The Sharapova drug announcement

by sirfredperry Sun Mar 06, 2016 6:59 pm

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 bogbrush Fri Mar 11, 2016 12:00 pm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Here's the link to French law re Defamation (wikipedia, but hey...)

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffamation_en_droit_fran%C3%A7ais

BS is right that France is more "defendant friendly". Basically, Bachelot would most likely use the "bonne foi" (good faith) defence, which states that, well, she was acting in good faith on information she believed to be true. It would be up to Nadal to show the contrary, which he would struggle to do. It's why there are very few successful libel cases (in fact few cases are ever brought to court at all) in France, why "les guignols", "Charlie Hebdo" and other satirical news outlets can get away with so much.

Also, without wishing to rain on BB's "see, this proves Nadal must be doping!" parade, to describe Bachelot as a "prominent politician" is stretching the truth well beyond breaking point TBH. She's completely irrelevant these days, and has been largely since her disastrous stint as health minister, and that was over five years ago.

Oh, I didn't notice I'd said any of that. Maybe you're just thinking that way.

by Mad for Chelsea Fri Mar 11, 2016 12:14 pm

You thought it so loudly I heard it accross the internet BB Wink

(there, is it better with a smiley?)

by Born Slippy Fri Mar 11, 2016 12:27 pm

kingraf wrote:I think the real problem with accusing Nadal of failing tests is that you're then proposing three very... very strange phenomena

1- ATP ITF keep taking back a repeat offender. Not unlikely of course but not quite believeable
2- ATP seem to have a raffle system for his bans since his layoffs seem to have varying lengths. Sometimes six months sometimes two weeks.

lastly and probably most importantly it also assumes he's a better player off the sauce than on it since he seems to generally come back from his "bans" in better form than he went in

Yeah, I have to say I think "silent bans" are a total nonsense. There is no benefit in that approach. If the ATP wanted to sweep it under the carpet then why ban at all? It's nonsensical!

by Mochyn du Fri Mar 11, 2016 12:44 pm

I'm not sure if I buy all this "bonne foi" and all this other stuff relating to French Law. The thing is Monsieur Nadal has faced direct accusations from the likes of Christophe Rochus (Belgium) and Whathisname Kollerer (Austria - I think!) so does this "bonne foi" business apply to both Belgian and Austrian Law too?

by Mochyn du Fri Mar 11, 2016 12:51 pm

Born Slippy wrote:
kingraf wrote:I think the real problem with accusing Nadal of failing tests is that you're then proposing three very... very strange phenomena

1- ATP ITF keep taking back a repeat offender. Not unlikely of course but not quite believeable
2- ATP seem to have a raffle system for his bans since his layoffs seem to have varying lengths. Sometimes six months sometimes two weeks.

lastly and probably most importantly it also assumes he's a better player off the sauce than on it since he seems to generally come back from his "bans" in better form than he went in

Yeah, I have to say I think "silent bans" are a total nonsense. There is no benefit in that approach. If the ATP wanted to sweep it under the carpet then why ban at all? It's nonsensical!

I don't entirely agree with this. The ban could still serve as a reprimand whilst protecting the reputation of the player and the sport and of course making sure everyone protects their investments! A bit like mummy squeezing her child's hand and warning him she'll tell daddy next time sort of approach.

by It Must Be Love Fri Mar 11, 2016 1:03 pm

All reasonable people can see, this isn't even a debate: it would be be utter stupidity for Nadal to sue.

As I said earlier-
Firstly no one really knows about this allegation, it was hardly a headline anyway. Nadals response to her got a bit of coverage, but even that wasn't much.
I'm a big fan and follow Nadal closely, and I can't ever remember seeing an allegation in the news. I only come across them when people who don't like Nadal link them in forums.

Secondly, due to the fact Lance Armstrong successfully sued, all publicity is bad publicity. A lot more people will see 'Nadal' and 'doping allegation' in the same sentence, and even if he's successful the sceptics/haters will point to Lance and therefore not be satisfied.

And if what MFC is correct, then French law means Nadal would have to not only prove he's clean, but also that the women knew he was clean... which even with Socal as a lawyer would be an awkward case.

