I think this settles it

[Guy]

Found this while surfuring the forums and just thought I'd share the info.

Can be found at
http://www.juic.co.jp/hpgen/diarypro/diary.cgi (http://www.juic.co.jp/hpgen/diarypro/diary.cgi)

First:
Dear friends,

As you know already, the ITTF at its recent AGM in Guangzhou, decided to forbid any "additives" to be applied to the racket blade or the racket covering, other than affixing the racket covering to the blade (glue, self adhesives, PSA sheets, etc..) as allowed by our rules. In fact, the rule passed by the AGM is very clear; there is no place for any additives to the racket covering after the product is approved by the ITTF. This of course means that the so-called tuners, boosters, and such similar products, or any type of "additive" is not permissible.

The ITTF is now in the process of analyzing these products to find out their composition and also to establish detection mechanisms. The ITTF will be ready after the Olympic Games to put in effect the rule regarding VOC free glues (as decided in Zagreb), as well as impose the very strict implementation of the existing racket covering thickness regulation.

The ITTF's Executive Committee, at its last EC meeting held in London on
17-18 May 2008, decided to send a directive to the Equipment Committee regarding the strict implementation of the thickness levels and tolerance after the Olympic Games and to introduce a readily available accurate thickness measurement "all over" the surface of the racket.

This message is to provide you with advance notice, a heads up, on the EC's intentions as follows:

1. Strict prevention and detection of any additives of any kind 2. Strict implementation and new measurement of the thickness of the racket covering

I would like to congratulate those Manufacturers that have already stopped voluntarily the production of additives such as boosters and tuners, thus respecting the ITTF rules. I urge all other manufacturers and I urge F.I.T.
to take a leadership role in this matter so that additives are completely eradicated from our sport. At the same time, I would like to advise you that many racket coverings measured by our racket testers exceeded the 4.00 mm allowable level when taken out of the package. In fact, the thickness should be mush less in order to allow for the addition of the glue. Please consult our Equipment Committee Chairman about the recommended "factory"
thickness levels.

If you have any questions please feel free to contact our Equipment Committee Chairman.

Sincerely,

Adham Sharara
ITTF President

--------------
Second:
Dear friends,

I am very pleased with the response from some Manufacturers with regards to my message of yesterday regarding additives and thickness.

At this time, I would like to publicly congratulate JOOLA and JUIC for declaring that they will stop production and distribution of boosters and tuners. I sincerely encourage all other manufacturers to do the same.

I take this opportunity to remind you of the strict application of the thickness (4 mm) for racket coverings that will be implemented after the Olympic Games. I would like to clarify that the 4 mm thickness will be measured from the blade surface to the exterior rubber surface and will be measured on the entire surface of the racket. This would include the glue thickness. Rackets with racket coverings exceeding 4 mm on any part of the racket surface will be deemed illegal. Please pay special attention to this mater and ensure that at your factory production level, the racket covering is at a thickness level that would allow the addition of glue and still remain within the allowable thickness level.

Ultimately, the responsibility lies with the users (players).
However, the ITTF will impose harsh penalties in cases where it is proven that the source of the use of additives comes from a manufacturer, and if the ITTF detects rubber coverings that exceed the acceptable factory-level thickness.

I count on your cooperation with full support and readiness for a new post-Olympic era.

Sincerely,

Adham Sharara
ITTF President

[JKC]

That'll put the cat amongst the pigeons.

[Moggy]

...and will the ETTA settle for a 12 month cooling off period in the local leagues, as with frictionless pimples?

[DaveR]

I doubt that very much but it seems (and a big thnks to Guy for the post) that Glue is on its way to the bin very swiftly along with toners and any other boosting layers.......

However quoting ITTF
However, the ITTF will impose harsh penalties in cases where it is proven that the source of the use of additives comes from a manufacturer, and if the ITTF detects rubber coverings that exceed the acceptable factory-level thickness.


This will mean the ETTA doing the same one would assume?

The penalty i have heard will be warnings and banning periods for those who choose to ignore the rule.

Which leads into certain minefield problems such as the ones we have seen lately..........again i quote from FTT - (free table tennis)

I live very near Reading so I had a vested interest. It was good to have this major event in Berkshire, and all who live south of Watford certainly appreciated the proximity of the venue at the Rivermead Sports Centre.

