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.

Had to go off and slum it at a birthday bar-b-q in the wonderful Spanish sunsine...so only saw the commencement of the match.. Rafa was broken and Andy looked good so I thought heh ho.. that is it once more. Imagine my deiight when I came home to find he had won.. not any easy match as I could tell so am I to believe that Rafa has found some of his old form.??? Well  he has Montfils tomorrow and I love him so it will be a good final for me.
Vamos Rafa  

Wrong thread haddie, must have been an excellent bbq though

Haddie-nuff wrote:Had to go off and slum it at a birthday bar-b-q  in the wonderful Spanish sunsine...so only saw the commencement of the match.. Rafa was broken and Andy looked good so I thought heh ho.. that is it once more. Imagine my deiight when I came home to find he had won.. not any easy match as I could tell so am I to believe that Rafa has found some of his old form.??? Well  he has Montfils tomorrow and I love him so it will be a good final for me.
Vamos Rafa  

Wrong thread Hn. ;-)

But I'd say that is the best I have seen Rafa play for about a year or so. Much more like his old self hitting the ball with purpose. High quality match.

temporary21 wrote:Wrong thread haddie, must have been an excellent bbq though

Yes I was about to come back and delete it... one glass of wine too many on top of euphoria
an intoxicating combination;)

Interesting to see that a doubles player, Sergey Betov, also tested positive for Meldonium at the Australian Open but was found to bear no fault or negligence for the positive test.

"The ITF accepted that it is more likely than not that the meldonium found in Mr Betov's sample came from a course of Mildronate tablets that he took for six weeks ending in late October 2015"

http://www.itftennis.com/news/228535.aspx

Sharapova's hearing must be fairly soon. It will be interesting to compare the concentration levels between the 2 cases. Regardless, in the light of all these other cases, I suspect she may get a suspension of 4 to 6 months whereas originally I'd thought one year was more likely. Four months would allow her back for Wimbledon and the Olympics.

She's been banned for 2 years just announced now

2 years. Wow.

No consistency whatsoever.

Johnny Mac covered this story during the French Open and he aired the same views as me as in why did she have a family doctor that was Russia- based even though she is a US citizen? That is very curious. Especially as the drug she was on for 'her condition' would not have been prescribed by a US doctor.

It's a shame that the new kid on the block Muguruza is also a high powered grunter. But she grunts more like an elephant than a hyena with its tail being trodden on.

She had to be given 2 years - although I think the maximum is four years? - because she admitted to taking it past the deadline.

Serves her right. The arrogant so and so has got her just desserts.
Two years free of her grunting and histrionics is fine by me. Pity though it wasn't longer...

Link to the ITF decision below. Fair to say that they have very little sympathy for Sharapova. She failed to declare it on her list of medication from 2014-16 on her anti-doping forms, had not been on a medical prescription for it for several years and her manager's evidence in relation to checks he carried out was so incredulous as to be completely disregarded by the Tribunal. Conclusion set out below pretty much sums it up.

http://www.itftennis.com/media/231178/231178.pdf


"The contravention of the anti-doping rules was not intentional as Ms Sharapova did not appreciate that Mildronate contained a substance prohibited from 1 January 2016. However she does bear sole responsibility for the contravention, and very significant fault, in failing to take any steps to check whether the continued use of this medicine was permissible. If she had not concealed her use of Mildronate from the anti-doping authorities, members of her own support team and the doctors whom she consulted, but had sought advice, then the contravention would have been avoided. She is the sole author of her own misfortune."

Having read the decision, reading Maria's statement above makes me smile. It's true but it's a great PR spin on a heavily critical decision.

So, we get the doctor's name. her former physician Dr. Anatoly Skalny,

Just skimming through the ITF decision posted above by Born Slippy. This is worth a look. Don't have time? Read some highlights here, at least read point 19 in bold!

