Maria Sharapova fails drug test

Halloween Jack

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

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.

17% percent of Russian athletes having a heart condition is a statistical absurdity, probability wise. Much like the prevalence of asthma and hypothyroidism in elite athletes, it's a cod

Halloween Jack

Tombo2001 wrote: »

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.

Typically they are fans who are biased toward their favourite sport/athlete. The implications of widespread doping in something that brings joy into people's lives is unpalatable. Perfectly understandable that people can't stomach the fact their past time is a fiction, totally corrupted, beholden to TV networks and corporate entities. At the end of the day it's a delusion in my opinion, I wish it wasn't because I love sport, but it's pretty sullied at the pro/elite level for me now and I can't really take much joy in an exceptional performance in any arena.

(Not implying that applies to people on this thread who disagree, just making a general point)

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Halloween Jack wrote: »

17% percent of Russian athletes having a heart condition is a statistical absurdity, probability wise. Much like the prevalence of asthma and hypothyroidism in elite athletes, it's a cod

I said it's highly unlikely that all the athletes who have tested positive for this stuff actually have a heart condition.

That's not what Murray said. He said “You just don’t expect high level athletes at the top of many sports to have heart conditions.”

That's the part I think he shows some level of ignorance. I wasn't talking about the doping side of his comments at all.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Rjd2 wrote: »

A lot of it in this case is simply down to how attractive she is and her fans refusing to acknowledge what she was doing wrong. I'd be astounded if Suarez Navarro, Vinci etc would have been got such passionate support.

The rush to absolve her of blame due to her marketability is frightening and show ****ed it is for genuine anti doping people these days. Murray getting criticised for what are pretty fair comments as well are bloody grim.

I haven't seen Murray criticised for his comments and there seems to be as many people looking to throw the book at Sharapova because she's a tall pretty blonde as there are trying to defend her because of it.

Maybe from a marketing point of view some companies might be reluctant to cut all ties immediately but as far as a general tennis fan goes her looks should have nothing to do with it. Anybody who is a real tennis/sports fan, not a fan of Sharapova the personality, isn't giving a single thought to what she looks like.

Tombo2001

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I said it's highly unlikely that all the athletes who have tested positive for this stuff actually have a heart condition.

That's not what Murray said. He said “You just don’t expect high level athletes at the top of many sports to have heart conditions.”

That's the part I think he shows some level of ignorance. I wasn't talking about the doping side of his comments at all.

This is his full quote:
“I read that 55 athletes have failed tests for that substance since 1 January,” he said. “You just don’t expect high level athletes at the top of many sports to have heart conditions.”

The key words here are "many sports".

He is absolutely right, that you do not expect high level athletes "at the top of many sports to have heart conditions".

You said earlier that Murray "saying he thinks no athlete at the top level of sport would have one is very shortsighted."

In my view you have completely misquoted him.

He did not say
- No athlete at the top level of sport would have a heart condition

He did say
- He does not think multiple top athletes would have a heart condition.

Ormus

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".

It's not gibberish. It's possible to cheat legally.

Augme

I would have thought that nearly everyone would agree that you don't expect top athletes to have heart conditions. That doesn't mean it's not possible or no athlete has one, it's just not something you expect - which is what Murray said.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Tombo2001 wrote: »

This is his full quote:
“I read that 55 athletes have failed tests for that substance since 1 January,” he said. “You just don’t expect high level athletes at the top of many sports to have heart conditions.”

The key words here are "many sports".

He is absolutely right, that it is highly unlikely that you would have multiple top sports people, "at the top of many sports to have heart conditions".

You said earlier that Murray "saying he thinks no athlete at the top level of sport would have one is very shortsighted."

In my view you have completely misquoted him.

He did not say
- No athlete at the top level of sport would have a heart condition

He did say
- He does not think multiple top athletes would have a heart condition.

He said you wouldn't expect athletes at the top of many sports to have heart conditions.

That's him talking about sports in general, not the specific athletes involved in this current issue.

As I said in my first post about it he may have meant to say he wouldn't expect that many athletes (the amount who have tested positive) to have heart conditions, as someone else pointed out here it's something like 17% of Russian athletes. However the way he said it he's talking about sports in general and it is entirely possible for top athletes to have heart conditions, many without even knowing it.

