Maria Sharapova fails drug test

frostyjacks

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

They have different lists of what is banned, they're not all PEDs. It may well end up on the list of PEDs but at the moment it's just a banned substance.

This is the point I was making. People thinking it's ok to take drugs that haven't yet made it onto the banned list. If she gets anything less than a four year ban I'll never take women's tennis seriously again. It'll go back to being eye candy, because the notion of athletes competing against each other on a level playing field will be in tatters.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

frostyjacks wrote: »

This is the point I was making. People thinking it's ok to take drugs that haven't yet made it onto the banned list. If she gets anything less than a four year ban I'll never take women's tennis seriously again. It'll go back to being eye candy, because the notion of athletes competing against each other on a level playing field will be in tatters.

Please, sport hasn't been a level playing field for decades. You think the players at the very top who can have a full medical team, a full fitness team, a coach, a nutritionist, a chef and any number of other people on their full time staff are competing on a level playing field with players even 20 or 30 places below them in the rankings? Players who have to stay with host families while playing for $10,000 prize money that barely covers their flights and have to wash their kits in the sink between matches?

People get all high and mighty about players taking drugs but have no problem with them taking "supplements". The only difference is what we call them. The only way you'll ever have a level playing field is if you force everyone to play on bread and water alone.

josip

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

...The only way you'll ever have a level playing field is if you force everyone to play on bread and water alone.

They'd probably still "fortify" the bread.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

josip wrote: »

They'd probably still "fortify" the bread.

Or take the gluten out.

Wicklow Brave

The general public really have no idea how prevalent doping is in all professional sports. Sharapova isn't the only PED user in tennis, the sad reality is that most of the players in the top 100 probably take PEDs. It's not just tennis. It's funny athletics and cycling have the worst rep for doping because they have the best testing and therefore catch more dopers. Doping is absolutely widespread in soccer, rugby, American Football etc. It's not a good sign when Spanish soccer teams are doing well. Like corporations will do anything to maximise profits, professional clubs and athletes will do the exact same, especially when they have the best doctors etc, so much money is on the line for so many people not to enhance performance illegally when it can be done easily without getting caught. Sharapova's story has absolutely no credibility and if the tennis authorities want to do their sport a big favour and send a clear message, they should throw a minimum 4 year ban at her. Sport has lost it's innocence and is totally corrupted where results/profits are achieved at all costs.

sbsquarepants

frostyjacks wrote: »

This logic that it was perfectly ok for an athlete to take a performance enhancing drug for 10 years just because it wasn't on a proscribed list is why professional sport is going down the toilet. Cheats will always be one step ahead of the testers. It's difficult to watch any sport now without wondering whether the athletes are clean or not.

The logic that it's not ok for a professional athlete to do everything and anything within the rules to gain an advantage is just plain crazy. Where do you draw the line, no coffee, no bananas, No medical treatment for injuries, pain killing injections, where?
The ONLY logical place to draw the line is banned or not banned - nothing else makes any sense whatsoever.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

She failed the test at the Australian Open. Three weeks into the season.
Now maybe she was still taking it up until she was informed of failing the test, whenever that was, but she hasn't played since the Australian Open, so really the relevant time frame for this is three weeks.

Your assessment of her actions in this period is still accurate though.

Exactly - could it even be perhaps just a residual trace of something she took while it was still legal? How long does this stuff stay detectable for?

The whole Shaprapova is clearly a drugs cheat in the Ben Johnson mould narrative is just plain stupid if you ask me.

frostyjacks wrote: »

It'll go back to being eye candy, because the notion of athletes competing against each other on a level playing field will be in tatters.

Athletes don't compete on a level playing field or anything like it. Even down to simple things like catching a bog standard flight as opposed to hoping in your private jet. There is no level playing field - never has been.
The goal is to win, not to merely match your opponents level, and certainly not to hamstring yourself lest you gain an advantage over them - that's just nuts!

Inquitus

sbsquarepants wrote: »

The logic that it's not ok for a professional athlete to do everything and anything within the rules to gain an advantage is just plain crazy. Where do you draw the line, no coffee, no bananas, No medical treatment for injuries, pain killing injections, where?
The ONLY logical place to draw the line is banned or not banned - nothing else makes any sense whatsoever.



Exactly - could it even be perhaps just a residual trace of something she took while it was still legal? How long does this stuff stay detectable for?

