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.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

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 ?

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

And that is why the authorities should be stringent in their investigations of cases like this. Not a case of 'Oh well Maria has an illness and forgot or never checked it was now banned' but more of them wanting full medical history dug into to fully satisfy why there seems to be irregularities ie length of time she was on this drug and why that drug. If they do that and are satisfied with Maria's explanation then that is good enough for me.

But I ask .. how will she be able to play again if they have banned her medication which she says she needs, and has needed for 10 years.. presumably in that case she will become ill

What's to stop her replacing it with something else and is it not possible she would get a TUE in those circumstances anyway?

Haddie-nuff wrote:But I ask .. how will she be able to play again if they have banned her medication which she says she needs, and has needed for 10 years.. presumably in that case she will become ill

I said as much yesterday.

In addition it opens another can of worms. If it is proven this medication is very much-needed by Sharapova to keep her competitive but has now been banned then people will then ask why was it banned?

That drug is not designed to keep any patient on a 10 year therapy, let alone a active athlete.

If she is banned 2/4 years, she should quit tennis, deported from US and go work on a coal mine in Siberia to get some free magnesium.

Say she returns in a year to tennis, and wins a GS without this drug, then it would be a waste of 10y PED.

Born Slippy wrote:What's to stop her replacing it with something else and is it not possible she would get a TUE in those circumstances anyway?

Are you telling us that in 10 years they never found an alternative...as I have said umpteen times no doctor, or in her case it should have been a cardiologist, would keep you on the same medication for that length of time.
And before I get shot down in flames and it is said that is conjecture.....I have had several cardiologists

Why would they look for an alternative to a legal medicine that already worked to control her condition?

Legal in only a few countries would make me think and ask why is it banned in USA/ Europe, before I continue eating it every day for 10 years.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Why would they look for an alternative to a legal medicine that already worked to control her condition?

Because she should not have been on the same medication for 10 years..and nothing else would have been a performance enhancer... but if you want to argue that point so be it.. but as sure as God made little apples she is going to have to find, if it is indeed necessary, something to treat her "conditions" without the beneficial side affects

It Must Be Love wrote:Moral Question:

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

Moral Question 2: If Jack went up the hill and drowned Jill in a pale of water then hid her body in the well, what would your opinion of Jack be?

Legal is a strong term. Lets not mistake "not allowed in the US" for it being bad. Its not allowed in the USA simply because its never tried to get approval. That's it. I'm sure there are many over the counter drugs in the UK which haven't bothered going through the ring a rosies needed to get FDA approval. Doesn't suddenly make them miracle drugs

The best  one can say in defence of Sharapova is that at face value it doesn't look good for her: taking a powerful heart drug for ten years that seems to be the latest go to drug that a lot of other elite athletes are taking, especially Russians, when the drug itself is banned and non-prescribable in the place of residence that person has been living for the past twenty years, in an era where it is known that there is a major issue with regards to performance enhancing drugs and especially an issue with those in the Russian network and where it is known that WADA is always playing catch-up ...

The thing is - the mind that breaks the spirit of the game to take PEDS that are not on the list, are likely to also consider other practices such as drugs  and procedures that are not traceable.  You either abide by the spirit of the game or you do everything against the spirit of the game in order to gain the advantage.

So the best for Sharapova is to release all her medical records and all the blood tests - similar to what Chris Froome was forced to do (and he hasn't failed a drugs test but received a mountain of criticism from the French press including a few French physiologists claiming certain things were physiologically impossible).

Nore Staat wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Moral Question:

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

Moral Question 2: If Jack went up the hill and drowned Jill in a pale of water then hid her body in the well, what would your opinion of Jack be?

That he was a lovely man for fulfilling her dying wishes.

Nore Staat wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Moral Question:

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

Moral Question 2: If Jack went up the hill and drowned Jill in a pale of water then hid her body in the well, what would your opinion of Jack be?

Jack Sock?

Jahu wrote:Legal in only a few countries would make me think and ask why is it banned in USA/ Europe, before I continue eating it every day for 10 years.

In the US they eat lots of stuff that is banned in the UK/Europe.

