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.

Who the hell cares where she buys it.. its the same drug taken for the same reasons. No it was not illegal before 2016 but she took it for 10 years and is now giving obscure medical reasons for taking it.. still cheating whatever way you look a it.

I've edited a couple of posts just to ensure we don't stray into the area of false accusations/libel etc. Just a precaution for the benefit of the site admins.

Please stay on the right side when it comes to accusations vs speculation etc.

Who cares how many testrf positive in 2015? It wasn't banned? Why would they avoid taking something that wasn't banned? Its not cheating.

kingraf wrote:Who cares how many testrf positive in 2015? It wasn't banned? Why would they avoid taking something that wasn't banned? Its not cheating.

Thanks, I thought I was alone in this opinion.

All Sharapova did was to continue taking something that suddenly became banned. How or why she chose to use the drug up to January 2016 is irrelevant. She did not cheat up to December 2015.

I personally think she was unlucky and think that many elite tennis players do whatever it takes to get an edge whilst playing within the rules.

Some of the gloating on here is sickening and perhaps you should take a hard look at your own heroes and wonder whether this could have happened to them maybe?

Haddie-nuff wrote:Who the hell cares where she buys it.. its the same drug taken for the same reasons. No it was not illegal before 2016 but she took it for 10 years and is now giving obscure medical reasons for taking it.. still cheating whatever way you look a it.

No it isn't. Nadal has also had questionable treatments for his knee. Is this cheating?

^
Well if he took the treatment to make him have stronger knees than the rest of the competition then thats obviously cheating. Same if Maria took hers to have better endurance than the rest.

There seems to be a convenient bind spot here
Sharapova has been taking a performance enhancing drug, according to her, for a condition that she does NOT HAVE only that it is a family history of said condition. Her so called medical problems have only come to light since the beginning of 2016

Nadal on the other hand was having treatment for a condition WHICH HE DOES HAVE, and which he has had all his tennis life and was well known and documented, which was causing him obvious pain and was career threatening.

I think only the Nadal biased (maybe because he does no have legs up to his armholes and wears short skirts) could not see the difference

There isn't a blind spot Haddie. Regardless of the reason she was taking it, she was entitled to do so until January. We don't know why she was taking it but, even if it was to enhance performance, she was not doing anything legally wrong. We can potentially criticise WADA for seemingly failing to notice what appears to have been a fairly well known drug for so long, but Sharapova played within the rules (until January).

I strongly suspect that, had it been Nadal who fell foul of this type of incident, your position would be rather different. You would, no doubt, be critical of him/his team for not spotting the change but I think it unlikely you would be condemning him for doing something which was within the rules previously.

She was warned 5 times that the drugs will be banned. This according to the daily telegraph. This is flagrant disregard to the rules and the authority .

No excuse and this is not some oversight. 5 times. This is arogance or cheating

His doctor can tell him he has dodgy knees and give him the necessary "treatments" whether he needs them or not. Nice and convenient when the player comes back from injury 10% better than usual. Nadal's infamous knees supposedly cost him the AO2014 despite appearing to move unhindered. Yet he cam back and won Rio just a couple of weeks later and of course sweep to an unprecedented 9th FO title.

Mochyn du wrote:His doctor can tell him he has dodgy knees and give him the necessary "treatments" whether he needs them or not.  Nice and convenient when the player comes back from injury 10% better than usual.  Nadal's infamous knees supposedly cost him the AO2014 despite appearing to move unhindered.  Yet he cam back and won Rio just a couple of weeks later and of course sweep to an unprecedented 9th FO title.

There is a fine line you are walking here .. whoever you are.. you have tried your wind up once today and been deleted
This thread is about Sharapova ... not Nadal
Go cast your line in another pond this fish aint biting

Mochyn du wrote:His doctor can tell him he has dodgy knees and give him the necessary "treatments" whether he needs them or not.  Nice and convenient when the player comes back from injury 10% better than usual.  Nadal's infamous knees supposedly cost him the AO2014 despite appearing to move unhindered.  Yet he cam back and won Rio just a couple of weeks later and of course sweep to an unprecedented 9th FO title.