The whole Shaprapova is clearly a drugs cheat in the Ben Johnson mould narrative is just plain stupid if you ask me.



Athletes don't compete on a level playing field or anything like it. Even down to simple things like catching a bog standard flight as opposed to hoping in your private jet. There is no level playing field - never has been.
The goal is to win, not to merely match your opponents level, and certainly not to hamstring yourself lest you gain an advantage over them - that's just nuts!

She is clearly a drugs cheat, she was cheating when the drug was "legal" and she was committing a doping violation when it was made "illegal". The whole process of these drugs being added to the banned list is that they show up in loads of samples, get investigated, get determined to be performance enhancing and get banned. She was riding the crest of the wave, taking drugs that are not yet banned, but have no medicinal use because they are performance enhancing.

EPO was "legal" once upon a time, and this drug is no different.

sbsquarepants

Inquitus wrote: »

She is clearly a drugs cheat, she was cheating when the drug was "legal" and she was committing a doping violation when it was made "illegal".

Strange definition of cheating you have there - cheating by obeying the rules? Hmmmm

NIMAN

I can't believe she is getting so much support on this, compared to other athletes who have failed tests.

Might it be something to do with the fact that she's a 6ft, good looking blonde?

Anyway, for her to lie from the off, saying it was a medication she was taking for potential diabetes, shows her up to be nothing but an out and out cheat IMHO.

Just so happens this drug is to be taken for 6 weeks max, not 10 years. Plus loads more athletes are taking it too, christ the spread of diabetes is awful, isn't it!

There's 2 reasons to take any supplement or medication if you are a top level athlete. Either you genuinely need it for medical reasons, or else you are using it for its performance enhancing properties. I have zero doubt as to why this athlete was using it.

Anyone who tries to defend athletes by saying they should bend the rules as far as they can is simply advocating cheating.

I hope they throw the book at Sharapova. But they probably won't cos she's the golden girl. Now if she had been smaller, plumper and less good looking, she'd be finished.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

NIMAN wrote: »

Anyway, for her to lie from the off, saying it was a medication she was taking for potential diabetes, shows her up to be nothing but an out and out cheat IMHO.

Just so happens this drug is to be taken for 6 weeks max, not 10 years. Plus loads more athletes are taking it too, christ the spread of diabetes is awful, isn't it!

She said she was on medication for a variety of symptoms. Potential early signs of diabetes was just one of them. People seem to be obsessed with the diabetes angle, I assume because it allows them to make an irrelevant point about her selling sweets.

The course of the medication is usually 6 weeks, that doesn't mean you can only take it for one six week period of your life. She said she's been taking it for 10 years, people are assuming she means she was literally taking it for 10 years rather than it being 10 years ago since she was first prescribed it.

I've seen numerous mentions that the level of drug in her system is in keeping with the medically recommended dose. A Russian ice skater has said recently that they used to take this stuff like vitamin C before big events. That would show up in your system in much bigger amounts.

You can call her a dirty drug cheat if you like, a lot of people are, but I think people should take a minute to get all of their facts straight before planting their flag in the drugs cheat camp.

Also something I think it's important to remember is that athletes usually know who the dopers are. When swimmer Yulia Efimova won medals at last year's world championships not one other swimmer even acknowledged her after the race. Most of the tennis players seem to be giving her the benefit of the doubt here. They all accept she failed the test in January and should face punishment for that but none of them have come out, as of yet, and called her a doper.

josip

NIMAN wrote: »

... Now if she had been smaller, plumper and less good looking, she'd be finished.

Finished like Hingis?

Augme

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

You can call her a dirty drug cheat if you like, a lot of people are, but I think people should take a minute to get all of their facts straight before planting their flag in the drugs cheat camp.

People have their facts straight. She was found with a banned substance in her body while competing at a grand slam. The fact is she is a drugs cheat.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Augme wrote: »

People have their facts straight. She was found with a banned substance in her body while competing at a grand slam. The fact is she is a drugs cheat.

Don't bother reading the whole post now.

sbsquarepants

NIMAN wrote: »

There's 2 reasons to take any supplement or medication if you are a top level athlete. Either you genuinely need it for medical reasons, or else you are using it for its performance enhancing properties. I have zero doubt as to why this athlete was using it.

Anyone who tries to defend athletes by saying they should bend the rules as far as they can is simply advocating cheating.

I hope they throw the book at Sharapova. But they probably won't cos she's the golden girl. Now if she had been smaller, plumper and less good looking, she'd be finished.

