Vijay Singh admits to using banned substance in Sports Illustrated ...

[dave67az]

  nututhugame said:

Originally Posted by nututhugame

Perhaps I am not familiar with their exact policy. I was just thinking that something he said to SI could be construed as hearsay and not proof. Kind of a grey area. Did he say when he did it? What's the policy on punishing someone for simply saying that in the past they tried something that contained an illegal substance? Even though it's not exactly the same, could they really do anything if he stated in an interview that he smoked a doob when he was out one night when he was 25. Sure it happened, but he wouldn't test positive for it now and how do you prove that he's not just telling stories. Don't know why he would, but still...

Hearsay is when someone else says they overheard you saying something.  Since it was said in an interview, yeah, you can claim you didn't say it.  Problem is, Vijay admitted after the article came out that the article was accurate (so much for the "that's not what I said" defense).

Here's Vijay's public statement of admission that he used the product:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1508348-vijay-singh-releases-statement-regarding-swats-and-sports-illustrated

Here's what Vijay said he used according to the SI article:  http://www.shop.swatsedge1.com/SWATS-The-Ultimate-Spray-002.htm

The ad clearly states that it contains IGF-1, which is also on the banned substance list.

Vijay has since submitted a sample of the spray to Tim Finchem for analysis to see if it does actually contain IGF-1.  (this is where you hope that the company lied about it's ingredients)

Here's a link to the FAQ for the PGA Tour Anti-Doping Program.

http://www.pgatour.com/news/2013/01/30/doping.html

The following is an excerpt from the FAQ with the relevant stuff in bold:

What other conduct violates the Program?
Other conduct may lead to the finding of a violation and sanctions under the Program, including the possession, use or attempted use of a prohibited substance or method; refusing or failing to be tested; tampering with a sample; trafficking in or administering any prohibited substance; or admitting to any conduct that violates the Program.

You may not be able to find the entire 2013 manual online, but here's a link to the 2009 PGA Tour Anti-Doping Program Manual.

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/208240/PGATOURANTI-DOPINGPROGRAMMANUAL2009_1_.pdf

It has details about punishments and procedures as well as the list of banned substances as of 2009.

As far as I can tell, his only hope is that the spray doesn't have any IGF-1 in it.

Again, it doesn't matter if he's telling the truth or lying when he said he used a banned substance.  Simply admitting to using a banned substance is enough.

Oh, and to answer your question of "when", he said he bought it in Nov 2012.

[nututhugame]

Well done sir.

[dave67az]

  nututhugame said:

Originally Posted by nututhugame

Well done sir.

My pleasure.

I'll be happy to take cheese curds as payment for my research time.  :-)

[nututhugame]

We have darn good cheese curds here. As well, I am from the home of Kringle. Me thinks they might not be of the best quality by the time they reach your place though...

[dave67az]

I order my curds in the winter when shipping is more feasible.

Haven't had really good Kringle since the last time I visited relatives in Lake Geneva tho.

Sorry...food always gets me off-topic.

Good thing cheese curds aren't on the banned substance list.  :-)

[nututhugame]

  dave67az said:

Originally Posted by dave67az

I order my curds in the winter when shipping is more feasible.

Haven't had really good Kringle since the last time I visited relatives in Lake Geneva tho.

Sorry...food always gets me off-topic.

Good thing cheese curds aren't on the banned substance list.  :-)

Oh, my brotha... if you are ever this way again you need to stop into or order from O&H; bakery in Racine, WI. Or Bendsten's, (which by the way has a kid named Ben who plays some level of pro golf). They have THE kringle. Sounds like you have the curds thing down, but i'll pay ya someday somehow.

Back on topic, either way Vijay screwed up. Why would he snitch on himself anyways?? Unless he truly didn't know it was banned, in which case he should've done better research.

[Chas]

  dave67az said:

That's funny, I never saw you as an argumentative-type.  :beer:

That's because I haven't argued with you ............... yet. :>)

[mailman]

  dave67az said:

Originally Posted by dave67az

I don't get what needs to be "proven", when the rules are VERY clear that even admitting to using a banned substance is a punishable offense regardless of the circumstances.

How is that not black and white?

It NEEDS to be proven that the spray gives an unfair advantage BECAUSE there are a number of people in this forum alone who are calling for the end of his career over the use of the spray.

If you are going to end someones career then you must be certain its because the product taken gave him an unfair advantage. If the spray doesnt work, as many suspect, then it should be removed from the ban list.

Just chanting mindlessly that these are the rules does not make that rule "right".

Mailman

[dave67az]

  mailman said:

Originally Posted by mailman

It NEEDS to be proven that the spray gives an unfair advantage BECAUSE there are a number of people in this forum alone who are calling for the end of his career over the use of the spray.

If you are going to end someones career then you must be certain its because the product taken gave him an unfair advantage. If the spray doesnt work, as many suspect, then it should be removed from the ban list.

Just chanting mindlessly that these are the rules does not make that rule "right".

