a quite serious note, let me first clarify that the debate isn't about whether WADA should monitor cricketers, its about their methodology. It isn't about compromising the security of the cricketers which imo is a lame @$$ excuse to try and build a case that essentially says "look we might seriously be shooting ads, or dancing at the selector's daughter's wedding, you can't expect us to keep remembering that this might be different from some schedule we sent you months earlier." The crux of the issue lies in being banned for not being where you said you were going to be months earlier for a three month time frame. If the WADA officials show up three times and don't find you at the contractually agreed location, BOOM, you're banned! You could of course inform them on every single day your schedule changes, maybe even hire someone full time to do that. But is this really the most efficient way to keep a check on potential drug cheats, for all parties concerned?

Now on to the delightful (for my argument, not the unfortunate victim) case study. Belgium's Yanina Wickmayer and Xavier Malisse have been banned by the Flemish Doping Tribunal for missing the tests as per the whereabouts clause. So, besides losing out on a year's worth of professional earnings and potential sponsorship deals, a promising US Open semi finalist ranked 18th in the world will probably be called (quite irresponsibly) a dopehead now, either deliberately or out of ignorance, because she has been banned based on the procedural rules prescribed by the world's anti doping agency. She says the suspension essentially means the end of her career, and that she might not be able to bear the costs to fight the ruling.

But is she really a drug cheat? Why is an agency which is supposed to test whether someone has has taken drugs, banning people for their poor organization/discipline skills? I mean what is their jurisdiction in this area? Its like me asking my employees to sign a deal saying I'm afraid that they might sell company secrets to a rival so they need to give me their schedule, and if I find out they're not at their homes for three Saturday nights in a row as promised on their schedule (not even working hours), BOOM, you're BANNED mofo! Now add to that one of my newsletters call them a snitch/rat for "potentially" selling secrets when all they were probably doing was taking it easy with friends.


Players, including the compatriot and US Open Champion Kim Clijsters have slammed the harsh bans. Well too bad! Read the fine print, drug cheat supporter. Ooooh, whats that, is that your friend's signature. Well, maybe that silly 20 year old girl should have hired lawyers to look at the contract she signed with the WTA. Maybe she should have realized that since she can't win this fight she should have quit tennis and taken up speed walking (OH NOEZ, another WADA controlled event) ok make that the youngest woman's tennis coach available. Maybe she could have hired a secretary/agent to travel with her and immediately inform WADA that she might have stepped out for a couple of hours to attend a last minute scheduled charity event, so please hold off for a couple of hours. Maybe she could have cut costs and used her phone to login into to WADA's site every 30 minutes and make corrections, I mean its not like a professional athelete should have to ever think about other things.

What it comes down to, is people say "oh they're professionals, they know this, these are the rules laid out and they've got to stick to them, otherwise well, too bad." The trouble is the rules make no sense. And when the laws make no sense you're usually able to debate them and get them to change to everybody's benefit. But if stupid sporting bodies agree to blanket retarded laws by an organization which prefers to dictate illogical rules instead of spending research to develop more efficient methodology, then quite simply you lose either way by continuing to be in that sport. Which is why as Mukul Kesevan said in this article, we should be thanking the BCCI and the players who choose to take a stand because their governing body has the clout to. And if you're still one of those people who think the players have imaginary fears, why don't you go have a chat with Yanina and ask her what scares her the most today?

7 comments:

Mahek said...

For every Yanina Wickmayer you have a Mariano Puerta. Doping is so rampant in so many sports that the anti-doping agencies have had to resort to such ridiculous laws. Cricket, like baseball, has turned a blind eye toward doping for a long long time and it's in for a rude awakening sometime in the future. But who cares, it's just too much to ask pros being paid millions to disclose their whereabouts for just 60 minutes of their day and give them the option of making changes to their schedule if required. Who cares if the next generation of athletes knows it can get away with taking PEDs and ensure they suffer major health problems once their career is over.

achettup said...