I'm afraid this debate, rather than shed any light on Nadal, is shedding light simply on whether people already really dislike Nadal. It's a lose-lose if he sues, which is obvious, saying he should either take this kamikaze mission or be on the end of more innuendo is very unreasonable.

by temporary21 Fri Mar 11, 2016 1:04 pm

Again quick reminder to be careful how you say things. Were cutting things quite close here

by It Must Be Love Fri Mar 11, 2016 1:08 pm

As for the actual theory itself... I can't prove it either way, but consider this:
Nadal has played a very physical demanding style of tennis since a very young age, turning professional at 16. People can see how that style of play would put pressure on his body, in fact due to that reason many thought he wouldn't last a decade at professional level.
So isn't it very unlikely that he wouldn't go through atleast 1-2 serious injury breaks in a 13 year span ? It's hardly surprising with this style of play this guy has problem with parts of his body breaking down.

by Haddie-nuff Fri Mar 11, 2016 1:14 pm

However the subject of PEDS is introduced on this forum .. it always, but always, pans out to Nadal being accused..by biased opinion, unsubstantiated "evidence", innuendo, rumour, speculation but never never do you see hard undisputed evidence. Why is it that there are those who choose to go along the line that he must be guilty if it is not because that is what they want to believe

by It Must Be Love Fri Mar 11, 2016 1:20 pm

Back on topic:

HEAD coming out very strongly in Sharapovas favour here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35785322

by temporary21 Fri Mar 11, 2016 1:22 pm

I can see your point haddie truly, but I agree it's best we stray back to topic now

by temporary21 Fri Mar 11, 2016 1:26 pm

Heads putting all riur eggs in one basket it seems. They had best hope it really was a mistake.

It's a bit odd to me, they risk giving out the message that as long as you're big enough you can be forgiven for anything. Hopefully that is t the case

by Josiah Maiestas Fri Mar 11, 2016 1:28 pm

Haddie-nuff wrote:However the subject of PEDS is introduced on this forum .. it always, but always, pans out to Nadal being accused..by biased opinion, unsubstantiated "evidence", innuendo, rumour, speculation but never never do you see hard undisputed evidence. Why is it that there are those who choose to go along the line that he must be guilty if it is not because that is what they want to believe

Only people who want it to be true would be very childish. However Nadal had past links with dr Fuentes which triggers people to have a negative opinion on him. He's also had long lay offs and came back straight to the top of his game which looks fishy.

There isn't proof but there is suspicion with him.

by Josiah Maiestas Fri Mar 11, 2016 1:31 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:Back on topic:

HEAD coming out very strongly in Sharapovas favour here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35785322

Well they supported players spending thousands to use egg chambers.

by bogbrush Fri Mar 11, 2016 1:34 pm

Josiah Maiestas wrote:
Haddie-nuff wrote:However the subject of PEDS is introduced on this forum .. it always, but always, pans out to Nadal being accused..by biased opinion, unsubstantiated "evidence", innuendo, rumour, speculation but never never do you see hard undisputed evidence. Why is it that there are those who choose to go along the line that he must be guilty if it is not because that is what they want to believe
Only people who want it to be true would be very childish. However Nadal had past links with dr Fuentes which triggers people to have a negative opinion on him. He's also had long lay offs and came back straight to the top of his game which looks fishy.

There isn't proof but there is suspicion with him.

The good news for the forum is anything can be said without risk of lawsuit.

by erictheblueuk Fri Mar 11, 2016 1:56 pm

I'm a bit late to all this, but the thing I find interesting is that the last time Sharapova beat Serena Williams was in 2004, before she started taking this drug.

by Haddie-nuff Fri Mar 11, 2016 2:10 pm

Josiah Maiestas wrote:
Haddie-nuff wrote:However the subject of PEDS is introduced on this forum .. it always, but always, pans out to Nadal being accused..by biased opinion, unsubstantiated "evidence", innuendo, rumour, speculation but never never do you see hard undisputed evidence. Why is it that there are those who choose to go along the line that he must be guilty if it is not because that is what they want to believe
Only people who want it to be true would be very childish. However Nadal had past links with dr Fuentes which triggers people to have a negative opinion on him. He's also had long lay offs and came back straight to the top of his game which looks fishy.

There isn't proof but there is suspicion with him.

There is no proof that Delpo has had all this time of through injury either
Federer also is having a "bit of a lay-off" any suspicion here I wonder... oh God forbid.
So any player now who has a lengthy time off through injury comes under your microscope... oh of course not .. unless his name is Nadal.

