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 **JuliusHMarx** Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:17 pm

Can everyone please ensure they don't state anything as fact, when there is no actual evidence to support it as being factual!

I'm having to edit lots of posts. Please make it clear in your wording that your are expressing opinions, not stating 'facts'.

by Hammersmith harrier Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:21 pm

The facts are she's been caught as a drugs cheat.

by Haddie-nuff Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:25 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
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?

You do not use this kind of extreme medication to treat flu, or indications of diabetes.. or irregular EKG results.
All of these symptoms if shown in a young woman would be treated by lifestyle changes.
If she was getting any severe signs of any of it she would never have reached the dizzy heights she has
Certainly no doctor would have been advising her to take this medication over a ten year period.he would or should have referred her to a specialist.

by **JuliusHMarx** Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:27 pm

That's all supposition H-N - unless you are a qualified member of the medical profession, then I will take your opinions with a pinch of salt, and leave the medical diagnosis and treatment of athletes to those who actually know the subject.

by Haddie-nuff Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:29 pm

Keep editing out JM because it does not fit your agenda.
I suffer with a rare form of angina my husband with diabetes I'm telling you fact.. she should/would not be treated with that form of extreme medication unless her condition was chronic.. that's a fact

by **JuliusHMarx** Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:33 pm

I have no agenda H-N other than to protect the admins who run this site.

No offence, but you are not an expert on Sharapova's medical status, nor the effectiveness of the drug to treat it. That is a fact.

by Haddie-nuff Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:38 pm

Defend her as you will JM.. that is your prerogative..however I will add that I may not be a medical expert but having suffered with heart problems for 10 years plus and had every examination known to man.. not to mention medication.. there is not a doctor I have met that would have prescribed a medication for over 10 years. and I am not as young as her. If you see first hand the affects of all those three indicators, when serious enough, she would not be playing tennis

by Haddie-nuff Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:57 pm

If I might add one other thing to ponder further.
In today's world where advances in medical science are happening on a daily basis.
Do you not find it strange that she has taken the same medication for this problem for 10 years.. would you not have thought a better and probably more suitable maybe less extrememedication ,for her... shall I say .. medical condition/illness/issues.,. could not have been found during that time.
Without any "side affects"

by It Must Be Love Sat Mar 12, 2016 3:08 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:That's all supposition H-N - unless you are a qualified member of the medical profession, then I will take your opinions with a pinch of salt, and leave the medical diagnosis and treatment of athletes to those who actually know the subject.

Give me 4 years JHM.

by Jahu Sat Mar 12, 2016 3:11 pm

IMBL, you gona be a doctor?

Gyno or general?

Well done Smile

by It Must Be Love Sat Mar 12, 2016 3:12 pm

Jahu wrote:IMBL, you gona be a doctor?

Gyno or general?

Well done

I'm actually working to be your personal psychiatrist to help you control your fantasies.

by Haddie-nuff Sat Mar 12, 2016 3:15 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:
Jahu wrote:IMBL, you gona be a doctor?

Gyno or general?

Well done
I'm actually working to be your personal psychiatrist to help you control your fantasies.

Then you will get the 606v2 medal for gallantry Hug

by temporary21 Sat Mar 12, 2016 3:16 pm

Editing or medical professional or not, Hn does make a good point that this is quite a serious medication for a young sportswoman to take. More than that for a condition that's never been disclosed or been noticeable over her whole career

Given also how long shes been on it, GROSSLY longer than recommended, then questions over its medical validity here are absolutely valid.

You don't need to be a doctor to see that, its not proof of guilt, but there are a lot of serious questions to be asked here.

On that note Hn how is your better half with the diabetes now? Has it gotten better?

by Haddie-nuff Sat Mar 12, 2016 3:36 pm

Thanks for asking temp..kind of you
He is much better but having diabetes complicated by pernicious anemia
has been difficult. He gets tired and sleeps rather a lot..(as at present)
he has been put on a new medication..which has helped

by Jahu Sat Mar 12, 2016 3:38 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:
Jahu wrote:IMBL, you gona be a doctor?

