faraway saint Posted March 9, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) Has she been banned? It was just on the radio that they expect the hearing to be next month. Indeed, she has been found guilty of using a banned substance/drug and will hear her fate in April which will be a ban, up to 4 years but most are predicting closer to 2 years. Thanks, much appreciated. Cannie wait, should just about clear up that she was cheating. PS She is provisionally suspended from 12th March. Edited March 9, 2016 by faraway saint Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted March 9, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 So is she suspended or banned? You say tomato, I say tomato.................. (Not sure that works when typed) Even you can work that out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted March 9, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) So what you are saying is that's the second question of mine you're not going to answer. Who's counting.....................oh, wait. You're lucky I take you off ignore, look on it as a bonus that you get any recognition at all. Edited March 9, 2016 by faraway saint Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted March 9, 2016 Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 Serious point-dodging going on here. There is a suspicion on the part of people who know the score (UK head of AD) that she obtained prescription meds without there being a medical need. As previously stated, the substance was banned because of it's performance-enhancing properties and the suspicion that it was being misused by tennis players. As I said, any cheating is in the obtaining rather than in the taking-until the ban. I still suspect that everyone who was using it prior to December probably continues to use it under a therapeutic exemption. How can heart patients stand up to the rigours of top-flight tennis? Taking this point as an example, it is clear that there is probably no major athletic sport that is even half-way clean at the top level. In essence, we are all being cheated as fans I don't think I dodged any point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted March 9, 2016 Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 Who's counting.....................oh, wait. You're lucky I take you off ignore, look on it as a bonus that you get any recognition at all. So not only is she not banned yet, theyve not even had a hearing yet. What a spangle you are lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted March 9, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 So not only is she not banned yet, theyve ( ) not even had a hearing yet. What a spangle you are lol. Oh dear, she's suspended, does this mean she can play in any official tournament? I know you get desperate when your simple logic falls on it's arse, splitting hairs, sure sign of desperation, you're not alone. You're having one of your famous "bad periods", never mind, you just suck it up. Is she a cheat? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zurich_allan Posted March 9, 2016 Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 I'm going to add my thoughts here, and it's not splitting hairs. In any potentially criminal act, it is not just the end result that dictates what the eventual conviction might be. It is a combination of that act plus the establishing of the mindset (mens rea) of the accused i.e. was there an intention to cheat? Was it reckless? Was it careless? Even with the mens rea established and linked to the act, there are still other factors that would have to be established including aggravating or mitigating factors. Aggravating factors could make things worse for her, and mitigating factors if accepted could either reduce the sentence or even reduce the nature of the conviction. Even with strict liability drug related offences it is still perfectly possible to rebut the inferred mens rea as long as evidence exists that supports the defence. Personally I don't think it looks good for her, but being aware that we don't know all of the relevant facts yet, I'm reserving my judgement until more accurate details come out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted March 9, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 I'm going to add my thoughts here, and it's not splitting hairs. In any potentially criminal act, it is not just the end result that dictates what the eventual conviction might be. It is a combination of that act plus the establishing of the mindset (mens rea) of the accused i.e. was there an intention to cheat? Was it reckless? Was it careless? Even with the mens rea established and linked to the act, there are still other factors that would have to be established including aggravating or mitigating factors. Aggravating factors could make things worse for her, and mitigating factors if accepted could either reduce the sentence or even reduce the nature of the conviction. Even with strict liability drug related offences it is still perfectly possible to rebut the inferred mens rea as long as evidence exists that supports the defence. Personally I don't think it looks good for her, but being aware that we don't know all of the relevant facts yet, I'm reserving my judgement until more accurate details come out. Whit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zurich_allan Posted March 9, 2016 Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) Whit? Simple analogy:Somebody kills somebody else. Is it murder? If the mindset of the accused was the intention to kill, it's murder. If they didn't intend to kill, but were simply reckless in some way with their otherwise legal actions then it is culpable homicide. If the accused was a Doctor and the deceased was a patient in their care, and the doctor's actions fell far below the standards expected of them resulting in death it is malregimen. If the accused can show that although their actions resulted in another's death, but they can show that they were