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.

bogbrush wrote:This is irrelevant, until January 2016 at the earliest there was absolutely no cheating going on.

very rarely do I agree with you but you'd really think this would be pretty obvious.

lydian wrote:Thanks BS, good to see that.
I wonder how this will play out further at Head.
Anyway, I wonder if that FB one-liner above could get her into almost as much hot water as the failed test!? She's kind of admitting silent bans exist...and pointing fingers at who...Nadal, Cilic...even Federer currently?!  

As I understand it, the ITF makes no announcement on failed drugs tests until a hearing has established guilt but players can be "silently" banned (or at least strongly recommended not to play) in the interim - usually about 3 months. Cilic is the best known example.

Maria could have therefore waited until a hearing but instead cites her integrity in not wanting to lie about why she was not playing. Of course, it also has the benefit that she has full control of the story. I don't see her comment as going any further than that.

djlovesyou wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:It's not entirely irrelevant as the reason why she was taking the drug in January will decide whether it's a maximum 2 or 4 year ban. It's why she's trying so hard to make clear it wasn't to improve performance.

I reckon any ban will see her back in time for perhaps the US Open, maybe a year at the most but it'll be back dated so she misses as little as possible.

Tennis is tough on dopers.

I suspect she will have convincing evidence that it was for health reasons (although whether true or not is another question). If that's accepted, it's a maximum two year ban. However, in these circumstances, she will find it very tough to get that reduced. I suspect she's out for at least 18 months. No way she is back in 6.

Living with and among people who suffer with the chronic complaints that this medication is intended for it is difficult for me to understand why it was taken as a precaution by a young athlete who was obviously in good health otherwise she would not have been able to play tennis. If the threat of these illnesses was so great she was ill advised to play at all.
Those who actually suffer with these chronic illness take medication such as this to improve their quality of life I believe it is only the elderly who would take it over such an extended period Without it they are hardly mobile. Walking can be difficult, strenuous exercise of any kind is out of the question due to strain on the heart ... some having to resort to wheelchairs

I am and will remain totally unconvinced by her implausible story

It's pretty obvious the health reason BS is just that, but no doubt her 'family doctor' and other friendly professionals will provide a dossier of 'legitimate' medical history - , but of course as others have rightly pointed out, that in itself did not constitute cheating - it was just morally dubious - until this year of course.

Anyway, is anyone surprised by this?

The response of her fellow competitors and professionals is telling:

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2016/03/barely-legal-problem-existed-sharapova-tested-positive/57866/#.VuP3Mo_XKCs

So far it seems only Andy Murray has been unequivocal in his stance and Kudos to him.
The rest are probably more worried about the morally dubious lines they themselves have already drawn - some of them may have overstepped it into the illegal category whilst others are just about staying within the rules. The point is that performance enhancement is probably far more widespread than we like to think or know of - and i'm sure there are many other top tennis players who'd rather this whole thing blow over very quickly.



emancipator

Oh hello all btw

I typed ITF Bans into Google and one of the first hits was on ITF-Antidoping.

http://www.itftennis.com/antidoping/rules/prohibited-list.aspx

Takes you to quite a comprehensive site. However it would have taken no more than a couple of minutes to go there click on the modifications link issued in September 2015.

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

It is quite short and pretty explicit on Meldonium

Cannot see that it would have been that onerous for Sharapova or her team to check it and make sure that she was not using it in 2016.

Haddie-nuff wrote:Living with and among people who suffer with the chronic complaints that this medication is intended for it is difficult for me to understand why it was taken as a precaution by a young athlete who was obviously in good health otherwise she would not have been able to play tennis. If the threat of these illnesses was so great she was ill advised to play at all.
Those who actually suffer with these chronic illness take medication such as this to improve their quality of life I believe it is only the elderly who would take it over such an extended period  Without it they are hardly mobile. Walking can be difficult, strenuous exercise of any kind is out of the question due to strain on the heart ... some having to resort to wheelchairs

I am and will remain totally unconvinced by her implausible story

Could not agree more.

