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.

She took a lawful PED for 10 years and fell asleep on the job when WADA made it unlawful.  It seems exceptionally unlikely that she knowingly took a banned PED, she thought it remained lawful because she (and her team) failed to keep up with WADA.  I agree with socal that her backstory that it was prescribed for medicinal purposes looks shaky.

Where does that leave us on what we currently know:

(a) Very likely not a straight cheat in the Armstrong/Johnson mould
(b) A canny user of a lawful PED for 10 years, along with other athletes from the former Eastern Block
(c) For someone who is so hugely controlling of her image her error is unbelievably sloppy, almost unimaginable, but more probable than deliberately taking the drug knowing it was banned
(d) If there is a family history of diabetes "Superpova" looks even more tacky than it did before, and the bar is very low on that one.
(e) Even Nike has dropped her - the endorsement career looks like toast, but there's no need on this evidence to throw her tennis records out
(g) Serena will be chuckling wryly to herself I'm sure, and she won't be the only one - although there will be other WTA players v. worried about the commercial implications for them of the world #8 and endorsement superstar screwing up so badly

The records are inviolate, there's no allegation whatsoever of rule breaking during that period, just 2016.

Comparisons to Armstrong are akin to those between Jeremy Corbyn and Joseph Stalin.

It is my opinion that she would not have taken the drug if she had known it was banned, but I believe she knowingly took the drug because it enhanced her performance. The excuse/reason that she had a family history of diabetes is convenient.  But Google for a recommended preventative for diabetes and they will suggest, diet and exercise.. well come on she has plenty of that.  If the medication was used for the reason of performance enhancement,  banned on not she is still a cheat in my mind.. if Novak is hauled over for his use of his egg chamber which is not banned then its no different

its a big litmus test this one. Its easier to throw someone like Troicki the book for non compliance or a potential mistake, but Shazza is the WTA's second biggest draw. Do they have the cojones to apply a large ban to it? Or will this be considered another Cilic?

I also wonder how tennis fans in general will react, now a big names fallen foul. Will we still see the same no tolerance approach...

Sounds like a mistake, but I agree, it also sounds like reasons for taking them don't add up anyway.

hawkeye wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Navratilova calling it an honest mistake.

That's what it looks like.

Ignoring communication from WADA is an honest mistake?? 

Sounds like negligence to me.

Tag Heur will not renew her contract.

Heck of a mistake though...

With Cilic, he didn't read a label properly, but took his lumps at least.

Marias been knowingly taking this for 10 years, you've surely gotta think to be careful with it...

On what we know I agree with the thrust of BB's points - which are in my (a), (c) and (e).  

The danger to Sharapova is reputational risk going forward.  She has said that she used it medicinally - if that comes slightly unraveled she is in endorsement hell.  By saying she used it medicinally she is implicitly agreeing with anyone who thinks that even if it was a lawful PED to use it wasn't very ethical - if that explanation fails she has effectively condemned herself and also not told the truth.

That is the battleground on which she must win in the future if she has a chance of preserving her marketability.  My guess is that win or lose on that battle, she is toast from the endorsement point of view going forwards.

Well if it was being taken for the reasons she has given I wouldn't put much faith in her doctor.. to prescribe this medication to a young woman, an elite athlete, in her prime for such a long period of time.. he should be struck off... he knew as well as she did why she is taking it.
There was also big question marks put over Agassi's records once it had been revealed in his book about the use of crystal meths.. the stigma will stick no matter what.. and I am an Agassi fan.

We need to stop focusing on endorsement. It's not like she is starving or lack money.

What's at stake is her credibility ,reputation etc.

And the end of the day drugs us drugs doesn't matter that it was added to the list in January. If you are busted you are busted. Simple as that. Some sports don't take drugs taking seriously. Football and tennis are two such sports.

Roger Federer said that many times he finish a match and keep asking "where is doping control ? It's almost doesn't exist in tennis ?

Why do you think so many track and field get busted because they have drugs testing programme .

She always declared that she used it previously - didn't try to hide it. Anything that is lawful is fine - do we have any reason to doubt her medical requirements? (I don't think her being Russian is reason enough - that's Donald Trump territory).

Now she's made a stupid mistake and it's going to cost her. Such is life. Doesn't make her a bad person though.

djkbrown2001 wrote:We need to stop focusing on endorsement. It's not like  she is starving or lack money.

What's at stake is her credibility ,reputation etc.

Quite - it's the same point.  She is not going to have her past wins stripped from her (she'll lose the Aus Open money and points), and the best measure of her reputation is how sponsors react, hence the interest in their responses.  They are extremely well tuned to what their customers think, and they won't try to sell stuff on the back of someone who has lost their reputation.