acting in genuine fear that their own life was in genuine danger and that they had no other feasible course of action they could take, it is possible that the accused has charges against them dropped altogether. The end result is the same in all four cases - somebody killed somebody else - but other factors help to determine what the actual crime, if any, has been committed. Edited March 9, 2016 by zurich_allan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted March 9, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 Simple analogy: Somebody kills somebody else. Is it murder? If the mindset of the accused was the intention to kill, it's murder. If they didn't intend to kill, but were simply reckless in some way with their otherwise legal actions then it is culpable homicide. If the accused was a Doctor and the deceased was a patient in their care, and the doctor's actions fell far below the standards expected of them resulting in death it is malregimen. If the accused can show that although their actions resulted in another's death, but they can show that they were acting in genuine fear that their own life was in genuine danger and that they had no other feasible course of action they could take, it is possible that the accused has charges against them dropped altogether. The end result is the same in all four cases - somebody killed somebody else - but other factors help to determine what the actual crime, if any, has been committed. Who killed who? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zurich_allan Posted March 9, 2016 Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 Who killed who? Video killed the radio star. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted March 9, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 Video killed the radio star. See you, stealing someone else's line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendo Posted March 9, 2016 Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 Who killed who? Oscar Pistorius Killed his girlfriend and told a whopper that some eejits believed. Just as some eejits think Maria Sharapova is innocent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted March 10, 2016 Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 Whit? Oh FFS seriously? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted March 10, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 (edited) Oh FFS seriously? Whit? Are you a Christian? Edited March 10, 2016 by faraway saint Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted March 10, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 Oscar Pistorius Killed his girlfriend and told a whopper that some eejits believed. Just as some eejits think Maria Sharapova is innocent. Hang the witch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted March 10, 2016 Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 How can this Thread be classified as General Nonsense? Lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted March 10, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 There's a tournament in Indian Wells this week, will Sharapova be in it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted March 10, 2016 Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 There's a tournament in Indian Wells this week, will Sharapova be in it? Tennis? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted March 10, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 Tennis? No sure, wait, I'll check......................................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted March 10, 2016 Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 Well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted March 10, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 Well? Indian? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted March 10, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 On Wednesday, the UK Times reported that in the month before her failed test Sharapova had been warned on five separate occasions — three from the International Tennis Federation (ITF) and two from the Women's Tennis Association (WTA) — that meldonium had been added to the list of banned substances. According to the Times, along with the five warnings from the ITF and WTA, the World Anti-Drug Association (WADA) also told athletes as early as September 2015 that meldonium would be banned starting in 2016. What's more, the Russian athletic association (ARAF) said in a statement on Wednesday that it, too, had warned its athletes not to take meldonium. 'The ARAF has on multiple occasions warned sports people, coaches, and support staff that, since Jan. 1 this year meldonium is included in the list of the banned substances," the statement read Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted March 10, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 ^^^^^^^ Hard to imagine she, or her "team" have been so naive/stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendo Posted March 10, 2016 Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 On Wednesday, the UK Times reported that in the month before her failed test Sharapova had been warned on five separate occasions three from the International Tennis Federation (ITF) and two from the Women's Tennis Association (WTA) that meldonium had been added to the list of banned substances. According to the Times, along with the five warnings from the ITF and WTA, the World Anti-Drug Association (WADA) also told athletes as early as September 2015 that meldonium would be banned starting in 2016. What's more, the Russian athletic association (ARAF) said in a statement on Wednesday that it, too, had warned its athletes not to take meldonium. 'The ARAF has on multiple occasions warned sports people, coaches, and support staff that, since Jan. 1 this year meldonium is included in the list of the banned substances," the statement read Never mind hanging, she should be burned at the stake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.