Reading her latest comment, and others on here about how "difficult" it was to find this detail. About how authorities should do more. Authorities, whose annual budget, is often less than the individuals in question. Authorities, who are constantly maligned for not doing enough, but have to look after the sport in its entirety whereas individuals who have greater resources only have to look after themselves. It is selfish beyond belief.

This comment tipped me over the edge and I felt compelled to comment:

"The communications? They were buried in newsletters, websites, or handouts," she wrote.

"In order to be aware of this 'warning', you had to open an email with a subject line having nothing to do with anti-doping, click on a webpage, enter a password, enter a username, hunt, click, hunt, click, hunt, click, scroll and read.

"I guess some in the media can call that a warning. I think most people would call it too hard to find."

No Maria. Most people would not call that hard to find. Most people would call that 15 mins work. A routine task they have to undertake as part of their daily job. Is it a race to the bottom? Communication has to be designed around the most incompetent/incapable person?

I could go on. But I'll finish on saying that I fully agree she did nothing wrong in taking this drug prior to it being banned. However she has been hugely, grossly, immensely incompetent since then. If anyone working in the public sector failed to take head of changes in legislation which could have been prevented by the reading of a communication (never mind the fact she admitted she had it and couldn't be bothered to click on it) their career would be finished.

There appears to be several different arguments on here, so let me add my thoughts to the discussion.

Sharapova taking the drug upto January 2016.
She was perfectly entitled to do so, for any reason. It seems to me unlikely, considering how many other professional athletes tested positive for it (not just Russians, but a large proportion of them), that she was taking it for some medical condition. In all likelihood, she, and others, knew of its performance-enhancing effects, and took it to gain a competitive edge. However, IMO, this could have been completely irrelevant. Sure, you can argue dubious moral practices, etc. until the cows come home, but where do you draw the line? Novak's egg-chamber? Altitude training? Painkillers? What is ethical, and what could be considered cheating? Grey area with no well defined line IMO. So the only sensible conclusion to be reached is that if it is legal, then it is fine, surely. Let WADA decide what is OK, and what isn't. They are of course much more qualified than us.

HOWEVER. The reasons she took the drug become relevant because she continued to take it after it became banned. Basically, if you are taking something illegal to treat a medical condition but didn't apply for an exception (for whatever reason) then you will get off lighter than if you are taking something illegal to enhance performance, which comes with a potential four year ban. In this case, Sharapova's ignorance of the product being banned would not be a defence. IMO, this is why she's opted for the "medical condition" line, as well as it being better PR, obviously. It will be upto the anti-doping bodies to determine the truth, but if as emancipator states she gets a doctor and medical team to back her up I don't see what can be done but accept the IMO implausible explanation.

As for the "I didn't know it was banned because I couldn't be bothered to read the list", this is a complete irrelevance (or should be). If we are to be even a little bit serious about attacking doping in sport, there is no other option but to enforce a strict responsibility basis: the athlete is completely responsible for anything she takes, and making sure it's legal. It's at best completely unprofessional to have not done this, and blaming ITF/WADA for not educating the athletes better is completely nonsensical. As I understand it, several e-mails were sent, with a clear list of banned products, but Sharapova didn't read the lists??? Ridiculous. Perhaps unsurprising that djlovesyou (fan of cycling and athletics) and djkbrown (fan of athletics) are most vocal in this argument, as they've seen firsthand the damage a lenient approach can do to a sport.

If you allow Sharapova's defence here, then every single athlete ever caught with something illegal can use a sob story to explain the result away: it's already happened in tennis with Cilic of course, but think of Merritt's ExtenZe excuse (21 month ban), or Contador's contaminated steak (stripped of his TdF title and 2 year ban). Or indeed the afore-mentioned Alain Baxter They didn't wash, neither should this one. Ignorance is not an excuse: Sharapova should get 2 years (18 months an absolute minimum), if tennis is to appear even a little bit credible in tackling doping.

Given what happened with Cilic (and even Troicki) and of course Rusedski before him, I won't hold my breath, but this being one of the bigger stars might just end up being a watershed moment for the sport...

