The Sharapova drug announcement

First topic message reminder :

A big announcement on Monday night from Sharapova was not, as some thought, about her retirement but about the shock news that she had failed a drug test at this year's Australian Open.

Where's the source that she told them? If so they must have a test that shows it was taken this year. Otherwise why would she accept it

JuliusHMarx wrote:

temporary21 wrote:I suppose she's being punished for two things

1) taking a banned substance
2) flagrantly ignoring WADAs correspondence and taking no responsibility for her own medication

I can understand the view of letting her off light for 1) if it is indeed taken for a real medical problem, but looks uncertain. Unfortunately no matter what I think she's gonna be taken to the cleaners in 2)

Yes, as indeed she should be.

But what about any other athletes who took it - or any other substance that used to be legal but was then banned - and then stopped when it was banned. Do we label them as potential cheats as well? For taking something when it was legal?

I guess the question is how pure does an athlete have to be when performing. Do we just chuck them fruit and a bottle of water?

I remember the days of Lucozade Sport in my matches when I tried gaining an 'edge'

YvonneT wrote:As far as I understand, this is the attachment to the email all the athletes got in September and again in December on changes to the banned list.

http://www.itftennis.com/media/220473/220473.pdf

I saw a few people on TV commenting this morning about how hard it is to work out if substances are banned and how easy it is to get confused over the names (Meldonium/Mildronate etc) but it is plain as day in this case. One can only assume she is telling the truth that neither she nor anyone in her team did even open this attachment otherwise she was willing to risk everything on not getting caught.

Wow, not exactly pages and pages of legal jargon, about 30 seconds to read it.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:What a crazy analogy Cant you do better r than that when you want to disagree with me  JHM and only me, it seems.. You have in the past !!!


But if you really want to get off the subject try taking an aspirin to cure a migraine  I sincerely wish you luck

But you said "is morally wrong.. as any form of performance enhancement whatever it is"
I disagree with that. I'd be happy to allow anyone to take an aspirin to help improve their performance, whereas you would not. That's all I'm saying.

My wider point is that athletes take all sorts of legal substances to improve performance. This one was legal until January. And prescribed for medical reasons - unless people choose not to believe that.

Do blood platelet treatments enhance performance?

We are in dodgy territory and basically the line has become so blurred it's losing cohesion.

Things have come a long way since victorian days when being professional or even amateur training for any sport was considered very bad form.

You were supposed to turn up at the start line of a marathon with a belly fully of beer and pie probably and then take it from there. If you've been seen doing laps of the track for days on end in advance of the race you would have lost all credibility.

I cannot imagine what the victorians would have made of egg chambers, meldonium and entourages.

We've had this conversation before too. It depends on if the prp is to treat Injury or something dodgy. Beyond that point tends to depend on personal bias, it won't get anywhere

djkbrown2001 wrote:Not because it was legal 10 years ago I doesn't mean that it was not a PED.

Plus her excuse : she used it for flu, diabetes ,heart problems,mg deficiency  etc. This one drugs bring used for so many different illness when there are other medication that are not PED that can be used for those alleged conditions.

I called BS.  

Please pass me the hymn sheet djkb    we are singing the same tune

temporary21 wrote:We've had this conversation before too. It depends on if the prp is to treat Injury or something dodgy. Beyond that point tends to depend on personal bias, it won't get anywhere

So any treatment at all for injury is ok? I know you didn't say that, but see how these arbitrary definitions fall down easily?

I think they should extend these bans to other, non-chemical performance enhancements. There'll always be a line, and it'll always look odd when you take treatements just either side, but I don't see why chemicals are out but other stuff with the same effect is ok.

Youll always find an extreme I'm sure, but well, pain free living is a bigger priority. WADA could always investigate and approve any treatment that might be dodge

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tennis/2016/03/08/why-maria-sharapova-does-not-deserve-sympathy/

Good article above in the daily telegraph .

At least with prp the guy using it has serious knee problems consistent with what it's used for. Not even sure know what specific condition Maria was taking this for.

Temp she was taking this for :diabetes, flu,heart problem ,mg deficiency and for generally not feeling well etc. That's a magic drugs.

She should fire her pr team. Can't believe they let her come out with that nonesense.

djkbrown2001 wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tennis/2016/03/08/why-maria-sharapova-does-not-deserve-sympathy/

Good article above in the daily telegraph .

