Serena Williams Wardrobe: Fill & Download for Free

Tennis officials don’t have to justify their treatment of Serena Williams, because she is treated based on the same rules used to treat all of the other players on tour. Serena Williams is NOT tested more than any other player. This is factually false. And is based on PR fluff floated by her team in an effort to create a narrative. And the clothing in question is neither medically necessary nor was it banned completely. Furthermore, the relevant clothing rule doesn’t only apply to Serena, nor is it new.There also is no “they”. It’s a total misunderstanding of the facts to attribute both of these things to “tennis officials”, when they are the result of actions from totally different bodies of people. In the case of drug testing, three organizations (USADA, WADA, and the ITF) are responsible for decision-making. In the case of Serena’s wardrobe transgression, the action came specifically from the organizers of the Roland Garros tournament, who are not at all the same people as the anti-doping organizations, and who only control their own event.Below I’ll break down some of the relevant information about these two separate questions/instances the OP refers to:Drug TestingThe various organizations (USADA, WADA, ITF, etc.) that determine drug testing protocols use a wide variety of factors in determining who will be tested and when. Testing is not random, nor should it be, since doping is almost impossible to detect randomly. So in an effort to actually be effective, testing instances may increase based on several factors, as per a statement by USADA,Factors considered in allocating tests include available resources, performance information, ranking data, sport and athlete specific analysis, biological and longitudinal analysis, injury information, training periods, the competition calendar, intelligence received concerning possible doping practices and research on doping trends. USADA retains the right to test any athlete at any time and may target test athletes as USADA deems appropriate.Some specific ways this may play out depend on:How much they win. Winning players are tested more often for performance enhancement than losing players. This is logical, since if losing players were the ones doing it, there wouldn’t be any enhancement in the performance. And American players are tested more than players from other countries, since they are tested by both USADA and the ITF. Serena wins a lot when she plays, so it stands to reason she will be tested more often than those who lose in the earlier rounds. But Roger Federer was tested significantly more (40% more) than Serena. (Furthermore, Roger’s tests were from the ITF only since he is not American, so his testing level dwarfs Serena’s even more than the basic number implies.) So clearly she is not being singled out in a personal way.When they take time off. The biggest misconception about performance enhancing drugs is that players use them during tournaments to improve their performance. Almost all PEDs used today are training aids, and are used to improve performance over the long term by applying them during training cycles. By the time the player is competing, the performance enhancing substances or measures are often long gone from their systems or undetectable. And performance enhancement uses periodization and “on/off” cycles both to improve effectiveness and avoid detection. Players who take a lot of time off and still perform at the highest level are tested more often, and should be. Serena takes a lot of time off (whether due to pregnancy, personal choice, injuries, or “injuries”), and always returns to a high performance level almost immediately. She’s also not the only player who has been subject to this type of testing, as Nadal complained about it when his patterns were similar.Usage and play patterns. The complex factors used in making testing decisions are purposely not completely transparent, because performance enhancement is an arms race between the dopers (who are far more numerous than most of us think) and the people trying to catch them. And the dopers are winning the race in pretty much every sport. When the officials in charge of the anti-doping programs observe patterns that are consistent with the usage of certain performance enhancers, or get what they consider reliable information that someone might be doping, they are more likely to test that player. Serena has been tested more in some years than others. The years when she was tested more were almost certainly due to the behaviors in those years. Otherwise she would have been tested more than other players every year, which is not the case.Type of testing. Tennis currently has two types of doping test: In-competition, and out-of-competition. In today’s doping world, in-competition tests are essentially useless. They are window dressing. Almost none of the current doping methods of concern would show up on an in-competition test. So there’s no point in even discussing those. They are almost exclusively a PR measure by the sport to make their anti-doping program look more robust than it actually is. So including her in these is actually an effort to make her and the sport look good, not the opposite.Past behavior. If a player has behaved in a suspicious manner in the past, and