Generally, I try and avoid clicking links containing the phrase "barely legal" but that article is a decent read. I don't think they have got the analysis of the rules quite right though. My understanding is simply showing she was unaware of the change won't get the ban down from 4 years to 2 years. She would need to show she wasn't taking it to increase performance - a different test/question.

Another interesting article here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/11/sports/tennis/sharapova-is-not-the-only-player-paying-little-attention-to-antidoping-emails.html?ref=tennis&_r=1

Born Slippy wrote:Generally, I try and avoid clicking links containing the phrase "barely legal" but that article is a decent read. I don't think they have got the analysis of the rules quite right though. My understanding is simply showing she was unaware of the change won't get the ban down from 4 years to 2 years. She would need to show she wasn't taking it to increase performance - a different test/question.

Another interesting article here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/11/sports/tennis/sharapova-is-not-the-only-player-paying-little-attention-to-antidoping-emails.html?ref=tennis&_r=1

Well yes, not really surprised. And if Sharapova fires her doctor for not keeping up-to-date with banned lists and therefore not doing his job properly he'd get little sympathy from me. However, still her responsibility ultimately.

That is all very well but the key and very pertinent points are:-

Why is she taking a drug banned in her native country?

Why and how is her own doctor (presumably registered in the US) getting hold of and prescribing an illegal drug in the US instead of using a US product to do it? This is long term so she should have always been on a US-based drug for her condition.

Why is she on a drug from the other side of the world now banned in various sports for its nefarious use?

Surely if proven tainted steak is a pretty reasonable excuse? Where the hell would you stop then?

Mad for Chelsea wrote:There appears to be several different arguments on here, so let me add my thoughts to the discussion.

Sharapova taking the drug upto January 2016.
She was perfectly entitled to do so, for any reason. It seems to me unlikely, considering how many other professional athletes tested positive for it (not just Russians, but a large proportion of them), that she was taking it for some medical condition. In all likelihood, she, and others, knew of its performance-enhancing effects, and took it to gain a competitive edge. However, IMO, this could have been completely irrelevant. Sure, you can argue dubious moral practices, etc. until the cows come home, but where do you draw the line? Novak's egg-chamber? Altitude training? Painkillers? What is ethical, and what could be considered cheating? Grey area with no well defined line IMO. So the only sensible conclusion to be reached is that if it is legal, then it is fine, surely. Let WADA decide what is OK, and what isn't. They are of course much more qualified than us.

Unless she flew back to Russia each and every time to take it then she was not entitled to take it at all as a US resident.

MfC - In both the Cilic and Troicki cases the Court of Arbitration for Sport found the initial punishments handed out were too harsh! Whilst I thought CAS was wrong on both occasions, it's hard to blame the tennis authorities in those cases. They have to abide by the CAS decision.

kingraf wrote:Surely if proven tainted steak is a pretty reasonable excuse? Where the hell would you stop then?

Well yes, but the key words there are "if proven". Given that a positive test won't emerge immediately, it's pretty much impossible to prove a contaminated food sample like that. Probably not a great comparison to the Sharapova case TBH on second thoughts. Maybe more relevant with the Gasquet one? Though that was cocaine, and I can't recall if he managed to present compelling evidence that he had been contaminated by that kiss... Two and a half months Gasquet got BTW...

This Monday, March 7, Maria Sharapova announced it had tested positive for meldonium. Laurence Ferrari and columnists have returned this morning in Le Grand 8, this fact that makes the headlines and if there is one that was not kind, is Roselyne Bachelot. The former Minister of Health and Sports has made startling revelations about the world of tennis. "It does not reveal the positive controls or sanctions data in tennis, but curiously learns a player or a tennis player has an injury that keeps the months off the court," she blurted .

Roselyne Bachelot then tackled Rafael Nadal ... "We know that the famous injury of Rafael Nadal, where he was arrested 7 months, is certainly due to a positive test." Finally, she wanted to know, "When you see a tennis player who stops for months that he tested positive. Not every time, but very often."