Wasn't it his back which cost him Oz 14? My recollection is that he woke up with a stiff back and it was very obvious his movement was substantially hindered. Doesn't really do you any favours when you sound just as biased as those you are criticising...

djkbrown2001 wrote:She was warned 5 times that the drugs will be banned. This according to the daily telegraph. This is flagrant disregard  to the rules and the authority .

No excuse and this is not some oversight. 5 times.  This is arogance or cheating

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tennis/2016/03/08/maria-sharapova-clouds-gather-over-tennis-star/

'It transpires players were alerted to the World Anti-Doping Agency’s updated prohibited list on multiple occasions, from Dec 3 all the way through to Dec 29....Sharapova’s lawyer, John J Haggerty, refused to reveal the source of Sharapova’s meldonium, which he described as “an over-the-counter drug” which could be purchased in many countries....He was confident there was “no evidence whatsoever” she had intended to cheat, which would rule out a four-year ban, and said “substantial mitigating factors” justified a ban of “significantly below” the next entry point of two years.'

djkbrown2001 wrote:She was warned 5 times that the drugs will be banned. This according to the daily telegraph. This is flagrant disregard  to the rules and the authority .

No excuse and this is not some oversight. 5 times.  This is arogance or cheating

This makes no sense though. By taking it, she was going to get caught if tested and there was always going to be a fair change of being tested.

If Sharapova was a systematic doper, with a team of doctors planning her regime to get maximum benefit, then I would have expected them to be all over the details of the changes each year to ensure that she was not going to be caught and updated the relevant PEDs accordingly. There is no scenario - other than carelessness - which sensibly explains the situation.

If anything, the fact she has been caught in such a stupid way counts in her favour so far as I am concerned. It suggests to me someone who didn't feel that any changes were likely to apply to her and therefore failed to give it the attention needed (i.e. someone who did not feel that they were sailing close to the wind). She is going to pay gravely for that error but I'm really not seeing this as something with more to it than that.

Much better for Sharapova to have said: "Yes, I was taking it to enhance performance. It was not a banned substance (until Jan 1 2016) so I was doing nothing wrong."

Where things get a bit dodgy for her is the fact that, according to reports, she and others were repeatedly advised last autumn of the change in status of this drug. A ban of some sort seems inevitable.

Born Slippy wrote:There isn't a blind spot Haddie. Regardless of the reason she was taking it, she was entitled to do so until January. We don't know why she was taking it but, even if it was to enhance performance, she was not doing anything legally wrong. We can potentially criticise WADA for seemingly failing to notice what appears to have been a fairly well known drug for so long, but Sharapova played within the rules (until January).

I strongly suspect that, had it been Nadal who fell foul of this type of incident, your position would be rather different. You would, no doubt, be critical of him/his team for not spotting the change but I think it unlikely you would be condemning him for doing something which was within the rules previously.

BS my last and final word that involves Nadal, because I think bringing him into the argument is out of order, you could mention Del Potro, Murray Federer, to illustrate the same thing..but no when the argument is getting less plausible, stick the boot in and lets mention Rafa
It is obvious why Rafa had the pioneer treatment, which is there for everyone if wanted, on his knees it was first and foremost to relieve the unbelievable pain he was in.. would anyone have wished less for him
But if you can show me that Rafa is taking a substance for a condition he does not have and has been taking for ten yars knowing that it enhances his performance against his peers, then I will surely denounce him here and now.. because, and you will not change my view ... he would be cheating.

Born Slippy wrote:

djkbrown2001 wrote:She was warned 5 times that the drugs will be banned. This according to the daily telegraph. This is flagrant disregard  to the rules and the authority .