Gyno or general?

Well done
I'm actually working to be your personal psychiatrist to help you control your fantasies.

Good luck buddy, 2 docs have failed, third the lucky one maybe Wink

by Jahu Sat Mar 12, 2016 3:40 pm

Haddie-nuff wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:
Jahu wrote:IMBL, you gona be a doctor?

Gyno or general?

Well done
I'm actually working to be your personal psychiatrist to help you control your fantasies.

Then you will get the 606v2 medal for gallantry

HN, keep poking, deeper Laugh

by Jahu Sat Mar 12, 2016 3:41 pm

Haddie-nuff wrote:Thanks for asking temp..kind of you
He is much better but having diabetes complicated by pernicious anemia
has been difficult. He gets tired and sleeps rather a lot..(as at present)
he has been put on a new medication..which has helped

So you are a good caring wife after all, keep it up, as far as you don't talk too much Smile

by Haddie-nuff Sat Mar 12, 2016 3:43 pm

Sadly cant say the same for you Jahu Wink

by temporary21 Sat Mar 12, 2016 3:46 pm

That's strike one...

by newballs Sat Mar 12, 2016 3:53 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:Can everyone please ensure they don't state anything as fact, when there is no actual evidence to support it as being factual!

I'm having to edit lots of posts. Please make it clear in your wording that your are expressing opinions, not stating 'facts'.

Hmm. How many "facts" has she actually provided us with? She's been given the opportunity to give her version of events and make her drug test failure public before the authorities have even said anything. I hope it's not one rule for Sharapova and another for everyone else. Her version of events also raises more questions than it answers too.

She's been caught bang to rights and it'll be interesting to see if the penalty matches the supposed crime.

by Haddie-nuff Sat Mar 12, 2016 3:53 pm

It wasn't intended to be let me assure you.. just banter in the hope we can repair some bridges nothing more

by Guest Sat Mar 12, 2016 3:55 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
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?

So as my grandad and nan had diabetes as does my nephew, shall I go on medication as a preventative measure? Why does it need medicine to treat?

She could've easily looked at non-medication routes, which as it stands I can't see she considered.

by Haddie-nuff Sat Mar 12, 2016 3:55 pm

lk the voice of sanity Very Happy

by Hammersmith harrier Sat Mar 12, 2016 3:57 pm

As a long term sufferer of Sarcoidosis I have been explicitly told by various specialists that long term use of anabolic steroids would do more harm than good, that is for a condition I HAVE.

by summerblues Sat Mar 12, 2016 3:57 pm

One thing that I find positive about Sharapova test is that it may start opening the door to discussing possible doping in tennis in wider media.

Here is an example of the type of article that I hope we will see more of:

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/03/maria-sharapova-drug-scandal-may-be-darker-than-you-think

My personal view is that I would be very surprised if less than a majority of the top players were doping. Obviously, I have no proof of that, but what I have seen of life and human nature, and professional sports, leads me to believe that. At the very least, I would like to see more open discussion of this as a possibility. Clearly, players cannot be accused individually with no evidence, and, without evidence, we cannot claim anything with certainty about the sport itself either.

But I think articles like the one I linked are good to make it clear that the danger that things are far worse than admitted is there, and they are good as hopefully they can make public become more vigilant.

by summerblues Sat Mar 12, 2016 4:09 pm

I will also quote explicitly the closing paragraph from the article I posted above:

And at the risk of ending on a slightly cynical note, it is fair to wonder if here, too, Sharapova’s age and declining game conspired against her. Would tennis officials have been so quick to make an example of Sharapova if she were five years younger and at the pinnacle of her career?

by Jahu Sat Mar 12, 2016 4:10 pm

One of my aunts is infertile, so based on Sharapova logic, I should be inseminating females left and right as much as I can, to test my fertility Smile

by Haddie-nuff Sat Mar 12, 2016 4:17 pm

summerblues wrote:I will also quote explicitly the closing paragraph from the article I posted above:

And at the risk of ending on a slightly cynical note, it is fair to wonder if here, too, Sharapova’s age and declining game conspired against her. Would tennis officials have been so quick to make an example of Sharapova if she were five years younger and at the pinnacle of her career?