those patterns are repeated, the authorities would have the right to test accordingly. While this is unlikely to actually catch anyone, as doping methods change constantly, it makes logical sense to test the players who have behaved suspiciously in the past but not been caught. Serena certainly fits in this category, and has escaped punitive action for her behavior in the past.Medical and physiological changes. Because of the sophistication of current doping methods, one of the only ways to detect many types of doping is something called the “biological passport”. Tennis only recently adopted this protocol, based on the model used in other sports. The idea behind it is that testing authorities need to collect a wide range of biological markers over time as a baseline, so that they can compare them to more recent results and detect any changes in relevant levels. Whenever there is a significant change in a player’s medical history (added or removed medications, hormone level changes, etc.) officials have to pay attention, and often new baselines need to be set. Pregnancy obviously has a huge effect on the body, and on its hormone levels among other things. Combine this with Serena’s history of frequent changes in medication and multiple TUEs (Therapeutic Use Exemptions) for various banned substances, it’s logical that they would be testing her more than the average player to determine what is “normal”, not just to catch her.Which organization is doing the testing. Both USADA and the ITF (via WADA) have the authority to test players. And if an American player fits any of the factors cited above or has any reason for increased suspicion, both organizations may take action, creating the impression that the particular player is being tested an unreasonable amount, when it’s really just two different organizations responding to the same pattern or information. And this is a result of being American, not of being Serena.So when we look at all the factors at play, we can see that Serena is not being tested more than any other player, nor is the frequency of her testing the result of discriminatory treatment by “tennis officials”. The tennis governing bodies love Serena, as she is popular and good for the game. There is no logical reason for anyone involved in the game’s organization to target her. She makes everyone involved in the game a lot of money, and if anything they benefit more from having her not get caught using PEDs than they would if she got caught.“Medically Necessary” Banned ClothingFirst off, the idea that the clothing is “medically necessary” is a bit of a ruse. Serena wore the catsuit at Roland Garros because she liked the way it looked. But she also knew that it was prohibited and that none of the other players were allowed to wear such garments. So she hedged her bets. She made the statement that “I’ve been wearing pants in general a lot when I play so I can keep the blood circulation going.” when talking to ESPN. And her team spun it as a medical necessity, despite the paucity of evidence for such a claim. The fact is there is no good medical research to show that these leggings actually have any such medical benefit, nor were they provided by (or even suggested by) any medical professional. The phrase “medically necessary” was pulled from the rulebook by her and Nike’s PR teams to lend an aura of credibility to her use of an illegal garment, and to make a good news story. It was a calculated move.The general rule on the WTA tour is (and has been for a LONG time) that leggings can be worn until the middle of the calf at the longest, and the player must wear skirt or shorts on top of the leggings. Serena knows this. Nike knows this. Every female player on tour knows this. They were simply trying to make a splash, and succeeded in engineering an excellent PR move. If Serena was actually concerned with the so-called medical benefits of compression, she could have worn actual compression tights under a skirt or shorts, just like every other player on tour. But she knowingly didn’t and tried for special treatment.In addition to the overall tour rules, Roland Garros (a.k.a. The French Open) also states explicitly that all clothing worn must be “customarily acceptable tennis attire”. This catsuit was not that, and everyone involved knew it. It was an attention grab. And one that any player, not just Serena, would have been censured for. So Serena wasn’t singled out, she singled herself out (along with Nike’s help) by purposely breaking the rules for attention, and then making a PR opportunity out of it. In final assessment, the following facts stand out:There was no medical necessity (or even benefit).There was no need to wear the garment, but if she felt she wanted to, she could have anyway if she had just worn shorts or a skirt over the tights, or made the suit a couple of inches shorter, just like all other players have to.She intentionally broke the rules in an orchestrated PR move in cooperation with Nike and the publicity team.The fact that she got away with it during the tournament, and that it wasn’t addressed till later, is testament to her getting MORE preferential treatment than other players, not less. And quite a few of her tour colleagues have said exactly that publicly.So bottom line: there is nothing for “tennis officials” to justify.