No excuse and this is not some oversight. 5 times.  This is arogance or cheating

This makes no sense though. By taking it, she was going to get caught if tested and there was always going to be a fair change of being tested.

If Sharapova was a systematic doper, with a team of doctors planning her regime to get maximum benefit, then I would have expected them to be all over the details of the changes each year to ensure that she was not going to be caught and updated the relevant PEDs accordingly. There is no scenario - other than carelessness - which sensibly explains the situation.

If anything, the fact she has been caught in such a stupid way counts in her favour so far as I am concerned. It suggests to me someone who didn't feel that any changes were likely to apply to her and therefore failed to give it the attention needed (i.e. someone who did not feel that they were sailing close to the wind). She is going to pay gravely for that error but I'm really not seeing this as something with more to it than that.  

On the contrary, it makes perfect sense...athletes who get caught usually take a masking agent as well. But they get caught when that masking agent fails too....

Nope, that still makes no sense as it still relies on Sharapova, in circumstances where she had an orchestrated programme in place, failing to spot that the masking agent was now banned.

sirfredperry wrote:Much better for Sharapova to have said: "Yes, I was taking it to enhance performance.

Better to say that, regardless of whether it was true or not?

Cheers julius.
I dont know what Rafas got to do with this... Bear in mind were not trying to protect rafa, but as he has never failed a test to date its legal trouble to discuss stuff like that, it's only since shazzas failed one that we can do this as freely
We can see where you're going new guy. Don't do it.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:Much better for Sharapova to have said: "Yes, I was taking it to enhance performance.

Better to say that, regardless of whether it was true or not?

No, because the other explanation does not begin to stack up in the vague way she has put it and given what we are learning hourly about this drug, what it is for, where it is available, and who is using it.

The reason she offered a bs explanation is because she herself is embarrassed by the truth - not because some people on here might think she was cheating before 01.01.16 (I don't - the PED was lawful) - but because she did not want to admit that she was taking a drug as a PED, even though it was a lawful one.

Unless she can come up with some pretty good evidence of prescriptions and so-on that will be seen as a lie, and it will kill her reputation.

Yeah to summarise. She's only going to be charged from 1st jan. However as part of the processes, they are going to review whether there was any intent to enhance performance, so they're going to investigate this.

That could hurt Her reputation hard

The comparison with Nadal is the insinuation you use a 'legal' substance to enhance performance and the intent is to gain an advantage. Once that substance/treatment becomes illegal, then the intent prior to that is what is being questioned. The most recent case I can recall was Nadal with PRP. It's trying to bring context to the debate of if Sharapova were taking whilst legal, was it because to enhance performance, wasn't Nadal doing similar? It's never-ending speculation.

It seems a massive oversight if this was a sophisticated doping regime.

Yes lk... But that's not illegal just yet. So if we start going that route now it could be trouble for us

A wider debate on "legal" PEDs is a noble one, but that's a separate topic which I think the admin boffins would have to know about, since it would need careful moderating.

More importantly the Spanish bull wasn't inserted into this for wider debate, it was to a antagonise one specific poster, which you all know we won't have

Once again - can posters please be careful when stating what is 'true', 'lies' etc, as opposed to their own opinion based on what they have learnt.

temporary21 wrote:Yes lk... But that's not illegal just yet. So if we start going that route now it could be trouble for us

A wider debate on "legal" PEDs is a noble one, but that's a separate topic which I think the admin boffins would have to know about, since it would need careful moderating.

More importantly the Spanish bull wasn't inserted into this for wider debate, it was to a antagonise one specific poster, which you all know we won't have

Exactly. As I said the speculation would be never-ending on the intent of the treatment/substance.

I've been pondering whether there is a credible alternative to the idea that neither Sharapova nor her team ever looked at the WADA list of revisions for 2016 - as I am still personally finding it surprising that they didn't pick up on this at any point (emails from Sept onwards plus the mandatory player meeting at AO). So what could be a reason for continuing to use it knowing it was banned?