I don't honestly think that has anything to do with it, Age is immaterial; enough scandal surrounded Agassi and his use of Crystal Meths after he had retired. Given her age in relation to Serena she was far from beyond her best. Im not sure I would go as far as to say that you are being cynical.. rather than throwing another question into the mix, and there have been plenty of those

by **JuliusHMarx** Sat Mar 12, 2016 4:22 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:
Jahu wrote:IMBL, you gona be a doctor?

Gyno or general?

Well done
I'm actually working to be your personal psychiatrist to help you control your fantasies.

You'll need more than 4 years.

by Born Slippy Sat Mar 12, 2016 4:54 pm

summerblues wrote:I will also quote explicitly the closing paragraph from the article I posted above:

And at the risk of ending on a slightly cynical note, it is fair to wonder if here, too, Sharapova’s age and declining game conspired against her. Would tennis officials have been so quick to make an example of Sharapova if she were five years younger and at the pinnacle of her career?

Whilst agreeing with you that its good that questions are being asked, I didn't think that article was particularly enlightening. Sharapova remains the most marketable WTA star - other than the even older Serena, there is no one who comes close to her. That issue is, if anything, even more pronounced now than 5 years ago. This case is directly against the argument that the authorities will protect the biggest stars.

As for your belief in the prevalence of doping, I remain entirely unconvinced. Whilst I have no doubt that there are dopers, and it wouldn't surprise me if 1 or 2 top guys were doping, there are several reasons why I think tennis probably doesn't have a large doping problem. Indeed, this case strikes me as quite a strong suggestion that, whilst players may try and gain advantage, they will usually try and stay on the right side of the line.

by Jahu Sat Mar 12, 2016 4:57 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:
Jahu wrote:IMBL, you gona be a doctor?

Gyno or general?

Well done
I'm actually working to be your personal psychiatrist to help you control your fantasies.

You'll need more than 4 years.

So you are now a Doctor, knowing how long does a doctor need to cure me?

Double standards from you Laugh

by Guest Sat Mar 12, 2016 4:58 pm

There is no doubting this powerful heart drug was performance enhancing. There is no doubting Sharapova has been on this performance enhancing drug throughout her adult career in tennis (aged 18/19 onwards). There is no doubting it was an obscure drug that flew under the WADA radar for many years (remember Sharapova has an annual income greater than the entire annual budget of WADA). There is no doubting that it had been turning up in the urine of elite sportspeople in ever increasing numbers and that this was the reason for WADAs recognition of this drug as a potential performance enhancer.

Rather than ban it then and there they instigated a monitoring and study of this drug for its use amongst elite sportspeople and of its performance enhancement qualities. By the end of the study it was determined this powerful drug had been used by elite sportspeople for its performance enhancing qualities rather than for any serious heart problem (which is its main function) and decided to add it to the ban list. Note if they really need this drug or its equivalent they can apply to continue to use it with a medical exemption form.

There is a well known process by which sportspeople are warned of changes to the list of WADA banned drugs. Emails are sent in September I believe with various reminders. Also this information is available by going to the WADA website and searching what's new etc. There are also search resources where you type in the drug to see whether it is banned or going to be banned.

This story is a nice example of what WADA is up against and why they are always several steps behind the professional sportspeople who have medical team that may trawl the world for new drugs that have potential performance enhancing qualities and that are not on the WADA list. Of course this is just one of the method amongst many for sportspeople with their advisers and medical teams (if they are so inclined) to "beat the system" in order to gain an advantage.