And where do you draw the line - what about people drinking energy drinks to give them a boost? What about those gels satchets you see people sucking down.
Does anyone need red bull for medical reasons - are they all drug cheats. Yes, sure it's perfectly legal and all but what does that matter - it's the intention that seems to count!

I do think she's probably being a bit disingenuous about her reasons for taking it for the past ten years, but what do the reasons matter - it was legal. Makes absolutely zero difference whether she found it gave her an edge or she just liked the taste, who cares - it's no ones business but her own. It only becomes someone elses business at the start of this year.

She has 3 weeks to explain for, not 10 years.

NIMAN

Anyone who thinks she was taking it for reasons other than performance enhancing has their head in the clouds

Has there ever been an honest drugs cheat caught, who just owned up and said it's a fair cop. They always have some excuse.

She is a cheat, end of.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Interesting how many of the other players have said they never read the emails from WADA either. They leave it to someone in their team to look after it all. You can debate the ins and outs of that all you want but it seems to be par for the course at the top of the game.

mickmackey1

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I do think she's probably being a bit disingenuous about her reasons for taking it for the past ten years, but what do the reasons matter - it was legal. Makes absolutely zero difference whether she found it gave her an edge or she just liked the taste, who cares - it's no ones business but her own. It only becomes someone elses business at the start of this year.

Why would she not give the truthful reasons for taking it so? Why bother inventing a cock-and-bull story when she could have just said she 'liked the taste' :rolleyes: The only logical explanation is that there's more to this than meets the eye.

Halloween Jack

sbsquarepants wrote: »

And where do you draw the line - what about people drinking energy drinks to give them a boost? What about those gels satchets you see people sucking down.
Does anyone need red bull for medical reasons - are they all drug cheats. Yes, sure it's perfectly legal and all but what does that matter - it's the intention that seems to count!

I do think she's probably being a bit disingenuous about her reasons for taking it for the past ten years, but what do the reasons matter - it was legal. Makes absolutely zero difference whether she found it gave her an edge or she just liked the taste, who cares - it's no ones business but her own. It only becomes someone elses business at the start of this year.

She has 3 weeks to explain for, not 10 years.

If it really made no difference why she took it she would have come out and said that she took a perfectly legal substance for performance enhancing reasons, rather than being 'disingenuous' (in your own opinion) no?

What in saying is if you feel she is being disingenuous then why, when what she did over the last 10 years was legal?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Halloween Jack wrote: »

If it really made no difference why she took it she would have come out and said that she took a perfectly legal substance for performance enhancing reasons, rather than being 'disingenuous' (in your own opinion) no?

What in saying is if you feel she is being disingenuous then why, when what she did over the last 10 years was legal?

Again, we'll have to wait until this all shakes out to see what really went on but if the levels in her blood were in keeping with the dosage for medicinal reasons and when compared to some of the other athletes who have failed tests for the same drug they're found to have way higher levels of it then maybe she's telling the truth.

The fact that all these Russian/Ukrainian athletes are testing positive now does make it look like it's something lots of them were taking, but again, legally. It just makes it that bit harder for people to believe Sharapova's medicinal reasoning, which would also make you wonder why she'd bother making up a lie about it, one that could be very easily found out.

Ormus

Halloween Jack wrote: »

If it really made no difference why she took it she would have come out and said that she took a perfectly legal substance for performance enhancing reasons, rather than being 'disingenuous' (in your own opinion) no?

What in saying is if you feel she is being disingenuous then why, when what she did over the last 10 years was legal?

Her career as a tennis player is almost over whether she gets banned or not, but her 'brand' would have plenty of mileage left in it if she could keep her reputation clean.

That's why she's being disingenuous. She doesn't want to be labeled as someone who took drugs to enhance her performance, even if those drugs were legal.

Lord knows how she could have been so stupid as to take it after it got banned, because there is no comeback from that. She was a legal drug cheat for 10 years and an illegal drug cheat for 3 weeks. The 3 weeks are a lot worse than the 10 years.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Ormus wrote: »

Lord knows how she could have been so stupid as to take it after it got banned, because there is no comeback from that. She was a legal drug cheat for 10 years and an illegal drug cheat for 3 weeks. The 3 weeks are a lot worse than the 10 years.