There's the idea that they were incredibly arrogant and thought they could continue to use and not get caught or sanctioned. That also sounds unlikely - that's a big risk to take.

There's the idea that they thought they were able to mask it - could be that I suppose.

Another one that occurred to me is that they thought they would be able to use it out of competition but got the timing wrong of when they stopped using it, leaving traces still by the time she was tested at the AO. Would that be feasible?

If she did list Meldonium/Mildronate on the form she had to complete at the time of the (Jan 2016) sample, then that does rule those all, leaving only an (admittedly huge) admin oversight as the explanation. That will come up in evidence at the ITF hearing and should in the case summary so we will know at that point.

Prior to January this year meldonium was legal. If players wanted to use it to enhance performance then they could do so. To me the nearest comparison I can think of is the CVAK. It is reputed to be more effective than blood doping on performance and yet it is legal. WADA have tagged it as "not being in the spirit of the sport" and are investigating it's use further. Although meldonium was never tagged as "not being in the spirit of the sport" it was investigated and it was then decided that it should be added to the banned list. It's understandable that if Sharapova did use it solely to boost performance despite it being legal for ten years then what she did could be viewed as not being in the spirit of the sport.

Should her failure to notice that WADA had changed the drugs status be judged any differently because of her intentions for using it when it was legal? it's tricky because objectively I would have to say no but if she was using it just to boost performance then she will be viewed as someone prepared to do something against the spirit of the sport for her own gain. She will be viewed and judged differently. Reading the media reports today there is little sympathy for her...

Lets get one thing straight. Medication has one of two effects, therapeutic or Toxic. If you're an athlete on medication it's almost certainly doing the former. Which by definition enhances your performance. Every drug is potentially a performance enhancer. Wada simply decides when the enhancement can be deemed too "superficial". Calling Maria out om taking something she's allowed to take is beyond stupid in a sport where players can pop paracetamols in the game to get them through a match (for comparison boxers list of approved medication during a bout consists of: water. Thats it)

hawkeye wrote:Should her failure to notice that WADA had changed the drugs status be judged any differently because of her intentions for using it when it was legal? it's tricky because objectively I would have to say no but if she was using it just to boost performance then she will be viewed as someone prepared to do something against the spirit of the sport for her own gain. She will be viewed and judged differently. Reading the media reports today there is little sympathy for her...

Well, how she intended to use it from 1st to 25th Jan 2016 is very relevant to the length of ban that the ITF will give her - and it's very reasonable to assume that how she intended to use it then was identical to how she used it prior to then. So directly no, but in essence the two cannot reasonably be separated.

To add to the above, as I understand if she had come out and said she used the substances from 2006 to 2015 to enhance her performance (perfectly legally) and that it was an oversight that she didn't stop in January because she didn't read the WADA update, it would still be a full 4 year ban - because it would still constitute intentionally using a banned substance to enhance performance. As I understand it, there is no mitigation for ignorance of a substance being banned - the mitigation is in not intending to enhance performance.

From the guardian. This is the professors take on it:


You could forgive an athlete for tripping up over herbal ingredients finding their way into supplements, as has happened in the past. But meldonium is no herbal supplement. Nor is it caffeine, or a multivitamin. It is an ischemic heart drug, created for people who are very sick – studies on patients with angina, a symptom of heart conditions, shows how severely exercise intolerant they tend to be.

That this drug is being used by even one in 50 athletes (and one in six in Russia, where it is more readily available by virtue of its Latvian “birth”) should highlight the absurdity of it all – a regulated drug, prescription only, being more prevalent in elite athletes than in many elderly, ill populations is an untenable situation. Even the possibility of risk is grounds to ban it.

Maria Sharapova’s mea culpa forces sport to ask tough questions of its own
Since Sharapova’s announcement, many have argued that meldonium should not even be on the list given the relatively weak evidence for benefits, but this is just more obfuscation. The reality is that it is on the banned list, that this was communicated to athletes with plenty of warning, and that its presence on the list is entirely justified since it is a regulated medicine being used without any medical necessity.