Agree, like hormone injected beef full of GMO corn, which tastes good, especially aged steaks

But still I expect a athlete as rich as Sharapova with a team of 10-15 experts around her from nutritions, medical to exercise to be more proactive on these health issues, or It was just convenient for her to keep taking it.

So the theory is that Sharapova carefully managed her consumption of a performance enhancing drug for 10 years; sticking to this legal aid while studiously avoiding other, banned substances and procuring from a foreign country illicit supplies of this material.

This was a meticulously planned and executed strategy, implemented in conjunction with trained, expert aides.

Then this smart, calculating individual decided to break the practise if a decade and start consuming a banned PED.

She just should of stopped taking it on January 1, 2016 and since September 2015 should of searched for a replacement drug.

If you take something 10 years because of lack of Magnesium and live in constant fear that you might get diabetes and pump yourself with same stuff 10 years, and you continue doing it after they tell you it's banned, then one must have an IQ the same size of her shoes and don't deserve to be on top of any sport.

Cheater! (my opinion as per JHM's orders)

A lot of the people posting on this thread just sum up all the reasons why she's going to more or less get away with it.

These 'superheroes' to many tennis fans just say a few words and it's lapped up like they can never lie and never do no wrong.

The whole 'silent ban' thing that she mentioned herself is interesting. It kinda implies she was perhaps offered the option herself? We could have seen Sharapova with a nasty little cut on her foot or a bout of tendinitis, but I guess she thought this was the better option.

djlovesyou wrote:A lot of the people posting on this thread just sum up all the reasons why she's going to more or less get away with it.

These 'superheroes' to many tennis fans just say a few words and it's lapped up like they can never lie and never do no wrong.

The whole 'silent ban' thing that she mentioned herself is interesting. It kinda implies she was perhaps offered the option herself? We could have seen Sharapova with a nasty little cut on her foot or a bout of tendinitis, but I guess she thought this was the better option.

No, clearly, she has done wrong - I think everyone accepts that. I think a ban of between 1 and 2 years is in order. However, as for what happened before Jan 1st - personally I prefer to see some clear evidence of wrong-doing - more than just circumstance, rumour and suspicion. I see it as needing to be beyond reasonable doubt, and since we haven't heard the official case for the prosecution yet, I'm reserving judgement on events pre Jan 1st. Innocent until proven guilty - an old-fashioned concept in this media age, but one I prefer.

To be fair on Sharapova, John McEnroe has come out in support of her saying it is a no-brainer not to use performance enhancing drugs if it is not yet on the banned list.  He then goes on to criticise Andy Murray statement saying it is only self interest that causes clean athletes and sportspeople to complain about people taking performance enhancing drugs that are not yet on the WADA banned list.  This seems a fair point.  These clean athletes have a lot to answer for with all their snide comments.
http://beta.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/35797018

Now I wonder what Jimmy Connors has to say on the matter.  I seem to recall he and Sharapova had some sought of coaching arrangement.

djlovesyou wrote:A lot of the people posting on this thread just sum up all the reasons why she's going to more or less get away with it.

These 'superheroes' to many tennis fans just say a few words and it's lapped up like they can never lie and never do no wrong.

The whole 'silent ban' thing that she mentioned herself is interesting. It kinda implies she was perhaps offered the option herself? We could have seen Sharapova with a nasty little cut on her foot or a bout of tendinitis, but I guess she thought this was the better option.

She's obviously referring to the normal process where positive tests aren't revealed until after the ITF hearing. She could have kept quiet until then.

PS Has WADA published their report on meldronium showing its usage by the sporting elite and why they think it was being used for performance enhancement rather than for the treatment of erratic EKG, not feeling right, having a family history of bubonic plague etc?

No need for that. You find a drug on most athletes from a country, then you ban it, then you disgrace them. Large number of atheletes takes same drug, implies that it's not vitamins.