This doesn't compute for me. If she was taking a legal substance she's not cheating. There's no difference between taking it and taking some other "supplement" that everyone is taking. If you were to monitor the entire dietary intake of all athletes in the world you'd be hard pressed to find one not taking something performance enhancing.

Halloween Jack

Ormus wrote: »

Her career as a tennis player is almost over whether she gets banned or not, but her 'brand' would have plenty of mileage left in it if she could keep her reputation clean.

That's why she's being disingenuous. She doesn't want to be labeled as someone who took drugs to enhance her performance, even if those drugs were legal.

Lord knows how she could have been so stupid as to take it after it got banned, because there is no comeback from that. She was a legal drug cheat for 10 years and an illegal drug cheat for 3 weeks. The 3 weeks are a lot worse than the 10 years.

But why would her brand be damaged if she was doing something that was clearly legal?

The point I'm trying to make us that all the posters stating that it's fine to pursue every pharmaceutical enhancement possible once it's legal are being slightly facetious in my book, especially when comparing it to energy drinks or coffee etc. the fact of the matter is that these athletes were exploiting a legal loophole which a large swathe of the public are uncomfortable with. I can take the point that it's essentially the reality of pro sports at this stage but it doesn't make it right or palatable. The comparison would be tax dodging corporations, morally repugnant, against the spirit of the rules, but hey, it's legal...

strawberryb0y

There is a shocking number of doping apologists in this thread.

Sharapova's story does not add up. Her family doctor, who she goes to see in Russia instead of her American doctor where shes lived for nearly her whole life, prescribes this medicine for conditions which Sharapova has never previously disclosed until she was caught taking it. Seems unlikely. Anyway she continues to use the drug over a ten year period while being based in the US despite the drug not being available there. Even with the drug being unavailable she continues to import and use it (illegal in America btw) instead of using medications which can be purchased legally in the states (which coincidentally don't have performance enhancing qualities.)
Sure

And while she may not technically have broken the rules, abusing medication intended for treating illnesses for its performance enhancing properties is most certainly doping. I hope she gets the maximum ban available.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Halloween Jack wrote: »

The point I'm trying to make us that all the posters stating that it's fine to pursue every pharmaceutical enhancement possible once it's legal are being slightly facetious in my book, especially when comparing it to energy drinks or coffee etc. the fact of the matter is that these athletes were exploiting a legal loophole which a large swathe of the public are uncomfortable with. I can take the point that it's essentially the reality of pro sports at this stage but it doesn't make it right or palatable. The comparison would be tax dodging corporations, morally repugnant, against the spirit of the rules, but hey, it's legal...

This way of thinking is fine but it really only applies to personal opinion of an athlete. As far as how severely she's punished it's irrelevant. According to the rules/laws of the sport and WADA she was only doing something wrong for 3 weeks, not 10 years.

The fact of the matter is even if she can get a retroactive TUE on this and not face a punishment, or at least get a somewhat lenient one, some people have already made up their minds on it and the label of being a doper will forever hang over her career.

Ormus

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

This doesn't compute for me. If she was taking a legal substance she's not cheating. There's no difference between taking it and taking some other "supplement" that everyone is taking. If you were to monitor the entire dietary intake of all athletes in the world you'd be hard pressed to find one not taking something performance enhancing.

I meant to agree with you more than disagree. "Legal cheat" is an oxymoron of sorts. She was taking a legal performance enhancing drug.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

strawberryb0y wrote: »

There is a shocking number of doping apologists in this thread.

Sharapova's story does not add up. Her family doctor, who she goes to see in Russia instead of her American doctor where shes lived for nearly her whole life, prescribes this medicine for conditions which Sharapova has never previously disclosed until she was caught taking it. Seems unlikely. Anyway she continues to use the drug over a ten year period while being based in the US despite the drug not being available there. Even with the drug being unavailable she continues to import and use it (illegal in America btw) instead of using medications which can be purchased legally in the states (which coincidentally don't have performance enhancing qualities.)
Sure

Not being approved by the FDA is not the same as being illegal. If she was importing illegal drugs into the US she'd be in much bigger trouble than a tennis ban.

strawberryb0y

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Not being approved by the FDA is not the same as being illegal. If she was importing illegal drugs into the US she'd be in much bigger trouble than a tennis ban.

It is against the law to import non FDA approved drugs in America.
I'm not sure how seriously they take it but I've read about it before.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

strawberryb0y wrote: »

It is against the law to import non FDA approved drugs in America

Well then she obviously wasn't importing them or, as I said, she'd be in bigger trouble than she is.

