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.

Of course nobody would look up such things would they Raf, all the young impressionable gym rats just know what to take and where from.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Where do people get their medication from generally? I know I get mine from my local chemist prescribed locally by my doctor so it will be drugs widely available and ratified for use in UK. So am I being naive to think Sharapova's situation should be similar? Even if it isn't then why is she getting a drug from Russia (regarded a less advanced country) than the one she is living in which (by my research) says she would not have been prescribed the drug she was on.

Those sorts of curious details are what is fuelling rumours/speculation and suspicions.

Prescribing guidelines vary in each country. Some medicines in the uk for example can be over the counter in others.

Yes but if she were getting her medication over the counter in the States then it still would not have been the drug she was on as other US products are used to treat her condition.

I have resided in three different countries and cannot get heart medication other than by prescription and then only verified by a consultant, not a family doctor... extensive tests have to be carried out before such medication is prescribed. The availability of such medication by virtue of the fact that she only has a family history of a heart condition  just makes it more suspect by the minute.

kingraf wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

kingraf wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

kingraf wrote:

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.

The thing is (in my experience within pharmacy) I wouldn't know the dose for meldonium to allow for it's enhancing properties to be beneficial without the side effects that comes with that medication. Again, her doctor has a lot to answer for. I am not a fan of "private" doctors for individuals because they will do as instructed by the client regardless of the risks and like the case with Michael Jackson, what happens when a doctor doesn't act  in the best interest and health of their patient. The 2 questions I have would be:

1) How long has meldonium been on WADA's radar in terms of its performing enhancement properties and how long has it taken for them to make the decision to make it illegal?

2) Who out of Sharapova and her doctor pushed for the continuous use for what seems to be for "preventative" measures against illnesses that she isn't suffering?

Well, I don't think a 20-year old is spending her time looking up obscure Eastern European drugs with potentially helpful sports side effects.

Well a doctor could identify the nice stuff, but she still has the right to refuse.

And she would refuse based on what in 2006? By all accounts she'd have been miles ahead of the curve (at least wrt Wada and even research).

Yes but why was she (when living in the States) not prescribed a US drug more widely used for treating her condition not being prescribed to her?

kingraf wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

kingraf wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

kingraf wrote:

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.

The thing is (in my experience within pharmacy) I wouldn't know the dose for meldonium to allow for it's enhancing properties to be beneficial without the side effects that comes with that medication. Again, her doctor has a lot to answer for. I am not a fan of "private" doctors for individuals because they will do as instructed by the client regardless of the risks and like the case with Michael Jackson, what happens when a doctor doesn't act  in the best interest and health of their patient. The 2 questions I have would be:

1) How long has meldonium been on WADA's radar in terms of its performing enhancement properties and how long has it taken for them to make the decision to make it illegal?

2) Who out of Sharapova and her doctor pushed for the continuous use for what seems to be for "preventative" measures against illnesses that she isn't suffering?

Well, I don't think a 20-year old is spending her time looking up obscure Eastern European drugs with potentially helpful sports side effects.

Well a doctor could identify the nice stuff, but she still has the right to refuse.

And she would refuse based on what in 2006? By all accounts she'd have been miles ahead of the curve (at least wrt Wada and even research).

Well a discussion like so might have transpired:

Doctor: Maria I know this drug will give you the edge legally over the competition. The only drawback is the long term side effects which include chest hair and an Adam's apple.

Maria: Ooooh I don't know.

Doctor: Tough one isn't it. 10 years of success and a hairy chest later in life or no success and a clean bill of health.

Maria: I am sold!

Hahahahaha.

Dimi could get us some info about that chest.

One would imagine that an elite sportsperson and the medical team surrounding that elite sportsperson when deciding to take a drug, would consider the potential for performance enhancement.  One tends to find amongst elite athletes a much greater proportion claiming diseases many serious diseases than in the general population for their demographic.  There was a time when nearly every elite swimmer was claiming to have asthma so that they could be prescribed salbutamol - that helps open up the airways for maximal lung functioning and gaseous exchange.