This is how it is being reported in Japan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEZwjGNRueQ&feature=youtu.be

Well its ironic if not amusing to get an endorsement from John McEnroe of all people.. I'm sure there isn't a rule in the book he hasn't broken to gain advantage.. and well knew what he could get away with as his daddy was a lawyer

bogbrush wrote:So the theory is that Sharapova carefully managed her consumption of a performance enhancing drug for 10 years; sticking to this legal aid while studiously avoiding other, banned substances and procuring from a foreign country illicit supplies of this material.

This was a meticulously planned and executed strategy, implemented in conjunction with trained, expert aides.

Then this smart, calculating individual decided to break the practise if a decade and start consuming a banned PED.

Quite.

(a) I still think that the most likely explanation for her continuing after 1 January 2016 is a foul-up on somebody's part; an unbelievably stupid one, but marginally less stupid and more likely than knowingly taking an artificial (i.e. non naturally occuring) banned substance that a player and her team knows is being tested for.

(b) Absent Sharapova coming up with something a bit less woolly than what she and her lawyers have said so far, I think the most likely explanation for her taking this stuff before and after it was banned is attempting to gain a performance advantage.  The fact that she has not apparently come up with anything concrete yet given that she has taken it for 10 years with medical advice of some sort or another looks bad for her.

(c) I class 'cheating' as breaking the rules, so I don't think you can call taking a lawful drug 'cheating' even if you are not using it for its intended therapeutic purpose, but attempting to gain an advantage (whether or not in actual fact it is particularly effective).  People can legitimately differ on how morally colourable such behavior is short of calling it cheating and, interestingly, Sharapova herself clearly thinks it would be colourable given her insistence that she was not seeking to gain a performance advantage.  It's obvious that quite a few on the WTA tour take the same view.  I think it's different to CVAC because, as far as I understand it, players who use CVAC are not seeking surreptitiously to take advantage of a side effect outside the intended therapeutic purpose of the process, but they are using it openly for its intended purpose.

(d) The underlined words in (c) above feed into BB's first point about "studiously avoiding" - if Sharapova's explanation is rejected, she has effectively condemned what she was doing out of her own mouth, and has been prepared to do something which, whilst lawful, she would appear to accept is not within the spirit of the game and, very importantly, she will have been found to have lied about it.  Players who are prepared to step over such lines and who have demonstrated an almost unbelievable incompetence about avoiding being caught with an unlawful drug in their system invite legitimate suspicion.  At the very best she has shown herself to be incompetent and cynical (the latter being of a piece with Sugarpova when she says that there is diabetes in the family).

(e) It seems to me that if Sharapova can't persuade the powers that be to grant her a TUE she's not going to get out of this mire and the question becomes how damaged she looks at the end of it and whether any of the mess sticks to others, and in particular the ITF/WTA/ATP.

Have you guys not heard about Nadal's suing? Can't believe no-one has not picked this up yet. Can't post links as I'm a new member. I do not get such privileges!

Mochyn du wrote:Have you guys not heard about Nadal's suing?  Can't believe no-one has not picked this up yet.  Can't post links as I'm a new member.  I do not get such privileges!

I know this isn't related to this article as such but the whole affair has been spawned from the Sharapova case so in a way it's related.

Mochyn du wrote:

Mochyn du wrote:Have you guys not heard about Nadal's suing?  Can't believe no-one has not picked this up yet.  Can't post links as I'm a new member.  I do not get such privileges!

I know this isn't related to this article as such but the whole affair has been spawned from the Sharapova case so in a way it's related.

Have you bothered to read yesterday's posts..already discussed

Yes I posted a link about it over the weekend.

Latest news is that ITF have issued a statement supporting Nadal...here's the wording:

"The accusations of Roselyne Bachelot against Rafael Nadal are not only surprising but also incorrect. All convicts players a violation of the Anti-Doping Tennis Program are publicly announced as required under the rules of the Programme and the World Anti-Doping Code" .

"In addition, WADA (the World Anti-Doping Agency) maintains its own independent monitoring of the results of the samples collected players, so that would not only be aware of any attempt to camouflage ( 'cover up') or failed deliberate in acting on any positive control, but would also have the right to appeal against any decision, so as to pursue any apparent breach that had occurred in the program ".