Also the relevancy of her living in the USA is minimal. Tennis players spend a good 10 months of the year travelling around the globe. Bar the couple of tournaments played there she's not really "based" in the US.

Ormus

Halloween Jack wrote: »

But why would her brand be damaged if she was doing something that was clearly legal?

The point I'm trying to make us that all the posters stating that it's fine to pursue every pharmaceutical enhancement possible once it's legal are being slightly facetious in my book, especially when comparing it to energy drinks or coffee etc. the fact of the matter is that these athletes were exploiting a legal loophole which a large swathe of the public are uncomfortable with. I can take the point that it's essentially the reality of pro sports at this stage but it doesn't make it right or palatable. The comparison would be tax dodging corporations, morally repugnant, against the spirit of the rules, but hey, it's legal...

Her brand would be damaged if people saw her as a drug cheat. Not everyone would bother making the distinction that what she was doing was legal at the time, or if they did make the distinction, not everyone would agree that that made it ok.

I'm not sure whether it's morally right to take legal performance enhancing drugs, especially prescription drugs. But I also don't think it's reasonable to hope that someone would refuse, on moral grounds, to take a drug which is legal and would enhance their performance. If anything, that would make the playing field less level, as any other competitive top athlete would probably fill their boots with it if aware of it.

strawberryb0y

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Well then she obviously wasn't importing them or, as I said, she'd be in bigger trouble than she is.

Well given she lived there, you'd have to say shes going to extreme lengths to take this drug. I wonder why she didn't opt for one that was on the market :rolleyes:

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

strawberryb0y wrote: »

Well given she lived there, you'd have to say shes going to extreme lengths to take this drug. I wonder why she didn't opt for one that was on the market :rolleyes:

I added this into my last post, but I'll say it again. She spends most of her year travelling and is "based" in the US very little. Getting medication from a family doctor in Russia makes as much sense as getting it from a doctor in the US where you only spend a month or so of the year, if even.

Also the fact that it still seems unclear if she was taking this stuff for literally 10 years or was on courses of it for 10 years. Big difference there. And, as I pointed out the amount of it she was taking is relevant here too.

All I'm trying to say, really, is we still know the bare minimum here when it comes to actual facts.

strawberryb0y

Well the two most important facts are
1. Sharapova has been caught using an illegal substance
2. Over 50 other athletes (mostly Russian) have already been caught using the same substance this year.

Which would likely mean that there is either an unusually high number of Eastern European athletes suffering from angina, or that many athletes are using meldonium for its performance enhancing properties.

Augme

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Don't bother reading the whole post now.

Fair enough...

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I've seen numerous mentions that the level of drug in her system is in keeping with the medically recommended dose. A Russian ice skater has said recently that they used to take this stuff like vitamin C before big events. That would show up in your system in much bigger amounts.

A Russian Ice-skater? Clearly an impartial and expert source right there. :rolleyes:

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Also something I think it's important to remember is that athletes usually know who the dopers are. When swimmer Yulia Efimova won medals at last year's world championships not one other swimmer even acknowledged her after the race. Most of the tennis players seem to be giving her the benefit of the doubt here. They all accept she failed the test in January and should face punishment for that but none of them have come out, as of yet, and called her a doper.

How many of those swimmers called Yulia a cheater in the media after the race? I wouldn't really expect any of them to call her a doper, it won't make any difference and just has the potential to back-fire on them. Equally you could argue that not many of them have come out and said that she isn't a doper. I think Nadal summed it up well, he wants "to believe she isn't a doper".

Everybody can have [make] mistakes," the Spanish left-hander said at Indian Wells. "I want to believe for sure that it is a mistake for Maria, she didn't want to do it."

"But it is obvious that it is negligence. The rules are like this. It is fair and now she must pay for it," he added.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Augme wrote: »

A Russian Ice-skater? Clearly an impartial and expert source right there. :rolleyes:

You've misunderstood what I was saying in that post. Not sure if it's wilful or not.

My point is he said they were taking it on a regular basis. That would show up in much higher levels than it would in someone who was taking it on a medicinal basis. I was talking about the idea that she's been taking it for the reasons she claims she was.

Mr.Prodston

Andy Murray has had his say. The entire article is worth a read. He suggests that anyone failing drugs tests should be suspended.