Endorsement No.1. Can you truly believe that a man who has invested multi-millions into building a tennis academy for young players of the future, to train them both in tennis and educate them hopefully to the standard he has been would risk that investment if he though he would be exposed as a sham. What parents would wish to send their children to this establishment if he had relied on drugs to do so.

Endorsement No.2. He has close ties with both Andy Murray and Roger Federer, both on and off court. Do you believe that either of them would cover for him, given what Andy Murray has just said about Sharapova.. And Roger put his own reputation and integrity at stake.

Endorsement No.3. Would Roger entertain Rafa for a holiday in Dubai, spending time with his family, Rafa with his girlfriend. Would he wish to expose them to somebody who is a liar, a cheat and on drugs... Get a grip

by Mochyn du Fri Mar 11, 2016 3:01 pm

It's telling that any discussion on drugs in tennis ends up dragging Rafa into it though.

Anyway, will Maria come back or is it ova for the Russian?

Here all week. Very Happy

by Mochyn du Fri Mar 11, 2016 3:04 pm

Haddie-nuff wrote:
Josiah Maiestas wrote:
Haddie-nuff wrote:However the subject of PEDS is introduced on this forum .. it always, but always, pans out to Nadal being accused..by biased opinion, unsubstantiated "evidence", innuendo, rumour, speculation but never never do you see hard undisputed evidence. Why is it that there are those who choose to go along the line that he must be guilty if it is not because that is what they want to believe
Only people who want it to be true would be very childish. However Nadal had past links with dr Fuentes which triggers people to have a negative opinion on him. He's also had long lay offs and came back straight to the top of his game which looks fishy.

There isn't proof but there is suspicion with him.

There is no proof that Delpo has had all this time of through injury either
Federer also is having a "bit of a lay-off" any suspicion here I wonder... oh God forbid.
So any player now who has a lengthy time off through injury comes under your microscope... oh of course not .. unless his name is Nadal.

Endorsement No.1. Can you truly believe that a man who has invested multi-millions into building a tennis academy for young players of the future, to train them both in tennis and educate them hopefully to the standard he has been would risk that investment if he though he would be exposed as a sham. What parents would wish to send their children to this establishment if he had relied on drugs to do so.

Endorsement No.2. He has close ties with both Andy Murray and Roger Federer, both on and off court. Do you believe that either of them would cover for him, given what Andy Murray has just said about Sharapova.. And Roger put his own reputation and integrity at stake.

Endorsement No.3. Would Roger entertain Rafa for a holiday in Dubai, spending time with his family, Rafa with his girlfriend. Would he wish to expose them to somebody who is a liar, a cheat and on drugs... Get a grip

But the same sort of holier than thou stuff was being said about Lance Armstrong and his incredible contribution to cancer patients causes.

Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris were childhood heroes of mine. Loads of kids loved them. Glad I didn't end up having it fixed for me to go rally driving after all!

Just saying.

by temporary21 Fri Mar 11, 2016 3:04 pm

It more a reflection of the forum sadly. On that note can we keep this back on topic

by It Must Be Love Fri Mar 11, 2016 3:05 pm

Mochyn du wrote:It's telling that any discussion on drugs in tennis ends up dragging Rafa into it though.

Haha, incredible isn't it !!

by kingraf Fri Mar 11, 2016 3:20 pm

Mochyn du wrote:It's telling that any discussion on drugs in tennis ends up dragging Rafa into it though.

Anyway, will Maria come back or is it ova for the Russian?

Here all week.

Generally if the same people have the same discussion it trends to being rather repetitive in nature

by Haddie-nuff Fri Mar 11, 2016 3:21 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:
Mochyn du wrote:It's telling that any discussion on drugs in tennis ends up dragging Rafa into it though.

Haha, incredible isn't it !!

It says more about the posters than it does Rafa imo Is it any wonder that he is having a confidence issue with people like that making inane accusations... hey ho .. Vamos Rafa

Unless they are still finding fairies at the bottom of their garden...that is Whistle

by Josiah Maiestas Fri Mar 11, 2016 3:22 pm

temporary21 wrote:It more a reflection of the forum sadly. On that note can we keep this back on topic

Plenty other tennis forums mention Nadal more than any other player when it comes to these discussions so it isn't a reflection on this forum, tennis forums in general are the same.

by Josiah Maiestas Fri Mar 11, 2016 3:29 pm

Straight after Nadal says Maria deserves the ban so does Murray Laugh

Like he has to repeat what his favourite player says so he gets 'accepted' by him.

by hawkeye Fri Mar 11, 2016 3:38 pm

hawkeye wrote:Shouldn't be Rafa and his team seeking legal action anyway. Should be the ITF, ATP and WADA. Basically she has accused them of being corrupt.