I don't think there can be any sympathy for ignoring the e-mail and thus continuing to take the medicine. I prefer an admission than a fake denial. But to paraphrase the article "Problem is...people condemning the accused before they have looked fully at the evidence". It's actually a poor article doing exactly what it accuses others of doing, but from the other side of the coin.

If she'd stopped taking it in December would anyone really be saying "Shame on you Maria for taking a medicine that WADA approve".

temporary21 wrote:At least with prp the guy using it has serious knee problems consistent with what it's used for. Not even sure know what specific condition Maria was taking this for.

True enough

She was taking it for preventative reasons according to her, because of a family history of the conditions,
I have a lengthy history of cancer in my family so do I start having chemo therapy now just in case

Plus we need to keep in mind that dopers are always 1 or 2 step of the doping authority. So for 10 years she was a ahead of WaDa. WaDa caught up in 2016. Hence the reason why I went on the banned list .

So for 10 years she used a PED. Simply as that. She and her team were ahead of WaDa simple as that.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

djkbrown2001 wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tennis/2016/03/08/why-maria-sharapova-does-not-deserve-sympathy/

Good article above in the daily telegraph .

I don't think there can be any sympathy for ignoring the e-mail and thus continuing to take the medicine. I prefer an admission than a fake denial. But to paraphrase the article "Problem is...people condemning the accused before they have looked fully at the evidence". It's actually a poor article doing exactly what it accuses others of doing, but from the other side of the coin.

If she'd stopped taking it in December would anyone really be saying "Shame on you Maria for taking a medicine that WADA approve".

In stages:

(a) she has admitted to a drug offence, she has taken responsibility for ingesting a banned PED - she's guilty and will be banned - it's just a question of her state of mind and how long the ban will be. There's no question of innocent until proven guilty - she's guilty.

(b) if she'd stopped taking it in December we'd be none the wiser, if we did know for some reason I would not see her as a cheat - you've got to break rules for that - but typically ruthless. But your premise is irrelevant because she didn't stop taking it in December, and she accepts that it's her fault that she didn't and therefore committed a drug offence

(c) she obviously believes that it's in her interest to say that she did not take it for PE reasons - she knows that if she admits to having taken it for PE reasons she'll have a longer ban, she may also think she'll look bad to her fans and her sponsors. Given what we know about this drug, that it was not authorised in the USA where she lives, that there are alternative treatments for what she says her problems were, and the rash of similar positive tests, we are entitled to be skeptical but to keep an open mind and give her the chance she deserves to make her version of events good - if she does I'll accept it.

(d) her very best case is that she was unforgivably unprofessional and failed to keep in touch with WADA's change to the banned list, this despite the fact that there appear to have been warnings in September as well as the email sent to her on 22.12.15 - it would seem that she did not even forward it to her team and ask them to look into it.

The author is quite right that responses from those who should know better that she's acted in a classy fashion or who assume that she's explained it all satisfactorily are disheartening. She's committed a drug offence and advanced an explanation in mitigation which was vague and may be unraveling. We'll see.

Thing is no-one even heard of this drug until yesterday and we can't categorically say with certainty that 10 years of ingesting that drug has improved her performance dramatically!

Legend. Remember that the dopers are always 1 or 2 steps ahead of the doping authority.

Hence the reason why they were able to take it underground for 10 years and nobody heard of it. WaDa caught up and they caught her .

It doesn't matter that we didn't know about the drugs before yesterday. The dopers knew all along of its PED effects . You only need to check the literature to see the benefits .

The fact of the matter is she failed a doping test. Strict liability

legendkillarV2 wrote:Thing is no-one even heard of this drug until yesterday and we can't categorically say with certainty that 10 years of ingesting that drug has improved her performance dramatically!

If by "no-one" you mean the general public at large, that's true, but that's also true about a very large number of drugs on WADA's banned list.  It was not true in the athletics community or the community of those interested in PEDs.  As an athlete it was Sharapova's responsibility to know a bit more about it than the rest of us - and she admits that she's failed and thereby committed a drugs offence.  It's up to her to explain why it got there in an attempt to reduce the inevitable ban.  So far she's struggling, but she's entitled to make her case.