That's all I'm saying. I'm not criticising any of his comments that actually refer to the issue at hand, failed drugs tests.

Also, pretty much all the tennis players who have been asked about it think she should be punished for it, the only difference in Murray's comments is that he's taken a pretty firm ethical stance with the idea that she may have been using it for non medical reasons before it was actually a banned substance. On the very slim chance she actually gets a TUE from WADA on it he'll have to eat some of that back, although he'll probably say it was a general statement on it rather than about Sharapova specifically.

Tombo2001

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

He said you wouldn't expect athletes at the top of many sports to have heart conditions.

That's him talking about sports in general, not the specific athletes involved in this current issue.

As I said in my first post about it he may have meant to say he wouldn't expect that many athletes (the amount who have tested positive) to have heart conditions, as someone else pointed out here it's something like 17% of Russian athletes. However the way he said it he's talking about sports in general and it is entirely possible for top athletes to have heart conditions, many without even knowing it.

That's all I'm saying. I'm not criticising any of his comments that actually refer to the issue at hand, failed drugs tests.

Also, pretty much all the tennis players who have been asked about it think she should be punished for it, the only difference in Murray's comments is that he's taken a pretty firm ethical stance with the idea that she may have been using it for non medical reasons before it was actually a banned substance. On the very slim chance she actually gets a TUE from WADA on it he'll have to eat some of that back, although he'll probably say it was a general statement on it rather than about Sharapova specifically.

So just so I understand, you believe he is wrong (ignorant?) to believe the frequency of diagnosed heart problems in top athletes should not be much higher than in the general populace? That maybe all the failed Meldonium tests were genuine?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Augme wrote: »

I would have thought that nearly everyone would agree that you don't expect top athletes to have heart conditions. That doesn't mean it's not possible or no athlete has one, it's just not something you expect - which is what Murray said.

Given how many instances there have been in the GAA, soccer and rugby of players having heart attacks and/or other heart conditions, to the point where a lot of clubs have mandatory heart screenings for players now, I don't think it should be something that people don't expect anymore.

I'm not trying to link any of this into Sharapova's issue. She might be lying, she might be telling the truth. The fact that so many other athletes have tested positive for it makes her story that much harder for people to believe but as far as I know nobody else who has failed a test is claiming to have a heart condition?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Tombo2001 wrote: »

So just so I understand, you believe he is wrong (ignorant?) to believe the frequency of diagnosed heart problems in top athletes should not be much higher than in the general populace? That maybe all the failed Meldonium tests were genuine?

I haven't said anything about the Meldonium tests in relation to Murray's comments about heart conditions in top athletes.

I said he is somewhat ignorant, as in lacking knowledge, to the extent of which heart conditions actually appear in top athletes.

Also, as I said above, I don't know how many of the people who have been found to be using this are claiming to have heart conditions. Sharapova claims she was using it for medical reasons, I haven't heard anyone else claim they were, so essentially you're maybe talking about one athlete with a heart condition, which isn't that hard to believe in itself, leaving aside the failed test issue.

Ormus

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

I totally agree with him that anyone failing a drugs test should get banned.

I don't agree that what she did pre-2016 being ethically wrong should come into play at all in deciding the length of the ban she gets for taking a banned substance in 2016.

Strange that he felt the need to come out saying he doesn't take supplements anymore. I'm sure he has his own nutritionist. He's presumably decided that its healthier to get vitamins through fresh food rather than supplements. If he's doing it because he thinks that vitamin supplements are ethically wrong, I think that's a bit stupid. I'd suspect it's far more a case of the former than the latter.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Ormus wrote: »

I totally agree with him that anyone failing a drugs test should get banned.

I don't agree that what she did pre-2016 being ethically wrong should come into play at all in deciding the length of the ban she gets for taking a banned substance in 2016.

There were a couple of athletes from other sports failed tests for the same substance who had won titles in the last few years and they are not being stripped of them now, presumably because they weren't doing anything illegal when they won them. Going off that logic I doubt very much the powers that be will take anything before January into account when deciding how long to ban Sharapova for. Nor should they.

sbsquarepants

Ormus wrote: »

It's not gibberish. It's possible to cheat legally.