The best case you can make for Sharapova is that she was grossly negligent. That she, along with her many advisers, failed to take heed of not one, but multiple alerts that meldonium was to be added to the banned list in 2016. That negligence need not be innocent, either. Ignoring the alerts may be entirely accidental, or it may be borne of a disregard for anti-doping authorities. Perhaps in Maria Sharapova’s world, an email alert from Wada or the ITF concerning doping is the equivalent of the spam we receive from Nigerian banks?

A final option – the worst case – is deliberate use, and not much needs to be added to that. It would be conscious cheating, and worthy of every day of a four-year ban.

Time will tell which way the dice fall for Sharapova, and by extension, the mounting number of meldonium compatriots.

(Professor Ross Tucker is an exercise physiologist and high performance sports science consultant)

So the she has given some truth to the blondes are dumb moto? Not that I do any IQ test to them

Fair enough Jhm, if any of my posts have a problem, edit them to your comfort

Haddie-nuff wrote:
A final option – the worst case – is deliberate use, and not much needs to be added to that. It would be conscious cheating,

My point.. For a young healthy athlete to be taking such extreme medication intended for the seriously ill, cardiovascular/ischemia/diabetes over the period of ten years. !!!
why? if it did not have performance enhancing benefits.
It matters not whether this was illegal at that time or not.

A moot point, and a loaded question, who of the top male players on tour at the moment would you not be hauling over the coals for doing exactly this ???

I believe meldonium is available over the counter in Russia. Prior to January this year it wasn't on WADA's list of banned drugs and of course when it wasn't banned it could be used legally to enhance performance. Some might say that by using a drug or device specifically to improve performance or gain an edge would go against the spirit of the sport? I believe that's what you believe Haddie?

To answer your second question. Djokovic is a top male player who hasn't been hauled over the coals or even lost any sponsorship deals for using the CVAC to enhance performance and gain an edge. Just like meldonium prior to January this year it the CVAC is legal. It's not exactly the same though because unlike Sharapova Djokovic hasn't claimed he's using it because of a specific health problem and unlike meldonium WADA itself (and not just the media or tennis fans) have judged it's use to be against the spirit of the sport. It's also perhaps a little bit more expensive.

Yes I do HE..
I think one could say this was used for more than "an edge"
If, and there was a very very very, lengthy discussion about
time violations and therefore "getting the edge" ..by  certain players, and
was called cheating,.. what the hell is this ?

You cant speak out about one and then defend the other HE

The thing about whether you believe Sharapova's medical reasons for taking Meldonium (which clearly Haddie and several others do not) is that it doesn't just impact whether you think she tried to artificially enhance her performance, but also whether you think she is now weaving a web of deceit. The ITF only care about the first part, but public perception of her integrity is important to her sponsors and commercial interests.
(And just to state clearly, no-one here knows if she's lying or not - but we can form an opinion on the information available to date).

YvonneT wrote:The thing about whether you believe Sharapova's medical reasons for taking Meldonium (which clearly Haddie and several others do not) is that it doesn't just impact whether you think she tried to artificially enhance her performance, but also whether you think she is now weaving a web of deceit. The ITF only care about the first part, but public perception of her integrity is important to her sponsors and commercial interests.
(And just to state clearly, no-one here knows if she's lying or not - but we can form an opinion on the information available to date).

I reckon she will be judged on public perception alone. It will not just sway her sponsors and commercial interests but the ITF. They are not a court of law they just have their own product to protect...

Fact check: do Maria Sharapova’s responses over her failed test stand up?

http://gu.com/p/4hev5?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Very important issues raised above.

She is toast .

Mochyn du wrote:All Sharapova did was to continue taking something that suddenly became banned.  How or why she chose to use the drug up to January 2016 is irrelevant.  She did not cheat up to December 2015.