"it is clear that there has emerged a widespread
perception amongst athletes, particularly in Russia and Eastern Europe, that Meldonium
does have a performance enhancing effect." (page 15)

"19. In the period from January to April 2006 Dr. Skalny sent very detailed messages to Ms
Sharapova advising on her nutritional intake, including advice as to medications. The
messages which have been disclosed include the following advice given in 2006 on taking
Mildronate:
“Mildronate 1-2 X 10, repeat in 2 wks (before training or competition)”
“1 hr before competition, 2 pills of Mildronate”
“During games of special importance, you can increase your Mildronate dose to 3-4
pills (1 hr before the match). However, it is necessary to consult me on all these
matters (please call)”
“30 minutes prior to a training session: Mildronat – 1 Capsule. 30-45 minutes prior to
a tournament Mildronat 2 capsules”." (page 19)

Also read points 26-28.

"29. After Ms Sharapova ceased in early 2013 to be under the care of Dr. Skalny there is no
evidence that any medical practitioner was consulted about or prescribed the taking of
Mildronate, or that the use of Mildronate was disclosed to any of the medical practitioners,
with one exception, who were consulted by Ms Sharapova between 2012 and 2015. To none
of the medical practitioners or specialists who treated her over 3 years did she disclose the
fact that she was taking Mildronate. Her explanation in evidence is that none of them had
asked what medication she was taking."

"31. So by the end of 2015 Ms Sharapova was continuing to use Mildronate in the manner which
had been recommended in 2006 by Dr. Skalny. She would take 500 mg of Mildronate on
match days in tournaments."

"35. Meldonium was detected in approximately 6% of the urine samples included in the 2015
monitoring programme."

"37/38. The ITF issues annually a wallet card which lists on one page substances and methods
prohibited in and out of competition.....Ms Sharapova’s evidence is that she never read or consulted the information on the wallet card in 2016, or in prior years."

"53. The player has not identified the precise source of the medication which her father collected for her in Russia." (this part is related to the question of whether she would have known that mildronate contains meldonium).

Ok, so re point 19 why is Sharapova being advised to take this supposed medication just before matches, with more if it's before bigger matches. Oh-oh.

And she complains about a 2 year ban. 2 years is spot on.

However, Eisenbud's claim that separating from his wife prevented him from doing so late last year drew particular scorn.

He told the tribunal:  "My system … in November of every year I would go on vacation in the Caribbean, after the championships. I would have my assistant print out the most updated doping prohibited list, along with the new proposed WTA and ATP rules, the calendar for next year. I would make a file. I would go on vacation and sit at the pool, with all the substances that my players were taking, and then sit there and just cross-check, to make sure that everybody, what they were doing, was not prohibited. In 2015 I didn't go on vacation for obvious reasons."

https://www.beinsports.com/en/tennis/news/the-key-evidence-in-sharapova-doping-case-1/275063

Oh wow. Wow. Eisenbud = manager.

Simon Cambers ‎@scambers73 (Twitter)
In March, Sharapova's team suggested that she'd taken Mildronate once or twice a year, for 4-6 weeks. Ruling suggests otherwise

Chris Evert Verified account 
‏@ChrissieEvert (Twitter)
After I read the report, 2 yrs made sense...a lot of holes in her defense...

BBC wrote: "In a letter she wrote to the panel before the hearing, Sharapova admitted she took 500mg of meldonium on 18, 20, 22, 24 and 26 January this year: the days on which she played her five matches at the Australian Open".

BBC wrote: "The year after winning Wimbledon as a 17-year-old, Maria Sharapova was taken to Russia by her father to visit Moscow's Centre for Biotic Medicine. ... She was seen by Dr Anatoly Skalny ...

He initially prescribed about 18 different medicines and supplements - a number which had risen to 30 by March 2010.

By the end of 2012, Sharapova had decided there must be an alternative to taking so many pills and informed the doctor she no longer wished to work with him.

She added a nutritionist to her team, but crucially continued taking three substances recommended by the doctor.

One of those was meldonium, but it was not something Sharapova was keen to publicise. Only her father and agent knew what she was taking.

According to the 29-year-old's own evidence, the only doctor she told - in 2015 - was Dr Sergei Yanitsky of the Russian Olympic team.
....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/36486050

It seems to me that she has been pushing things to the limit and beyond when it comes to "medicines & supplements".  I would hazard a guess she changed tactics end of 2012 due to changes to testing regime / whereabout systems or maybe due to issues associated with Dr Anatoly Skalny or the Centre of Biotic Medicine.