Can you explain how?

Ormus

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Can you explain how?

To cheat is to behave dishonestly in order to gain an advantage.

Sharapova has (possibly) been dishonest in getting prescribed a drug for 10 years for a condition she (possibly) doesn't have, or doesn't have anymore.

She's behaved dishonestly in order to gain an advantage. But it wasn't illegal (until this year).

WinnyThePoo

I'd say she will get two years and rightly so. Rules are rules. After January the first she was not supposed to have the substance in her body. Feel sorry for the players who had to compete against her at the open.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

I'd say she will get two years and rightly so. Rules are rules. After January the first she was not supposed to have the substance in her body. Feel sorry for the players who had to compete against her at the open.

Even if she was taking this drug for it's "performance enhancing capabilities" and in dosages higher than the medical one it doesn't make you a better tennis player. It may well make you physically fitter or help you recover quicker but Wozniacki was fit enough to run a marathon last year but she still can't win a decent tournament. Unless she beat someone over a 5 hour match I doubt anyone was cheated out of a win.

Mr.Prodston

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Even if she was taking this drug for it's "performance enhancing capabilities" and in dosages higher than the medical one it doesn't make you a better tennis player. It may well make you physically fitter or help you recover quicker but Wozniacki was fit enough to run a marathon last year but she still can't win a decent tournament. Unless she beat someone over a 5 hour match I doubt anyone was cheated out of a win.

How about recovering in between long intensive rallies that occur in short bursts on a regular basis over an hour or 2, most days for a week or two at a time? That's also physical fitness and more likely be beneficial for a tennis player I presume?

The problem goes miles past this one high profile incident. Forget about Sharapova, she's just essentially the catalyst for the wider issue. If it's "ok" for players to take medication prescribed or designed for a condition they don't have then change the rules so that it's not ok.

Maybe create a list of medication that everyone can take, keep your list of banned substances and then for everything in between, for example Meldonium from creation to 2015, have it be approved by an impartial doctor. For players earning less than a certain figure of prize money let the Tennis Associations pay for it and your top 50/higher earning players pay for themselves (a tax of sorts) which would be reasonable.

Tennis want a clean sport right? Of course they do. So they would be happy to pay and help younger players out. Have a panel to deliberate every year on what goes on what list and after the initial cost of creating the "clean" list it's there.

If the top don't change then how can anyone breaking through possibly manage it. I can't see a downside. We might even see less slugfests and more variety back in game.

There's a chance to do good and do right here. The will to so needs to be there and I don't think it is unfortunately!

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Mr.Prodston wrote: »

Maybe create a list of medication that everyone can take, keep your list of banned substances and then for everything in between, for example Meldonium from creation to 2015, have it be approved by an impartial doctor. For players earning less than a certain figure of prize money let the Tennis Associations pay for it and your top 50/higher earning players pay for themselves (a tax of sorts) which would be reasonable.

You can take banned substances if you get a TUE, Therapeutic Use Exemption, there are a lot of criteria to be met to get one though. That should apply to something like Meldonium which has only recently been added to the list.

Halloween Jack

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

You can take banned substances if you get a TUE, Therapeutic Use Exemption, there are a lot of criteria to be met to get one though. That should apply to something like Meldonium which has only recently been added to the list.

Don't think they are particularly hard to get, Armstrong got a back dated one, sharapovas camp are considering applying for one, they are a joke and a cop out

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Don't think they are particularly hard to get, Armstrong got a back dated one, sharapovas camp are considering applying for one, they are a joke and a cop out

You have to prove a number of things to get one. Can't remember them all but you have to prove you actually have the medical condition, were only taking the medically recommended dosage, would not have been able to compete without the medication and that there are no viable alternative medications you could be taking instead.

Halloween Jack

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

You have to prove a number of things to get one. Can't remember them all but you have to prove you actually have the medical condition, were only taking the medically recommended dosage, would not have been able to compete without the medication and that there are no viable alternative medications you could be taking instead.