I personally think she was unlucky and think that many elite tennis players do whatever it takes to get an edge whilst playing within the rules.

Some of the gloating on here is sickening and perhaps you should take a hard look at your own heroes and wonder whether this could have happened to them maybe?

I actually don't disagree with this post although I have criticized Maria. I actually don't favor making PEDs illegal, I am for a system where the athlete declares whatever the hell he wants to use to journalists, fans, in short makes their blood work public information. In exchange if they want to shoot heroine, and take baths in epo that would be fine with me as long as we all knew about it. I am sure all players are trying to legally push the boundaries of biomedicine with supplements to aid in training. I would have had more respect for her if she said, "yes I did it to gain an edge, and it was legal. Instead of this crap about diabetes prevention for something not even used for diabetes prevention that she doesn't even have. To me her cover story is more blame worthy than the violation. I am the least critical of PEDs. The modern human athlete or not all are benefitting from PED drugs.

YvonneT wrote:I've been pondering whether there is a credible alternative to the idea that neither Sharapova nor her team ever looked at the WADA list of revisions for 2016 - as I am still personally finding it surprising that they didn't pick up on this at any point (emails from Sept onwards plus the mandatory player meeting at AO). So what could be a reason for continuing to use it knowing it was banned?

There's the idea that they were incredibly arrogant and thought they could continue to use and not get caught or sanctioned. That also sounds unlikely - that's a big risk to take.

There's the idea that they thought they were able to mask it - could be that I suppose.

Another one that occurred to me is that they thought they would be able to use it out of competition but got the timing wrong of when they stopped using it, leaving traces still by the time she was tested at the AO. Would that be feasible?

If she did list Meldonium/Mildronate on the form she had to complete at the time of the (Jan 2016) sample, then that does rule those all, leaving only an (admittedly huge) admin oversight as the explanation. That will come up in evidence at the ITF hearing and should in the case summary so we will know at that point.

Yes, that's what I'm struggling with. The OOC "bad timing" point strikes me as unlikely. I don't know how long it would be traceable but she tested positive in the QF I think. That's quite a long way into the tournament!

Rafa speaks out:

http://www.news.com.au/sport/tennis/rafael-nadal-has-reacted-angrily-when-asked-about-doping-rumours/news-story/99919fc3523da7f8dbf7c22b061a26c4

I didn't know about what the Spanish Health minister said. That was shockingly emphatic - imagine if Jeremy Hunt came out and declared on TV that of course he knew that Andy Murray was taking PEDs? That's what happened in Spain!

If it's untrue he should sue.

Wow - I've just seen what the Spanish minister said, a very emphatic ("certainly") as well as specific allegation, and from his own country too.

I am emphatically not making any allegations against Nadal, but I was a bit amused to see that in the country of Operacion Puerto Nadal relies for his PED avoidance on a guy who has been a doctor for all the Spanish players for years - not a huge source of comfort I'd suggest.

His is a tough reaction to Sharapova's test, maybe he has learned from his foolish support of Contador after the CAS decision.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roselyne_Bachelot

Bachelot is not Spanish... she is French.

And don't we know how much the French love the Spanish Tennis players

So let the Nadal sceptics make of it what they will

http://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/35770949

I don't think that matters. She was the Spanish Minister. Perhaps being the sports Minister she knows a little bit more about Nadal's layoff than the average lay person who can just speculate. As the poster above mentions, Nadal should look to sue if it's untrue.

It will be interesting to see whether he reacts in an assertive and proper manner and takes the woman to court, or whether he just spouts some aggressive bluster and waits for this matter to blow over.

Well of course it matters .. it puts a whole new slant on it.
It makes a hell of a difference to him.. to have his own minister speak out against him but he would doubtless not be surprised that it was the French Minister as I am not.

I have no doubt that Rafa would seek his own legal council on the matter