Thank you for the A2A.MEGHAN MARKLE has been warned to stop her “massively extravagant” spending, according to a royal expert.She feels she is “entitled". She is billing herself as an “A-lister celebrity"**, which she never was.Insert on net worth of Meghan Markle**Prince Harry's net worth far exceeds his wife's, but Meghan made a good living as an actress. She was reportedly paid $50,000 per episode on the USA Network legal drama Suits, raking in a salary of about $450,000 per year, according to Fortune, with some additional income from film roles.**She only played in one show. That was “Suits". She went on a “blind date" which was actually set up by her. She's tried to down play the whole thing as being “kismet". She had a “few uncredited appearances in television".She had “heard of his California visit” and wrangled a blind date. They had a “mutual friend" whose father is a Baron, of course. She was one of Meghan's designers through Ralph Lauren who just “also happened to have been in Prince Harry's intercircle for a great many years". Now are we getting the picture?Anyway Meghan Markle was wearing designer labels before she became a Duchess so now she has a “position to uphold". The Brits aren't happy about it either!When she was pregnant The Duchess of Sussex reportedly had a maternity wardrobe costing up to half a million pounds($608,133.71 U.S Dollars). Royal correspondent, Jennie Bond, said the spending “doesn’t play well” with the British public. Meghan spent an estimated £110,000 ($133,828.75 United States Dollars) her royal tour of Morocco with Prince Harry in February.(before the baby was born)She is spending in excess of her allowances and is doing the same for baby Archie.Her baby shower cost ove 380,500 pounds. The papers was calling it “an excessive show with nonsensical over the top guests. Guests like Beyonce, Serena Williams and more. People who mean nothing to the royal family. A garish whos-who display.”This was published today- Sat Aug.24, 2019 I get these in my daily newsfeeds.MEGHAN Markle and Prince Harry have been pictured boarding a private jet with son Archie Harrison in the South of France – their fourth gas-guzzling flight in just 11 days.Meghan Markle, 38 and husband Harry, 34, have come under heavy criticism and been accused of hypocrisy after recently speaking out about environmental issues, and then using private jets for their jaunts around Europe.

When Meghan got an important role in Suits she abandoned her husband and sent him the wedding ring back in the post.She then began a relationship with the celebrity chef Cory Vitiello, who she betrayed and abandoned as soon as she met HRH Prince Harry.Meghan Markle lied when she said she “didn’t know much” about Prince Harry, instead she was obsessed with the English royal family, had read Diana's biography, cried while watching her funeral in TV and also visited London and Buckingham Palace.Her dogs disappeared when she went to live in London. One was entrusted to other people and disappeared and apparently the other died in an accident. But we will never know the truth since it changes according to convenience and there has never been clarity about their destiny, only the certainty that they disappeared the instant Meghan became engaged to Harry.She said she didn't have a family denying not only her father and her siblings, but also her nepew, uncles and cousins who helped her during her studies and in her career, people she often boasted about before meeting Harry.Having disagreements with some family members is one thing, but I have never seen anyone completely deny and hide all the members of his paternal and maternal family, cutting off contacts with dozens and dozens of relatives simultaneously, suddenly and without real motivation. Also because Meghan often talked about all of them, she often praised them and was in contact with almost all of them before meeting Harry.But none of Meghan's family and older friends was at her wedding, except her mother, a woman with a mysterious and shady past, who conveniently appears in her life only a couple of days for weddings and baptisms and then returns to her normal life very far away from her daughter.The moment Meghan met Harry, all her friends and family disappeared into thin air, replaced by rich and famous people.Meghan said she worked hard to pay for college, too bad her father had paid for her university, her apartment and all her vacation around the world, and her uncle had helped her get a prestigious internship at the American embassy of Buenos Aires.Megan Markle's father once won $750,000 in the lottery — and paid tuition at her private school with part of his winningsThomas Markle says Meghan is lying about paying her way through college as he paid 'every penny' of her tuition and has 'bank statements to prove it'Meghan Markle's dream tour of Europe as teenagerMeghan's uncle, 78, says he was deeply hurt by being excluded from her weddingAnd after the wedding, the crazy expenses arrived ...Meghan's '£800k pregnancy' revealed as wardrobe and '£15k birth' add upAnd certain arrogant and embarrassing behaviors have become public knowledge ...Meghan Markle loses another top aide amid rumors of being demandingHow Meghan Markle Offends Her Staff Daily: Duchess Shocked By Their ReactionMeghan Markle ‘was a nightmare’ when she visited Wimbledon to watch Serena Williams, official saysMeghan Markle Gets Major Backlash Over Controversial Wimbledon AppearanceHarry and Meghan branded hypocrites for using private jetsTo this I add also the stup*d mystery about Archie's birth, his baptism and his godparents… And the ridiculous excuses for which he is too small to go to Balmoral to visit his great-grandmother but is big enough to be taken on holiday to France… And Archie has no problem being fed when his mother crosses the world to watch a tennis match or be a guest at a wedding in Italy but she has no time to stay more than an hour at the presentation of her clothes line to help people with financial problems because her son is hungry ...The list of Meghan's hypocrisy and lies is very long and I could write much more about this, but I think I explained pretty well why I don't like Meghan and I don't think anything will ever change my mind about her.She wasn’t faithful to her family, her friends, her husband, her boyfriends, her dogs and even her religion, how can I trust her???