Seems that it isn't just people on forums who think players have been given silent bans then used injuries as a cover story!

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:There appears to be several different arguments on here, so let me add my thoughts to the discussion.

Sharapova taking the drug upto January 2016.
She was perfectly entitled to do so, for any reason. It seems to me unlikely, considering how many other professional athletes tested positive for it (not just Russians, but a large proportion of them), that she was taking it for some medical condition. In all likelihood, she, and others, knew of its performance-enhancing effects, and took it to gain a competitive edge. However, IMO, this could have been completely irrelevant. Sure, you can argue dubious moral practices, etc. until the cows come home, but where do you draw the line? Novak's egg-chamber? Altitude training? Painkillers? What is ethical, and what could be considered cheating? Grey area with no well defined line IMO. So the only sensible conclusion to be reached is that if it is legal, then it is fine, surely. Let WADA decide what is OK, and what isn't. They are of course much more qualified than us.

Unless she flew back to Russia each and every time to take it then she was not entitled to take it at all as a US resident.

I'm not sure I understand this. Is it illegal for a US resident to fly somewhere else to consume something that's banned in the US? Are they not allowed to fly to Europe and eat Kinder surprises? Or fly to Amsterdam and partake in the local 'delicacies'?

Or is it banned in the US because performance-enhancing? And does the anti-doping code expressly make it illegal to also consume banned substances elsewhere?

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:There appears to be several different arguments on here, so let me add my thoughts to the discussion.

Sharapova taking the drug upto January 2016.
She was perfectly entitled to do so, for any reason. It seems to me unlikely, considering how many other professional athletes tested positive for it (not just Russians, but a large proportion of them), that she was taking it for some medical condition. In all likelihood, she, and others, knew of its performance-enhancing effects, and took it to gain a competitive edge. However, IMO, this could have been completely irrelevant. Sure, you can argue dubious moral practices, etc. until the cows come home, but where do you draw the line? Novak's egg-chamber? Altitude training? Painkillers? What is ethical, and what could be considered cheating? Grey area with no well defined line IMO. So the only sensible conclusion to be reached is that if it is legal, then it is fine, surely. Let WADA decide what is OK, and what isn't. They are of course much more qualified than us.

Unless she flew back to Russia each and every time to take it then she was not entitled to take it at all as a US resident.

I'm not sure I understand this. Is it illegal for a US resident to fly somewhere else to consume something that's banned in the US? Are they not allowed to fly to Europe and eat Kinder surprises? Or fly to Amsterdam and partake in the local 'delicacies'?

Or is it banned in the US because performance-enhancing? And does the anti-doping code expressly make it illegal to also consume banned substances elsewhere?

The key is that the drug is NOT prescribed by doctors in the US where she lives. Now if her doctor has been prescribing her it the question is why? She should have been getting prescribed US-based products for her 'condition'. So why and how was she taking this drug used mostly in Eastern Europe.

bogbrush wrote:This is irrelevant, until January 2016 at the earliest there was absolutely no cheating going on.

Just because there was no cheating going on up until 2016 does not make it irrelevant.

If an athlete claims to have taken a drug for medical purposes but instead they take it for performnce enhancement, they are still being dishonest, and that in itself is worth talking about - even if the drug is not banned. And in this case there is enough strangeness in Masha's explanation to at least question if she is being honest.

Second, as others have pointed out, whether or not she was taking the drug for true medicinal purposes may have bearing on how serious her 2016 offense is.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:There appears to be several different arguments on here, so let me add my thoughts to the discussion.

Sharapova taking the drug upto January 2016.
She was perfectly entitled to do so, for any reason. It seems to me unlikely, considering how many other professional athletes tested positive for it (not just Russians, but a large proportion of them), that she was taking it for some medical condition. In all likelihood, she, and others, knew of its performance-enhancing effects, and took it to gain a competitive edge. However, IMO, this could have been completely irrelevant. Sure, you can argue dubious moral practices, etc. until the cows come home, but where do you draw the line? Novak's egg-chamber? Altitude training? Painkillers? What is ethical, and what could be considered cheating? Grey area with no well defined line IMO. So the only sensible conclusion to be reached is that if it is legal, then it is fine, surely. Let WADA decide what is OK, and what isn't. They are of course much more qualified than us.

