The Sharapova drug announcement

by sirfredperry Sun 06 Mar 2016, 18:59

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.

by djkbrown2001 Tue 08 Mar 2016, 18:24

http://m.bbc.com/sport/tennis/35754677

by djkbrown2001 Tue 08 Mar 2016, 18:25

You might look at the basic and long-established protocol that every elite athlete is personally responsible for what is found in their body, or the fact that there have been 55 positive tests for meldonium in 2016 alone.

Or that Abeba Aregawi, 2013 world 1500m champion, has also tested positive for a drug well known to aid endurance and recovery, or that a 2015 study revealed that 724 of 4,316 Russian athletes tested were found to have meldonium in their system.

From the BBC. So many Russians using it.

Doesn't pass the sniff test

by Jahu Tue 08 Mar 2016, 18:29

Sharapova is a cheat, always been it seems, not much to argue.

And the 'was given by family doctor" sounds like a child story.

She should be stripped of all titles, refund the money Dimi spent on her.

What a disgrace.

by socal1976 Tue 08 Mar 2016, 18:46

temporary21 wrote: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

Yes because when players talk about improved recovery part of it is relief of pain. Your muscles open up and are less inflamed and therefore you actually feel less tired as well. The soreness limits that flexibility and relaxation of the muscles so anyway you look at my analogy the opponent is taking a PED, no different than EPO or steroids, except in type of enhancement and or severity of side effects.

by Henman Bill Tue 08 Mar 2016, 18:48

Jahu wrote:refund the money Dimi spent on her.

You're such a sexist! Probably she's richer than him, probably she spent money on him! I bet when a male player is caught you don't suggest the girlfriend/wife should be refunded the money they spent!

by Henman Bill Tue 08 Mar 2016, 18:49

Here is the conference followed by press questions for those that haven't looked it up yet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80lfHwmkGNA

by Henman Bill Tue 08 Mar 2016, 18:52

I agree, Jahu, that the doctor/illness story smells a bit.

The Latvian company that manufactures meldonium said the normal course of treatment is much shorter.

"Depending on the patient's health condition, treatment course of meldonium preparations may vary from four to six weeks," Grindeks said in an emailed statement Tuesday to The Associated Press. "Treatment course can be repeated twice or thrice a year. Only physicians can follow and evaluate patient's health condition and state whether the patient should use meldonium for a longer period of time."

http://espn.go.com/tennis/story/_/id/14925933/manufacturer-says-4-6-weeks-normal-treatment-drug-maria-sharapova-case

by barrystar Tue 08 Mar 2016, 18:54

It Must Be Love wrote: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.

Yes, except whether or not it was performance enhancing is not so important - far more important is whether she can show that it was the right medical response to her conditions and that it was reputably prescribed to her by a proper Doctor as such. If it was properly medicinal and prescribed, then she's pretty solidly in case (1) absent any contrary indication; if not, then she is a liar and in case (2) even if it is not that performance enhancing, because the point is that she believed it was and can only have taken it for that purpose and can't have believed that it was for medicinal purposes. It's no defence to a drugs offence to say that the PED was rubbish anyway.

In relation to whether it was medicinal or not - she says that she's been taking it for 10 years with a Doctor's advice and she's had 6 days since the ITF letter to get her stuff together. It's not encouraging that she was non-committal about the nature and location of the doctor who prescribed it ("family doctor"), for how long and how often she used it for, and what conditions it was intended to treat. At the moment the fact that she's been a US resident during those 10 years and it was not approved by the FDA is probably the most troubling combination of factors that her story needs to absorb.

by socal1976 Tue 08 Mar 2016, 18:54

Yeah, her story of medical need for illnesses doesn't pass the smell test at all. Especially, since it is used by so many athletes and its intended use is for heart patients not for treating diabetes. I think one study on dogs found that there maybe a link with this drug and diabetes prevention, but in dogs. Its is no way an established use to prevent or treat diabetes which she doesn't have. And she even owns a candy company tells of her love of chocolate doesn't seem that concerned of diabetes to me. No in light of 1. other athletes using it as a PED especially the Russian Federation 2. her supposed reasons for using it are not the accepted use of the drug or the cycle it is typically used. In this case I think 99.99999 percent she intended to use a legal PED and did for years and then it became illegal. But she was intending to gain an edge, not to battle the potentiality of canine diabetes or any other unrelated illness.

by barrystar Tue 08 Mar 2016, 18:56

socal1976 wrote: not to battle the potentiality of canine diabetes .