Haddie-nuff wrote:She was taking it for preventative reasons according to her, because of a family history of the conditions,
I have a lengthy history of cancer in my family so do I start having chemo therapy now just in case

There is a case for voluntary mastectomies for some women with family histories of breast cancer, approved by doctors, as a sensible preventative measure.

barrystar wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

djkbrown2001 wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tennis/2016/03/08/why-maria-sharapova-does-not-deserve-sympathy/

Good article above in the daily telegraph .

I don't think there can be any sympathy for ignoring the e-mail and thus continuing to take the medicine. I prefer an admission than a fake denial. But to paraphrase the article "Problem is...people condemning the accused before they have looked fully at the evidence". It's actually a poor article doing exactly what it accuses others of doing, but from the other side of the coin.

If she'd stopped taking it in December would anyone really be saying "Shame on you Maria for taking a medicine that WADA approve".

In stages:

(a) she has admitted to a drug offence, she has taken responsibility for ingesting a banned PED - she's guilty and will be banned - it's just a question of her state of mind and how long the ban will be.  There's no question of innocent until proven guilty - she's guilty.

(b) if she'd stopped taking it in December we'd be none the wiser, if we did know for some reason I would not see her as a cheat - you've got to break rules for that - but typically ruthless.  But your premise is irrelevant because she didn't stop taking it in December, and she accepts that it's her fault that she didn't and therefore committed a drug offence

(c) she obviously believes that it's in her interest to say that she did not take it for PE reasons - she knows that if she admits to having taken it for PE reasons she'll have a longer ban, she may also think she'll look bad to her fans and her sponsors.  Given what we know about this drug, that it was not authorised in the USA where she lives, that there are alternative treatments for what she says her problems were, and the rash of similar positive tests, we are entitled to be skeptical but to keep an open mind and give her the chance she deserves to make her version of events good - if she does I'll accept it.

(d) her very best case is that she was unforgivably unprofessional and failed to keep in touch with WADA's change to the banned list, this despite the fact that there appear to have been warnings in September as well as the email sent to her on 22.12.15 - it would seem that she did not even forward it to her team and ask them to look into it.

The author is quite right that responses from those who should know better that she's acted in a classy fashion or who assume that she's explained it all satisfactorily are disheartening.  She's committed a drug offence and advanced an explanation in mitigation which was vague and may be unraveling.  We'll see.

a) Yes, I've already agreed to that
b) I think you've misunderstood my premise, which was that we should keep an open mind until we know the facts, not pre-judge without them, and not judge her harshly (yet) for taking a perfectly legal substance.
c) Yes, I agree that we need to keep an open mind
d) Yes, I've already agreed to that

The big problem is there are many other ways to prevent those kinds of conditions that haven't been found in loads of other athletes samples. I have also never heard of a diabetic using this there's nothing definite but something's a little fishy

Any doctor worth his salt would first tell you, lose weight, more exercise, watch the diet... in her case none of this applies. Her so called concerns about her possible, inherent condition, which she has not got.. does not hold up.. a young, physically fit tennis player at the top of her profession is taking drugs for 10 years, without concern from her team, doctors, or even family.??? she knew what she was taking and why she was taking it and her team and doctors endorsed it. Now in the twilight of her career she cans come clean.. she has made her money

I hope people realize that Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka or any other of their favorite players may have been taking meldonium in vast quantities solely to improve their performance for years prior to January this year. The only reason we know that Sharapova was taking it for ten years prior to January is because she told us. Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka etc could have cleverly kept themselves informed of the drugs status with WADA and stopped taking it at midnight on December the 31st and are now downing another legal PED in vast quantities. Only the stupid or naive get caught

JuliusHMarx wrote:

barrystar wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

djkbrown2001 wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tennis/2016/03/08/why-maria-sharapova-does-not-deserve-sympathy/

Good article above in the daily telegraph .

I don't think there can be any sympathy for ignoring the e-mail and thus continuing to take the medicine. I prefer an admission than a fake denial. But to paraphrase the article "Problem is...people condemning the accused before they have looked fully at the evidence". It's actually a poor article doing exactly what it accuses others of doing, but from the other side of the coin.

If she'd stopped taking it in December would anyone really be saying "Shame on you Maria for taking a medicine that WADA approve".