Rafa can hopefully concentrate on his tennis because the ITF have quite rightly taken this up

http://tenis.as.com/tenis/2016/03/11/mas_tenis/1457702281_619104.html

Hopefully this will stop speculation about Federer's "odd" injury in the park that has taken him out of action for 3/4 months and counting too

by Haddie-nuff Fri Mar 11, 2016 3:41 pm

Josiah Maiestas wrote:
temporary21 wrote:It more a reflection of the forum sadly. On that note can we keep this back on topic
Plenty other tennis forums mention Nadal more than any other player when it comes to these discussions so it isn't a reflection on this forum, tennis forums in general are the same.

And don't YOU just love it

by Haddie-nuff Fri Mar 11, 2016 3:43 pm

hawkeye wrote:
hawkeye wrote:Shouldn't be Rafa and his team seeking legal action anyway. Should be the ITF, ATP and WADA. Basically she has accused them of being corrupt.

Rafa can hopefully concentrate on his tennis because the ITF have quite rightly taken this up

http://tenis.as.com/tenis/2016/03/11/mas_tenis/1457702281_619104.html

Hopefully this will stop speculation about Federer's "odd" injury in the park that has taken him out of action for 3/4 months and counting too

Now that is blasphemous, naughty naughty, how dare you make such insinuations Whistle

by hawkeye Fri Mar 11, 2016 3:48 pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35785322

Having read this I can't help agreeing. I sort of suspect that there are many that are desperate to see the blood of a big name being caught doping in tennis as a sort of "proof" that the sport is clean but from what I've read it's difficult not to believe some of what Sharapova says. ie the part about not being aware of the drugs change in status because it would make no sense for her to continue to take the drug if she had been aware. Other things too but I realize most are now set in their views with the minimum amount of information that is available. It's not really for any of us (or Andy Murray Rolling Eyes

) to be judge and jury though and my hope is that Sharapova will be judged fairly.

by djlovesyou Fri Mar 11, 2016 3:50 pm

Unfortunately Nadal's connection (albeit somewhat tenuous, but you know what they say about smoke) with one of the biggest doping scandals in recent time makes it difficult for his name not to be mentioned every time doping in tennis comes up.

by It Must Be Love Fri Mar 11, 2016 4:05 pm

I'm not sure if I imagined it, but I think I recall a post by SB that was possible insinuating Federer ?!
Let me check

by It Must Be Love Fri Mar 11, 2016 4:09 pm

summerblues wrote:
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.

What could you possibly mean ?!?!

Apologise !

by It Must Be Love Fri Mar 11, 2016 4:11 pm

hawkeye wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35785322

Having read this I can't help agreeing. I sort of suspect that there are many that are desperate to see the blood of a big name being caught doping in tennis as a sort of "proof" that the sport is clean but from what I've read it's difficult not to believe some of what Sharapova says. ie the part about not being aware of the drugs change in status because it would make no sense for her to continue to take the drug if she had been aware. Other things too but I realize most are now set in their views with the minimum amount of information that is available. It's not really for any of us (or Andy Murray ) to be judge and jury though and my hope is that Sharapova will be judged fairly.

Yes but if she's taking it to giver her an edge... then Frankly I don't see why she deserves much sympathy.

by kingraf Fri Mar 11, 2016 4:16 pm

djlovesyou wrote:Unfortunately Nadal's connection (albeit somewhat tenuous, but you know what they say about smoke)

Second most annoying phrase ever*. You most certainly can have smoke without fire.

*The winner of thia award is of course
"If you fall seven times get up eight" How on earth can you get up eight times if you've only fallen seven? It doesn't even make sense! You can quite clearly only get up in a linear relationship to the amount of times you've fallen

by Haddie-nuff Fri Mar 11, 2016 4:29 pm

djlovesyou wrote:Unfortunately Nadal's connection (albeit somewhat tenuous, but you know what they say about smoke) with one of the biggest doping scandals in recent time makes it difficult for his name not to be mentioned every time doping in tennis comes up.