Here's just one paragraph:

"Murray said it was ethically wrong to take a drug just for performance. “I think taking a prescription drug that you don’t necessarily need, but just because it’s legal, that’s wrong, clearly. That’s wrong. If you’re taking a prescription drug and you’re not using it for what that drug was meant for, then you don’t need it, so you’re just using it for the performance enhancing benefits that drug is giving you. And I don’t think that that’s right.”

This was in essence the point I was trying to make earlier in the thread.

Later in the article it mentions this:

"The Scot said he used protein shakes, energy gels and sports drinks but no longer takes any vitamin supplements, instead getting his vitamin intake through food."

It's a strong and honest stance from Murray when he could easily have declined to comment. I'd recommend reading his full comments as I don't want to post all of it in the thread. There's a lot more interesting stuff in there.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/mar/10/maria-sharapova-andy-murray-ban-drugs-test-meldonium?CMP=twt_gu

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

^ Murray has very definite opinions on a lot of things. I have a lot of respect for his stance on things. However, his stance on this might explain why he's only got 2 Grand Slams to his name and looks a way off getting another.

Inquitus

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

^ Murray has very definite opinions on a lot of things. I have a lot of respect for his stance on things. However, his stance on this might explain why he's only got 2 Grand Slams to his name and looks a way off getting another.

Do you disagree with him? Do you think Athletes should be taking prescription medicines, without any medical need, purely because they are performance enhancing, but may happen to be too new to have been properly researched and banned yet by WADA?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Inquitus wrote: »

Do you disagree with him? Do you think Athletes should be taking prescription medicines, without any medical need, purely because they are performance enhancing, but may happen to be too new to have been properly researched and banned yet by WADA?

Athletes can do what they want. If a substance isn't banned it's legal. It comes down to a personal belief in what is or isn't fair. Murray obviously has pretty high standards and I respect him for it. Compare his results to someone like Djokovic though, who has done everything under the sun, legally speaking, to improve his game and you'll see where high moral standards get you in sport.

Halloween Jack

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Athletes can do what they want. If a substance isn't banned it's legal. It comes down to a personal belief in what is or isn't fair. Murray obviously has pretty high standards and I respect him for it. Compare his results to someone like Djokovic though, who has done everything under the sun, legally speaking, to improve his game and you'll see where high moral standards get you in sport.

'For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul'

Inquitus

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Athletes can do what they want. If a substance isn't banned it's legal. It comes down to a personal belief in what is or isn't fair. Murray obviously has pretty high standards and I respect him for it. Compare his results to someone like Djokovic though, who has done everything under the sun, legally speaking, to improve his game and you'll see where high moral standards get you in sport.

Thing is it's not as straight forward as that, this sort of amoral but legal doping encourages young men and women trying to make it in sport to take these sort of drugs that are not intended for this sort of use in an attempt to gain an edge, and enhance their career prospects. In a lot of cases they don't have the same level of back room medical support as the likes of Sharapova, and can actually be endangering themselves by doing so. One of the tragedies of the EPO era in cycling was the young cyclists who died from taking EPO without proper medical supervision, some of them even in the time before it was added to the WADA banned list.

Halloween Jack

Inquitus wrote: »

Thing is it's not as straight forward as that, this sort of amoral but legal doping encourages young men and women trying to make it in sport to take these sort of drugs that are not intended for this sort of use in an attempt to gain an edge, and enhance their career prospects. In a lot of cases they don't have the same level of back room medical support as the likes of Sharapova, and can actually be endangering themselves by doing so. One of the tragedies of the EPO era in cycling was the young cyclists who died from taking EPO without proper medical supervision, some of them even in the time before it was added to the WADA banned list.

Grim ****ing deaths at that, blood thick as tar. You can read Tyler hamilton's (lances team mate) accounts of re injecting blood that had been badly stored, or look at the untimely death of flo jo or some of the truly horrific stories of eastern bloc athletes who were actually doped unwittingly , it stands to reason that in order to stay ahead of the game athletes will take risk with techniques or substances for which there is no clear knowledge what the long term side effects may be. Like who's to say what 10 years of melodium will do to a person? Presumably there's a reason the fda haven't approved it. It's also the reason that the medicalisation of elite sports and the shady unregulated nature of supplements are seriously bad developments

loyatemu

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Athletes can do what they want. If a substance isn't banned it's legal.

It may be legal but it stinks.

sbsquarepants

Halloween Jack wrote: »

If it really made no difference why she took it she would have come out and said that she took a perfectly legal substance for performance enhancing reasons, rather than being 'disingenuous' (in your own opinion) no?