In stages:

(a) she has admitted to a drug offence, she has taken responsibility for ingesting a banned PED - she's guilty and will be banned - it's just a question of her state of mind and how long the ban will be.  There's no question of innocent until proven guilty - she's guilty.

(b) if she'd stopped taking it in December we'd be none the wiser, if we did know for some reason I would not see her as a cheat - you've got to break rules for that - but typically ruthless.  But your premise is irrelevant because she didn't stop taking it in December, and she accepts that it's her fault that she didn't and therefore committed a drug offence

(c) she obviously believes that it's in her interest to say that she did not take it for PE reasons - she knows that if she admits to having taken it for PE reasons she'll have a longer ban, she may also think she'll look bad to her fans and her sponsors.  Given what we know about this drug, that it was not authorised in the USA where she lives, that there are alternative treatments for what she says her problems were, and the rash of similar positive tests, we are entitled to be skeptical but to keep an open mind and give her the chance she deserves to make her version of events good - if she does I'll accept it.

(d) her very best case is that she was unforgivably unprofessional and failed to keep in touch with WADA's change to the banned list, this despite the fact that there appear to have been warnings in September as well as the email sent to her on 22.12.15 - it would seem that she did not even forward it to her team and ask them to look into it.

The author is quite right that responses from those who should know better that she's acted in a classy fashion or who assume that she's explained it all satisfactorily are disheartening.  She's committed a drug offence and advanced an explanation in mitigation which was vague and may be unraveling.  We'll see.

a) Yes, I've already agreed to that
b) I think you've misunderstood my premise, which was that we should keep an open mind until we know the facts, not pre-judge without them, and not judge her harshly (yet) for taking a perfectly legal substance.
c) Yes, I agree that we need to keep an open mind
d) Yes, I've already agreed to that

(emphasis supplied)

(b) the problem with your premise is that it is irrelevant to the debate. She is a drug offender awaiting her ban because she admits she took a banned PED after 01.01.16. When she advances her mitigation nobody will be seeking to jurdge her for taking a "perfectly legal substance" prior to 01.01.16. They will be interested in whether, when she took it after that date, she was seeking to gain an advantage or to use medicine to treat a condition. It's her case that the answer to why she took it after 01.01.16 involves looking at her reasons for taking it in the 10 years prior to 01.01.16, and that she took it for medicinal purposes. Whatever the answer to that question, it does not involved judging her harshly or otherwise for taking a legal substance in those years. Also, there is no debate that it was wrong to take an illegal substance this year (at least not among sentient beings), the only question is how wrong, and how she should be punished.

hawkeye wrote:I hope people realize that Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka or any other of their favorite players may have been taking meldonium in vast quantities solely to improve their performance for years prior to January this year. The only reason we know that Sharapova was taking it for ten years prior to January is because she told us. Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka etc could have cleverly kept themselves informed of the drugs status with WADA and stopped taking it at midnight on December the 31st and are now downing another legal PED in vast quantities. Only the stupid or naive get caught

It's difficult to express how wrong this is - I assume it's deliberately mischevious:

(a) the reason we know that Sharapova was taking it for ten years prior to January when it was lawful is that she got caught taking it during January when it was unlawful, and felt obliged to admit her guilt and, at the same time, she decided offer her version of events in mitigation.

(b) anyone who took it before January and stopped on being told it was to become unlawful played to the rules, and so, unlike Sharapova, was not an admitted drug offender and is in a very different category.  It's not exactly shameful for a sportsman to acquaint himself with WADA's rules to ensure that he stays on the right side of them.  It's actually what we expect of sportspeople, hence the incredulity of anyone watching these events unfold who has a brain at Sharapova's failure and resulting admission to a drugs offence.

(c) you are like Julius - you seem to think that everybody's focus is on how wrong it was to take a lawful drug before January - that is not the case.  Our focus is on her admitted PED offence after January, and it's Sharapova who wants to persuade us to think this case is all about her acting lawfully before that date.  The case is about whether, when she admittedly took an unlawful PED in January, she intended to improve her performance or treat a medical condition (assuming in her favour that she was ignorant of it being on the banned list).

\"barrystar wrote:(c) you are like Julius - you seem to think that everybody's focus is on how wrong it was to take a lawful drug before January

No, not everybody - I never said that. You are misrepresenting me.

Tbh that's what I thought the focus was on too. Perhaps if you elaborated... What precisely is the point of contention between you two here?