I laughed - very dry.

by temporary21 Tue 08 Mar 2016, 19:01

But anti inflammatory medications imply you have problem with your muscles, so you're treating a problem. If you're fine and take them, and they're really comparable to steroids somehow, then it's a different matter

by barrystar Tue 08 Mar 2016, 19:06

temporary21 wrote:But anti inflammatory medications imply you have problem with your muscles, so you're treating a problem. If you're fine and take them, and they're really comparable to steroids somehow, then it's a different matter

There has to be a line, and there's always going to be aspects of fuzziness near any line, but we are not in fuzzy territory with Sharapova's case. The stuff was clearly on the banned list and she's got to prove her mitigation that she believed she was taking medicine to meet specific conditions in circumstances that are less nebulous than your example.

by kingraf Tue 08 Mar 2016, 19:10

Again playing devil's advocate, you'd be surprised how many drugs stop at animal testing.

by kingraf Tue 08 Mar 2016, 19:12

And anti inflammatories don't imply there's a problem with your muscles. They imply theres inflammation. Thats it.

by It Must Be Love Tue 08 Mar 2016, 19:33

barrystar wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote: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.

Yes, except whether or not it was performance enhancing is not so important - far more important is whether she can show that it was the right medical response to her conditions and that it was reputably prescribed to her by a proper Doctor as such. If it was properly medicinal and prescribed, then she's pretty solidly in case (1) absent any contrary indication; if not, then she is a liar and in case (2) even if it is not that performance enhancing, because the point is that she believed it was and can only have taken it for that purpose and can't have believed that it was for medicinal purposes. It's no defence to a drugs offence to say that the PED was rubbish anyway.

In relation to whether it was medicinal or not - she says that she's been taking it for 10 years with a Doctor's advice and she's had 6 days since the ITF letter to get her stuff together. It's not encouraging that she was non-committal about the nature and location of the doctor who prescribed it ("family doctor"), for how long and how often she used it for, and what conditions it was intended to treat. At the moment the fact that she's been a US resident during those 10 years and it was not approved by the FDA is probably the most troubling combination of factors that her story needs to absorb.

Yes, fully agree with that.
The more I read about this, the more her case seems to break down and unable to stand up to scrutiny.
Especially the diabetes line, the fact she is using a list of possible benefits it could provide that are yet untested on humans... seems to indicate that they were a pre-written list of excuses rather than the actual reasons for use.

This is the best defence of her I've read on Socal's 'canine diabetes' charge:
http://newsthump.com/2016/03/08/sharapova-only-took-drug-to-treat-her-dog-for-diabetes/

by temporary21 Tue 08 Mar 2016, 19:37

And inflammation implies some problem, by its very design. The point is something's wrong and you're taking it to treat it

by kingraf Tue 08 Mar 2016, 19:45

temporary21 wrote:And inflammation implies some problem, by its very design. The point is something's wrong and you're taking it to treat it

Yes but the the issue isnt exclusively muscular in nature. It could be skeletal, neural, neuromuscular, musculoskeletal, or even an infection. Its not as easy as "inflammation" = muscular problems

by Jahu Tue 08 Mar 2016, 19:48

Henman Bill wrote:
Jahu wrote:refund the money Dimi spent on her.

You're such a sexist! Probably she's richer than him, probably she spent money on him! I bet when a male player is caught you don't suggest the girlfriend/wife should be refunded the money they spent!

HB, it was more of cynism, of course she paid him for after training relaxation and fertilisation, sad that Dimi forgot to play tennis since he started with her, but must of known something about since he left her, she probably was a beast in bed, full of drugs, chains, candle wax, toys, too much for slim Dimi Laugh

by Jahu Tue 08 Mar 2016, 19:52

KingRaf, please stop your sexually induced medical knowledge Laugh

by kingraf Tue 08 Mar 2016, 20:00

I would go back though and say given what the FDA do pass through and the politics involved there, for it to suddenly be a case of "well the FDA banned it so it must be bad" is funny.

There's of course a huge chance Sharapova was doping. But the case against her is hardly full proof. Fair enough lots of people have tested positive for it, but lots of people fail drug tests due to medication in asthma pumps. Doesn't mean the people with asthma don't need them. Okay the family doctor story sounds dicey but do we really propose that she got away with using this for ten years using a nonexistent doctor? Wada is a lot of things and thorough is one of them. Lastly yes the medicinal purpose of the drug for diabetics is not proven... BUT being an anti-ischaemic drug it can only help, since a diabetics hreatest greatest silent threat is circulation. and reading up it does improve peripheral circulation. Barring any articles I've missed then a bit of lateral thinking suggests it should then be if not quite for diabetes, then at least has an agonistic function in treating diabetes.