Like Agassi when a lot more talk surfaced about the Aus Open 2002 withdrawal after his book, I suspect that (fairly or not) people will start coming out of the woodwork talking about situations involving Sharapova that they had concerns about but did not want to mention.  At the very best she has been guilty of extraordinary lack of professionalism and casualness towards a central aspect of keeping the game clean - hardly impressive.

I think her reputation will take a heavy battering, hence her endorsement career as one of the superstars is also over.

She actually knew it was to be banned in September... very foolish mistake.
If we were to throw the book at cilic, I don't see we can explain this one away. Its the same mistake.

Mistake? I don't think it's a mistake. They knew that it aids cardiovascular efficiency and endurance. Hence they have been using the legal loophole for years. Lots of other athletes in athletics have been busted for it. Two Ethiopians and they will be banned for 2 years minimum. Anything less than 2 years by the ITF will mean that they are not serious .

It's strict liability. Ignorance or carelessness is not a defence.

djkbrown2001 wrote:Mistake?  I don't think it's a mistake. They knew that it aids cardiovascular  efficiency  and endurance. Hence they have been using the legal loophole  for years.  Lots of other athletes in athletics have been busted for it. Two Ethiopians and they will be banned for 2 years minimum. Anything less than 2 years by the ITF  will mean that they are not serious .

It's strict liability. Ignorance  or carelessness is not a defence.

Agreed....

It seems that a lot of Russians are suffering from illnesses that have required the use of Meldonium.

A memo was sent out to athletes by Russia’s anti-doping agency last September informing them of the decision to ban its use.

Fellow Russian athlete and Olympic gold medallist figure skater Ekaterina Bobrova admitted to testing positive to the drug on Monday.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/mar/08/meldonium-maria-sharapova-failed-drugs-test

More Russians, but with not as high a profile, are expected to fail tests for Meldonium this year....

Maria had much better results+performances vs Serena when she wasn't taking this Meldonium... Sigh

Also acarbose and metformin are more effective medications for preventing Diabetes according to doctors and friends who had the disease.

I think she has been badly advised, but if Meldonium is on the WADA list then so should the Egg pods that are proven to give an edge in sports

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

Am reading that meldonium can be a masking agent for EPO.

Sharapova apparently corrected herself from "my doctor" to "my family doctor".

We can but wait and see what happens.

The drugs was PED ten years ago and it's PED now. Not because it was legal back then it does not mean it was moral. She was taking it to get an unfair advantage .

Taking it ten years ago is like tax avoidance not illegal but not moral .

Sharapova withdrew from IE - citing injury. If that was a lie why lie. Could have just withdrawn stating personal family reasons.

Re the doctor perhaps tennis players should be declaring all medications for any illness as a rule. It's far to easy otherwise to get a friendly doctor to say something that wasn't true after the fact, or write a back-dated prescription. (Not saying that's what happened here though.) Are the journalists doing their job properly and asking for the name of the doctor?

I agree that endorsement is less important to reputation to someone who's already rich - at least it should be assuming you've been sensible enough to save big, but not all sports people are.

Good summary from Barrystar.

Thanks Socal for you reply. It would be nice to see something more explicit in that Sharapova declared the use. To me, that would make quite a difference. I think if she did probably around a 1-year ban might be about right. Talk of say a 4-year ban is over the top although I have a feeling she might be less likely to get off lightly than certain tennis stars have in the past. There has been too many stories questioning tennis integrity recently. I expect the authorities will take a reactionary stance rather than a just one, and hence a 2-4 year ban.

My impression is that MaSha was taking the drug in the knowledge that it was legal and at least potentially performance enhancing (hence WADA initially looking at it, and identifying 17% of Russian athletes tested having it in their system). Not really that much different from taking creatine or other legal supplements, or certain painkillers, until the start of 2016. Within the rules even if a little questionable ethically.

Obviously, not realising it had been added to the WADA list of prohibited substances was at least negligent. In my opinion this is much worse that the Cilic case (or the somewhat similar case of the British skier Alan Baxter, who used an American version of a Vicks inhaler, which contained Ephedrine, rather than the European version that didn't) - there is significant fault on the part of Sharapova in that she knowingly took a substance that was banned (even if she and her team were unaware of the recently-instigated ban). I'd be surprised if she gets less than 2 years as a ban, as I can't see WADA / CAS accepting ignorance as a mitigating circumstance, when the ignorance came from not correctly understanding the banned list and the contents of the medicine she was taking.