In theory it's a stringent process, but she you have your own dedicated doctor most of those requirements become easy to fulfil. We know armstrongs tue was bogus and a deliberate cover up of a positive test with the tacit approval of the uci. We know the itf aren't above this kind of cover up either (Agassi). I wouldn't trust any tue myself.

yerwanthere123

Another update from Maria on Facebook

To My Fans:
I want to reach out to you to share some information, discuss the latest news, and let you know that there have been things that have been reported wrong in the media, and I am determined to fight back.
You have shown me a tremendous outpouring of support, and I’m so grateful for it. But I have also been aware that some – not all, but some – in the media distort, exaggerate and fail to accurately report the facts about what happened.
A report said that I had been warned five times about the upcoming ban on the medicine I was taking. That is not true and it never happened.
That’s a distortion of the actual “communications” which were provided or simply posted onto a webpage.
I make no excuses for not knowing about the ban. I already told you about the December 22, 2015 email I received. Its subject line was “Main Changes to the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme for 2016.” I should have paid more attention to it.
But the other “communications”? They were buried in newsletters, websites, or handouts.
On December 18, I received an email with the subject line “Player News” on it. It contained a newsletter on a website that contained tons of information about travel, upcoming tournaments, rankings, statistics, bulletin board notices, happy birthday wishes, and yes, anti-doping information. On that email, if a player wanted to find the specific facts about medicine added to the anti-doping list, it was necessary to open the “Player News” email, read through about a dozen unrelated links, find the “Player Zone” link, enter a password, enter a username, read a home screen with more than three dozen different links covering multiple topics, find the “2016 Changes to Tennis Anti-Doping Program and Information” link, click on it and then read a page with approximately three dozen more links covering multiple anti-doping matters. Then you had to click the correct link, open it up, scroll down to page two and that’s where you would find a different name for the medication I was taking.
In other words, in order to be aware of this “warning”, you had to open an email with a subject line having nothing to do with anti-doping, click on a webpage, enter a password, enter a username, hunt, click, hunt, click, hunt, click, scroll and read. I guess some in the media can call that a warning. I think most people would call it too hard to find.
There was also a “wallet card” distributed at various tournaments at the beginning of 2016, after the ban went into effect. This document had thousands of words on it, many of them technical, in small print. Should I have studied it? Yes. But if you saw this document (attached), you would know what I mean.
Again, no excuses, but it’s wrong to say I was warned five times.
There was also a headline that said, “4-6 Weeks Normal Treatment for Drug in Maria Sharapova Case.” That headline has been repeated by many reporters who fail to tell their viewers and readers what the rest of the story says. The story quotes the manufacturer of my medicine as saying: “Treatment course can be repeated twice or thrice a year. Only physicians can follow and evaluate patient's health condition and state whether the patient should use meldonium for a longer period of time."
That’s exactly what I did. I didn’t take the medicine every day. I took it the way my doctor recommended I take it and I took it in the low doses recommended.
I’m proud of how I have played the game. I have been honest and upfront. I won’t pretend to be injured so I can hide the truth about my testing.
I look forward to the ITF hearing at which time they will receive my detailed medical records.
I hope I will be allowed to play again. But no matter what, I want you, my fans, to know the truth and have the facts.
- Maria

I thought the bolded bit was interesting!

Halloween Jack

The whole house of cards looks dangerously close to tumbling down

yerwanthere123

Halloween Jack wrote: »

The whole house of cards looks dangerously close to tumbling down

Doubt it, they've been covering it up so well that I don't think they're going to slip up now.

It'd be so sweet if player who Sharapova is alluding to were caught though, after all his/her holier-than-though preaching in the last couple of days

frostyjacks

Poor Maria. How could she possibly have foreseen that taking this performance enhancing drug for the last ten years could get her into such hot water?

Why can't she just fess up? It's embarrassing listen to her prattle on with the 'poor me' routine. Girl has no shame.

Halloween Jack

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

Doubt it, they've been covering it up so well that I don't think they're going to slip up now.

It'd be so sweet if player who Sharapova is alluding to were caught though, after all his/her holier-than-though preaching in the last couple of days

Well nadal has threatened to sue the former French sports minister. When these things go to actual court rooms rather being dealt with by governing bodies, sparks can fly

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

Another update from Maria on Facebook



I thought the bolded bit was interesting!