There is a simple answer to this if anyone has the pluck to do it.. I would but I know I would not stand a chance with my Spanish doctor,
Go to your doctors and tell him/her the same story as Sharapova, you have a history of the conditions she says she has and that you would like a prescription for the same medication................ and await your answer.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

kingraf wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

kingraf wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

kingraf wrote:

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.

The thing is (in my experience within pharmacy) I wouldn't know the dose for meldonium to allow for it's enhancing properties to be beneficial without the side effects that comes with that medication. Again, her doctor has a lot to answer for. I am not a fan of "private" doctors for individuals because they will do as instructed by the client regardless of the risks and like the case with Michael Jackson, what happens when a doctor doesn't act  in the best interest and health of their patient. The 2 questions I have would be:

1) How long has meldonium been on WADA's radar in terms of its performing enhancement properties and how long has it taken for them to make the decision to make it illegal?

2) Who out of Sharapova and her doctor pushed for the continuous use for what seems to be for "preventative" measures against illnesses that she isn't suffering?

Well, I don't think a 20-year old is spending her time looking up obscure Eastern European drugs with potentially helpful sports side effects.

Well a doctor could identify the nice stuff, but she still has the right to refuse.

And she would refuse based on what in 2006? By all accounts she'd have been miles ahead of the curve (at least wrt Wada and even research).

Well a discussion like so might have transpired:

Doctor: Maria I know this drug will give you the edge legally over the competition. The only drawback is the long term side effects which include chest hair and an Adam's apple.

Maria: Ooooh I don't know.

Doctor: Tough one isn't it. 10 years of success and a hairy chest later in life or no success and a clean bill of health.

Maria: I am sold!

Problem there is the lack of evidence supporting the claim that it will give her all that success.
Surely it would be more


Doctor: Maria I know this drug might on the off chance give you the edge legally over the competition. The only drawback is the long term side effects which include chest hair and an Adam's apple. Theres no actual research at the moment to support this. I mean it cured a dogs diabetes once so I can definitely see it working for you. There's no guarantees in life right?

Maria: Ooooh I don't know.

Doctor: Tough one isn't it. 10 years of success and a hairy chest later in life or no success and a clean bill of health.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Of course nobody would look up such things would they Raf, all the young impressionable gym rats just know what to take and where from.

I've never seen it. The only thing I've seen people take which isn't a regular steroid is insulin. Which isn't only found in the Southern tip of Narnia. I'd take insulin too if it wasnt for my family history of diabetes, so instead I just eat really ripe bananas for an insulin boost. Really ripe bananas btw probably have more evidence of perfomance enhancing than meldonuim

Bananas are a source of potassium to prevent cramp

The key for WADA is medical misuse: using a drug when one doesn't have the medical condition nor the severity of a medical condition that would necessitate the use of that drug.  Drugs are powerful things.  They can help to change the physiology of the body.  Sometimes the changes are performance enhancing.  For WADA the key is the medical misuse of drugs either for there performance enhancement properties or in the belief of there performance enhancement properties.

One wonders, with some of the commentators, whether they believe there is an issue at all, whether WADA is unnecessary, whether performance enhancing drugs are a myth.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Where do people get their medication from generally? I know I get mine from my local chemist prescribed locally by my doctor so it will be drugs widely available and ratified for use in UK. So am I being naive to think Sharapova's situation should be similar? Even if it isn't then why is she getting a drug from Russia (regarded a less advanced country) than the one she is living in which (by my research) says she would not have been prescribed the drug she was on.

Those sorts of curious details are what is fuelling rumours/speculation and suspicions.

Yeah, and you're an international sports star worth a hundred million or so who hires assistants by the boatload and who travels the Workd non-stop.