Unless she flew back to Russia each and every time to take it then she was not entitled to take it at all as a US resident.

I'm not sure I understand this. Is it illegal for a US resident to fly somewhere else to consume something that's banned in the US? Are they not allowed to fly to Europe and eat Kinder surprises? Or fly to Amsterdam and partake in the local 'delicacies'?

Or is it banned in the US because performance-enhancing? And does the anti-doping code expressly make it illegal to also consume banned substances elsewhere?

So you think she flew back to Russia each and every time she took the drug?

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

kingraf wrote:Surely if proven tainted steak is a pretty reasonable excuse? Where the hell would you stop then?

Well yes, but the key words there are "if proven". Given that a positive test won't emerge immediately, it's pretty much impossible to prove a contaminated food sample like that. Probably not a great comparison to the Sharapova case TBH on second thoughts. Maybe more relevant with the Gasquet one? Though that was cocaine, and I can't recall if he managed to present compelling evidence that he had been contaminated by that kiss... Two and a half months Gasquet got BTW...

CAS concluded that Gasquet had no fault and shouldn't have received any ban at all - again they found the ITF tribunal had been too harsh. The ITF and WADA had appealed the initial decision and were arguing that the ban should be at least a year. Again, the issue doesn't seem to lie with the tennis authorities themselves. Actually, having read the Gasquet decision, ridiculous though it seems, I actually think that decision is right.

To make it clear. Part of her hearing will include whether the drug she took was for performance enhancement. This will therefore include all the ten years she was taking it

If it has been for performance enhancement at any time, shes looking at 4 years.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:This is irrelevant, until January 2016 at the earliest there was absolutely no cheating going on.

Is it though? The drug has FINALLY been banned in tennis but has been banned by other sports for much longer. Plus she is a US citizen so what in heavens name is she getting a drug prescribed to her that is banned in the US? Don't you find that at all weird? The US no doubt has another drug used to treat her 'condition' which she should have been on. After all she must have a US doctor. All too odd.

Why must she have a US doctor? Do you know who her doctor is, or his/her nationality, his medical background? Maybe that doctor thought that drug was the best option for her condition. Which US drug would do the specific job that Sharapova needed CC? Did you know that the US allows certain food dyes that are banned in the UK - http://www.biohealthbase.org/pages/food-coloring-ban-in-uk-but-usa-usage-continues/ Should I eat those foods if I visit the US? Just because a medicine is banned somewhere doesn't mean it shouldn't be used in a medical capacity.
We have no evidence that Sharapova mis-used the drug - the only actual evidence we have is what she says. However, if people want to ignore her evidence and make up there own theories, that's fine, as long as they remain just theories and are not stated as fact.

JHM she is a US citizen so is it not wholly logical to presume that she has a US-based doctor - after all she has lived there now for 20 years or so. That being the case why would a GP prescribe a drug not used in the US for a medical condition? Oddities that need to be questioned.

Maybe the GP thought it was the best drug on the worldwide market for Sharapova's needs. Or was previously a doctor from Eastern Europe who had prescribed it for other patients with success and wanted to stick to his own experience. That must at least be a possibility.

temporary21 wrote:To make it clear. Part of her hearing will include whether the drug she took was for performance enhancement. This will therefore include all the ten years she was taking it

If it has been for performance enhancement at any time, shes looking at 4 years.

I don't think this is correct. What will be decided is whether she was using it as a PED when she failed the test. That will obviously involve an analysis of why she started taking it.

JHM, stop defending her with non-possible scenarios. Makes no sense, she is not a ballet dances from a village, but global star for 10y plus.

You like here dont you?

JuliusHMarx wrote:Maybe the GP thought it was the best drug on the worldwide market for Sharapova's needs. Or was previously a doctor from Eastern Europe who had prescribed it for other patients with success and wanted to stick to his own experience. That must at least be a possibility.