Yes. We've all heard the rumours. Certain ones have surfaced again off the back of this.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

frostyjacks wrote: »

Poor Maria. How could she possibly have foreseen that taking this performance enhancing drug for the last ten years could get her into such hot water?

Why can't she just fess up? It's embarrassing listen to her prattle on with the 'poor me' routine. Girl has no shame.

She hasn't been taking a performance enhancing drug at all. It's on WADA's banned substance list but it's not currently considers a PED.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Halloween Jack wrote: »

In theory it's a stringent process, but she you have your own dedicated doctor most of those requirements become easy to fulfil. We know armstrongs tue was bogus and a deliberate cover up of a positive test with the tacit approval of the uci. We know the itf aren't above this kind of cover up either (Agassi). I wouldn't trust any tue myself.

I could be wrong about having to prove you were taking it in medical doses rather than like vitamin c, as Pluschenko suggested the skaters were but.... I assume that would be more difficult to prove/fake. Depends on what way they test samples. Do they only test for specific things or do they do a full work up to see exactly what's in there. If so all of that would be on WADA's own records.

frostyjacks

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

She hasn't been taking a performance enhancing drug at all. It's on WADA's banned substance list but it's not currently considers a PED.

Really? Somebody should tell all these athletes that. Why else would they be taking it? They can't all be suffering from the same health conditions.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

frostyjacks wrote: »

Really? Somebody should tell all these athletes that. Why else would they be taking it? They can't all be suffering from the same health conditions.

You're not paying attention to what I'm saying.

I didn't say why anyone was taking it. I said it's not on WADA's list of PED's. It may well have performance enhancing qualities, as do sports drinks and gel packets, it is not however, as yet, a PED.

Augme

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

You're not paying attention to what I'm saying.

I didn't say why anyone was taking it. I said it's not on WADA's list of PED's. It may well have performance enhancing qualities, as do sports drinks and gel packets, it is not however, as yet, a PED.

Do WADA have two seperate lists? I couldn't find one.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Augme wrote: »

Do WADA have two seperate lists? I couldn't find one.

They have one big long list but all the substances are broken up into different categories.

Meldonium is under the heading "hormone and metabolic modulators"

Things like steroids are listed under Anabolic Agents.

The full 2016 list is here.
https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/wada-2016-prohibited-list-en.pdf

And there's more info on it here.
http://list.wada-ama.org/prohibited-all-times/prohibited-substances/

Nothing is specifically listed under the title "PED" so I don't know. I read something during the week that made the point that Meldonium was a banned substance but not necessarily considered a PED. There's been so much thrown around this week that I can't remember where I read it. Maybe they, and by extension I, got it wrong.

Point is not everything on the WADA list is considered a PED.

frostyjacks

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Point is not everything on the WADA list is considered a PED.

Point is you don't have to wait for a drug to be put on a banned list to know that it's dodgy. Why would an athlete take a drug for something they're not suffering from?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

frostyjacks wrote: »

Point is you don't have to wait for a drug to be put on a banned list to know that it's dodgy. Why would an athlete take a drug for something they're not suffering from?

You have to wait for it to be on a banned list to have done anything wrong in the eyes of WADA, which is what this is about. If you want to morally or ethically judge an athlete for it that's up to you, it's not going to have any impact on what WADA do.

leavingirl

I hope she gets a lifetime ban and all her titles taken away from her.

Otherwise Tennis is finished.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

leavingirl wrote: »

I hope she gets a lifetime ban and all her titles taken away from her.

Otherwise Tennis is finished.

They're not going to take her titles away because she didn't win any while the substance was illegal. Cop on.

leavingirl

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

They're not going to take her titles away because she didn't win any while the substance was illegal. Cop on.

Listen to yourself. That drug was not licenced for use in the US where she has living all this time. Also this drug is only for use for 4-6 weeks. She was on it for ten years.

To set any sort of example firm action must be taken.

I know you have a soft spot for her but that shouldn't cloud your judgment.

So cop yourself on.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

leavingirl wrote: »

Listen to yourself. That drug was not licenced for use in the US where she has living all this time. Also this drug is only for use for 4-6 weeks. She was on it for ten years.