Its more than bloody tenuous it sheer bigotry and hatred.. there is nothing, but nothing, to back up such accusations.. show us what you are basing your tenuous connection on.. show us where he failed a drug test. Put aside your bias and give us some proof.. give this poor human being, because that in essence is what he is, a break from the persecution that keeps being bestowed upon him. Else nail him to a cross and crucify him

by dummy_half Fri Mar 11, 2016 4:45 pm

I understand Nadal's 'connection' with Dr Fuentes was simply rumours and that Rafa is Spanish (guilt by association). Other than those cyclists explicitly implicated and suspended, the only other knowledge we have is that Fuentes has said tennis players and footballers were also using his 'services'. No further identities have been revealed, so to suggest Nadal rather than (say) Carlos Moya is simply people's prejudice.

Back to Sharapova, there are two very strange bits of support for her:
1 - The drug producer's frankly bizarre claim that athletes are going to die without having access to Meldonium. Well, the 98% who weren't using it previously seem to be largely OK...

2 - Head asking for WADA to justify the outright ban. No way is it the place of a sporting equipment manufacturer and sponsor of a player to remotely question the role and judgement of WADA. Simply smacks of Head trying to protect one of their biggest assets.

by djlovesyou Fri Mar 11, 2016 4:56 pm

Haddie-nuff wrote:
djlovesyou wrote:Unfortunately Nadal's connection (albeit somewhat tenuous, but you know what they say about smoke) with one of the biggest doping scandals in recent time makes it difficult for his name not to be mentioned every time doping in tennis comes up.

Its more than bloody tenuous it sheer bigotry and hatred.. there is nothing, but nothing, to back up such accusations.. show us what you are basing your tenuous connection on.. show us where he failed a drug test. Put aside your bias and give us some proof.. give this poor human being, because that in essence is what he is, a break from the persecution that keeps being bestowed upon him. Else nail him to a cross and crucify him

I was being fair to Nadal by calling the link 'tenuous'. I reckon his relationship with gynaecologist (and prolific doping doctor) Dr Fuentes is more than a tenuous link, particularly to some of his more vocal detractors

That, and the fact that he was competing during an era where a clean Spanish sportsman was the exception rather than the rule. I suggest they've done a fair bit to clean up their act of the last 5-6 years (it's showing in their relative lack of success is sports like athletics and cyciing).

by Jahu Fri Mar 11, 2016 5:02 pm

OT: has this PED news of Sharapova, turned off her male fans from any fantasies they have/had about her in a bedrom?

While she never turned me on, I would still accept her money for a night in, and soothe her rapidly fading career.

by Haddie-nuff Fri Mar 11, 2016 5:07 pm

Jahu wrote:OT: has this PED news of Sharapova, turned off her male fans from any fantasies they have/had about her in a bedrom?

While she never turned me on, I would still accept her money for a night in, and soothe her rapidly fading career.

I'm curious to know do you find anything, that resembles brains, above your belt... or do you always keep them in your underpants

by Jahu Fri Mar 11, 2016 5:11 pm

You still into young boys HN?

Still not blocked me? Laugh

Underpants, overpants, come and check it where i keep it?

Can I sit on your lap? picard

by hawkeye Fri Mar 11, 2016 5:17 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:
hawkeye wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35785322

Having read this I can't help agreeing. I sort of suspect that there are many that are desperate to see the blood of a big name being caught doping in tennis as a sort of "proof" that the sport is clean but from what I've read it's difficult not to believe some of what Sharapova says. ie the part about not being aware of the drugs change in status because it would make no sense for her to continue to take the drug if she had been aware. Other things too but I realize most are now set in their views with the minimum amount of information that is available. It's not really for any of us (or Andy Murray ) to be judge and jury though and my hope is that Sharapova will be judged fairly.
Yes but if she's taking it to giver her an edge... then Frankly I don't see why she deserves much sympathy.