There tends to be more leniency in cases like Cilic, or the relatively recent case with the cyclist Mick Rogers, where traces of clenbuterol [iirc] were found as a result of eating contaminated meat in China, where the positive test comes from inadvertent consumption of a banned product, rather than knowingly taking something that you were unaware was banned.

I do have a little sympathy in that I don't think Sharapova was 'intentionally doping' in the normal meaning of this (i.e. intentionally taking a PED, knowing that it was a banned substance but either taking steps to avoid detection or hoping to avoid testing). I think the test failure owes more to stupidity than malice, but that shouldn't make a difference to the ban she receives. djkborwn is correct that WADA regulations are for strict liability.

No not taking it because it was banned?.. but knowingly taking it because you know it enhances your performance.. is morally wrong.. as any form of performance enhancement whatever it is and by whoever uses it.

If you take an aspirin to cure a migraine that then improves your performance because the migraine is gone, is that morally wrong?

Julius look at it in context. Of all the drugs she could have used it so happens that the one she took is a PED that other athletes have been busted for. It's one that 17% of Russian athletes have in their system .

Something fishy . Not the equivalent of your aspErin analogy

What a crazy analogy Cant you do better r than that when you want to disagree with me  JHM and only me, it seems.. You have in the past !!!


But if you really want to get off the subject try taking an aspirin to cure a migraine  I sincerely wish you luck

If youre gonna go down THAT route then technically you shouldn't be allowed to eat, because the stuff in that enhances your performance as well...

A prescribed or ooc drug for a mitigating condition is used to put you at a level playing field, not enhance, to suggest this is somehow the same as a ped is extremely stupid...

A PED is generally considered something that unnaturally enhances your bodies speed and strength more than it rally can. So Steroids, EPO etc, aspririn is a pain killer, which might make you feel better sure, but your body is no different...

Of course, some medications or medical treatments MIGHT constitute a PED, but no ones of course silly enough to suggest that those should be banned and put those people in real danger.

If she took them for a medical condition, that's something else. But it doesn't look good, just happening to take a non American approved drug that happens to be in a number of other Russian athletes, when there are MANY other better treatments...

that's the worst case anyway, the best case is it was for some legit (that she didn't fully specify) condition but didn't change to another treatment when it got banned for its potential. In which case its gross negligence from a top player who really should have known better,

Now Creatine... that's a supplement technically, but its definitely a greyer area.
Though it doesn't do anything unless you train, I wonder if its used a lot before a match...
Then again its apparently only a short term thing, and it dehydrates you and hurts your stomach...

There is a way of defining her guilt simply though isn't there? Apparently, the offending drug is used to treat angina (not sure what else it is used to treat) but surely her medical records should be handed over to the tennis authorities. If no medical ailments requiring the drug shows up in her records then it has to elevate the suspicion as to why she was taking it. If, however, doctors are happy enough she was taking it for a bona fide illness then I'd say it is as she says - a silly mistake and not worth going too OTT with punishment.

She does not HAVE a condition..she has a family history of the condition and therefore has been on medication for the last 10 years . Diabetes is forestalled or prevented by lifestyle ..diet, exercise and the like as any self respecting doctor would advise. Her sugar levels would be monitored.If sh then shows signs of developing diabetes medication is used.. she hasn't said that
This particular drug does not have to be used for the purpose of prevention. however the bonus of doing so is that it enhances performance. Convenient?
I am very suspicious of her reasons for its  use.. banned or not.

It's quite murky. Thing is she had been taking it for years, and whilst not disclosing exactly the medical condition she takes it for (she is entitled not to disclose it) I think if she wants this to come over in a slightly better light, then maybe disclosing the condition will help clear up any misgivings about why she is taking the drug. Similarly the same argument could be made for the PEP debate that surrounded another top player though I won't go there.

Any athlete should be mindful enough to know what they are putting into their bodies. Seems even the Alan Baxter case hasn't inspired more to be more vigilant and responsible. The excuse that was coughed up displays her attitude (or lack of) towards anything relating to WADA. I recall March last year (temp might be aware of this) the UK government made it illegal to drive if you were on certain types of medication. No longer did the white label on the tablet pack/bottle which reads "do not drive or operate machinery" actually mean don't do it. For example Diazepam was on there. Now, many depression or anxiety sufferers or those with pain take this medication. For it's sedative properties, it made it on to this list. Some of these people need to drive to work or as part of their jobs. Imagine if one of the said people didn't read the literature around the new law (leaflets were posted to homes and any medical environment e.g hospital, surgeries) set out on their day and 'accidently' ran over a loved one of yours? Would you accept the excuse "Oh I didn't bother reading the leaflet" as a 'mistake'? People would scream negligence.

