DHS national, provincial, etc. etc.

Gman, the question is how can playing characteristics of a rubber change without a change in its physical characteristics?  Of course it could be something that ITTF doesn't measure.  But wouldn't that be just as bad as if someone boosts their rubber and ITTF is clearly all upset about that.

So here is the clause I am fixated on.

"The ITTF authorisation applies to a racket covering as originally submitted and tested; its subsequent alteration, by a supplier, a player or anyone else, is not permitted".

In my opinion the key thing is the words "subsequent alteration".  If a company submits one rubber for testing, and then somehow what they are selling or supplying to the CNT is somehow different -- altered -- how is that ok?

ITTF clearly thinks it is NOT ok if you YOU do the altering by boosting it.  So why is it ok for DHS to sell markedly different versions from what they submitted for testing? 

(And are they actually doing that?)

Good points.  But then if boosting does not increase the thickness of the rubber beyond the limit, it should be ok?

But then if suppliers are changing the rubber in some way, even if it is now something ITTF actually tests for, should not that be illegal too?  Because then it is not what was "as originally submitted", whether the change led to something they tested or not. 

Correct.  But if they change the composition and properties of the product after it was submitted it is still in the same moral gray zone as boosting, which they can't detect by testing either.

 

Anyway, I think we have each made our points and the circle we are going around has no ending. 

My position is that what applies to players (no boosting even if they can't accurately test for it) should apply to companies and also national teams largely supplied by certain companies (once they submit a product, don't change it and make many versions of it with the same ITTF code, even if ITTF doesn't test for the properties you are changing).