by temporary21 Tue 08 Mar 2016, 20:04

kingraf wrote:
temporary21 wrote:And inflammation implies some problem, by its very design. The point is something's wrong and you're taking it to treat it

Yes but the the issue isnt exclusively muscular in nature. It could be skeletal, neural, neuromuscular, musculoskeletal, or even an infection. Its not as easy as "inflammation" = muscular problems

I know this, we all do but you're evading the point. I made the example simpler to press home that SOMETHING is wrong for you to take them

by Jahu Tue 08 Mar 2016, 20:06

Next news will be that she has been a KGB sleeper agent since she went to US as a teen.

by temporary21 Tue 08 Mar 2016, 20:07

King... It wasn't banned till recently. Why would WADA follow her up on it ten years ago when it was legal. Why this specific drug they've found on nearly a third of all other tested Russian athletes? Do we assume they all have diabetes? Taking a look around nobodies swallowing it right now, she needs to elaborate, FAST

by socal1976 Tue 08 Mar 2016, 20:09

kingraf wrote:I would go back though and say given what the FDA do pass through and the politics involved there, for it to suddenly be a case of "well the FDA banned it so it must be bad" is funny.

There's of course a huge chance Sharapova was doping. But the case against her is hardly full proof. Fair enough lots of people have tested positive for it, but lots of people fail drug tests due to medication in asthma pumps. Doesn't mean the people with asthma don't need them. Okay the family doctor story sounds dicey but do we really propose that she got away with using this for ten years using a nonexistent doctor? Wada is a lot of things and thorough is one of them. Lastly yes the medicinal purpose of the drug for diabetics is not proven... BUT being an anti-ischaemic drug it can only help, since a diabetics hreatest greatest silent threat is circulation. and reading up it does improve peripheral circulation. Barring any articles I've missed then a bit of lateral thinking suggests it should then be if not quite for diabetes, then at least has an agonistic function in treating diabetes.

Yeah, but she doesn't have diabetes. And with the number of athletes using it as a performance enhancing drug, a large number in the Russian federation it is clear it was used as to gain a competitive edge not for diabetes, which she didn't have. Is there like a rash of diabetes in young Russian athletes way above the normal standard deviation? And if there is this rash, why aren't they using one of the many other medicines that are more commonly used to treat diabetes? And why is she using it so much longer than its typical cycle? How many people do you know in your twenties, who are super fit that take diabetes medication from their teens, when they don't have it? All of these questions can only be answered with this drug being used to gain an edge by athletes. By the way, the FDA approving or not approving is really ancilliary and a detail in the whole thing that isn't the issue with Sharapova's story.

Kingraf you make a terrible defendant, make sure you don't do anything mischievous I'd eat you up like Maria eats up canine diabetes medication, for a decade apparently. Hilarious stuff.

by djkbrown2001 Tue 08 Mar 2016, 20:11

I just want to point out that EPo was legal. It's not now. The dopers are always 2 steps ahead of the testers . In this case the dopa was 10 years ahead of WADA. .. it's a losing battle .

by kingraf Tue 08 Mar 2016, 20:14

You can't be too hot yourself if you don't know that even the FDA allows some medication to be passed through solely based on animal testing. Medication doesnt absolutely have to have undergone testing using human subjects.

Mind if she doesn't have diabetes then my defense obviously collapses within itself. I assumed she did

by socal1976 Tue 08 Mar 2016, 20:14

By the way she also said she has a magnesium deficiency as well that this was supposed to treat. Please, which excuse is it, neither magnesium deficiency or diabetes is what this drug is commonly used for. There are two groups of users of this drug 1. heart patient 2. athletes looking to gain an edge; I think Maria probably falls into category 2.

by temporary21 Tue 08 Mar 2016, 20:20

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/what-we-do/science-medical/therapeutic-use-exemptions

Here's another. VERY big point. If this could be taken medically why didn't she ever apply for this after ten years?

by socal1976 Tue 08 Mar 2016, 20:22

kingraf wrote:You can't be too hot yourself if you don't know that even the FDA allows some medication to be passed through solely based on animal testing. Medication doesnt absolutely have to have undergone testing using human subjects.

Mind if she doesn't have diabetes then my defense obviously collapses within itself. I assumed she did

No she doesn't, she also claimed she had magnesium deficiency, then take magnesium. Her story has half a dozen holes in it not just the one you point out. The cycle for this medicine is a few times in a year in cycles of 3-4 weeks. Why is she taking it for a decade? Why are so many Russian federation athletes using it, are they all terrified of diabetes or using it to gain an edge.