I think this is entirely different to physical based treatments such as oxygen tents, training at altitude and hyperbaric chambers.

Yes this powerful drug was not on the WADA list before January 2016, but that doesn't mean it was not cheating. It just means it was not a form of cheating legally punishable by the WADA rules. In a court of law there is the law and there is something called the spirit of the law. The same applies in sport.

I think I have also learnt something about Sharapova's character in her very dismissive attitude to "downtown LA" as well as the carpets to be found in hotels in downtown LA. Thank you to Lydian for also identifying the barb or threat to others when she said: "I won’t pretend to be injured so I can hide the truth about my testing". This last statement suggests she could be a potential whistle-blower as she is suggesting she knows much more about how sportspeople play with these tests and what the usual (?) ITF /ATP response is to potential adverse findings.

by **JuliusHMarx** Sat Mar 12, 2016 5:29 pm

Nore Staat wrote:Yes this powerful drug was not on the WADA list before January 2016, but that doesn't mean it was not cheating.

Er, well yes it does mean it was not cheating - unless you can refer to a rule that was broken.

by Jahu Sat Mar 12, 2016 5:34 pm

JHM, you are haging into legal side.

Its a PED, simple, so she tried to be better then she is, so thats cheating.

You can say it was not banned, but taking PEDs is cheating.

by Guest Sat Mar 12, 2016 5:36 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Nore Staat wrote:Yes this powerful drug was not on the WADA list before January 2016, but that doesn't mean it was not cheating.

Er, well yes it does mean it was not cheating - unless you can refer to a rule that was broken.

Does the "against the Spirit of the Game" count?

by Jahu Sat Mar 12, 2016 5:38 pm

No, unless you are caught, it seems.

by Haddie-nuff Sat Mar 12, 2016 5:39 pm

Again we come back to what each person believes to be cheating.
If you are one of those that believes that time violations, in order to get an edge, is cheating then this comes down to the same thing.
There does not need to be any "rules" JM to be against the spirit of SPORT.
Anything that gives a player, or athlete, an unfair advantage because of the introduction of a drug in my opinion is cheating.. however you want to
flower it up is up to you.

by Guest Sat Mar 12, 2016 6:04 pm

It is still purely speculative in terms of the motive and rationale as to why she was taking the drugs. Given the facts we have so far, I can easily see why people are sceptical.

Watch this space as no doubt more will come out.

by temporary21 Sat Mar 12, 2016 6:13 pm

Ok I'll exain this. She's being done for cheating since January. AS PART OF THIS they will assess whether it was performs enhancing, will will include evidence from those years. That evidence may get her 4 years

by kingraf Sat Mar 12, 2016 6:15 pm

legendkillarV2 wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
Nore Staat wrote:Yes this powerful drug was not on the WADA list before January 2016, but that doesn't mean it was not cheating.

Er, well yes it does mean it was not cheating - unless you can refer to a rule that was broken.

Does the "against the Spirit of the Game" count?

As a cricket fan seeing the mythical (and almost certainly completely bulls.hit) spirit of the game brought up made me chuckle

by Haddie-nuff Sat Mar 12, 2016 6:15 pm

Cheating according to Wikepedia

See also: Match fixing and cheating

Key principles of sport include that the result should not be predetermined, and that both sides should have equal opportunity to win. Rules are in place to ensure that fair play to occur, but participants can break these rules in order to gain advantage.

Participants may choose to cheat in order to satisfy their desire to win, or in order to achieve an ulterior motive. The widespread existence of gambling on the results of sports fixtures creates the motivation for match fixing, where a participant or participants deliberately work to ensure a given outcome.

Doping and drugs

Main article: Use of performance-enhancing drugs in sport

The competitive nature of sport encourages some participants to attempt to enhance their performance through the use of medicines, or through other means such as increasing the volume of blood in their bodies through artificial means.

