Sesil Karatantcheva, who--as far as I can tell--was yet another victim of the so-called doping rules--just won a 25k tournament in Surprise, Arizona. When the cheeky Bulgarian player was given her two-year suspension, she also lost all of her ranking points and had to forfeit $129,000. (The suspension was given under very iffy circumstances, and Karatantcheva never even got to testify.)
Karatantcheva, in 2005, at age 15, was the youngest female player ever to reach the quarterfinals of the French Open, a feat she accomplished by beating Venus Williams in the round of 16.
In Surprise, Karatancheva had to play three qualifying rounds before she could enter the tournament. She defeated Angela Haynes in the final.
The sooner we see the talented Bulgarian back on the tour, the better.
Question: what do you mean by the "so-called doping rules"? Are they not rules? It would make sense for you to defend how she was not doping than to attack the existence of the rules. just saying.
I say "so-called" because they are enforced capriciously, and because I think they are also suspect. Consider what was done to poor Kuznetsova, and then consider how flimsy the evidence against Karatantcheva was, and how few rights she was given.
As for the rules themselves, I think they are unfair, also, as I have indicated in the past when discussing the Hingis case.
So by "so-called" rules, I do not mean that the rules do not exist, but that, in my opinion, they can hardly be called "rules."
Post a Comment