I could see if she was the only one, but....
Russian cyclist Eduard Vorganov, Russian figure skater Ekaterina Bobrova, Ethiopia-born athletes Endeshaw Negesse and Abeba Aregawi, and Ukraine biathletes Olga Abramova and Artem Tyshchenko have all tested positive for meldonium.

JuliusHMarx wrote:If you take an aspirin to cure a migraine that then improves your performance because the migraine is gone, is that morally wrong?

Yep, I mean anti-inflammatories, as all medicines are performance enhancing drugs. Two types of drugs 1. performance enhancing 2. pleasurable. She was legally taking a PED. The line is fuzzier than the black and white lines people like to draw. This does look though this drug was primarily and principally used to gain an edge in competition. If she declared it to the authorities and it was legal it certainly mitigates her actions but either way it does tarnish her reputation to an extent that she was using a drug to gain an edge eventhough it was legal. That is why we are seeing sponsors react, her lie about needing it because she was sick and the fact that she was trying to gain a chemical edge albeit a legal and declared one.

Yeah that's exactly the problem. It doesn't look great. She of course won't be retroactively punished for when it's legal. But if you read around, as I'm sure you all have. She's not gonna be able to sell that it's just for diabetes even if it really was

The AP was able to buy vials and tablets of meldonium over the counter in Moscow on Tuesday. Accompanying documentation stated that side effects could include blood pressure changes, irregular heartbeat and skin conditions.


Thought she was using it for heart problems ?

Hypo for the board: If you were in an amateur tournament and two hour before what is an important match for you at least you seem him taking some over the counter anti-inflammatories after he had a tough semi last night. Is he taking a PED? Do you have a problem with

That's sounds like a mudslide slope though socal. There's performance enhancing in life, and performance enhancing in sport. An aspirin makes you feel less pain, which helps you out.

There's a clear difference however between that and drugs that actively boost your cardiovascular and respiratory systems in healthy adults to higher than normal level. As well as drugs that boost your muscle mass without the need for as much training. It's these types of drugs that work well on healthy people that are the top tier PED,S

This is interesting

Wada reportedly putting it on its prohibited list after 8,300 random doping control urine samples were analysed and 182 showed up positive.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/tennis/article4708086.ece

These are tests taken before meldonium was banned. That's about 1 in 45 ish samples were positive for meldonium. Most of those users no doubt read the email...

I think the agreement is. A drug that is used to make an injured person better in some way. and the person is TAKING it, or receiving it, for that reason, that is an acceptable use of "enhancing your performance" because you're bringing yourself back up to normal

In those instances if that drug also could be a masking agent, there's still a good argument for them being allowed to use it... Maybe

To most the world right now, Maria hasn't convinced anyone really with her vague statements that's what's she's done here

temporary21 wrote:That's sounds like a mudslide slope though socal. There's performance enhancing in life, and performance enhancing in sport. An aspirin makes you feel less pain, which helps you out.

There's a clear difference however between that and drugs that actively boost your cardiovascular and respiratory systems in healthy adults to higher than normal level. As well as drugs that boost your muscle mass without the need for as much training. It's these types of drugs that work well on healthy people that are the top tier  PED,S

Ok change the hypo, the guy is a doctor and he gets his buddy to prescribe some real primo anti-inflammatory. I mean it is used to improve his recover. Yes it relieves pain and by doing so he can move better and play at a higher level.

hawkeye wrote:This is interesting

Wada reportedly putting it on its prohibited list after 8,300 random doping control urine samples were analysed and 182 showed up positive.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/tennis/article4708086.ece

These are tests taken before meldonium was banned. That's about 1 in 45 ish samples were positive for meldonium. Most of those users no doubt read the email...

Yeah, that is probably why we all of sudden see this rash in other sports and with the Russian Federation. WADA I think could do a better job of training athletes and educating them on the correct parameters of the rules. They are pretty complex and technical, plus we know that drug companies sometimes have multiple names for the same drug or same classes of drugs. Therefore I think there is a lot of violations simply based on lack of knowledge but not intent to violate the rules.

Meldonium was banned because it aids oxygen uptake and endurance and several athletes in various international sports have already been caught using it since it was banned.