So I guess your experience does count.

summerblues wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:Whilst agreeing with you that its good that questions are being asked, I didn't think that article was particularly enlightening.

Oh no, it was certainly not.  In terms of substance the article did not say anything we do not already know.  But that was not my point.  The point is that the view the article took was that there could be more doping going on, and some of it could be being swept under the rug.

Now, that may be so, or that may not be so - and I even grant you that you do raise reasonable points for your side of the argument.  But it is better to have these discussions happening rather than everyone acting like the sport is almost certainly clean and like questioning that cleanliness is somehow unseemly.

There should be open discussions in the media where both sides happily air their views - those who suspect that there may be far more dirt hiding underneath as well as those who suspect it is mostly clean.  No direct accusations with no proof - of course - but also no hysteria at the very suggestion that the sport could - conceivably - be more corrupt than it lets on.

The difficulty is that, without evidence or specifics, any article is going to read something like that one. It really needs someone with knowledge of the subject to explain what sort of programmes players could be on and how testing would need to improve to catch them or some form of whistleblower. That would be worth reading.

I'm fairly open-minded on this but, whenever I read anything about it from someone who considers it widespread, it usually seems to be unsupported and usually significantly biased depending on the player they support. Even reading something like Chris Rochus' views it was clear that he had no real evidence/knowledge that anyone was doping.

kingraf wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Of course nobody would look up such things would they Raf, all the young impressionable gym rats just know what to take and where from.

I've never seen it. The only thing I've seen people take which isn't a regular steroid is insulin. Which isn't only found in the Southern tip of Narnia. I'd take insulin too if it wasnt for my family history of diabetes, so instead I just eat really ripe bananas for an insulin boost. Really ripe bananas btw probably have more evidence of perfomance enhancing than meldonuim

It's been banned for a reason that's evidence enough for me, people just randomly find out about the regular steroids then do they?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

kingraf wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Of course nobody would look up such things would they Raf, all the young impressionable gym rats just know what to take and where from.

I've never seen it. The only thing I've seen people take which isn't a regular steroid is insulin. Which isn't only found in the Southern tip of Narnia. I'd take insulin too if it wasnt for my family history of diabetes, so instead I just eat really ripe bananas for an insulin boost. Really ripe bananas btw probably have more evidence of perfomance enhancing than meldonuim

It's been banned for a reason that's evidence enough for me, people just randomly find out about the regular steroids then do they?

20-year olds do. I'd like to see these mythical youth who buy Russian diabetes meds to get bigger arms. They don't exist.
You're more likely to find a kid paying for old school stuff like D-bol and Win than one even searching for meldonuim

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?

None of these points are relevant. Not just picking on you Craig but most of the comments here show little understanding of legal and illegal. If something is legal then it is legal. All the huffing and puffing about what some consider should be legal or illegal counts for nothing.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/mar/12/kristina-mladenovic-maria-sharapovapa-cheater-tour-simona-halep

well, some strong words there...

HE, This is not medical forum, we know we ain't experts, so your counts for nothing, is as obvious as Sharapovas mess.

We are just having fun here with a not so smart blonde

Finally somebody with the guts to speak out against her, well done Mladenovic.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/mar/12/kristina-mladenovic-maria-sharapovapa-cheater-tour-simona-halep

well, some strong words there...

Who cares what other players think of this, we have BB and JHM trying to convice us she is not a cheater, sugarcoating it with a fine line of medical-legal fog

Mladenovic being a serbian, probably has been given a few orders by the fake Prince of Monaco (Djoko for those uninitiated) to say something.

To respond to king rafs point. Whilst I definitely agree your average devoted gym man wouldn't go near this stuff, these guys dont ha e to worry about WADA...

The point is to find the most obscure or hard to detect dry that might help you get an edge, they clearly feel that this ones going overlooked too long

So according to that article. The defends is saying the dose was too low to have an effect...
..........
So too low to have an effect on the heart condition too? Or did they risk a low dose considering that's such a minor problem apparently...