So they're basically saying 1) silent bans don't exist and 2) Nadal has never fallen foul of ITF/WADA drug tests. This alone should get the accusing French minister very worried about the success of Nadal's legal writ.

barrystar wrote:

bogbrush wrote:So the theory is that Sharapova carefully managed her consumption of a performance enhancing drug for 10 years; sticking to this legal aid while studiously avoiding other, banned substances and procuring from a foreign country illicit supplies of this material.

This was a meticulously planned and executed strategy, implemented in conjunction with trained, expert aides.

Then this smart, calculating individual decided to break the practise if a decade and start consuming a banned PED.

Quite.

(a) I still think that the most likely explanation for her continuing after 1 January 2016 is a foul-up on somebody's part; an unbelievably stupid one, but marginally less stupid and more likely than knowingly taking an artificial (i.e. non naturally occuring) banned substance that a player and her team knows is being tested for.

(b) Absent Sharapova coming up with something a bit less woolly than what she and her lawyers have said so far, I think the most likely explanation for her taking this stuff before and after it was banned is attempting to gain a performance advantage.  The fact that she has not apparently come up with anything concrete yet given that she has taken it for 10 years with medical advice of some sort or another looks bad for her.

(c) I class 'cheating' as breaking the rules, so I don't think you can call taking a lawful drug 'cheating' even if you are not using it for its intended therapeutic purpose, but attempting to gain an advantage (whether or not in actual fact it is particularly effective).  People can legitimately differ on how morally colourable such behavior is short of calling it cheating and, interestingly, Sharapova herself clearly thinks it would be colourable given her insistence that she was not seeking to gain a performance advantage.  It's obvious that quite a few on the WTA tour take the same view.  I think it's different to CVAC because, as far as I understand it, players who use CVAC are not seeking surreptitiously to take advantage of a side effect outside the intended therapeutic purpose of the process, but they are using it openly for its intended purpose.

(d) The underlined words in (c) above feed into BB's first point about "studiously avoiding" - if Sharapova's explanation is rejected, she has effectively condemned what she was doing out of her own mouth, and has been prepared to do something which, whilst lawful, she would appear to accept is not within the spirit of the game and, very importantly, she will have been found to have lied about it.  Players who are prepared to step over such lines and who have demonstrated an almost unbelievable incompetence about avoiding being caught with an unlawful drug in their system invite legitimate suspicion.  At the very best she has shown herself to be incompetent and cynical (the latter being of a piece with Sugarpova when she says that there is diabetes in the family).

(e) It seems to me that if Sharapova can't persuade the powers that be to grant her a TUE she's not going to get out of this mire and the question becomes how damaged she looks at the end of it and whether any of the mess sticks to others, and in particular the ITF/WTA/ATP.

Great summary, fully agree !
The legal drugs is a moral grey area, but if she lied about it makes me lose sympathy.

Haddie-nuff wrote:

Mochyn du wrote:

Mochyn du wrote:Have you guys not heard about Nadal's suing?  Can't believe no-one has not picked this up yet.  Can't post links as I'm a new member.  I do not get such privileges!

I know this isn't related to this article as such but the whole affair has been spawned from the Sharapova case so in a way it's related.

Have you bothered to read yesterday's posts..already discussed

Sorry unlike some, I'm not on here everyday.

lydian wrote:Yes I posted a link about it over the weekend.

Latest news is that ITF have issued a statement supporting Nadal...here's the wording:

"The accusations of Roselyne Bachelot against Rafael Nadal are not only surprising but also incorrect. All convicts players a violation of the Anti-Doping Tennis Program are publicly announced as required under the rules of the Programme and the World Anti-Doping Code" .

"In addition, WADA (the World Anti-Doping Agency) maintains its own independent monitoring of the results of the samples collected players, so that would not only be aware of any attempt to camouflage ( 'cover up') or failed deliberate in acting on any positive control, but would also have the right to appeal against any decision, so as to pursue any apparent breach that had occurred in the program ".

So they're basically saying 1) silent bans don't exist and 2) Nadal has never fallen foul of ITF/WADA drug tests. This alone should get the accusing French minister very worried about the success of Nadal's legal writ.