For every Yanina Wickmayer you have a Mariano Puerta

So what you're saying is, its ok to destroy an innocent person because the system might* work for catching a guilty party. Right? Don't bother trying to fix the system, IT JUST WORKS, so go ahead with it like a headless chicken until u end up being on the receiving side.

Doping is so rampant in so many sports that the anti-doping agencies have had to resort to such ridiculous laws.
Really? So the justification is that you can do something ridiculous because someone else is doing something wrong? So its fair to ban someone for not committing the actual crime, but being unavailable to prove they haven't committed it? Since when did that make sense in any justice system?
WADA makes these rules and demands that all Olympic affiliated sports must comply. Whom did they consult to come up with these rules? Who knows, but it certainly wasn't the players. You've trained your whole life to play professionally at a sport, meaning you have few options outside of it. One day a totally unacceptable rule is drafted by an independent organization that forces your sporting body to agree. Your choices are to quit the sport or accept the ruling. If you are unlucky enough to miss these scheduled tests by circumstances either beyond your control or simply carelessness, your career is over, unless of course an organization which came out with such stupid rules accepts the legitimacy of your absence.

And the stupid arguments people put forth - oh they're rich, oh its just one hour, oh they're cheats. The facts are simple, whether you're rich or poor shouldn't be the basis for discrimination of these laws. One hour per day becomes meaningless if you are genuinely caught unawares or have plain forgotten. A ban makes no sense, how about finding a more appropriate way to solve this rather than an outright ban on alleged doping.

Who cares if the next generation of athletes knows it can get away with taking PEDs and ensure they suffer major health problems once their career is over.

Seriously, who should care? Do you go about collecting donations for all the former national cricketers or hockey players who can barely survive on their pensions. Do you care about the next generation of bollywood stars who will be snorting coke, the next generation of WWE entertainers who could suffer from 'roid rage? What kind of BS argument is that?

Everybody agrees that a system needs to be put in place to find and punish cheats. But just blindly agreeing to the convoluted rules of a system because it seems to have its heart in the right area make zero sense to me. WADA is using this "if you don't like our rules, you must have a reason to - OH YES, YOU'RE A DOPEHEAD" and unfortunately that is sufficient for most people to automatically think they had better align with that stance.

*Also who selects who makes it to the registered testing pool? Doesn't this automatically mean that a high percentage of cheats may not ever be tested? WADA has publicly stated that they do not pick select the rtp, so doesn't that leave the door open for "protection" of a favored sportsperson. Its a failed system.

Mahek said...

You're not banned if you're careless once, you're not banned if you're careless a second time, you're banned (And not for life) if you're careless a third time. If a sport is all I'm about I should make doubly sure I don't get banished from it, if it's not then I shouldn't be too upset not being able to pursue it. If these guys have agents who run their lives off the court/field/pool/track it shouldn't be too hard to have these agents update their schedule if there's a sudden development.

And the rules are never the same for the rich and the poor. If they were, you'd have them pay the same percentage of their income as tax.

It's oh so easy to criticise the establishment for everything it does. How about a more constructive criticism that suggests an alternative?

I don't have to care about movie stars or WWE Wrestlers who indulge in substance abuse. I don't have to care about athletes who do that either. But if I'm Sepp Blatter or Bud Selig I sure as hell care if my prized assets are busy humping steroids. I also care when my fans start turning away from my sport because my best athletes were juicing up for years and nobody did anything about it.

achettup said...

You're not banned if you're careless once, you're not banned if you're careless a second time, you're banned (And not for life) if you're careless a third time

Yes, but what are you getting banned for? I'm going to keep asking, why are you getting banned when there is no evidence of taking performance enhancing drugs? And though it might officially not be for life, almost every professional player depends on sponsorship for equipments, coaching etc. Many of these sponsorship deals have clauses which allow termination if the athlete is found guilty of a serious transgression which could affect the brand name. Take out sponsorship and you've basically killed the athletes who are not able to pay for these services themselves.

