British Tennis Forum - Celebrating 20 Years!

Julia Carrot · All-time great

Tara Moore

Madadman · Grand Slam Champion

Just came across the BBC article on this. The quote that got me the player did not adequately explain the high level of nandrolone present in their sample. Of course a tennis player isnt going to be able to explain in great detail if they eat contaminated food and unless you have a bundle of money you are unlikely going to be able to afford the experts to do so on your behalf.

Jeff Stelling · Club Coach

Lots of people on here coming out to bat for Tara.

Not saying that is right or wrong - I am not sure I would be able to do so without ingesting the detailed report

9vicman · Futures qualifying

I understand that there has never been a proven case of meat contamination involving nandrolone. Separately it's really unhelpful that the initial tribunal took such a long time, and secondly that there was such a discrepancy between the two verdicts.

christ · Futures level

Rights and wrongs apart, the system sucks.

PaulM · Tennis legend

Yes the issue is that she had two substances in her sample, and it was the high concentration of the second (nandrolone) that could not, in their view, be reasonably held to have come from contaminated meat based on the evidence provided.

If it only been boldenone (note that Gatica who was suspended at same time and who's decision ITIA did *not* appeal only had boldenone in her system, although she was/is serving suspension for other stuff too) it's possible the finding could have been different.

And if she can't reasonably explain how it got they there then, well, that's a problem, irrespective of whether high money lawyers could have found a workaround within the system or negotiated some sort of other settlement.

-- Edited by PaulM on Wednesday 16th of July 2025 05:04:52 PM

Mervatron2 · Challenger level

I havent read into much detail about this case and feel bad for Tara. The fact the what 2/3 different substances in her sample is questionable.

However, it does seem like double standards. When the two current Wimbledon champs have served drugs bans which seems to have been some sort of negotiation and a player ranked well off the main tour gets 4 years ????

christ · Futures level

PaulM wrote:
And if she can't reasonably explain how it got they there ...

Here is where the system breaks down for me.

Ms Moore is a tennis player, not an analytical chemist: how on earth is she supposed to be able to explain "how it got they there"?

It is noticeable in TV cop shows that the only people with alibis are the criminals that need them - innocent people can never remember where they were at 9 o'clock on the evening of e.g. 27th February 2003, and likewise noticeable that Sinner apparently immediately knew that - on the date in question - his coach had used an ointment with a banned chemical in, and had then given him a "sports massage". Twice.

Ready access to reasonable explanations are the province of people that know that they will need them, not the innocent.

PaulM · Tennis legend

I don't have huge sympathy with that argument to be honest. These are professional athletes (Tara was around top 100 at the time) - monitoring what supplements you are taking, checking they are on approved lists, recording what goes into your body, keeping receipts, is part of the job.

Obviously it's much easier when you are at the very top and you are paying someone who does it for you as their job. But nevertheless the responsibility is on the athlete, it's strict liability, as it should and has to be in the case of drug sanctions - or else "I've no idea guvn'r" would be an acceptable response in every case.

And we can fairly assume she did do that, because how else would she have constructed the (initially successfully) argument of contaminated meat? To do that she had to know which restaurant she was in, when, and what she ate.

I'm not sure if the full judgement will be published, but it's worth noting the ITIAs appeal looks like it only related to the nandrolone. If so, then they were prepared to accept the Tribunal decision that she bore no fault for the boldenone. And no other player who produced a positive test the same week (Gatica) had nandrolone in their sample.

The difference with the Sinner case is that there was no dispute over the "scientific evidence" - the issue was WADA believed Sinner should bear some degree of responsibility/fault for his teams negligence. Here, ITIA disagreed that contaminated meat could ever produce that concentration of nandrolone, and CAS agreed.

The CAS decision basically means they think Tara intentionally took performance enhancing drugs, which is why the punishment is so high.

I do continue to think the ITIAs handling has been a shambles, and it's a disgrace this has been strung out in this way for so long. And I also think Sinners story of the sports massage absolutely stinks as bad as the dodgy cream that was apparently used, but that's another issue.

Anyway, it's all very sad and I hope she has good people around her.

-- Edited by PaulM on Thursday 17th of July 2025 07:50:40 AM

emmsie69 · Top national player

There's always more to the story than what we read. I would imagine in a lot of cases, the outcome would depend on when their previous negative doping test was. That gives a timeline of the potential breakdown of the drug into the system.
If top players get tested more then it becomes easier to prove an inadvertent ingestion.
I hope the full judgement does get published.

christ · Futures level

PaulM wrote:
I don't have huge sympathy with that argument to be honest. These are professional athletes (Tara was around top 100 at the time) - monitoring what supplements you are taking, checking they are on approved lists, recording what goes into your body, keeping receipts, is part of the job..

