Lee Chong Wei ( 李宗伟 )

craigandy said:
The problem with buying the capsule story is that you have to in turn assume LCW and his team are complete morons.
Click to expand...

Maybe people are naive or I'm too cynical but it sounds like someone is taking the fall for someone else's stupidity.

The drug was in his system, that can't be denied. He was banned for having a banned substance in his body so in my opinion he shouldn't be rewarded with a wildcard anyway.

After all these years of taking a supplement that all of a sudden has had a cross contamination issue? I'm not buying it one bit.

In my previous sport I was subject to testing and I ran a few sports nutrition shops and distribution centre, cross contamination in any case it was been used as a defence in always sounds like a cop out.

The reason came out of nowhere, we were told it was part of his treatment.

Someone somewhere has had a bright idea and come up with this nonsense story and the "unnamed person" bit is completely laughable, if he wasn't an icon then it wouldn't stick.
 
craigandy said:
The problem with buying the capsule story is that you have to in turn assume LCW and his team are complete morons.
Click to expand...

I don´t think LCW is a moron, he is just not very well educated. I have read his biography and he says he used to sleep in class because there was air condition in the classroom and he did not even bring pencils to school so he had to borrow them from Wong Mew Choo.

His team (BAM) on the other hand may be complete morons, especially if they don´t send LCW to the WC this year.
 
whether u believe the capsule story or not is meaningless at this point. the fact is LCW did be banned for 8 months for an offense of the rules...
an offense is an offense, and how could you give a wild card, which in any sports is used for someone brought positive image to the sports, to someone just coming out of a ban and just short of qualification solely due to the ban???

Being a top professional player for years, he should know his basic responsibility of being extremely careful about drug or even contamination. so he is basically guilty of not professional enough, not serious enough to put prevention against such in the 1st priority. I don't see this as a positive image to the sports.

so for wild card, i was disappointed to see double standard from LCW when see BAM applied wildcard for him. If he is so consistently against the concept of wild card, he should object to BAM's application in the first place... yet looks like he kept silent all the way... I don't want to use the word started with "hypro-" here as I know many ppl here will just jump up and want to punch me... ... yet I could not help to let myself have this feeling on LCW this time... sadly and disappointedly...
 
LCW's wild card hope stopped at the involvement of banned substances. BWF wisely did not challenge the anti-doping movement.

It should be noted that the 2013 wild card to Lin Dan did not give CBA an additional spot but only the option to replace one of the other Chinese players with Lin Dan. CBA faced a choice and it took it. There was no change in total number of Chinese players. It was at the maximum of four.

BAM is in a similar situation, but only that BAM can make that choice without the benefit of a wild card. BWF's granting a wild card to BAM would actually add another Malaysian player to WC. That's a lot more than what BWF granted to CBA.
 
Substance control issue aside, a scenario comparable to BWF's 2013 wild card to Lin Dan would be:

  1. LCW is ranked way down the list and there is no hope to qualify by the usual rules.
  2. BWF grants BAM a wild card for LCW, on the condition that BAM can only send one other player to WC in order to keep within the quota of 2, earned by Malaysian players.
As you can see, BAM has to choose one of the two eligible players anyway.
 
RedShuttle said:
Substance control issue aside, a scenario comparable to BWF's 2013 wild card to Lin Dan would be:

  1. LCW is ranked way down the list and there is no hope to qualify by the usual rules.
  2. BWF grants BAM a wild card for LCW, on the condition that BAM can only send one other player to WC in order to keep within the quota of 2, earned by Malaysian players.
As you can see, BAM has to choose one of the two eligible players anyway.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid your point 2 is not quite correct. As per Wild Cards regulation 3.2.17 "Any wild card entry must not cause the maximum of four entries in each event to be exceeded....", MAS which has only two MS players eligible ranked 25 to 150, actually has room for two more entries, technically speaking, though BWF would at most issue one wild card for each event.

If I'm not wrong, in 2013, CHN MS had Chen Long ranked 2, Du Pengyu ranked 3 and Wang Zhengming ranked 14 (or thereabouts), that is two players ranked 1 to 8 of max four, one player ranked 9 to 24 of max three. As per Maximum per Member Association quota, regulation 2.1 "The maximum number of players/pairs per Member Association shall be four entries in each of the five events, provided each entry is eligible (see Regulations 3.2.1 to 3.2.8), CHN who already had three eligible entries had room for one more by wild card which happened to be issued to Lin Dan ranked 200+ at that time. CMIIW.