But she has been a US citizen for around two decades so to presume she has never had a US doctor prescribe her another drug used in the US for her ailment which she would surely have been prescribed by US law given that the banned substance is not used in the States is stretching it a bit.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Maybe the GP thought it was the best drug on the worldwide market for Sharapova's needs. Or was previously a doctor from Eastern Europe who had prescribed it for other patients with success and wanted to stick to his own experience. That must at least be a possibility.

Or the family preferred to rely on a doctor from their homeland - not uncommon - or the problems weren't being resolved using stuff recommended in the US. Craig is right to point out that it's an additional factor which makes it look dubious but I don't see it as the critical point. We will have to wait and see what is said at the hearing.

she took it because of a family history of the condition
What sort of doctor gives a medication to a young woman who is not suffering with the illness in the first place !!!!!

Born Slippy wrote:

temporary21 wrote:To make it clear. Part of her hearing will include whether the drug she took was for performance enhancement. This will therefore include all the ten years she was taking it

If it has been for performance enhancement at any time, shes looking at 4 years.

I don't think this is correct. What will be decided is whether she was using it as a PED when she failed the test. That will obviously involve an analysis of why she started taking it.

How can a drug that gives you performance, be asked on hearing did you take it for performance or for fun?

Cheater.

Well regardless of the outcome of this you would then suspect (if the drug she was taking was so good for her ailments) that she won't be able to return to peak condition since that drug is now banned and was supposedly the best drug to treat her ailments.

She is NOT in her top condition since 2008, so she needed 8 years of PED and still cant see she plays crap?

And she would still be taking if it were not made public, as she did not stop when WADA said STOP.

"I won’t pretend to be injured so I can hide the truth about my testing."

Is she saying that she could have a negotiated a silent ban? Or even that she might have been offered one?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:This is irrelevant, until January 2016 at the earliest there was absolutely no cheating going on.

Is it though? The drug has FINALLY been banned in tennis but has been banned by other sports for much longer. Plus she is a US citizen so what in heavens name is she getting a drug prescribed to her that is banned in the US? Don't you find that at all weird? The US no doubt has another drug used to treat her 'condition' which she should have been on. After all she must have a US doctor. All too odd.

Why must she have a US doctor? Do you know who her doctor is, or his/her nationality, his medical background? Maybe that doctor thought that drug was the best option for her condition. Which US drug would do the specific job that Sharapova needed CC? Did you know that the US allows certain food dyes that are banned in the UK - http://www.biohealthbase.org/pages/food-coloring-ban-in-uk-but-usa-usage-continues/ Should I eat those foods if I visit the US? Just because a medicine is banned somewhere doesn't mean it shouldn't be used in a medical capacity.
We have no evidence that Sharapova mis-used the drug - the only actual evidence we have is what she says. However, if people want to ignore her evidence and make up there own theories, that's fine, as long as they remain just theories and are not stated as fact.

If my auntie had balls she'd be my uncle, if you wish to believe her complete BS then that is down to you, however anyone sane person realises what she's been doing.

Henman Bill wrote:"I won’t pretend to be injured so I can hide the truth about my testing."

Is she saying that she could have a negotiated a silent ban? Or even that she might have been offered one?

More of a: most players pretend to be injured and serve a silent ban

In an age where people import water from Fiji why are we pretending its an impossible scenario?

Exotic water is a pleasure, PEDs are to make you better then next player.

What comparison is this?

Henman Bill wrote:"I won’t pretend to be injured so I can hide the truth about my testing."

Is she saying that she could have a negotiated a silent ban? Or even that she might have been offered one?

The ITF doesn't announce failed tests until the hearing has taken place - so, unless the player chooses to make it public, there will always be a period of silence. If they are found innocent, presumably it's never announced.

Jahu wrote:Exotic water is a pleasure, PEDs are to make you better then next player.

What comparison is this?