All sports recognised by the IOC or Sport Accord are required to implement a testing programme, looking for a list of banned drugs, with suspensions or bans being placed on participants who test positive for banned substances.

by hawkeye Sat Mar 12, 2016 6:17 pm

From Sharapova's facebook

To My Fans:
I want to reach out to you to share some information, discuss the latest news, and let you know that there have been things that have been reported wrong in the media, and I am determined to fight back.

You have shown me a tremendous outpouring of support, and I’m so grateful for it. But I have also been aware that some – not all, but some – in the media distort, exaggerate and fail to accurately report the facts about what happened.

A report said that I had been warned five times about the upcoming ban on the medicine I was taking. That is not true and it never happened.

That’s a distortion of the actual “communications” which were provided or simply posted onto a webpage.

I make no excuses for not knowing about the ban. I already told you about the December 22, 2015 email I received. Its subject line was “Main Changes to the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme for 2016.” I should have paid more attention to it.
But the other “communications”? They were buried in newsletters, websites, or handouts.

On December 18, I received an email with the subject line “Player News” on it. It contained a newsletter on a website that contained tons of information about travel, upcoming tournaments, rankings, statistics, bulletin board notices, happy birthday wishes, and yes, anti-doping information. On that email, if a player wanted to find the specific facts about medicine added to the anti-doping list, it was necessary to open the “Player News” email, read through about a dozen unrelated links, find the “Player Zone” link, enter a password, enter a username, read a home screen with more than three dozen different links covering multiple topics, find the “2016 Changes to Tennis Anti-Doping Program and Information” link, click on it and then read a page with approximately three dozen more links covering multiple anti-doping matters. Then you had to click the correct link, open it up, scroll down to page two and that’s where you would find a different name for the medication I was taking.

In other words, 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.

There was also a “wallet card” distributed at various tournaments at the beginning of 2016, after the ban went into effect. This document had thousands of words on it, many of them technical, in small print. Should I have studied it? Yes. But if you saw this document (attached), you would know what I mean.

Again, no excuses, but it’s wrong to say I was warned five times.

There was also a headline that said, “4-6 Weeks Normal Treatment for Drug in Maria Sharapova Case.” That headline has been repeated by many reporters who fail to tell their viewers and readers what the rest of the story says. The story quotes the manufacturer of my medicine as saying: “Treatment course can be repeated twice or thrice a year. Only physicians can follow and evaluate patient's health condition and state whether the patient should use meldonium for a longer period of time."

That’s exactly what I did. I didn’t take the medicine every day. I took it the way my doctor recommended I take it and I took it in the low doses recommended.

I’m proud of how I have played the game. I have been honest and upfront. I won’t pretend to be injured so I can hide the truth about my testing.

I look forward to the ITF hearing at which time they will receive my detailed medical records.

I hope I will be allowed to play again. But no matter what, I want you, my fans, to know the truth and have the facts.
- Maria

https://www.facebook.com/sharapova/posts/10153282306932680

by Haddie-nuff Sat Mar 12, 2016 6:23 pm

Seen it

by Guest Sat Mar 12, 2016 6:31 pm

kingraf wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
Nore Staat wrote:Yes this powerful drug was not on the WADA list before January 2016, but that doesn't mean it was not cheating.

Er, well yes it does mean it was not cheating - unless you can refer to a rule that was broken.

Does the "against the Spirit of the Game" count?

As a cricket fan seeing the mythical (and almost certainly completely bulls.hit) spirit of the game brought up made me chuckle

Oh I love the term. I certainly recall the recent WI and Zimbabwe U19 encounter where the term was referenced many times.

If it's within the rules to do certain things, it's very difficult to argue why certain advantages can't be executed.