What in saying is if you feel she is being disingenuous then why, when what she did over the last 10 years was legal?

Spin. Plain and simple - it would damage her marketing to say she took it to gain an edge. It would cost her money.

Ormus wrote: »

I meant to agree with you more than disagree. "Legal cheat" is an oxymoron of sorts. She was taking a legal performance enhancing drug.

It's not an "oxymoron of sorts" it's gibberish. Legal cheating is more commonly called "not cheating".

Tombo2001

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Spin. Plain and simple - it would damage her marketing to say she took it to gain an edge. It would cost her money.



It's not an "oxymoron of sorts" it's gibberish. Legal cheating is more commonly called "not cheating".

If athlete A is superior to Athlete B, lets say has trained harder and is naturally faster.

But Athlete B takes a performance enhancing chemical, designed purely to improve performance and for no other reason, and doesn't declare this to Athlete A or anybody else, and as a result is able to beat Athlete A.......

Then that is cheating in my book, regardless of whether the stimulant is legal or not.

What is sport. Its supposed to be a competition of athletic ability, mental strength and discipline; not a competition of who is the best subterfuge chemist.

Floppybits

Mr.Prodston wrote: »

Andy Murray has had his say. The entire article is worth a read. He suggests that anyone failing drugs tests should be suspended.

Here's just one paragraph:

"Murray said it was ethically wrong to take a drug just for performance. “I think taking a prescription drug that you don’t necessarily need, but just because it’s legal, that’s wrong, clearly. That’s wrong. If you’re taking a prescription drug and you’re not using it for what that drug was meant for, then you don’t need it, so you’re just using it for the performance enhancing benefits that drug is giving you. And I don’t think that that’s right.”

This was in essence the point I was trying to make earlier in the thread.

Later in the article it mentions this:

"The Scot said he used protein shakes, energy gels and sports drinks but no longer takes any vitamin supplements, instead getting his vitamin intake through food."

It's a strong and honest stance from Murray when he could easily have declined to comment. I'd recommend reading his full comments as I don't want to post all of it in the thread. There's a lot more interesting stuff in there.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/mar/10/maria-sharapova-andy-murray-ban-drugs-test-meldonium?CMP=twt_gu

Read his comments. Fair play to Murray he even had a go at Head for not suspending there sponsorship of her.

Tombo2001

I think Murray deserves huge credit for this.

I am sure someone will correct me, but I cant remember any leading cyclist coming out so strongly against a peer in this way.

Tombo2001

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

^ Murray has very definite opinions on a lot of things. I have a lot of respect for his stance on things. However, his stance on this might explain why he's only got 2 Grand Slams to his name and looks a way off getting another.

Yeah he's had a brutal career really.....:rolleyes:

"his stance on this might explain why he's only got 2 Grand Slams"

You are probably right - maybe if he'd been willing to take Meldonium or some other thing, then he would have as many Grand Slams as the likes of Nadal.

However, having said that, I know I'd rather be in Andy Murrays shoes right now than Maria Sharapovas.

Halloween Jack

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Yeah he's had a brutal career really.....:rolleyes:

"his stance on this might explain why he's only got 2 Grand Slams"

You are probably right - maybe if he'd been willing to take Meldonium or some other thing, then he would have as many Grand Slams as the likes of Nadal.

However, having said that, I know I'd rather be in Andy Murrays shoes right now than Maria Sharapovas.

If only he'd give up that damn gluten....

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Murray shows some ignorance there with his comment about top level athletes having heart conditions. Yes it seems unlikely that every athlete who has been found to be using this medicine has a heart condition and maybe that is what he meant to say but saying he thinks no athlete at the top level of sport would have one is very shortsighted.

Tombo2001

Separate discussion, but I think something that does need discussing:

Why is it that so many people instinctively/ reflexively come to the defence of dopers? And castigate people who challenge the cheats? What is it about dopers that they like so much?

It reminds of the whole clerical abuse story when it first emerged, so many people going around saying 'the poor priests, its not fair on them'......

Looking at the comments on Paul Kimmage's article yesterday - Kimmage is bitter, he's twisted, he has hang ups, he has an agenda.....all about him....and no criticisim of Sharapova.

I really don't get the mind set, but its very clearly out there - and I would suggest is a big part of the reason why doping remains so pervasive.