Monday, November 16, 2009

Wickmayer, Malisse Attack WADA

This could be fun.

Suspended Belgian tennis players Yanina Wickmayer and Xavier Malisse are launching appeals with European authorities challenging the legality of the whereabouts rules of the World Anti-Doping Agency.

Victory at the European Commission in Brussels and the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights could force WADA to change its rules on when and where athletes can be tested out of competition.

“The indispensable fight against doping is not the issue here. The problem is the lack of proportionality of certain measures,” their lawyer Jean-Louis Dupont told The Associated Press on Sunday.

Read the rest...

9 comments:

rabbit said...

I know this is totally off-topic, but I really enjoyed this interview with Rafa. Especially the parts where he talks about radicalism and how he views the world. Translation here.

oddman said...

What did you think of the recent Fed interview, rabbit? Oh, and sorry for the off-topic question.

oddman said...

I see the point of WADA re: the whereabouts rules. I wonder, though, do any other athletes in other sports have the long long season and constant world travel that tennis players have? Nothing comes to mind right now. If you're a footballer, don't you play for a season, what, 6 months, and aren't most of your events spread out over one continent?

Craig Hickman said...

I, for one, think the whereabouts rule is too invasive and quite frankly, unnecessary.

If a player is out of competition then they're out of competition. If you want to test them out of competition, then the burden ought to be on the governing body to track the player down and do the test.

As one of the tour CEO's said, a player's whereabouts in competition are pretty well known. Players play at least 15 events a season. If you tested them at every event they played, a few of them would be tested as many as 25 times in a season.

That's more than enough.

rabbit said...

I really liked that interview too, oddman. Especially where he said that he doesn't plan on ending his career any time soon :)

Helen W said...

I agree with Craig that the present rules are overly invasive. However I think that some out-of-competition testing is necessary, because from what I read, some performance-enhancing substances can be taken while not in competition, and by the time the athlete is back in competition there is no trace left in their body. How stringent the requirements need to be depends on how long such banned substances can still be detected after being ingested.

If it were me, I'd prefer to give them times when I would normally be sleeping. I'd prefer to be woken up to pee in a jar rather than have to try and figure out 3 months in advance where I could be found for one particular hour each and every day.

lilac said...

@helene, You may be on to something. When Justine repreHeninsible came back from her still unamed "viral" illness, her arms were almost devoid of those huge muscles she'd "built." Out of competition testing may be valuable. But, nah, I'm with Craig -- too invasive

oddman said...

I'm also not quite sure what they mean by having to tell WADA where you'll be one hr of the day for three months - how would one be able to do that? Especially when you're travelling the world, or if you get knocked out of a tourney early, or if you decide to go play at a tourney you didn't plan on 3 months earlier - pretty hard to know exactly what you'll be doing and where you'll be 3 months ahead of time.

Craig has a great point - it should be up to the governing body. And the ATP has certainly lost some credibility with the Agassi revelation, no doubt.

edma1022 said...

"The controversial “whereabouts” rule is a cornerstone of WADA policy. It requires elite athletes to make themselves available for out-of-competition testing for one hour a day, 365 days a year.

Under the rules, athletes must give three months’ notice of where and when they can be located for testing."

Vague. Extraneous. Totally absurd.

The 2 Belgians should write a book and take out a $5 million advance.