Mailman

Just to clarify, so you believe that if something is in a rulebook that is distributed to everyone, and if you sign a document saying you'll abide by the rules, that you still get to decide which rules are applicable and which ones aren't based on what exactly?  Sorry, but if you don't like the rules, or if you don't think they're fair, you shouldn't have agreed to abide by them.

It's called integrity.

And I have yet to hear anyone who says he should be banned from the PGA Tour.  He should be punished the same way ANYONE would be punished after taking into consideration all the variables.

We don't get to make up our own rules or decide not to follow certain rules that we don't agree with.  This is true ANYWHERE in life.  I've heard that excuse numerous times in the military and I have no sympathy for people who don't hold true to what they say they're going to do.  They lack self-discipline in my opinion.  If you can't hack it, go find another job.

Vijay knows this, and he realizes what he did wasn't very wise which is exactly why he's cooperated so much with the investigation including admitting he was wrong.  You've really discredited him by making it sound like he might have just disregarded the rules because he, like you, has to know WHY something is in the rules before you want to follow it.

[dave67az]

I just saw this online and wanted to share it.

For anyone out there who questions whether PGA Tour players were warned about Deer Antler Spray, they were...in 2011 even.

Not sure where Vijay was or why he might have ignored the policy, but it makes me question his motives (or wisdom) even more.

http://www.thepostgame.com/features/201108/pga-tour-cracks-down-deer-antler-spray

"The PGA TOUR regularly warns players of the risks associated with all supplements," wrote Tour spokesperson Laura Hill in an email to ThePostGame.com. "Only those supplements listed under the NSF Certified for Sport program are recognized as free of prohibited substances under the PGA TOUR Anti-Doping Program. The PGA TOUR intends to issue a warning to all players regarding the prohibited ingredient contained in 'The Ultimate Spray.'" (August 2011)

[mailman]

  dave67az said:

Originally Posted by dave67az

Just to clarify, so you believe that if something is in a rulebook that is distributed to everyone, and if you sign a document saying you'll abide by the rules, that you still get to decide which rules are applicable and which ones aren't based on what exactly?  Sorry, but if you don't like the rules, or if you don't think they're fair, you shouldn't have agreed to abide by them.

What I am saying is that if a substance is going to be on the ban list then it should be there because its been PROVEN to provide an unfair advantage.

Im not quite sure what is so difficult to understand here?

As I said before, mindlessly chanting "its in the rule book" doesnt make that rule the word of God.

Mailman

[dave67az]

  mailman said:

Originally Posted by mailman

What I am saying is that if a substance is going to be on the ban list then it should be there because its been PROVEN to provide an unfair advantage.

Im not quite sure what is so difficult to understand here?

As I said before, mindlessly chanting "its in the rule book" doesnt make that rule the word of God.

Mailman

Oh, but mindlessly chanting "but it's no fair because the rule is stupid" somehow gets you a free pass?

Grow the hell up.

[newtogolf]

  dave67az said:

Originally Posted by dave67az

Oh, but mindlessly chanting "but it's no fair because the rule is stupid" somehow gets you a free pass?

Grow the hell up.

C'mon Dave, you can't truly believe this.  We're now seeing government officials trying to ban Big Gulps, Energy Drinks and salt and you want to give government and ruling bodies carte blanche to determine what is acceptable and what's not without having to prove their position?

You fought for our country and freedom, I'd think you would hold those freedoms in higher regard than those of us that didn't make the sacrifices you did to serve our country, for which btw I'm grateful for.

[dave67az]

  newtogolf said:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

C'mon Dave, you can't truly believe this.  We're now seeing government officials trying to ban Big Gulps, Energy Drinks and salt and you want to give government and ruling bodies carte blanche to determine what is acceptable and what's not without having to prove their position?

You fought for our country and freedom, I'd think you would hold those freedoms in higher regard than those of us that didn't make the sacrifices you did to serve our country, for which btw I'm grateful for.

I fought for everyone's freedom to work to change the rules if they believed it was necessary and if the majority agreed.

For you and others to crap on that by acting like the rules don't matter, and that you AS AN INDIVIDUAL have the authority to disregard any rules that you don't agree with is an insult.

RULES are what made America great.

You can't simply disregard rules of golf on your personal whims, any more than you can disregard laws on your personal whim.

If you are on the Tour and you agree to abide by the rules and then you just start picking and choosing which rules you like and which ones you don't, you've just proven your lack of integrity and honesty.  I have no respect for people who say they're going to do something and NOT do it.

Maybe YOU like those kind of people.  Maybe they fit into YOUR ideals as a model citizen.  But don't pretend to think there's anything honorable about someone who agrees to abide by a rule and then willingly breaks it.  We don't tolerate those kind of people in the military and it's a little disturbing that you think we should.

[newtogolf]

  dave67az said:

Originally Posted by dave67az

I fought for everyone's freedom to work to change the rules if they believed it was necessary and if the majority agreed.

For you and others to crap on that by acting like the rules don't matter, and that you AS AN INDIVIDUAL have the authority to disregard any rules that you don't agree with is an insult.

RULES are what made America great.

You can't simply disregard rules of golf on your personal whims, any more than you can disregard laws on your personal whim.