It touches many moral nerves. However, it does make for good column inches and debates.

by sirfredperry Sat Mar 12, 2016 6:42 pm

Sharapova has, presumably, a huge team around her. Surely someone could have read her emails for her. Difficult to work out what this has all been about. Carefully-staged press conference by media-conscious player with loads to lose from lost endorsements is a scenario that springs to mind.

by Haddie-nuff Sat Mar 12, 2016 6:46 pm

At the end of the day it isn't about her standards of "fair play" but ours.
Each person has their own belief as to what is morally correct in these circumstances.
Maybe I take the route of little or no tolerance in these matters but that is not to say other posters are wrong in their belief that rules are there to be broken.
I personally find it hard having watched the sport I so love for so many years and seen played by the greatest women players the sport has ever seen.. she will never hold a candle to any of them ; incidents such as this were non existent, or at least to my knowledge that was so. My view is that the sport can well do without the likes of Sharapova.. whatever the outcome of this enquiry to me her record will always be tainted. and I would never wish to see her play again, let alone listen to her !!!! Harsh yes I daresay that is how I will be viewed.

by CaledonianCraig Sat Mar 12, 2016 6:49 pm

The questions surrounding the whole situation that need clarification are:-

Why she was on this drug long term when it is only for short term prescription?

As a US citizen did she have a US doctor and if so why was he prescribing a Eastern European favoured drug?

If she has heart problems that she is taking the drug for then it is miraculous she can play such a sport to such a high level over such a long period of time. How does she manage it?

by Haddie-nuff Sat Mar 12, 2016 6:50 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:The questions surrounding the whole situation that need clarification are:-

Why she was on this drug long term when it is only for short term prescription?

As a US citizen did she have a US doctor and if so why was he prescribing a Eastern European favoured drug?

If she has heart problems that she is taking the drug for then it is miraculous she can play such a sport to such a high level over such a long period of time. How does she manage it?

My point exactly

by **JuliusHMarx** Sat Mar 12, 2016 6:56 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:The questions surrounding the whole situation that need clarification are:-

Why she was on this drug long term when it is only for short term prescription?

As a US citizen did she have a US doctor and if so why was he prescribing a Eastern European favoured drug?

If she has heart problems that she is taking the drug for then it is miraculous she can play such a sport to such a high level over such a long period of time. How does she manage it?

Asa Hartford.
Arthur Ashe.

Are you ruling out the possibility that the medicine resolved any EKG irregularities? Isn't that exactly the sort of thing people take medicine for?

by kingraf Sat Mar 12, 2016 7:00 pm

legendkillarV2 wrote:
kingraf wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
Nore Staat wrote:Yes this powerful drug was not on the WADA list before January 2016, but that doesn't mean it was not cheating.

Er, well yes it does mean it was not cheating - unless you can refer to a rule that was broken.

Does the "against the Spirit of the Game" count?

As a cricket fan seeing the mythical (and almost certainly completely bulls.hit) spirit of the game brought up made me chuckle

Oh I love the term. I certainly recall the recent WI and Zimbabwe U19 encounter where the term was referenced many times.

If it's within the rules to do certain things, it's very difficult to argue why certain advantages can't be executed.

It touches many moral nerves. However, it does make for good column inches and debates.

Funny enough Mankading without warning issue probably the only time I feel Father Spirit has been disturbed. It's on a similar plane to not telling your opponent you got a racquet to passing shot that went out. Kinda allowed but mainly a douche move.

Returning back to Maria, having looked it up even further (rare Saturday night in and I've finally exhausted Netflix to the point where I'm just waiting for "Winter is Coming") I'm not convinced meldonium is actually a PED in any case. Yes it increases exercise capacity in the very sick but that is very different to aiding an athlete in athletic perfomance. As far as the eye can see it's basically been banned on the back of one jounal article and the fact that a Poopie of athletes were suddenly using it. Admittedly this is strange but a Poopie of athletes also started using those power balance bracelets back in 2010 and that didn't mean that they were effective.

by Sponsored content