christ wrote:

---

JonH wrote:

---

I guess the decision is made but Times taking a strong view on Dan Evans wild card debate and coming down as hardliners

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/dan-evans-should-play-his-way-back-98n2032tc

I used to like the Times...

---

 I don't really understand the logic in the little bit of the article that I can read. The author says "... part of the punishment must be that they earn their way back onto the Tour through results, not handouts" - I cannot see that Mr Evans has done anything other than earn his way back through his results: which of his peers (fellow candidates for wild cards) have won more on grass than Mr Evans? His ranking is as high (if not higher) than the other folk that got given QWCs - how are their results earning the QWC when his better results aren't?

---

Precisely. Anyone else who had achieved what Dan has in his short time back would have had some sort of Wimbledon WC as a matter of course. So this is further punishment. And then it comes down to whether you think Dan should be further punished and treated differently from others, having served his ITF ban.

What they are saying is that "part of his punishment" must be not to get such WCs or whatever as anyone else would get. Now without getting into the whole general WC debate some would of course just describe these as "handouts" but clearly he is not being treated remotely as sentence served, treat equally on tennis merits.

Now you begin to see the consequences of Draper and the LTA's decision to sell its 50% ownership of the All England grounds and Championships to the private club's members; a strategic decision which was never put to or debated within the tennis community at large. They can stick two fingers up at everyone and damage British tennis while they're at it.

No. That's not true about the tester. He did not do what he should have done to get hold of her. That is exactly why it was not an offence.

indiana wrote:

---

Is it not totally random, something like an hour slot each and every day?

Clearly the vast majority of the time the testers don't appear though they could. So you are asking folk to check bells, intercom etc each and every day and keep looking out the window or whatever for that hour if there is an issue. Possibly a bit much? And a bit more onus on the tester to make a reasonable attempt at contact.

---

Yes its random but if you want to take part in professional sport thats the sort of thing you have to accept. I read once that the athlete Lynsey Sharp while on Holiday in Boston for two weeks she had to make an effort to go to a local cafe because the doorbell at the apartment she was renting was broken. When you have missed two you have to be doing everything you can until the first of them expires. Your career depends on it so its a minor inconvenience 

And despite what the cop out of the tribunal decided (and thats the thing with drugs in sport, come up with a crazy excuse and you get a lenient sentence or off with it completely especially if you are a top name. Dan should have claimed he had drunk 20 cans of red bull seeing as it contains coca leaf and Kola nut which can cause false readings for cocaine use. Either that or that ate a stack of paper money as part of a bet seeing as most paper money contains traces Of cocaine. He would have got away with it no doubt) there isnt a great deal a drugs tester can do. They cant announce themselves, they cant break in, they cant phone/text/email them as thats seen as ripping them off. They are told to knock on the door, if they get no response wiat 15 mins and try again, then wait another 15 mins then try again, then try one final time and wait 15mins before leaving. I'm not even sure they are allowed to speak to neighbors as that breaks confidentialty so even if she is in a shared apartment block they couldn't get A neighbour to let them into the building. If cornets tester hadnt stayed the full length of time then that would have been stated as thats a complete break in protocol, plus also cornet was always saying she had reasons that werent being listened to which proved she was innocent but it cant be that she knew the tester let early because that would mean she knew the tester was there 

-- Edited by Wakey on Thursday 21st of June 2018 07:51:53 PM

christ wrote:

---

Another gem from the Times tennis twit (assuming that is what you call someone on twitter): "Personally, I'd like to see it somehow incorporated into the rulebooks that any player who receives a drug suspension should not be awarded wild cards on their return. Would end this recurring debate and help send out a strong message of deterrence."

A few thoughts on this: (1) Isn't the ban supposed to be the deterrent? (2) for how long should their "ineligibility" for wild cards last (a week, a month, a lifetime?), and who decides - the Times tennis correspondent? (3) what about (eg) seeding - surely seeding helps a player - wouldn't it make sense to bar a player that you wish to penalise from getting seedings? ... or (4) sponsorship (surely no-one should be allowed to sponsor someone that was punished at some time in the past) (5) nothing would end the debate.

---

 All fair points - I have decided too completely switch based on this. From being a genuine liberal, I think there is only one way forward, we should create a tennis council with Donald Trump at its head and allow him to decide on each player - him and Melania as she "cares" a great deal - players can either be allowed back with no penalty, banned for life with no reprise, or just shot and be done with. At least it would be unequivocable! 

Cocaine just isnt that bad a drug if Im honest, no need for bed wetting.. Decriminalise it all, works elsewhere. But Evans should have been given a MDWC, served his punishment and obviously in fairly good form, but hey ho, hopefully he can battle through qualies

2 will surely be Kudla and the Stakhovsky/Otte Ilkley winner.