If you are on the Tour and you agree to abide by the rules and then you just start picking and choosing which rules you like and which ones you don't, you've just proven your lack of integrity and honesty.  I have no respect for people who say they're going to do something and NOT do it.

Maybe YOU like those kind of people.  Maybe they fit into YOUR ideals as a model citizen.  But don't pretend to think there's anything honorable about someone who agrees to abide by a rule and then willingly breaks it.  We don't tolerate those kind of people in the military and it's a little disturbing that you think we should.

Rules that are dictated for without proof or justification and go unchallenged are not what this country was founded on, sorry.  Throughout our history our government has abused their power and established laws that should be questioned, especially as they impinge on our personal freedoms.

Just because a law is in place, doesn't make it just or right.  Given your though process, this country would have never come into existence, we would have just continued to be bullied by England and paid whatever taxes they demanded because those were the laws and rules.  African Americans would have never gained the right to vote, go to the same schools or ride the bus with whites because there was a time when laws said they weren't allowed to.

Now back to golf.

Vijay broke the rules and deserves to be punished for breaking said rule, but that doesn't make the rule valid or correct.  Along with Vijay serving his punishment, someone should look into the banned list and determine if the items on the list are actually PED's.  If not, take them off the list.

[dave67az]

  newtogolf said:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Rules that are dictated for without proof or justification and go unchallenged are not what this country was founded on, sorry.  Throughout our history our government has abused their power and established laws that should be questioned, especially as they impinge on our personal freedoms.

Just because a law is in place, doesn't make it just or right.  Given your though process, this country would have never come into existence, we would have just continued to be bullied by England and paid whatever taxes they demanded because those were the laws and rules.  African Americans would have never gained the right to vote, go to the same schools or ride the bus with whites because there was a time when laws said they weren't allowed to.

Now back to golf.

Vijay broke the rules and deserves to be punished for breaking said rule, but that doesn't make the rule valid or correct.  Along with Vijay serving his punishment, someone should look into the banned list and determine if the items on the list are actually PED's.  If not, take them off the list.

Actually the Bill of Rights doesn't spell out the reasons for them in most cases.  Nor does anything in our founding documents require any legislature to satisfy every individual's requirement for "proof" that a law is valid.  There is only ONE group in the land that has the authority to decide the justification of a law, and that's the Supreme Court.  Just because you, personally, don't like a law doesn't give you ANY right to disregard it.  THIS is the principle on which our country was founded.  Yes, every state, and every municipality has the right to make whatever laws they want, whether you agree with them or not, so long as they don't infringe on the basic rights granted by the Constitution.

If the state of Arizona wants to allow open carry of firearms, they can do it.  If Utah wants to place restrictions on establishments that serve alcohol, they can do it.  And if a sports organization wants to require it's employees to sign a document saying they'll abide by the rules, they can do it.  If you have a problem with the rules, don't sign the damn paper.

But if you sign the paper, you have a duty to stick to the rules. (and considering all the things I had to sign when I was a bowler every time I wanted to renew my USBC card or enter a tournament, I'd be pretty shocked if PGA Tour players didn't have to do the same thing)

So yes, contrary to the opinion of some, stating that it's in the rules and that Vijay was specifically instructed NOT to use the exact product that he purchased and administered IS relevant because he agreed to abide by the rules (no matter HOW stupid he or you think they are).

I do agree that everything on the list SHOULD be researched and should be removed from the list if research shows it's not, in fact, a potential aid to performance.  But that doesn't change the fact that it's on the list, he was told specifically not to use the spray, and he did it anyway.

[mailman]

  dave67az said:

Oh, but mindlessly chanting "but it's no fair because the rule is stupid" somehow gets you a free pass? Grow the hell up.

Perhaps it is you that needs to grow up eh? Not sure why you are getting your knickers in a twist here as there is nothing in what I am saying that is particularly controversial. In fact it seems like common sense that if something is on a banned substance list that its there exactly because its been proven to provide an unfair advantage to someone...which is something that you cannot say about the spray used by Vijay. This is doubly important when it could lead to the ending of someone's career, although in Vijays case it looks like the USGA has taken the common sense approach and given him a slap on the wrist with a silk hanky for his "non-crime". The problem now though is that we have a substance on the ban list where a substance taker has been treated with kid gloves by the rule makers...do you not think that in the interest of consistency that the rule makers should remove the spray from the list as they have now created a precedent for future "crims" as it appears the rule makers don't think the spray gives anyone an unfair competitive advantage. Regards Mailman * assuming of course that Vijays absence earlier wasn't as a result of a ban made behind close doors?

[Mulligan Jeff]

Let's look at the facts - VJ pays $9000 for the spray, chips, beam ray and powder additives. He sleeps with beam ray on, puts chips on his ankles, waist and shoulders with hopes of a transformation of sorts to his body. Sound like a grey area? You bet! And didn't the PGA Tour inform Calcavecchia to stop using this substance a year earlier. It's as if VJ has taken the approach of "how far can I go with taking supplements before I cross the line"! Whatever happened to going to the gym and building muscle through workouts...