If a sport is all I'm about I should make doubly sure I don't get banished from it, if it's not then I shouldn't be too upset not being able to pursue it.
If such stupid rules are going to be part of a constitution of anti-doping, I think cricketers (who are definitely not alone in their stand) have a right to question the validity and logic behind such contentious rules, before wanting to accept them. Before you accept a certain set of rules and die by them, why not fully understand them and make your reasons clear for not wanting to be forced to accept them. This shouldn't be about dictatorial bodies, there should be enforcement but a reasonable system in place to enable it.
If these guys have agents who run their lives off the court/field/pool/track it shouldn't be too hard to have these agents update their schedule if there's a sudden development.

There are financial constraints, this isn't just about the top 100 in the world, not everyone can afford top notch services from professional agents and honestly why should they especially have to go out of their way to get one for a poor system? And if an agent has messed up, you're talking about the end of a career, suing isn't going to bring that back.

And the rules are never the same for the rich and the poor. If they were, you'd have them pay the same percentage of their income as tax.

Nobody said they were, but this is pointless and has no context. Tax is directly related to earnings, so if there are discrepancies between the %ages paid based on whether one is rich or poor, that has to do with one being rich (drawing higher income) or poor. Why should the rules of an anti-doping system favor (wait for it...) the rich? If you think about it, the rich might be able to hire agents to take care of this or even fight the case out when wrongfully convicted, but what about an athlete from a poor nation who does not have an agent and a phone capable of connecting to WADA's site, or even sending an sms to inform them that his schedule has changed at the last minute?

It's oh so easy to criticise the establishment ... an alternative?
One - its not my job. Two - sure, take away bans at the first stage. Maybe if the athlete has missed three tests, he goes under rigorous monitoring for a certain period. Ban when you have clear proof of doping. Three - Invest in better R&D to accurately find whether someone has benefited from PED. I'm not saying these are foolproof or ideal, but they are ideas I can suggest based on a couple of seconds of reflection. Surely people being paid good amounts of money to create a methodology can do better?
But if I'm Sepp Blatter or Bud Selig ...d anything about it.
I don't see the relevance here. I've maintained throughout that everybody agrees that cheats must be caught and punished. Its the methodology that is flawed. Would I not also be worried if my prized assets were falsely accused, or banned because they forgot about a prior appointment? Wouldn't my fans lose interest and turn away if the biggest stars were not allowed to play because of procedural stupidity?

straight point said...

congratulations wada... in order to curb a menace they have successfully managed to create a bigger menace...

scorpicity said...

This is a good debate here. Am all ears.

Am a cat on the wall on this one. I feel a good understanding will come when we wade away from the media stories and dig deep into the Wada files, policies and also cases of drug cheaters, methods used to cheat, how far as drug testing vs cheating progressed etc. That's a lot of reading for me.

Mahek said...

I don't think either of us is going to change our stance on this issue. There are a number of rules enforced on professional athletes and they adhere to those because they understand that they need to make certain sacrifices in order to be where they are. They're not going to be tested everyday so it's a bit ridiculous to have someone miss a test three times over a period of eighteen months.

It is not that difficult to draw up a schedule and make changes to it, or have your friend/relative/agent do it for you. Even if you're not present when the officials show up you have a period of an hour to show up for testing. So if you're Munaf Patel and you were out chasing trannies the night before you can still drive back to your place next morning.

For me, it's a case of doping being a much more serious issue than intruding on the privacy of athletes. It's not as if WADA is using spycams or GPS trackers. All I know is if I'm a professional athlete who is clean and wants sport to be dope-free I'd happily get onboard with WADA's policy.

PS: If you want to see how an athlete does this you should read Abhinav Bindra's account on the whole thing, although I have a feeling you might have already done that :)