Drugs tests, what's the point.
Comments
-
VTech wrote:ugo.santalucia wrote:Having symphaty for a Russian tennis player who tests positive means having no idea of what sport is about.
For decades they have tried to clean cycling and athletics from the worst of blood doping, with mixed results. Tennis has been untouched... yet, these amazing athletes compete 365 days per year at the top level, jetting around the world in doing so, with a remarkable consistency.
If Federer, who knows a thing or two about the sport, came out saying that tennis needs more anti-doping, then it means exactly that! The sport is rich enough to afford a thorough anti doping program
This is a damned if I do, damned if I don't answer but I'm with you.
The problem is, sport is about money, money comes from sponsors, sponsors won't want to back events without big names and so to get them and make them viable you need big names.
This in turn means that sport stars need to remain fit for longer than is humanly possible and hence why drugs and certain types of processes are needed.
People want to watch their chosen sport on TV and at venues and this means that the cycle will continue.
I wonder, is a part of the problem that sponsors get of pretty lightly? They can just say "oh, we had no idea they were doping" and pull out. They have already had years of revenue from the exposure they have had. Now, what if there were harsh penalties for the sponsors if 'their' athlete turns out to be cheating? What about the media too? They are effectively making money from you and I, when it turns out that what they have been selling isn't what it seemed to be. Is it wild to suggest that there is some grounds for compenstation when it turns out that the event that you have paid to watch is a sham?0 -
ugo.santalucia wrote:VTech wrote:ugo.santalucia wrote:Having symphaty for a Russian tennis player who tests positive means having no idea of what sport is about.
For decades they have tried to clean cycling and athletics from the worst of blood doping, with mixed results. Tennis has been untouched... yet, these amazing athletes compete 365 days per year at the top level, jetting around the world in doing so, with a remarkable consistency.
If Federer, who knows a thing or two about the sport, came out saying that tennis needs more anti-doping, then it means exactly that! The sport is rich enough to afford a thorough anti doping program
This is a damned if I do, damned if I don't answer but I'm with you.
The problem is, sport is about money, money comes from sponsors, sponsors won't want to back events without big names and so to get them and make them viable you need big names.
This in turn means that sport stars need to remain fit for longer than is humanly possible and hence why drugs and certain types of processes are needed.
People want to watch their chosen sport on TV and at venues and this means that the cycle will continue.
Yet even those athletes who are very shy with their presence at events do dope... the name Lance Armstrong comes to mind... he used to race less than anybody else in the PRO peloton.
Doping in sport is normal, but the lack of state of the arts controls is unforgivable
I have a feeling lance turned up for the events with the biggest prize money.
Joking aside, your right of course, I seriously don't think there is an answer.
When it gets to a point that you can fail a test through the choice of toothpaste you use, you know the issue is unsolvable.Living MY dream.0 -
Alex99 wrote:VTech wrote:ugo.santalucia wrote:Having symphaty for a Russian tennis player who tests positive means having no idea of what sport is about.
For decades they have tried to clean cycling and athletics from the worst of blood doping, with mixed results. Tennis has been untouched... yet, these amazing athletes compete 365 days per year at the top level, jetting around the world in doing so, with a remarkable consistency.
If Federer, who knows a thing or two about the sport, came out saying that tennis needs more anti-doping, then it means exactly that! The sport is rich enough to afford a thorough anti doping program
This is a damned if I do, damned if I don't answer but I'm with you.
The problem is, sport is about money, money comes from sponsors, sponsors won't want to back events without big names and so to get them and make them viable you need big names.
This in turn means that sport stars need to remain fit for longer than is humanly possible and hence why drugs and certain types of processes are needed.
People want to watch their chosen sport on TV and at venues and this means that the cycle will continue.
I wonder, is a part of the problem that sponsors get of pretty lightly? They can just say "oh, we had no idea they were doping" and pull out. They have already had years of revenue from the exposure they have had. Now, what if there were harsh penalties for the sponsors if 'their' athlete turns out to be cheating? What about the media too? They are effectively making money from you and I, when it turns out that what they have been selling isn't what it seemed to be. Is it wild to suggest that there is some grounds for compenstation when it turns out that the event that you have paid to watch is a sham?
100% you are right.
There is no way that sponsors paying our $30m+ a year to an athlete have no idea what is going on.
I remember the claim against Lance Armstrong when he confirmed his actions that sponsors said they would claim back money paid to him but what wasn't publisised was the fact that any class action lawsuit wouldn't have a chance of success because they could not confirm with guarantee that they suffered a loss from his actions, in fact quite the opposite.Living MY dream.0 -
VTech wrote:Alex99 wrote:VTech wrote:ugo.santalucia wrote:Having symphaty for a Russian tennis player who tests positive means having no idea of what sport is about.
For decades they have tried to clean cycling and athletics from the worst of blood doping, with mixed results. Tennis has been untouched... yet, these amazing athletes compete 365 days per year at the top level, jetting around the world in doing so, with a remarkable consistency.
If Federer, who knows a thing or two about the sport, came out saying that tennis needs more anti-doping, then it means exactly that! The sport is rich enough to afford a thorough anti doping program
This is a damned if I do, damned if I don't answer but I'm with you.
The problem is, sport is about money, money comes from sponsors, sponsors won't want to back events without big names and so to get them and make them viable you need big names.
This in turn means that sport stars need to remain fit for longer than is humanly possible and hence why drugs and certain types of processes are needed.
People want to watch their chosen sport on TV and at venues and this means that the cycle will continue.
I wonder, is a part of the problem that sponsors get of pretty lightly? They can just say "oh, we had no idea they were doping" and pull out. They have already had years of revenue from the exposure they have had. Now, what if there were harsh penalties for the sponsors if 'their' athlete turns out to be cheating? What about the media too? They are effectively making money from you and I, when it turns out that what they have been selling isn't what it seemed to be. Is it wild to suggest that there is some grounds for compenstation when it turns out that the event that you have paid to watch is a sham?
100% you are right.
There is no way that sponsors paying our $30m+ a year to an athlete have no idea what is going on.
I remember the claim against Lance Armstrong when he confirmed his actions that sponsors said they would claim back money paid to him but what wasn't publisised was the fact that any class action lawsuit wouldn't have a chance of success because they could not confirm with guarantee that they suffered a loss from his actions, in fact quite the opposite.
Then you're getting into causation.....so the only winners are the solicitors, barristers or their US equivalent. Bottom line any long term sponsor establishes a business's case which has to be met for the funding to continue.
No doubt trek, US Postal Servcie, Oakley and all the other remaining organisations saw the benefit of association. And even when an athlete is caught red handed the sponsor publically backs the athlete in question. Read HEADS justification of continuing their association and sponsorship with Sharapova and she sounds like a saint rather than someone who has tested positive for a banned drug. I wonder if the person who authorised the press release in that case saw the top of sharipovas head ........“Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to cycle and he will realize fishing is stupid and boring”
Desmond Tutu0
