Advertisement

Korda Might Be Retired, but He’s Banned Too : Tennis: Court of Arbitration for Sport rules against Czech player, who tested positive for steroids in July 1998.

Share
TIMES STAFF WRITER

The long-running Petr Korda drug case finally played itself out Tuesday when the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne, Switzerland, ruled against the 1998 Australian Open champion, banning him for one year.

Korda, who tested positive for the steroid nandrolone at Wimbledon in July 1998, also will lose the prize money and computer ranking points he has accumulated since then. The ban is something of a moot point, however, since the 31-year-old Korda retired after failing to qualify for Wimbledon this year.

Nandrolone has been prominent in the news recently, track stars Merlene Ottey and Linford Christie allegedly having tested positive for the banned substance. Ottey and Christie are fighting the accusations.

Advertisement

Korda did the same--for more than a year. He said he did not know how the steroid got into his system, and the case turned controversial when an independent appeals committee ruled in December that there were “exceptional circumstances” and waived the one-year ban.

This action angered Korda’s colleagues, who held a contentious meeting at the Australian Open. The International Tennis Federation (ITF) appealed the action of the committee in British courts, and won the right to take the case to CAS.

Although Korda has retired, the finding is a significant development in tennis as a precedent. It was the first time a player of Korda’s stature has tested positive for steroids.

“It is now clear that the burden of proof rests with the player to prove on the balance of probabilities how a banned substance came to be present in his body,” said Deborah Jevans, one of the ITF’s executive directors. “This sets a clear precedent for the future.”

Said Mark Miles, chief executive officer of the ATP tour, “While this case took a long time and was unfortunate for all parties concerned, it reaffirmed the importance of due process and a more streamlined procedure.”

Advertisement