jb288 wrote:

---

That report is quite damning of the ITIA:

"Insofar as the ITIA sought to argue that, even if the AAFs [test results] were the result of eating
contaminated meat, the Players should still be held to have been at Fault to some (or even
to a considerable) extent, we disagree. Indeed, we observe that it does not lie very
comfortably with the ITIA to argue so forcefully, on the one hand, that meat contamination
is a very unlikely explanation for these AAFs, whilst, on the other hand, arguing that the
Players should have known that there was a risk of that very contamination which the ITIA
has argued very probably did not happen.

---

 I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Players have used it as a defence before so it's reasonable that a player would take more care and certainly not eat the quantities that Tara appears to have eaten.  I do think that after the case with Farah, it should have been made clear that using meat contamination as an excuse would no longer fly.

emmsie69 wrote:

---

jb288 wrote:

---

That report is quite damning of the ITIA:

"Insofar as the ITIA sought to argue that, even if the AAFs [test results] were the result of eating
contaminated meat, the Players should still be held to have been at Fault to some (or even
to a considerable) extent, we disagree. Indeed, we observe that it does not lie very
comfortably with the ITIA to argue so forcefully, on the one hand, that meat contamination
is a very unlikely explanation for these AAFs, whilst, on the other hand, arguing that the
Players should have known that there was a risk of that very contamination which the ITIA
has argued very probably did not happen.

---

 I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Players have used it as a defence before so it's reasonable that a player would take more care and certainly not eat the quantities that Tara appears to have eaten.  I do think that after the case with Farah, it should have been made clear that using meat contamination as an excuse would no longer fly.

---

 The report specifically deals with the Farah point. As it points out, the AITA literally did not nothing to communicate the risks to players whatsoever until after Tara's incident. If the IATA is going to use the argument that it's well known about, then by definition they have to have made it well known about. They didn't, so that's a huge flaw in their case. 

JonH comes home wrote:

---

Having just read the review and judgement by the panel - two things come to mind:

1) What is the ITA appeal, on what basis are they appealing?

2) Re not being aware of a problem in South American meat - whilst I believe TM is not guilty, I dont know how that can be true - surely everyone is aware of this issue? We all are, arent we? And I would imagine that all tennis players are? Whilst it doesnt change guilt or not, it doesnt ring true to me, or am I being naive?

---

 I'm with you on this.  The Farah incident was well publicised and I do not believe for 1 second that any Tennis Player wasn't aware that there might be an issue.  It's all very well blaming the IATA but these are adults, have some personal responsibility.

I'm not prepared to give Tara a free pass because she is a Brit. 

Coup Droit wrote:

---

Yes. I don't know quite why Jon says 'whilst I believe that Tara is not guilty '
I guess the last judgement we have is that she isn't, and pending all other hearings, we stick with that last one.
And innocent until etc etc
So I'd go with him, just
But, as emmsie says, being British is irrelevant and professional adults are responsible for keeping themselves up to date with changing professional standards and developments

---

 Absolutely - any tennis player needs to think about what they do and how, why, when and be conscious of their environment, British or not. which is why I find it strange that the players apparently werent aware of an issue with South American meat and steroids etc. I think my comment about still believing Tara is not guilty should have been that she is not guilty, agreed, and the fact that this goes to appeal doesnt change that. And me raising a little flag isnt supposed to take away from that. 

does that make sense?

im also intrigued at the sheer amount and regularity of meat she appears to have eaten ! Wow. Is that something normal among tennis players as it appears a very meat heavy diet! 

jb288 wrote:

---

That report is quite damning of the ITIA:

"Insofar as the ITIA sought to argue that, even if the AAFs [test results] were the result of eating
contaminated meat, the Players should still be held to have been at Fault to some (or even
to a considerable) extent, we disagree. Indeed, we observe that it does not lie very
comfortably with the ITIA to argue so forcefully, on the one hand, that meat contamination
is a very unlikely explanation for these AAFs, whilst, on the other hand, arguing that the
Players should have known that there was a risk of that very contamination which the ITIA
has argued very probably did not happen.The short answer, in our view, is that there is no basis for saying that the risks should
have been known by these tennis Players. "

---

 While I agreeI with what was said about the  ITIA lawyers trying to have their cake and eat it, with separate thrusts, I think the tribunal have gone a step too far with that final critical line - "The short answer, in our view, is that there is no basis for saying that the risks should have been known about by these tennis Players."

Maybe that is true from the evidence heard and the lTIA could have made a better case re their "known by playets" argument and /or the tribunal is simply punishing them for their 2 way approach.

Whereas in actual fact it is clear that most people ( including Jon ) do think that in actuality players should have been aware of the risks. 

I would imagine it is that point that the appeal wishes to more concentrate on plus the apparent sheer volume of meat intake.

Some of the lengths of time for these cases to be resolved do seem ridiculous when we are talking about relatively short tennis career being so interrupted. But beyond that, while innocent until proven guilty ( and I do so hope she is innocent, if naive ), there do appear to be one or two particular issues in Tara's case and the tribunal judgement, such that to me it seems not unreasonable for the ITIA to appeal.