I have just finished reading the Martina Hingis Tribunal Decision posted on the ITF website (all 46 pages of it!!) and am really quite torn on what to think about the case and the impact it will inevitably have on Martina's legacy both as a player and a person. From what I can gather Martina and her team presented a thorough defence but the conclusion reached by the tribunal is one that is hard to come to terms with. Apparently it was a simple, straight forward decision in the end. To me that's an insult to Martina and the drug testing procedures in tennis actually.
The onus is on the athlete to prove their innocence. As the tested procedure stands any athlete that tests positive is essentially guilty until proven innocent and history has shown that it is rare that any athlete can successfully defend a positive test and Martina was no exception to that statistic. She couldn't conclusively prove that she did not knowingly take the drug. To do this she had to prove how she accidentally or unknowingly ingested it. I ask you this - if you unknowingly ingest something how can you then present a defence where you prove how you unknowingly ingested such substance?? Sort of like if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it fall does it make a sound!!
Martina's sample measured at 42 nanograms per millimetre. I, like many, have really no idea what this really means or the science behind it but as an average lay person you can only imagine my shock when I then read that in her defence Martina's team called upon the measure at which a positive test for cocaine is reported in the US army. They don't bother with any action against their employees until they test at 15o nanograms or above. That's over 3 times the level that Martina tested.
I also have to ask why is cocaine actually on the banned list. Honestly, if any athlete wishes to go out onto the court 'high' on cocaine, they are welcome to it. It's the height of idiocy and an extreme risk to their health and (although I am no expert) I hazard a guess that it probably won't enhance their performance?? Or does playing as high as a kite actually help?? It sure didn't help Martina that day at Wimbledon as she flatly exited the tournament losing to the poor man's Amy Frazier, ex Stanford student Laura Granville.
Could it be possible that Martina ingested the cocaine by touching a 5 pound note? Her results certainly suggests that however she did ingest the drug it wasn't very much or it was quite a while before she played against Granville. Is Martina's explanation that she probably ingested it unknowingly in some random food or drink good enough? Clearly not for the ITF or the growing chorus of people who are now willing to accept that she is a coke head and get a giggle from the irony that she tested positive when the test was carried out by a Mr and Mrs Snowball (I kid not! Read the tribunal document!)
Martina tested positive. She presented her defence which (in fairness to the tribunal panel) was all extremely circumstantial and she was found guilty of the offence and banned for 2 years. Apparently (but really anything but) a pretty straight forward, simple decision. I'm guessing Martina and her fans don't see it that way and it will unfortunately taint the career and character of one of tennis' most enigmatic and popular characters of all time. All for 42 nanograms per millimetre..... I wonder if the coke even noticed it was being snorted!
 |