By the way I know animal testing occurs that isn't the issue, the issue is that a doctor to prevent diabetes probably wouldn't proscribe you something that has one test on dogs behind it to as a treatment for diabetes when there are a bunch of other more prevalent and well tested drugs in the market. He would be creating huge liability for himself. When he can just give her the normal accepted standard of care type medication. By the way she doesn't have diabetes, she says she is predisposed but we don't know that for sure either. And this medicine is used for heart patients not diabetes prevention.

by kingraf Tue 08 Mar 2016, 20:35

I know it's used for heart patients, but since it also assists in peripheral circulation it really isn't a leap for it to help diabetics. Same way a paracetamol can help with period pains even though thats not what it was designed for. Okay not exactly the same situation but you get the gist. Amphetamine is a drug of abuse with only euphoric effefts but if you use it in smaller doses it works a bomb as a nasal decongestant

by temporary21 Tue 08 Mar 2016, 20:38

She's lived in the U.S. Most her life though raf. What you need to think is why, given all the many more suitable drugs in America. She would import this one, that's not approved, and isn't specially designed for that problem.
Why also does it happen to be in so many Russian athletes, for what is a problem nowhere near that common
It's fish

by Jahu Tue 08 Mar 2016, 20:46

More of a Shark then a fish.

temp21 are we friends again? you no like me no more? Rolling Eyes

by kingraf Tue 08 Mar 2016, 20:48

temporary21 wrote:She's lived in the U.S. Most her life though raf. What you need to think is why, given all the many more suitable drugs in America. She would import this one, that's not approved, and isn't specially designed for that problem.
Why also does it happen to be in so many Russian athletes, for what is a problem nowhere near that common
It's fish

Waisake Naholo spent most of his adult life as a kiwi but he sure as hell went to Fiji to get his knee injury treated using, leaves I think. Now there's the off chance that he went there and got up to things that he couldn't get away with in NZ, but I don't think in 2015 WADA see a player going to Fiji to get treatment and decide it's too far to bother looking into.

The Russian athlete thing again doesn't really bother me. If it wasn't banned then what do you want them to do? I've said it before (and it was clearly ignored since everyone is so shocked about this Masha case) but if a player is allowed to get away with it they will. Most of these guys don't need masking agents because they are using substances (or egg chambers) which arent banned.

by kingraf Tue 08 Mar 2016, 20:54

Should be noted that while I'm willing to give her leeway here, I do hope she gets the full sentence. A positive test is a positive test if ignorance is your only defence

by Hammersmith harrier Tue 08 Mar 2016, 21:03

temporary21 wrote:https://www.wada-ama.org/en/what-we-do/science-medical/therapeutic-use-exemptions

Here's another. VERY big point. If this could be taken medically why didn't she ever apply for this after ten years?

Let's be completely honest about what has happened here; she was taking a substance legally for 10 years in the hope it would aid her performance, something she carries on taking after it has been banned , she then gets caught and her team come up with a rather shoddy excuse.

by djkbrown2001 Tue 08 Mar 2016, 21:07

Plus the Russian sports minister said that lots of Russian athletes (17%) were found to have it in their system .

That's a lot of Russian athletes who have a mg deficiency, diabetes, heart problems and flu.

If you believe her excuse . Well I am a Nigerian prince and I have a high inheritance just need you to send me some money so I can claim it and I will give you a percentage

by Haddie-nuff Tue 08 Mar 2016, 21:38

Hammersmith harrier wrote:
temporary21 wrote:https://www.wada-ama.org/en/what-we-do/science-medical/therapeutic-use-exemptions

Here's another. VERY big point. If this could be taken medically why didn't she ever apply for this after ten years?

Let's be completely honest about what has happened here; she was taking a substance legally for 10 years in the hope it would aid her performance, something she carries on taking after it has been banned , she then gets caught and her team come up with a rather shoddy excuse.

Hooray .. someone who calls a spade a shovel...That is it in a nutshell Very Happy

by Jahu Tue 08 Mar 2016, 21:47

HN, you flirting with him now with sweet words? Traitor, CC won't be happy picard

by bogbrush Tue 08 Mar 2016, 22:07

Jahu wrote:Sharapova is a cheat, always been it seems, not much to argue.

And the 'was given by family doctor" sounds like a child story.

She should be stripped of all titles, refund the money Dimi spent on her.

What a disgrace.

Stripped of titles she won when breaking no rules? How do you work that one out?

by Jahu Tue 08 Mar 2016, 22:40

How do we know that her 10 years of using it, it's not 12, 13, etc? Or that she stocked her bags full of dope when she moved to US?

In any case, a cheater of this high caliber, should be made an example for current and next generation, as to what happens if you PED yourself.