If you cant find what you want in yout home country you get it somewhere else. That's the comparison. As the drug wasn't banned until three weeks before she tested positive... why would she change her script if she could
A - afford it
and
B - was taking something which was completely legal?

kingraf wrote:

Jahu wrote:Exotic water is a pleasure, PEDs are to make you better then next player.

What comparison is this?

If you cant find what you want in yout home country you get it somewhere else. That's the comparison. As the drug wasn't banned until three weeks before she tested positive... why would she change her script if she could
A - afford it
and
B - was taking something which was completely legal?

So one of the most sophisticated countries in the world do not have a drug to treat her ailments whilst Eastern Europe (generally regarded as not as advanced) has? Hmm.

Jahu wrote:JHM, stop defending her with non-possible scenarios. Makes no sense, she is not a ballet dances from a village, but global star for 10y plus.

You like here dont you?

Actually no - her screaming makes her almost unwatchable.

Maria would not have gave the public speech if she thought she could get away with it HB. You are giving her too much credit imo

Haddie-nuff wrote:...she took it because of a family history of the condition
What sort of doctor gives a medication to a young woman who is not suffering with the illness in the first place !!!!!

"I was given this medicine by my doctor for several health issues that I was having back in 2006, I was getting sick a lot, I was getting the flu, every couple of months I had irregular EKG results, as well as indications of diabetes with a family history of diabetes"

So, flu, irregular EKG results and indications of diabetes are not worth treating with medicine?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:This is irrelevant, until January 2016 at the earliest there was absolutely no cheating going on.

Is it though? The drug has FINALLY been banned in tennis but has been banned by other sports for much longer. Plus she is a US citizen so what in heavens name is she getting a drug prescribed to her that is banned in the US? Don't you find that at all weird? The US no doubt has another drug used to treat her 'condition' which she should have been on. After all she must have a US doctor. All too odd.

Why must she have a US doctor? Do you know who her doctor is, or his/her nationality, his medical background? Maybe that doctor thought that drug was the best option for her condition. Which US drug would do the specific job that Sharapova needed CC? Did you know that the US allows certain food dyes that are banned in the UK - http://www.biohealthbase.org/pages/food-coloring-ban-in-uk-but-usa-usage-continues/ Should I eat those foods if I visit the US? Just because a medicine is banned somewhere doesn't mean it shouldn't be used in a medical capacity.
We have no evidence that Sharapova mis-used the drug - the only actual evidence we have is what she says. However, if people want to ignore her evidence and make up there own theories, that's fine, as long as they remain just theories and are not stated as fact.

If my auntie had balls she'd be my uncle, if you wish to believe her complete BS then that is down to you, however anyone sane person realises what she's been doing.

Thanks HH - I think you're insane too

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Jahu wrote:JHM, stop defending her with non-possible scenarios. Makes no sense, she is not a ballet dances from a village, but global star for 10y plus.

You like here dont you?

Actually no - her screaming makes her almost unwatchable.

Been some years since we agree again

kingraf wrote:

Jahu wrote:Exotic water is a pleasure, PEDs are to make you better then next player.

What comparison is this?

If you cant find what you want in yout home country you get it somewhere else. That's the comparison. As the drug wasn't banned until three weeks before she tested positive... why would she change her script if she could
A - afford it
and
B - was taking something which was completely legal?

Legal yes but banned in US/EU, and prescribed for totally something else.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

kingraf wrote:

Jahu wrote:Exotic water is a pleasure, PEDs are to make you better then next player.

What comparison is this?

If you cant find what you want in yout home country you get it somewhere else. That's the comparison. As the drug wasn't banned until three weeks before she tested positive... why would she change her script if she could
A - afford it
and
B - was taking something which was completely legal?

So one of the most sophisticated countries in the world do not have a drug to treat her ailments whilst Eastern Europe (generally regarded as not as advanced) has? Hmm.

Its not about having or not having a drug. It's about having the drug she wants. Eastern Europe is hardly Djibouti when it comes to medical science*. They haven't only just learnt how to make penicillin.

*There's also the fact that the drug by all accounts seems to actually work but hey

Russians have been cheating since Ivan Drago on Rocky