Jahu wrote:Mladenovic being a serbian, probably has been given a few orders by the fake Prince of Monaco (Djoko for those uninitiated) to say something.

Thought Mladenovic was French (certainly she represents them in team competitions)

Maybe she's a rightwinger, defending her former minister Bachelot

Yeah, she is as french as Raonic is Canadian

These French are a danger I tell you, still commies

Raonic born in Montenegro while Mladenovic was indeed born in France.

That does not change a thing.

No forigner feels domesticated in any away, except on financial side of possibilities give in a new country.

Soul and mind still resides back home at your roots.

We have spoken so much here about patriotism, from tax evasion to fake charities etc etc.

Born Slippy wrote:he difficulty is that, without evidence or specifics, any article is going to read something like that one. It really needs someone with knowledge of the subject to explain what sort of programmes players could be on and how testing would need to improve to catch them or some form of whistleblower. That would be worth reading.

I am not expecting to get anything earth-shattering out of such articles - I do not necessarily imagine that their presence would all of a sudden and singlehandedly uncover things hitherto deeply buried.

But I think if the discussion moved in the direction of talking about doping as a very real possible danger, where people are on the lookout for suspicious patterns, it might help keep sport on its toes a little bit more.  Obviously, the more knowledgeable the authors, the better.

And even without a definite proof, journalists may be able to do investigative research and look for circumstantial evidence.  Sort of like NS says that many swimmers used to claim asthma (not sure if that is true or not), one could look for patterns of frequency of claimed health issues - injuries or illnesses, maybe compare against other sports and try to see if some strange patterns emerge.  And if they do, report it.  Do not claim it proves anything beyond reasonable doubt - certainly not on individual level - but bring it out, mention if any available stats look odd.  Or simply write articles like you suggested - some proper explanation of whether PEDs could help, how they could help, compare against other sports etc - without bias for or against, but with an open mind, and without fear of upsetting either side of the argument.

I suspect any interesting articles about potential PED use in tennis may be more likely to come out of non-tennis related publications.  Tennis media may have vested interest in protecting the image of the sport, while non-tennis media much less so - and in some cases they may even have the opposite interest by bringing up potentially juicy accusations while having little to lose as they do not depend on tennis for their audience.

summerblues wrote:I suspect any interesting articles about potential PED use in tennis may be more likely to come out of non-tennis related publications.  Tennis media may have vested interest in protecting the image of the sport, while non-tennis media much less so - and in some cases they may even have the opposite interest by bringing up potentially juicy accusations while having little to lose as they do not depend on tennis for their audience.

I'm willing to be large sums of money I don't have on Vanity Fair being even less likely to get the scoop.

Maybe Nadal isn't taking those French politicians comments lying down after all...

https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/nadal-considering-legal-action-over-112600286.html

And here comes the cavalry

http://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/35794268

And even better

http://www.vavel.com/en-us/tennis-usa/618192-rafael-nadal-toni-nadal-to-take-legal-action-against-french-secretary.html

Hopefully Nadal is clean but the only thing I ever think when Madrid or Barcelona get involved in these things is Operacion Puerto, all Spanish sport seems to flock together in defence of any accusations when they have a lot to answer to.

If Nadal is not clean, that would be a real shock to tennis.

I'm sure then Djoko would come forward and admit to a little gluten magic himself

McEnroe in support of Sharapova (in terms of taking the medicine pre-Jan 2016)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35797018

Didn't McEnroe use horse steroids for like half his career inadvertently?

JuliusHMarx wrote:McEnroe in support of Sharapova (in terms of taking the medicine pre-Jan 2016)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35797018

But he's also kinda hinting that Sharapova is lying, isn't he ?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Hopefully Nadal is clean but the only thing I ever think when Madrid or Barcelona get involved in these things is Operacion Puerto, all Spanish sport seems to flock together in defence of any accusations when they have a lot to answer to.