@NS No need to hazard a guess, it's in paragraphs 26-29 of the decision here ITF Sharapova Decision

The most damning passage is 47-63 Paragraph 51 is strong:

In the tribunal’s judgement this justification advanced for the failure by Ms Sharapova to
disclose her regular use of Mildronate before championship matches is untenable. The
wording of the doping control form was clear and could not reasonably be misunderstood.
She must have known that taking a medication before a match, particularly one not
currently prescribed by a doctor, was of considerable significance. This was a deliberate
decision, not a mistake. Taken together with the evidence that over a period of 3 years she
did not disclose her use of Mildronate to her coach, trainer, physio, nutritionist or any
medical adviser she consulted through the WTA, the facts are only consistent with a
deliberate decision to keep secret from the anti-doping authorities the fact that she was
using Mildronate in competition.

So is paragraph 63:

That leaves the issue as to why Ms Sharapova was systematically using Mildronate before
matches, and in particular at the Australian Open in 2016. In the tribunal’s view the answer
is clear. Whatever the position may have been in 2006, there was in 2016 no diagnosis and no
therapeutic advice supporting the continuing use of Mildronate. If she had believed that
there was a continuing medical need to use Mildronate then she would have consulted a
medical practitioner. The manner of its use, on match days and when undertaking intensive
training, is only consistent with an intention to boost her energy levels. It may be that she
genuinely believed that Mildronate had some general beneficial effect on her health but the
manner in which the medication was taken, its concealment from the anti-doping
authorities, her failure to disclose it even to her own team, and the lack of any medical
justification must inevitably lead to the conclusion that she took Mildronate for the purpose
of enhancing her performance.

It tells you quite a lot about Nike that they continue to support such a toxic individual who has demonstrated that her attitude is miles away from the image she has chosen to present of herself before her disgrace.  What a shoddy company they are, and no sporting organisation (including the FA) should take their money given this indication of their attitude.

It sort of makes one wonder why she didn't get 4 years.  The fact she didn't get the four years suggests there is leeway - and something she says she plans to contest to get the two years reduced.  It seems so blatant and so easy to get away with in terms of not revealing what "medication" she was on beforehand, when the drug was not specifically banned.  It highlights the importance of revealing all medication whether the medication itself is specifically banned or not - because there is always new or experimental medication available to those that can afford it and the drug testers will always be behind the curve.

That all does suggest that she was taking Mildronate - whether because she felt it had a general effect on her health and energy levels , or simply that she indeed saw it as a performance enhancer - quite deliberately before matches rather than for therapeutic purposes. And as is shown above , not disclosing her use of the product.
But the fact is that until a few months ago that behaviour was perfectly legal : so it isn't quite as damning as some are suggesting. Plenty of athletes take legal supplements all the time and no-one accuses them of moral turpitude for doing so...

What it does though is take away the moral high ground from her case : I think it is generally accepted that she genuinely didn't realise her pet pep-up pill had become illegal (she would have to be chronically stupid otherwise) so her crime was essentially carelessness rather than outright cheating : one reason she was never going to get four years. The fact that she was apparently "looking for an edge" gets her rather less sympathy than she otherwise might receive. Hence two years when she might have hoped for just one.

To be honest I'm not totally rigid on this one - and quite glad I don't have to make a judgement. Legally , she 's guilty - as in fairness she has freely admitted. Ironically enough , had she lied and said she hadn't been taking it since the ban she would probably be a free woman due to doubts over how long it stays in the system. Morally ; it is a pretty grey area.

I give her a fifty-fifty chance of being reduced to perhaps eighteen months. Not sure how I'd vote if I was on the jury...

She didn't get 4 years because it was accepted she hadn't known it was prohibited. The only way she can have it reduced further is by showing there was no significant fault. Frankly, given the findings of the tribunal I can't see how she will do that.

Too many odd things though about this? As in she was self-administering herself this treatment without even telling her own GP. That is mind-boggling. Also not telling any of her team - again mind-boggling. After all it is key to pass on any mefication you are taking especially to your own GP. I mean she must have been ill at sometime and your GP will always as a rule ask if you are on any medication so surely it should have come out at some time.

I don't know whether she'll get it reduced - but given what we now know about her attitude, it's not going to help her with most people.