Great this will be interesting.

Nore Staat wrote:To be fair on Sharapova, John McEnroe has come out in support of her saying it is a no-brainer not to use performance enhancing drugs if it is not yet on the banned list.  He then goes on to criticise Andy Murray statement saying it is only self interest that causes clean athletes and sportspeople to complain about people taking performance enhancing drugs that are not yet on the WADA banned list.  This seems a fair point.  These clean athletes have a lot to answer for with all their snide comments.
http://beta.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/35797018

Now I wonder what Jimmy Connors has to say on the matter.  I seem to recall he and Sharapova had some sought of coaching arrangement.

McEnroe is always worth listening but has an occasional tendency to talk blatant rubbish. In describing what most of us recognize as a tricky moral issue, which can easily be argued both ways, as a "no-brainer" he doesn't impress me.

As for Connors, the only time he ever gave his opinion on anything in the last decade was when he had a book to sell. So don't expect too much there.

To me, cheating implies deliberately breaking the rules. Since it's not clear whether Sharapova broke the rules deliberately or accidently, and can be argued either way, to me it's not the ideal choice of words to call her a cheater.

Indeed, this has been discussed already, and is getting us too off topic at this point

Interesting read on Shara/meldronium...

http://europe.newsweek.com/maria-sharapova-meldonium-what-meldonium-436525?rm=eu

Mochyn du wrote:

lydian wrote:Yes I posted a link about it over the weekend.

Latest news is that ITF have issued a statement supporting Nadal...here's the wording:

"The accusations of Roselyne Bachelot against Rafael Nadal are not only surprising but also incorrect. All convicts players a violation of the Anti-Doping Tennis Program are publicly announced as required under the rules of the Programme and the World Anti-Doping Code" .

"In addition, WADA (the World Anti-Doping Agency) maintains its own independent monitoring of the results of the samples collected players, so that would not only be aware of any attempt to camouflage ( 'cover up') or failed deliberate in acting on any positive control, but would also have the right to appeal against any decision, so as to pursue any apparent breach that had occurred in the program ".

So they're basically saying 1) silent bans don't exist and 2) Nadal has never fallen foul of ITF/WADA drug tests. This alone should get the accusing French minister very worried about the success of Nadal's legal writ.

Great this will be interesting.

I'm not accusing Nadal of anything. But didn't Lance Armstrong also sue?

I wonder how long the drug stays in the system? It would be interesting to know.

I say this because various reports say she was taking the drug in cycles and not continuous but if it were in her system at Australian Open then presumably she was amidst one of those cycles on the drug unless she is/was on it all the time.

Also is it safe to presume that they tested her purely as they had her on their records as on a drug which had recently become banned?

lydian wrote:Interesting read on Shara/meldronium...

http://europe.newsweek.com/maria-sharapova-meldonium-what-meldonium-436525?rm=eu

Everyone, I agree with Lydian, this is worth a quick look.

Is citing Lance Armstrong becoming sports version of Godwins Law?


(not having a pop Guest )

Mochyn du wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:

Mochyn du wrote:

Mochyn du wrote:Have you guys not heard about Nadal's suing?  Can't believe no-one has not picked this up yet.  Can't post links as I'm a new member.  I do not get such privileges!

I know this isn't related to this article as such but the whole affair has been spawned from the Sharapova case so in a way it's related.

Have you bothered to read yesterday's posts..already discussed

Sorry unlike some, I'm not on here everyday.

Ooooooooooo

Guest82 wrote:

Mochyn du wrote:

lydian wrote:Yes I posted a link about it over the weekend.

Latest news is that ITF have issued a statement supporting Nadal...here's the wording:

"The accusations of Roselyne Bachelot against Rafael Nadal are not only surprising but also incorrect. All convicts players a violation of the Anti-Doping Tennis Program are publicly announced as required under the rules of the Programme and the World Anti-Doping Code" .

"In addition, WADA (the World Anti-Doping Agency) maintains its own independent monitoring of the results of the samples collected players, so that would not only be aware of any attempt to camouflage ( 'cover up') or failed deliberate in acting on any positive control, but would also have the right to appeal against any decision, so as to pursue any apparent breach that had occurred in the program ".