Refer to Part III, Section 7B, Regulations For Eligibility and Procession of Entries for World Championships http://www.bwfbadminton.org/file.aspx?id=608529&dl=1
 
It is to me surprising that many people are going against the verdict and administrator not moderator is taking any action . Something fishy ? Or they also have their own tribunal in their mind which gives the verdict about LCW case like many of the posters here .
 
Also consider that sponsors may lean on associations to include certain people. Li Ning may have wanted Lin Dan to get his wildcard at the expense of another player. I doubt Victor would want LCW to play at the expense of someone they sponsor in the Malaysian team.
 
sh_shashi1 said:
It is to me surprising that many people are going against the verdict and administrator not moderator is taking any action . Something fishy ? Or they also have their own tribunal in their mind which gives the verdict about LCW case like many of the posters here .
Click to expand...

BC members are free to agree or disagree with the verdict. they can express their own opinions and viewpoints here as long as it is done in a civil and educated manner.

in fact, it is the interesting viewpoints from members who agree or disagree that makes the discussion interesting. this way, we can see and appreciate everyone's point of view, whether you agree with it, or not.
 
kwun said:
BC members are free to agree or disagree with the verdict. they can express their own opinions and viewpoints here as long as it is done in a civil and educated manner.

in fact, it is the interesting viewpoints from members who agree or disagree that makes the discussion interesting. this way, we can see and appreciate everyone's point of view, whether you agree with it, or not.
Click to expand...

We have some legal sanctity and obligation which makes every fan who believe in badminton as conducted by BWF respect the decision . If somebody dis agree that is fine as long as they quit being part of badminton which is conducted by BWF . If you happen to disagree with any ruling of the civil or criminal legal system of the jurisdiction currently residing with out appealing then you are liable to prosecution .
 
sh_shashi1 said:
That is fine but we have some legal sanctity which makes every fan who believe in badminton as conducted by BWF respect the decision . If somebody dis agree that is fine but not being the part of badminton which is conducted by BWF . If you happen to disagree with any ruling of the civil or criminal legal system of the jurisdiction with out appealing then you are liable to prosecution .
Click to expand...

You're joking right? Not agreeing is breaking the law? I think I need to lay down.
 
Justin L said:
I'm afraid your point 2 is not quite correct. ......
Click to expand...
If you work out the scenarios, you would see that if there was no wild card to Lin Dan, Gao Huan, also of the Chinese team, would have been at the WC'13. A 2015 wild card for LCW would prevent another player from attending WC'15. That player could be WR#10 Tian HouWei or #24 Takama Ueda if there would be one reserve spot or two reserve spots but with one taken away by the wild card. That victim may be another non-Malaysian player but not clear at this point.

Understandably, BAM does not want to sacrifice any of of its players. But BAM's request for a wild card is essentially asking BWF to sacrifice a player outside of BAM. In 2013, CBA accepted one of its own players would have to be sacrificed.
 
sh_shashi1 said:
That is fine but we have some legal sanctity which makes every fan who believe in badminton as conducted by BWF respect the decision . If somebody dis agree that is fine but not being the part of badminton which is conducted by BWF . If you happen to disagree with any ruling of the civil or criminal legal system of the jurisdiction with out appealing then you are liable to prosecution .
Click to expand...

not in my country! and i'd like to hear which country forbids anyone from discussing any legal verdict afterwards. that seems rather backwards to me.

just because 3 dude sat together and made a verdict in a doping case should NOT forbid us from talking about it afterwards, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with the verdict.
 
kwun said:
not in my country! and i'd like to hear which country forbids anyone from discussing any legal verdict afterwards. that seems rather backwards to me.

just because 3 dude sat together and made a verdict in a doping case should NOT forbid us from talking about it afterwards, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with the verdict.
Click to expand...

Kwun, will you visit me in jail please?
 
kwun said:
not in my country! and i'd like to hear which country forbids anyone from discussing any legal verdict afterwards. that seems rather backwards to me.

just because 3 dude sat together and made a verdict in a doping case should NOT forbid us from talking about it afterwards, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with the verdict.
Click to expand...

Its not "discussing" my friend but not obeying or admitting . And that even applies in US of A . I can bet anything on it . You can search "contempt of court" .
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top