And she has enough money to not be in line with food stamps at her local Costco, so she ain't making me cry much.

SO 10 years of doping and 10 years of annoying her opponents with her screams, must have a price!!!

by summerblues Wed 09 Mar 2016, 04:03

barrystar wrote:I hope she's the only player withdrawn from IW due to injury recently who also had a +ve drugs test.

Indeed.

I am of two minds about this business of not revealing positive tests immediately and allowing players to claim injury excuses instead.

On one hand, I can see that it may be reasonable to allow players to wait for the second sample results and what not rather than publish their name right away. Presumably if they end up being judged innocent in the end, they do not want to potentially smear them in public.

On the other hand, knowledge that these things do happen can make people wonder about other injury withdrawals, as you say, thus potentially creating even more room for rumors. One can start wondering, how likely is it for a player to bust their knee while walking with their kids one day after their AO match. And similar such thoughts.

by shivfan Wed 09 Mar 2016, 09:03

djkbrown2001 wrote: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.

Quite right...it's important to remember that she's not the only one who was caught.

DIck Pound on Maria Sharapova....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35757814

"Anytime there is a change to the list, notice is given on 30 September prior to the change," he said. "You have October, November, December to get off what you are doing. All the tennis players were given notification of it and she has a medical team somewhere. That is reckless beyond description."

by bogbrush Wed 09 Mar 2016, 09:41

Great, she's nobbled and she'll get done.

But she's not cheater until January 2016. Either there are rules or there aren't, and she should get punished for the Jan 2016 offence for that reason, but before that there is no case to answer.

by Josiah Maiestas Wed 09 Mar 2016, 09:51

She took something that was meant to be for 2-3 months max and used it for 10 years. Regardless of whether Wada only put this on the list in this year. Just a shame that there are obviously more top players with similar "meds" getting off free.

by Josiah Maiestas Wed 09 Mar 2016, 10:04

I do find it funny that people are bringing up "she got the Meldonium from Russia therefore it's more shady" implying that the American drugs are somehow more legit and anything from Russia is obviously shady.

by djkbrown2001 Wed 09 Mar 2016, 10:09

This is from the link below :

http://www.techinsider.io/maria-sharapovas-drug-test-doping-2016-3

She tested positive for meldonium, a substance that was banned by the World Anti-Doping Association (WADA) in January after reports that it was being used as a performance enhancer.

Doping may evoke images of muscled men injecting steroids, but performance-enhancing drugs have become much more complex — and harder to police — in the 16 years since WADA's founding.

Last year, a study noted that even though only about 1-2% of professional athletes fail drug tests, survey-based estimates show that as many as 14-39% are doping in some form. That suggests that most of the chemical performance enhancement in professional sports flies under the radar.

Athletes looking for an edge often don't need what steroids provide; they may be seeking more nuanced (and less detectable) improvements, like increased endurance or faster recovery times. As a result, they're turning to micro-dosing, relying on undetectable hormones, taking advantage of unconventional drug-delivery methods (like skin patches), and using substances that have not yet been banned, whose effects and safety profiles are often largely unknown.

That's transformed doping into something that is both rampant and also nearly invisible — except for these scattered moments when it bubbles up into a public scandal.

by djkbrown2001 Wed 09 Mar 2016, 10:15

I think she and her team knew what they were doing all these 10 years. Not illegal but using a loophole to get an advantage by using a drugs that was under the radar.

EPO was once legal.

What happen to the players she best at AO open? Could they sue her? Who to tell -she beat bencic in the 4th round whilst doped up. Could bencic or any of the other 3 players she beat sue her for loss of income ?

by djkbrown2001 Wed 09 Mar 2016, 10:19

JM the reason why russia keeps being mentioned is because 17% of Russian athletes tested positive for the drugs ? Coincidence ? And she lives and based in america ;why go all the way to Russia to get your medicine?

Very fishy if you asked me.

by Josiah Maiestas Wed 09 Mar 2016, 10:21

Hard to believe that she is found guilty and the one who always beats her (destroys her actually) is an upstanding sportswoman. The American companies don't like it when you don't buy from them!

by Josiah Maiestas Wed 09 Mar 2016, 10:26

djkbrown2001 wrote:JM the reason why russia keeps being mentioned is because 17% of Russian athletes tested positive for the drugs ? Coincidence ? And she lives and based in america ;why go all the way to Russia to get your medicine?

Very fishy if you asked me.

She trusts the doctors from her birth country more than the one she lives in. Hard to say whether she knew it is doping or not unless you are inside her brain djk.

Why are Egg chamber users not doping but she is?

by Sponsored content