So they're basically saying 1) silent bans don't exist and 2) Nadal has never fallen foul of ITF/WADA drug tests. This alone should get the accusing French minister very worried about the success of Nadal's legal writ.

Great this will be interesting.

I'm not accusing Nadal of anything.  But didn't Lance Armstrong also sue?  

In case you have not noticed.. this is Rafael Nadal.. NOT Lance Armstrong keep digging

Henman Bill wrote:

lydian wrote:Interesting read on Shara/meldronium...

http://europe.newsweek.com/maria-sharapova-meldonium-what-meldonium-436525?rm=eu

Everyone, I agree with Lydian, this is worth a quick look.

Oh well done... have I not been saying this since page one..I said the medication was intended to help elderly patients to have a reasonable quality of life. .. but I was shouted down by JM because I was told basically I knew nothing about it. Suffering with angina myself and my husband with diabetes.. this drug is basically a last resort. Not as a preventative measure.

The point stands though. Just because he has threatened legal action doesn't mean he isn't guilty, Lance Armstrong is the case in point.

I hope he isn't guilty as it wouldn't do tennis any good. Rumours have been around for a while...silent bans etc.

Guest82 wrote:The point stands though.  Just because he has threatened legal action doesn't mean he isn't guilty, Lance Armstrong is the case in point.

I hope he isn't guilty as it wouldn't do tennis any good.  Rumours have been around for a while...silent bans etc.

Post by lydian Today at 12:41 am

.



Yes I posted a link about it over the weekend.

Latest news is that ITF have issued a statement supporting Nadal...here's the wording:

"The accusations of Roselyne Bachelot against Rafael Nadal are not only surprising but also incorrect. All convicts players a violation of the Anti-Doping Tennis Program are publicly announced as required under the rules of the Programme and the World Anti-Doping Code" .

"In addition, WADA (the World Anti-Doping Agency) maintains its own independent monitoring of the results of the samples collected players, so that would not only be aware of any attempt to camouflage ( 'cover up') or failed deliberate in acting on any positive control, but would also have the right to appeal against any decision, so as to pursue any apparent breach that had occurred in the program ".

So they're basically saying 1) silent bans don't exist and 2) Nadal has never fallen foul of ITF/WADA drug tests. This alone should get the accusing French minister very worried about the success of Nadal's legal writ.

bogbrush wrote:Is citing Lance Armstrong becoming sports version of Godwins Law?


(not having a pop Guest  )

Indeed. The moment you have suspicions, you don't think of someone in the same sport, you just say "Well look at Lance Armstrong"

Problem is with that comparison for me has always been that Armstrong was a story the sport needed to get it out of the ring circus it had become and given his story it brought more eyes to the sport. In the end it did the complete reverse, the whole too good to be true thing. When you thought cycling, you thought Armstrong. That was the power of his popularity.

I don't subscribe to the whole theory that tennis, it's sponsors and other players are protecting a big name who is allegedly doping.

Guest82 wrote: I'm not accusing Nadal of anything.  But didn't Lance Armstrong also sue?  

Yes and he won. But this should be easier for Nadal and the ITF to clear up - they just need to release the appropriate files to show he had surgery etc.

Haddie-nuff wrote:But I ask .. how will she be able to play again if they have banned her medication which she says she needs, and has needed for 10 years.. presumably in that case she will become ill

Interesting - as a counter point (and whether or not it's true) she could turn around and say something like: "After consultation with my doctor, this medication is essential for my health and regrettably I therefore have to retire." I mean, if it really is medication, wouldn't you prioritise your health over a couple of years at the tail end of a career? (Women tennis players retire on average at a slightly younger age I suspect.) Or, if it was PEDs and the medical story is BS, might be worth choosing reputation over earnings here. Isn't Sharapova supposed to be more focused on the brand than her career.

If she retires now citing medical need to take the drug, she might gain in additional sponsorship more money as a result than a few more years of playing.

LA also failed the odd test. Luckily for him he had a doc willing to back date certificates and a sport which had no interest in catching him