She took the stuff to enhance her performance and concealed what she was doing from everyone.  Whilst she did not think what she was doing was 'illegal', she clearly found it embarrassing and worth hiding, and it was her very secrecy and unwillingness to fess up to what she was doing along with her casual attitude towards the drug rules that caught her out.

It seems that Head are supporting her too - another nice company.

Point 19 I quoted above...I've been wondering....how did they get the detailed message from the doctor? I wouldn't have thought in a case like this, a sports tribunal rather than a criminal matter, that they could be forced to hand it over. So why did the doctor hand it over? (Assuming he did.)

Perhaps he doesn't care about Sharapova anymore, or even fell out with her? Still, it doesn't reflect well on him either?

Henman Bill wrote:Ok, so re point 19 why is Sharapova being advised to take this supposed medication just before matches

Maybe those matches pose the biggest risk of her heart condition flaring up.

Henman Bill wrote:Point 19 I quoted above...I've been wondering....how did they get the detailed message from the doctor? I wouldn't have thought in a case like this, a sports tribunal rather than a criminal matter, that they could be forced to hand it over. So why did the doctor hand it over? (Assuming he did.)

Perhaps he doesn't care about Sharapova anymore, or even fell out with her? Still, it doesn't reflect well on him either?

Sharapova disclosed it didn't she?

Born Slippy wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:Point 19 I quoted above...I've been wondering....how did they get the detailed message from the doctor? I wouldn't have thought in a case like this, a sports tribunal rather than a criminal matter, that they could be forced to hand it over. So why did the doctor hand it over? (Assuming he did.)

Perhaps he doesn't care about Sharapova anymore, or even fell out with her? Still, it doesn't reflect well on him either?

Sharapova disclosed it didn't she?

Probably another part of the reason she only got a 2 year suspension - it appears MaSha has been pretty open with the ITF regarding what she took and how.

Still find it hard to believe that she and her team were so negligent as to not thoroughly check the WADA list revision, but it genuinely appears to be the case.

Well by all accounts she did not tell her team she was taking the medicine/drug.

Henman Bill wrote:Point 19 I quoted above...I've been wondering....how did they get the detailed message from the doctor? I wouldn't have thought in a case like this, a sports tribunal rather than a criminal matter, that they could be forced to hand it over. So why did the doctor hand it over? (Assuming he did.)

Perhaps he doesn't care about Sharapova anymore, or even fell out with her? Still, it doesn't reflect well on him either?

It's all here http://www.itftennis.com/media/231178/231178.pdf

In essence, when the burden of proving that it was not deliberate is on the player they usually elect to disclose their medical records.

It's totally different to a criminal case when the burden is on the state - the Defendant can stand back, say nothing, and leave it to the state to prove him guilty.

Where (which number) does it say who disclosed it?

Paragraph 12 basically.

Makes sense, assuming "documents" mentioned include the "messages" in 19. I'm still a bit surprised she disclosed that message.

Reduced to 15 months - back in April. Will be interesting to see the CAS's reasoning.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/37549424

The Cas panel accepted her claim of no significant fault, saying she had a reduced perception of the risk she was incurring by taking mildronate.

That was because:
◾She had used mildronate for 10 years without any anti-doping issue
◾She did not seek treatment from her doctor, Anatoly Skalny, to obtain a performance-enhancing product, but used it only for medical reasons
◾No specific warning had been issued by Wada, the ITF or the WTA about a change in the status of meldonium
◾She took a public position acknowledging that she took meldonium and accepted responsibility

Cas said the sanction should be reduced to 15 months "based on its analysis of Sharapova's degree of fault".

I think the 2 year ban was right.

Cutting from 2 years to 15 months is soft in my opinion and tends to make the authorities look as though they are not that serious on drugs.

I am sure about the "no specific warning" part - sure they didn't send an email saying subject line: "STOP YOUR MELDONIUM CHEATING" but it was a case of actually bothering to read in full emails sent from authorities about doping, including links.

She comes back having had a rest in the early part of the season, fresh for the main part of the season that includes most of the best tournaments such as Wimbledon, the US Open, the French Open, and major European tournaments.

"Now that this process is over, I hope the ITF and other relevant tennis anti-doping authorities will study what these other federations did, so that no other tennis player will have to go through what I went through."