It isn't just in sport.. that is the Spanish way... they close ranks and defend their own.
If he has never failed a drugs test how can he not be clean. Still the finger of suspicion

Looks like the gloves are well and truly off now. Not many players are showing much sympathy it seems if Mladenovic and Haleps' comments are anything to go by. Even her mate Djokovic has apparently said she has to suffer the consequences of her actions.

Personally I'm with Pam Shriver. Quote: "I think everyone wants to see strong evidence that there was a medical situation that warranted going on a medication for 10 years." If she can't show sufficient medical reasons to answer that one then sorry but any sympathy for her situation will evaporate quicker than her endorsements.

Looks like the gloves are well and truly off now. Not many players are showing much sympathy it seems if Mladenovic and Haleps' comments are anything to go by. Even her mate Djokovic has apparently said she has to suffer the consequences of her actions.

Personally I'm with Pam Shriver. Quote: "I think everyone wants to see strong evidence that there was a medical situation that warranted going on a medication for 10 years." If she can't show sufficient medical reasons to answer that one then sorry but any sympathy for her situation will evaporate as quickly as her endorsements.

Haddie-nuff wrote:And even better

http://www.vavel.com/en-us/tennis-usa/618192-rafael-nadal-toni-nadal-to-take-legal-action-against-french-secretary.html

Well I was the one saying to do this and Haddie amongst others were saying not to.

That is not entirely true.. what I think I said was that it might have been on the advice of Toni that doing so would give it credence.
He has obviously gone that route before but now seeing that it has become such  blatant accusation rather than what she said previously (or at least what I read in a different report, I think if you want to scroll back you will find it.).it was more of an insinuation about "players" having injury time out..this now appears more to be an attack on Rafa.
I, would suggest rightly, that Toni is as much angered by it as Rafa because it is an indictment on Toni as a coach if Rafa was taking PEDS with his knowledge.

bogbrush wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:And even better

http://www.vavel.com/en-us/tennis-usa/618192-rafael-nadal-toni-nadal-to-take-legal-action-against-french-secretary.html

Well I was the one saying to do this and Haddie amongst others were saying not to.

Let's see if Toni and Rafa are really so stupid to do it... hopefully they have a combined IQ of above 100 and realise how dumb it would be.
Meanwhile Bachelot has come out and said she doesn't have any evidence, but was basing her claims on the fact Nadal took time out due to injury, and general rumours in the media. If she was producing/falsifying particular evidence then perhaps Rafa would have an easier case in court, BUT based on what MFC said about French law, they would now have to prove that not only are the claims false (easier!), but that she knew for certain from the start the claims were false (harder!).
And as I said earlier even if they sue successfully, because of Armstrong doing the same thing, even that would get a lot of publicity and it would be bad publicity. This idea he should sue is a not-so-clever trap set by people who don't like Nadal.

Moral Question:

If Sharapova had stopped taking this PED at the end of 2015, what would your opinion of her be ?

Still an annoying screeching git!

legendkillarV2 wrote:Still an annoying screeching git!

Would the screeching annoy you more, or the fact she had tried to get an edge with a legal drug ?

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Still an annoying screeching git!

Would the screeching annoy you more, or the fact she had tried to get an edge with a legal drug ?

Depends entirely again on what comes out over the coming weeks. There's lots of opinions that will get burnt given the wide views on here. 

The fact it was legal counteracts a lot of the 'morality' issues some might take. As I said previously, how pure does an athlete need to be before taking to the pitch/court? What is legally acceptable to some and not others?

I am annoyed that it will always continue to be a problem in sport.

Ok food for thought.
If Sharapova is proved to be taking this medication for legitimate reasons and
that the medication has been required for 10 years.because of the conditions she is stating.

She must still be suffering with the same conditions she had prior to 2016
The medication has been banned
Se therefore she will not be able to play again if she is not allowed to take this drug... Is anyone following my drift???