I know that example is a tad extreme, but it's relative in that if you know your on medication, you have a responsibility to know the rules/guidelines/laws surrounding those substances.

Any doctor worth their salt will tell you what the effects/side effects are and if that isn't clear, the leaflet inside details more effects. Athletes will know what substance does what whether legal or illegal.

Well if she has no medical condition or does not wish to disclose why she was taking it then I'd say its an admission of guilt in itself. The genie is out of the bottle now so if she genuinely was in error then she can be frank and open and reveal what condition she had that she was taking it for. After all if she wants to save her career I am sure she would talk.

Lk is right. If you take ssri's or anything like that. You cant have them on repeat prescription you have to see your doc, who will then spell out for you if anythings changed at all. Its even weirder that this doctor didn't tell her that. Surely being safe with her meds is like nearly his entire job?

Well, worst case is she knew it was banned but took it anyway to improve her performance, on the basis that if caught she could rely on the "oops, silly me" defence. This seems unlikely given the fact she was basically relying on not being tested and the damage to her reputation even relying on the current defence.

The middle (and in my view most likely) ground is that she was taking it when legal to give her some form of performance boost and missed the email as stated, so was taking it to gain an advantage but unaware it was now banned.

The alternative (and the position she is adopting) is that it was for some medical condition. Her speech did remind me a little of Roddick's SARS dig at Novak though. She seemed to cover diabetes, irregular ECG, general illness and the common cold in her list of reasons she was advised to take it.

If the 3rd argument is accepted, it strikes me that it's going to be a very short ban. If it's the 2nd, then arguably her actual "fault" is no worse than the 3rd but I would expect a longer ban.

She also refused to have her B sample tested.

I agreed with the poster above. WaDa sent you a list and you ignore it! Are you expletive kidding me! IT SHOWS flagrant disregard to the doping authorities. Can you imagine a track and field or cyclist saying that they didn't read a WADA email about ban drugs.

This shows you the attitude of tennis players and tennis authorities towards doping .

Even Murray and Federer said that the tennis anti doping is a joke. Federer said many times he finished a match and keep asking where is doping control.

Hopefully this will be a wake up call for the sport .

Haddie-nuff wrote:What a crazy analogy Cant you do better r than that when you want to disagree with me  JHM and only me, it seems.. You have in the past !!!


But if you really want to get off the subject try taking an aspirin to cure a migraine  I sincerely wish you luck

But you said "is morally wrong.. as any form of performance enhancement whatever it is"
I disagree with that. I'd be happy to allow anyone to take an aspirin to help improve their performance, whereas you would not. That's all I'm saying.

My wider point is that athletes take all sorts of legal substances to improve performance. This one was legal until January. And prescribed for medical reasons - unless people choose not to believe that.

djkbrown2001 wrote:WaDa sent you a list and you ignore it! Are you expletive kidding me!  IT SHOWS flagrant disregard to the doping authorities.

Can't argue with that. Big mistake - as she admitted - and now she's rightly paying the price.
But I can't put her in the same bracket as anyone who knowingly took a banned substance, because I can't see any actual evidence (yet) that she knowingly did so.

That's semantics tbh. Hn clearly didn't mean aspirin when she says that. This is much ado about nothing.

Thing is she WAS taking a banned substance because she had no respect for WADA and didn't even bother to check. That level if irresponsibility, even if innocent HAS to come with a big consequence, or everyone found out will spout it.

In short, she's a bit screwed

I suppose she's being punished for two things

1) taking a banned substance
2) flagrantly ignoring WADAs correspondence and taking no responsibility for her own medication

I can understand the view of letting her off light for 1) if it is indeed taken for a real medical problem, but looks uncertain. Unfortunately no matter what I think she's gonna be taken to the cleaners in 2)

Born Slippy wrote:Well, worst case is she knew it was banned but took it anyway to improve her performance, on the basis that if caught she could rely on the "oops, silly me" defence. This seems unlikely given the fact she was basically relying on not being tested and the damage to her reputation even relying on the current defence.

The middle (and in my view most likely) ground is that she was taking it when legal to give her some form of performance boost and missed the email as stated, so was taking it to gain an advantage but unaware it was now banned.

The alternative (and the position she is adopting) is that it was for some medical condition. Her speech did remind me a little of Roddick's SARS dig at Novak though. She seemed to cover diabetes, irregular ECG, general illness and the common cold in her list of reasons she was advised to take it.