I was tempted to label this article “Farce at Rivermead”, but maybe that was a little unkind, especially to all those who got so much enjoyment out of the tournament. I was unable to attend on the Saturday when all the junior events were held. Perhaps it was just as well I was not there as a number of things went haywire - more of that in a moment.

Sunday saw all the cadet events take place and I must say some of the play was quite outstanding. The state of the women’s and girl’s games still need very close attention - some of it was very mediocre. One player above all absolutely electrified the hall and that was Liam Pitchford. Readers may be aware that I am not often profuse in singing the praises of English players, but with Liam I have to make an exception. His match against Gavin Evans was sensational and I was reminded of a very young Surbek from many years ago - no praise higher than that then. Credit where credit is due, and congratulations to those responsible for this lad’s development.

Now what of the tournament itself. Well it did not get off to a very good start. The people who did the draw only allowed for the winner to go through from each group when it was eventually realised that the Entry Form clearly stated that two should progress to Round 1. A re-draw became necessary, with all the resulting timings astray and the inevitable result that some players played from 9.30 in the morning until nearly 10 o’clock at night. The Referee was not amused.

All the above paled into insignificance as to what happened next. We all know of the “glue” situation and the problems associated with Speed Glues, Boosters, Optimizer, and all the various types of glues you can buy. A very sticky situation and a disaster waiting to happen. Well I am sorry to say it happened at Rivermead.

For the uninitiated a word of explanation. The ITTF have given directives that there are harmful substances contained in the glues which may affect health in the long term. They have authorised testing machines which can read the degree of vapour which can escape from glue, the rubber, or even a blade exposed to the rubber. I was able to see at first hand how these machines work and I have to say both Harvey Webb and Peter Bradley were most helpful in explaining it all.

The bat is placed in what looks like a large bat case with a window. The machine is switched on and takes about a minute to decide whether the bat is clear (green light) or fails the test (red light). The regulations also state that the 4mm rubber thickness rule must be tested. From my observation this was not tested. As I understand it these Boosters cause the sponge to expand, and can exceed 4mm, so I don’t understand why this test was not included.

The circumstances that set the hall buzzing were that the No1 Seed in the girls junior singles, Emma Vickers went on and beat Emily Bates. Her bat went for its test and failed. Result disqualification. This was doubly unfortunate for Emma as, I understand, her bat had also failed the test in the World Schools Championships in Malta recently. The news eventually trickled out and Emily then thought she might be through by default. An appeal then went through and Emma was reinstated. According to Racket Testing Procedures No 6 and I quote: (“If that competitor had won their previous match the Referee shall inform the losing player that he had disqualified their opponent and therefore he would reverse the result”).

Now however the plot thickens. One young lad (Stewart Mudie) also had his bat tested. It failed and he was disqualified and NOT reinstated. I took the trouble to interview Emily Bates father and he made it absolutely clear that there was no way that either Emma or Stewart were aware that their bats were illegal, in fact he made it clear that he thought Emma had won the match fair and square.


There are a number of questions that require answers.

1. If Emma’s bat failed the test and she was disqualified, why was she reinstated?

2. If Stewart’s bat failed the test and he was disqualified, why was he NOT reinstated?

3. Gavin Evans bat failed the test. Why was he allowed to play on? (I understand that Gavin’s bat also failed the testing procedures at the recent German Junior Open).

4. Why were six other bats failed and ALL the players concerned reinstated?

I honestly believe that none of the players knowingly circumvented the rules, but we do need answers to these questions urgently. If it transpires that an error was made in Stewart’s case, then no less than a public apology on the ETTA website is called for.

I appreciate totally that these testing procedures are new to our administrators, however why weren’t they tested fully at previous, and less important, events prior to the tournament at Rivermead? The ETTA must have been aware of the problems that had occurred in Malta and at the Hungarian Junior Open and at the German Junior Open. They had ample time to ensure all would go reasonably smoothly in Reading. Now one is left to worry about what is going to happen at the forthcoming Junior and Cadet Masters! Perhaps it would be a good idea to advise players again of the correct glue procedures and then test all the bats before play starts, but then again how do you stop players swapping their bats? I am sure questions will be raised at National Council, but please could we have some answers now. A great number of the players, coaches, and parents who were at Rivermead require a response.