Ugly PR spin quote from Sharapova having a go at the authorities for being soft on her. What a nasty piece of work she is, still hasn't learned any real humility and isn't truly sorry for what she did. Ugh.

Has to be said, that looks a shocking decision. Far too little responsibility placed on the player. Sharapova's Facebook statement and her lawyer's comments don't sit well at all.

The way I see it, she took the stuff to procure a competitive advantage believing it to be lawful - which it was for many years.  She knew that what she was doing was on the unethical side despite not amounting to doping, hence she kept it largely to herself, never putting it on her testing forms and not telling a lot of her 'entourage'.  She failed to spot when it was made unlawful and was therefore inadvertently positive when tested.  When caught out she admitted what she absolutely had to, but lied about her reasons for taking the stuff, and hatched a (successful) weasel strategy of purporting to accept full responsibility but in reality blaming everyone else for as much as she could.  I have read the decision briefly, and I agree with BS that they absolved her of far too much responsibility for keeping clean. I have not been following her story, but I'd be interested to see if she has sacked the IMG guy who took the rap for the man sausage-up.

If she didn't have blond hair, long legs, a nice figure and a pretty face there'd be no sponsors anywhere near her.  Such grudging respect as I used to have for her competitive nature has gone now that I know where it tends to lead her. As I have remarked before, the irony of her referring to diabetes in her family as part of the explanation for taking the stuff during the original obfuscation exercise but marketing Sugarpova sweets (even being willing to change her name to Sugarpova) appears to be lost on this greedy person.

To be honest, I thought the reduction to 2 years was already putting her suspension at the lenient end of the scale - no doubts were raised that she took an illegal substance and tested positive. Yes, she was open about how she was using (if somewhat less honest about why) but it was still negligence on her part to be knowingly using meldonium after the ban had come into effect. Ignorance of the changes to the banned list should not be sufficient for this to be a 'no significant fault' finding.

Very disappointed in CAS on this judgement.

In this interview Sharapova claims Meldonium is as common as aspirin and Ibuprofen where she comes from.  She has been really shocked at the disgraceful behaviour of the ITF against her.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/37562159

ITF tried to make example of me - Sharapova

No love, they HAVE made an example of you. You tried to get in early with your excuses, it backfired and now you're playing the victim. Grow the f*ck up!

Well, I thought that Sharapova made an example of herself to be honest.

DAVE667 wrote:ITF tried to make example of me - Sharapova

No love, they HAVE made an example of you. You tried to get in early with your excuses, it backfired and now you're playing the victim. Grow the f*ck up!

I do find it a bit ironic that MaSha's attempts to control the narrative are what actually landed her in trouble - she admitted taking the meldonium after 1/1/16, whereas others who tested positive even up to about March or April ended up not being sanctioned because it turns out there was a very long residence time during which positive test results were returned even if the drug was taken before the deadline for the ban. Had she just been quiet, she'd likely have got away with no suspension...

The ITF should have banned her a long time ago for excessive shrieking - it is unsporting and immature behaviour and an assault on the ears of the spectator.

barrystar wrote:The way I see it, she took the stuff to procure a competitive advantage believing it to be lawful - which it was for many years.  She knew that what she was doing was on the unethical side despite not amounting to doping, hence she kept it largely to herself, never putting it on her testing forms and not telling a lot of her 'entourage'.  She failed to spot when it was made unlawful and was therefore inadvertently positive when tested.  When caught out she admitted what she absolutely had to, but lied about her reasons for taking the stuff, and hatched a (successful) weasel strategy of purporting to accept full responsibility but in reality blaming everyone else for as much as she could.  I have read the decision briefly, and I agree with BS that they absolved her of far too much responsibility for keeping clean.  I have not been following her story, but I'd be interested to see if she has sacked the IMG guy who took the rap for the man sausage-up.

If she didn't have blond hair, long legs, a nice figure and a pretty face there'd be no sponsors anywhere near her.  Such grudging respect as I used to have for her competitive nature has gone now that I know where it tends to lead her.  As I have remarked before, the irony of her referring to diabetes in her family as part of the explanation for taking the stuff during the original obfuscation exercise but marketing Sugarpova sweets (even being willing to change her name to Sugarpova) appears to be lost on this greedy person.

Nicely put!

What a brazen individual