If the 3rd argument is accepted, it strikes me that it's going to be a very short ban. If it's the 2nd, then arguably her actual "fault" is no worse than the 3rd but I would expect a longer ban.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts. I mean, it could be valid health reasons and she did give a list of them, but it felt like they'd had to quickly read the valid conditions that the drug could treat and cover all bases. I've no doubt they can find a doctor to cover for her though.

In the end, 2nd and 3rd are the same for the ITF anti-doping, but not for public opinion and thus sponsors.

Sp true temp21. She has a reputation of being meticulous in control. Point is if WaDa sent you an email you read it and act accordingly. No excuse here. A 1 to 2 year ban seem suitable. 4 years is overkill and would end her career. I don't even think she can recover from a 2 year ban. She will be 29 this year.

temporary21 wrote:I suppose she's being punished for two things

1) taking a banned substance
2) flagrantly ignoring WADAs correspondence and taking no responsibility for her own medication

I can understand the view of letting her off light for 1) if it is indeed taken for a real medical problem, but looks uncertain. Unfortunately no matter what I think she's gonna be taken to the cleaners in 2)

Yes, as indeed she should be.

But what about any other athletes who took it - or any other substance that used to be legal but was then banned - and then stopped when it was banned. Do we label them as potential cheats as well? For taking something when it was legal?

As far as I understand, this is the attachment to the email all the athletes got in September and again in December on changes to the banned list.

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

I saw a few people on TV commenting this morning about how hard it is to work out if substances are banned and how easy it is to get confused over the names (Meldonium/Mildronate etc) but it is plain as day in this case. One can only assume she is telling the truth that neither she nor anyone in her team did even open this attachment otherwise she was willing to risk everything on not getting caught.

What's your point? She's not in trouble for taking it when it wasnt banned. She's in trouble for taking it when it WAS. Someone already answered this, they don't consider it cheating, but not in the spirit of the game. It's the same argument as novaks machine

https://jakegshelley.wordpress.com/2016/03/03/what-is-melodoniummildronate/

Read the link above. Very interesting reference the PED benefits

My personal view is it was game for her to use it while legal. It's a little dodgy but they're competitive sportspeople.

If you do that though, and are silly enough to not check when you can't take advantage any longer, then there's little sympathy

A legitimate medical condition is different, but there's some real doubt on that atm

One review (4) of the effects of Meldonium on exercise performance listed the following benefits:

Decreased levels of lactate and urea in blood
Improved economy of glycogen: level of glycogen increased in the cells during the long-lasting exercise
Increased endurance properties and aerobic capabilities of athletes
Improved functional parameters of heart activity
Increased physical work capabilities
Increased rate of recovery after maximal and sub-maximal loads
Activates CNS functions and protects against stress
A published human research study (5) on the effects of Meldonium on sports performance used Russian judokas and gave them a dose of 0.5-1.0 g twice a day before training, as a 14-21 day course during the training period 10-14 days before competition. Some of the above effects published in the review article were reported from this study. Unfortunately, quite a lot of the research into this topic is only published in Russian (6). Another Russian study, translated into English, showed a significant improvement in the swimming of rats after Meldonium supplementation (1).

WADA decided that there was enough evidence to investigate further as they developed two separate tests for Meldonium, which has the chemical name 3-(2,2,2-trimethylhydrazine)propionate dihydrate. Both tests use a urine sample – the first is easily compatible with current tests carried out for other substances in anti-doping laboratories and could be used to screen large numbers of samples, whilst the second is more specific to Meldonium and could unequivocally determine its presence in a sample (4).

djkbrown2001 wrote:She also refused to have her B sample tested.

That's not really a negative against Sharapova. She admitted taking what they found in the main sample so said no need to check the B sample.

Personally, if she gets less than a year, I'll be quite disappointed. I don't think she'll get 4 years and probably not even 2. But if it's six months and she's back at the Olympics, to me that is a poor reflection of tennis anti-doping effectiveness.

I've read that players have to inform authorities of any prescribed drugs they are taking. Sharapova listed meldonium (or the name she knew it as) as a drug she had used prior to the AO. In the circumstances difficult not to see it as a mistake. A mistake that she shouldn't have made and one that she is paying a very high price for.

Using the drug prior to January this year was not against the rules. It appears that some are judging her for taking this drug when it was legal to do so. It stinks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35751916

Not because it was legal 10 years ago I doesn't mean that it was not a PED.

Plus her excuse : she used it for flu, diabetes ,heart problems,mg deficiency etc. This one drugs bring used for so many different illness when there are other medication that are not PED that can be used for those alleged conditions.

I called BS.