It didn't matter why she was taking it prior to this year because it wasn't on the banned list. Clearly now WADA has changed it's status it matters a lot but if her story is to be believed then I do have sympathy. It just doesn't look like she was deliberately breaking the rules it just looks like human error. But of course I don't know enough to make a judgement. I like what Djokovic had to say. He comes across as decent and just by not condoning a colleague and hoping it was a genuine mistake doesn't strike me as him saying he condones doping.

by Hammersmith harrier Fri Mar 11, 2016 5:49 pm

She is now a proven cheat and it's frankly ridiculous that anyone is making excuses for her, Djokovic is equally a disgrace for not vocally condemning it like Murray has.

by CaledonianCraig Fri Mar 11, 2016 5:58 pm

My chief problem is with why she was taking the drug for so long in the first place. It is supposedly only to be taken for short periods of time. She never went into detail as to why she was taking it for so long. And even then it is up to her to check what was on banned list. She has been caught taking a banned drug. End of story.

by temporary21 Fri Mar 11, 2016 6:35 pm

The two male players who always get brought up also happen to be the two least liked on the forum as a whole. Rafa himself was inserted into this to antagonise one poster. Might I suggest we keep this on topic now , properly, because it's gsrring out of hand

by hawkeye Fri Mar 11, 2016 6:56 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:My chief problem is with why she was taking the drug for so long in the first place. It is supposedly only to be taken for short periods of time.

That's your problem. It's of no concern to WADA.

CaledonianCraig wrote: And even then it is up to her to check what was on banned list. She has been caught taking a banned drug. End of story.

Yes it was her responsibility to check that it remained legal. She didn't and was found guilty of taking it. I reckon that she will be dragged over the coals so for those that want their pound of flesh they will get their satisfaction.

But just like her raquet sponsors I see the most logical explanation for her continuing to take the drug after WADA changed it's status was that it was an honest mistake. I have sympathy for her because despite the holier than thou attitude of most it's an error that I can imagine many making. It's a scary thought that someones life can be ruined by the sort of carelessness that usually has no consequences. Who'd be an athlete...

by Guest Fri Mar 11, 2016 7:00 pm

hawkeye wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:My chief problem is with why she was taking the drug for so long in the first place. It is supposedly only to be taken for short periods of time.

That's your problem. It's of no concern to WADA.

So does that mean you'll adopt that attitude when concerning the use of CVAC? chin

by socal1976 Fri Mar 11, 2016 7:06 pm

hawkeye wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:My chief problem is with why she was taking the drug for so long in the first place. It is supposedly only to be taken for short periods of time.

That's your problem. It's of no concern to WADA.

CaledonianCraig wrote: And even then it is up to her to check what was on banned list. She has been caught taking a banned drug. End of story.

Yes it was her responsibility to check that it remained legal. She didn't and was found guilty of taking it. I reckon that she will be dragged over the coals so for those that want their pound of flesh they will get their satisfaction.

But just like her raquet sponsors I see the most logical explanation for her continuing to take the drug after WADA changed it's status was that it was an honest mistake. I have sympathy for her because despite the holier than thou attitude of most it's an error that I can imagine many making. It's a scary thought that someones life can be ruined by the sort of carelessness that usually has no consequences. Who'd be an athlete...

I can actually agree with these sentiments. We see a lot of violations like this one and cillic's that are really down to a mistake about the actual rules. I think the ITF and WADA should do a better job of education, maybe for something like this especially in terms of adding new banned substances they should do more than send a couple of emails. Personally, I hope she gets a short suspension and can comeback. While I don't believe her diabetes nonsense and don't like being lied to, I hope she can come back to the game. People make mistakes, the demonization of public figures when they fail says a lot more about us then it does about them.

by CaledonianCraig Fri Mar 11, 2016 7:14 pm

Sorry but it is about time the tennis authorities grew a pair of balls. Olympic skier Alan Baxter was without drug infraction and won a medal in slalom but he had taken a sinus clearing nasal spray. Legal if British but he used a US product which had an illegal substance in it. He was stripped of his medal and banned. Come on tennis authorities show you have the balls to make tough decisions.

Remember that this drug (though legal until recently) was being used by her for years even though doctor's say it should only be used over short spells. Explanation please. Especially, as the drug can be used for nefarious reasons such as masking.

by kingraf Fri Mar 11, 2016 7:26 pm

Odds are pretty short that the reality is Sharapova probably made an innocent mistake and didnt realise that it had been banned. Then dhe tested positive and rather than admit she'd been taking a borderline product for ten years to gain an advantage, she wrapped up a story about magnesium, diabetes and heart disease because that's more palatable to the public than saying "I pop melowhatsisname on weekends to run faster"

by CaledonianCraig Fri Mar 11, 2016 7:29 pm

But does she not live in the States yet this drug is only really in use in Eastern Europe?

by Sponsored content