I get this, and for things that come in packages with lists of ingredients and medications etc., this is possible. Hence I think Sinner sinned - his coach apparently immediately remembered that he had used an offending substance, and even knowing that still massaged his client - and his client remembered this well enough to bring it to the authorities' attention as soon as he was challenged (but not until then).

For things like meat and vegetables, particularly as presented in a restaurant I think the athlete has much less control or visibility, particularly in countries where giving performance-enhancing drugs to farm animals and crops appears endemic. The only option here appears to be the Djokovic route of veganism (and assume that the carrots haven't been given too many steroids). I assume that individual creatures can have differing levels of differing chemicals in their body (and therefore on the athlete's plate), and thus the evidence has been eaten long before the athlete's drug test is failed.

Are athletes like Ms Moore expected to have drug-testing kits that they can use on meat before they eat it? Are they supposed to keep samples of everything that they ate over the preceding months so that - if and when challenged - they can provide these samples to the authorities (and similarly, what is to prevent a determined cheat from adulterating these samples)?

Incidentally but adjacently I had a colleague who had coeliac disease, and in every restaurant he ate at he would inform the server that he required food free of wheat, oats, barley and rye: he would often be assured that no such things were in certain items on the menu: on the meal arriving he would ask what was used to thicken the gravy - "flour, sir". Even if the athlete is attuned to the issue, it doesn't mean that the restaurant is. "Is the meat in your shepherd's pie sourced from a farm that uses things that might cause metabolites of nandrolone to be present?" sounds beyond even the most interested waiters, especially in a foreign land in a foreign language.

Of course I have no idea if either Ms Moore or Mr Sinner are guilty or are deliberately doping, but the system seems to be geared to ensure that nobody can be sure. (... and in this modern world I am not sure that everyone cares - "if he can play such sublime tennis does it matter how he does it?" being an easily imaginable question)

PaulM · Tennis legend

I think though christ that's a bit of a rabbit hole as the contaminated meat argument was seemingly accepted for the boldenone, as the ITIA didn't appeal that finding of the tribunal.

The issue is that the concentration of nandrolone could not, based on scientific advice presented to CAS, have come from contaminated meat (or from it alone).

We need to see the full judgement but as I understand it the argument is not that they are saying Tara didn't potentially eat contaminated meat - it's that even if she did it could not have produced the levels in her positive result.

But ultimately, if I was a professional athlete at an event in a country where there was an established history of drug test issues caused by eating contaminated meat, and the sporting authorities make very clear warnings about the risks of eating meat in that country for that reason - I would simply not eat meat that one week.

-- Edited by PaulM on Thursday 17th of July 2025 10:23:33 AM

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Yes. Not talking specifically about Tara, but about player responsibility, it's obvious that players have little control about the cooking process and food sourcing in restaurants, as you say, christ

But we're not talking here about the cook's heart medication falling into the soup or whatever it was for the Chinese athletes - supposedly

That's bad luck, out of your control, etc (and very likely not true)

It is not the same as going to a country where you know full well that their Ministry of Ag allows farmers to use steroids in the raising of their meat

And where steroids/drugs/controls are a key part of your professional career (i.e. it's not the same as a bus driver who eats three poppy seed bagels and then fails a drug test for their new company)

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Iga's 'story' is, at least, different from Sinner's 'story' - she actually did spend quite a lot of time in locating the source of the drugs - and didn't have a ready-made up story

Mind you, Sinner can't be castigated for getting to the bottom of it quickly if he did, in fact, get to the bottom of it quickly

The huge, glaring problem for me is the two-tier system regarding the instant appeal and then the subsequent suspension of the positive test

If only the top players effectively have access to that, the system is badly wrong

Iga did well in publishing her financial numbers for it - the authorities apparently weren't too pleased and I'm not sure she published them in order to point out the lack of fairness - her point was that SHE had had to spend a lot of money

But the net result was to draw attention to exactly how much it cost, and - obviously - the fact most players did not have that at their disposal (or even half)

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

Coup Droit wrote:
Yes. Not talking specifically about Tara, but about player responsibility, it's obvious that players have little control about the cooking process and food sourcing in restaurants, as you say, christ

But we're not talking here about the cook's heart medication falling into the soup or whatever it was for the Chinese athletes - supposedly

That's bad luck, out of your control, etc (and very likely not true)

It is not the same as going to a country where you know full well that their Ministry of Ag allows farmers to use steroids in the raising of their meat

And where steroids/drugs/controls are a key part of your professional career (i.e. it's not the same as a bus driver who eats three poppy seed bagels and then fails a drug test for their new company)

wasnt that Errani's Mum cancer in the Ragu sauce?! and yes, mmm...