This is an interesting article posted on the FTT site which is worthy of a read, and has some good points within it.

The problems were talked about by a lot of people in relation certain players prevented from playing due to failure in the testing but others again were seemingly allowed?

The questions need to be answered by the ETTA realy as these things can soon become inflamed discussion topics if not addressed quickly by the relative bodies.

[Moggy]

I doubt that very much but it seems ..

My posting was a bit tongue in cheek, mainly due to how the fictionless rubber decision is still causing rumblings in our league. The quicker the decision is made the better.

Anyone know how to dispose of Spinmax as it seems you can't just throw it in the bin? :covereyes:

[Belisar]

...and will the ETTA settle for a 12 month cooling off period in the local leagues, as with frictionless pimples?

I believe the ETTA national council has recommended a 12 month cooling off period for local leagues in terms of the frictionless pimples. From what I understand there are a number of European Associations doing the same. Glue seems to be a different matter though given it's basis was a health related issue (although a local league cannot enforce it anyhow).

The issue in terms of leagues is that pimples is one of those rules where they can choose to adopt their own version and do not have to follow ETTA rules. Thus two local leagues that operate next to each other (and thus may have some of the same players) could operate under different rules.

I can understand the 12 month cooling off period given some of the rubbers are quite popular and not everyone can just go out an buy new ones. Although part of me thinks we should just bite the bullet and do it now.

However I would prefer to see equipment rules standardised so that all leagues have to follow the same ones. Banning a rubber on one league and not in another seems a bit daft to me.

[Tinykin]

With reference to the glues my worry is for the existence of the ETTA. They are following ITTF rules but if they were to ban a professional player and he were to sue the ETTA, I doubt if they could win the case.
I think there should be some kind of legal statement that any tests done at an English tournament is being conducted by ITTF officials and it is they that will ban any player not the the ETTA.
But anyway it is now obvious that the whole VOC thing was a red herring. The real target of the ITTF was to ban speed glue and any rubber enhancers.
One big question. If the machine has tested a contaminated bat, doesn't that machine itself become contaminated?

[Guy]

Please excuse my ignorance, but as an outsider to the ITTF could someone explain how Mr Adham Sharara circulates new rules that effect so many players and coaches. Because to me from others articles I've read it just seems to me that players and coaches are not aware of when new rules will be in affect until the event is on its way. I'm sorry but the rulings in the letters by Mr Sharara suggested that changes would take place after the Olympics. Not knowing if the letters by Mr Sharara are posted in any English speaking forums why did a reader find the letters where he did. IF the letters were only given to the Chinese wouldn't that give the advantage to the players with that knowledge at a ITTF event?

I'm about to mix apples (ITTF) and oranges (ETTA) but they have a common ground. I think its ashame what happened at Rivermead but if players and coaches were aware of the letter from ETTA as seen on the post by DaveR titled "Glue........Racket Testing" the players and coaches could have been prepared for what happened in Rivermead.
I think it would certainly be helpful for new rulings to be posted on entry forms to warn of any new rules that have taken place so that players and coaches would not have to go through a fiasco such as the one at Rivermead Sports Centre.

[DaveR]

With reference to the glues my worry is for the existence of the ETTA. They are following ITTF rules but if they were to ban a professional player and he were to sue the ETTA, I doubt if they could win the case.
I think there should be some kind of legal statement that any tests done at an English tournament is being conducted by ITTF officials and it is they that will ban any player not the the ETTA.
But anyway it is now obvious that the whole VOC thing was a red herring. The real target of the ITTF was to ban speed glue and any rubber enhancers.
One big question. If the machine has tested a contaminated bat, doesn't that machine itself become contaminated?

The machine (a see through bat wallet) could technically still hold the "smell" or "scent" of the previous racket if it were strong enough given a racket needs to have an airing off period before testing, then surely the sniffer does also ?

This is so contraversial and open to major problems i doubt if there will ever be any consistancy in any competitions nowadays unless players and officials have confidence in the equipment and its use / reason.