The Latvian company Grindeks, which manufactures meldonium, told the Associated Press that four to six weeks is a common course. “Depending on the patient’s health condition, treatment course of meldonium preparations may vary from four to six weeks. Treatment courses can be repeated twice or thrice a year,” the company said in an emailed statement.

“Only physicians can follow and evaluate patient’s health condition and state whether the patient should use meldonium for a longer period of time.”

While Grindeks has previously stated that the drug can provide an “improvement of work capacity of healthy people at physical and mental overloads and during rehabilitation period,” the company said that it believes the substance would not enhance athletes’ performance in competition and might even do the opposite.

“It would be reasonable to recommend them to use meldonium as a cell protector to avoid heart failure or muscle damage in case of unwanted overload,” the company said. Grindeks said that, in sports activity, the drug slows down how the body breaks down fatty acids to produce energy.

Grindeks did not comment when asked whether someone with the symptoms Sharapova described would be a suitable patient for meldonium. The company said it was designed for patients with chronic heart and circulation conditions, those recovering from illness or injury and people suffering with “reduced working capacity, physical and psycho-emotional overload”.




This is the statement from the Guardian from the Drug's maker very interesting got it off the Guardian.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/mar/08/meldonium-treatment-four-to-six-weeks-maria-sharapova

In that case there's no physical augmentation social. By removing the pain he feels mentally better to per form better. If you mean the painkiller also gives a significant boost to their physical systems, which is odd for a painkiller, then it's a PED,
if that's legal, then it's up to people and sponsors as to whether it's "sportsmen/women" like to do that, no legal issues at all

To play devil's advocate. If you're diabetic and heart disease, you can't really just go to drug store and get a different prescription now that WADA has banned your decade long prescription. My girlfriend's a med student and I've overhead her cramming pharmacology for two years now so I'm qualified to say this

The drug producer has said the usual time frame of therapy is 4-6 weeks for their drug, and not 10 years.

Russian sport Minister said that many more Russian athletes will fall on meldonium.

And anyway if Sharapova wanted superpower and stamina, she should of talked to Djoko and get some secret sauce

For me, there are two different possibilities of what happened, both of which have quite contrasting repercussions.

1/ Sharapova is telling the truth- that she was just intending to use the drug for medicinal purposes- i.e. to combat possible/actual health problems.
If this is the case, I frankly don't think it's a particularly big issue. Yes, she should rightfully face a ban, but frankly tbh it's more of a symbolic thing to show fans that WADA is tough and an example needs to be set.
But, I would not really care much, and see Sharapova as foolish rather than malicious.

2/ Sharapova is not telling the truth, and she had been intending to use this drug to enhance performance, above and beyond combatting any disease she has or might get. This is significantly worse, and my judgement of her would reflect that. I liked the tax example; she's been committing tax avoidance for 10 years (morally suspect, but legally ok), and then due to ignorance went from tax avoidance to tax evasion after the rules changed this year.
If this is the case, she should face a much longer ban, and has committed a significantly worse crime.

So the crux in the matter, and what the thread should focus on in terms of debate in my eyes, is both the effectiveness of the drug for the diseases she claims she had, and how 'performance enhancing' the drug would be for her if she was fit and healthy; if after looking into that the drug seems a bizarre choice for the diseases... then alarm bells should be ringing.

So either she's lying or she's not? Thank you captain obvious. Any thoughts on whether the sun may rise in the East tomorrow?

Aye raf. I assume they considered that before they banned it. That there were reputable alternatives to the drug, or that a sportsperson wouldn't be in Ill enough health to need a drug that drastic, for if they did they would be in danger anyway

kingraf wrote:So either she's lying or she's not? Thank you captain obvious. Any thoughts on whether the sun may rise in the East tomorrow?

No, because I've read some articles in the media savaging her for simply being caught for this drug; articles I thought are unfair unless they can talk more about why her story doesn't add up to scrutiny. On the other hand some are too eager to give Sharapova the benefit of the doubt.

... More importantly he's outlining how stark the implications for her are depending on which it is. The second case would implode any deals she's ever made

We've found a few good articles and pieces scattered on the topic... It doesn't look that good

WHo is eager to give her doubt?

Like US has no diabetes drug but she needed for 10 years a dodgy one from Latvia/Russia?

No doubt here and no benefit in any way. She has won only 2 GS since 2008 so all gone down the drain now.