Talk About Tennis 2.0

ashkor87 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 26, 2023 12:39 am Brooksby story seems very sad. I think officialdom has become too powerful..time to rein it in (yes, that is the spelling)..my own preference would be to dismantle the entire structure of testing and let players do whatever they want...in the end, we can hope the example of Djokovic snd Brooksby will prevail. There are simply too many ways to game the system, any system.

Just so we're clear about things: what do you mean by "do whatever they want"?

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 5:33 pm And you are one of the oldies with a good memory.
My point was: Goran was not disliked. Right or wrong, he never got to that state. So, if people are saying that Novak is not appreciated BECAUSE he is Eastern European, there are plenty of examples that that is not the case.
Should Goran have been disliked for the comments he made? Different conversation.

The level of dislike by fans is not necessarily linked only to player's actions on and off the court. Let's be honest - to a very high degree it is influenced by how much said player beaten the favorites of fans in question and taken the glory and achievements from these favorite players. Lendl was "disliked" because Connors and McEnroe had large and influencial fanbases that despised the fact that in the 2nd part of his career Ivan pretty much owned those two.
Goran on the other hand lost all pivotal matches to Sampras/Agassi. So this reason for disliking him is out of the window.
Now imagine how much suffering Novak caused to Nadal and Federer fans... If we combine him being "an outsider" (Eastern European) with that - we might have the real reason for dislike.

ashkor87 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 26, 2023 12:39 am Brooksby story seems very sad. I think officialdom has become too powerful..time to rein it in (yes, that is the spelling)..my own preference would be to dismantle the entire structure of testing and let players do whatever they want...in the end, we can hope the example of Djokovic snd Brooksby will prevail. There are simply too many ways to game the system, any system.

Leaving aside the question of fairness, I think this would also endanger the health of many players. Many of these athletes start competing seriously as pre-teens or early teens, and are fully in the hands of coaches, overbearing parents and/or sponsors. Imagine allowing doping at that age. As an argument, meldonium, when it was legal, was given to most athletes in post-Soviet countries starting from their teens, according to many players. But meldomium is not harmful (for vast majority). Imagine HGH. Young people would die.

Plus, imagine the differences in availability of PED's depending on your country. The USSR, China and East Germany had full fledged, government backed labs for their athletes in the 70's and 80's. Or imagine the rich athletes, being able to find the best chemist to prepare the best cocktails.
Or, as you say. Imagine a slightly smaller than average junior players in the hands of one of those psycho parents, with dad deciding that he would need a large, regular dose of HGH.
There is a reason most players are in agreement with these regulations.

This idea of let's allow everything might sound attractive for few minutes but when you think about consequences a bit longer you realize that it's just not going to work. Same goes for heroin and cocaine legally over the counter. It will never be possible to completely eradicate rape or murder either, but from that doesn't follow that we should not do all we can to suppress them.

Suliso wrote: ↑Wed Jul 26, 2023 2:56 pm This idea of let's allow everything might sound attractive for few minutes but when you think about consequences a bit longer you realize that it's just not going to work. Same goes for heroin and cocaine legally over the counter. It will never be possible to completely eradicate rape or murder either, but from that doesn't follow that we should not do all we can to suppress them.

It might sound naive, but there's something to allowing everything based on individual choice. Rape and murder involve victims; me choosing to do a drug doesn't, if I understand the potential for addiction and abuse. Who gets to decide what's a safe drug and what's an illicit drug? Those who profit off them, right?

I agree that hard drugs over the counter should not be allowed. But, they should also be de-criminalized. The Portugal experiment has gone well. No need to also impose criminal penalties for something that is a personal choice. Make sure that treatment is readily available, though.

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Wed Jul 26, 2023 4:20 pm It might sound naive, but there's something to allowing everything based on individual choice. Rape and murder involve victims; me choosing to do a drug doesn't, if I understand the potential for addiction and abuse. Who gets to decide what's a safe drug and what's an illicit drug? Those who profit off them, right?

What if taking drug X not only makes you high, but also makes you 10x more likely to commit rape and murder? It is an exaggerated example to show that it's not black or white.

Another example, you might understand potential for abuse and addiction but the bill for treating you will still fall on tax payers (even in US to some extent).

Also "regular" women will have little chance in women's sport. Only the ones pumped full with male hormones (see East Germany). Would we really want that?

Suliso wrote: ↑Wed Jul 26, 2023 5:44 pm

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Wed Jul 26, 2023 4:20 pm It might sound naive, but there's something to allowing everything based on individual choice. Rape and murder involve victims; me choosing to do a drug doesn't, if I understand the potential for addiction and abuse. Who gets to decide what's a safe drug and what's an illicit drug? Those who profit off them, right?

What if taking drug X not only makes you high, but also makes you 10x more likely to commit rape and murder? It is an exaggerated example to show that it's not black or white.

Another example, you might understand potential for abuse and addiction but the bill for treating you will still fall on tax payers (even in US to some extent).

None of these things are black and white. I lean more toward individual liberty, although certainly there needs to be some regulation for public health. But right now, let's be honest, I can get Adderall from a doctor but can't get cocaine, and I don't think that's for the sake of public health or anyone's security. Alcoholism takes a heavy toll, too.

I don't take either, by the way. One toke of a joint is the extent of my lifetime drug use. Food is my drug, unfortunately. We wouldn't dream of regulating food, but it causes public health crises and creates a burden on the healthcare system, too. If we really wanted to stem crime like rape and murder, we'd focus more on prevention, education, etc. - proactive stuff instead of control and reactions. Idealistic? Maybe but not science fiction.

My concern about free use of performance enhancing drugs in sports is that these substances would be pushed on very young athletes before they are old enough to make the decision for themselves.

very complex issue, I agree.. it is just that, everywhere we turn, we see officials, government and otherwise, telling us what we should and should not do. Individual liberties dont matter to them - just their vision of a perfect world..

There are some areas of the World where government power doesn't reach. They tend to be awful places to live...

I am beginning to live in one. Both the general government of Colombia and the government of Bogota are being unable to control crime, and there is a clear spike of it.
My GF is a bit afraid of going out at night; I told her we will not be locked in because of that (we are locked in due to other reasons). But sure, there is a reason why governments exists.

However, about controlling substances. It is an old question. Do you accept tobacco? I can't recall any country that does not, despite the obvious health issues. Alcohol? We know Muslim countries don't, but countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan are far from peaceful. How about cannabis? We can see that in the USA, which is the sole country in which some states do and others don't, the states with legalization are more peaceful than those that have not. Portugal decriminalized ALL drugs (not legalized) and they have not seen increases in crime or health issues.
Difficult to find a balance.

ashkor87 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 27, 2023 7:06 am Individual liberties dont matter to them - just their vision of a perfect world..

This is nonsense. These officials are still just people trying to do the task that they have been assigned, and they certainly don't have a broader vision for a perfect world. When it comes to sports, athletes, and the officials that regulate the sport everyone says that they want a fair field of play, and I think the public does to, and that means having a system of testing and accountability for violations.