To set any sort of example firm action must be taken.

I know you have a soft spot for her but that shouldn't cloud your judgment.

So cop yourself on.

I never said anything about what she was or wasn't doing or taking.

You said they should strip all her titles from her, that's not going to happen, even if they ban her for the rest of her life from even watching tennis on TV they have zero authority to take her titles from her.

That's the facts of the matter, nothing to do with my own personal feelings about her or what she's done.

Johnmb

leavingirl wrote: »

Listen to yourself. That drug was not licenced for use in the US where she has living all this time. Also this drug is only for use for 4-6 weeks. She was on it for ten years.

To set any sort of example firm action must be taken.

I know you have a soft spot for her but that shouldn't cloud your judgment.

So cop yourself on.

Okay, if people are going to comment, they should at least actually read the information given, and not selectively quote. The dosage listed on the drug is 4-6 weeks, 2-3 times per year, with no limit on the number of years, and clearly stated that the doctors prescription takes precedent over that standard.

Regarding licensing, that is a ridiculous argument. Many, many valid drugs are not licensed in the US. You'd get them on a named patient basis. It costs a fortune and takes about 7 years to get licensed by the FDA. It wouldn't be worth the time or effort for a little pharma company from eastern Europe to bother even trying.

As for what she did wrong, that was only taking the drug in January. Prior to that, it was not banned. It is not a PED by all accounts, but taken in excessive dosage, MAY have performance enhancing side effects. Prior to the 1st January 2016, using it was no more unethical than taking caffeine, glucose supplements, anti-inflammatories, etc. If she was taking the medical dosage and not the higher amounts, and that can be proven, then likely WADA will end up having to explain themselves regarding their classification of this, and possibly several other drugs.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Johnmb wrote: »

As for what she did wrong, that was only taking the drug in January. Prior to that, it was not banned. It is not a PED by all accounts, but taken in excessive dosage, MAY have performance enhancing side effects. Prior to the 1st January 2016, using it was no more unethical than taking caffeine, glucose supplements, anti-inflammatories, etc. If she was taking the medical dosage and not the higher amounts, and that can be proven, then likely WADA will end up having to explain themselves regarding their classification of this, and possibly several other drugs.

Well, to be fair, WADA have been monitoring this drug for a whlie and did controlled tests on groups of athletes to assess exactly what it did. They would have been fairly confident, I'd assume, in what it was being used for and the effects it had to put it on the list.

Whatever about Sharapova's individual case the fact that something like 100 other athletes have tested positive for it this year already makes it seem like WADA were right to put it on the list. As far as I know nobody else is claiming they were taking it for medical reasons only.

Johnmb

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Whatever about Sharapova's individual case the fact that something like 100 other athletes have tested positive for it this year already makes it seem like WADA were right to put it on the list. As far as I know nobody else is claiming they were taking it for medical reasons only.

But that's just it, from what little information that has come out, WADA have added it to the banned list because so many athletes were using it, so they are assuming that there may be PE effects. Based on what the drug does medically, it is possible. However, there is no research to prove it. If it was an FDA approved drug, the manufacturer would not be allowed to claim that it enhances stamina due to the lack of proof. And if what Head have said is true, the dosage involved that may, possibly, give that PE effect is considerably higher than the medical dosage. I'm not sure if it's possible to test the dosage levels, but if it is, then as Head said, WADA should have put limits on the dosage, not banned the drug outright. It'll be interesting to see what happens when all the information becomes available.

For the record, I'm not a Sharapova fan. I dislike her grunting, and her one-dimensional style of power play. However, let's be clear, prior to 1st January, there was no reason for her, or anyone else, not to take that drug. Caffeine was once banned, and then unbanned, and from what little I've read, this drug isn't much more potent, even in its increased dosage, which would explain the lack of actual evidence beyond an assumption due to the numbers using it. Of course, using it in January, after the ban, was just stupid by all the athletes involved. Even any who genuinely need it for medical reasons should have appealed the ban before January, or at least applied for an exemption on health grounds.

sbsquarepants

Ormus wrote: »

To cheat is to behave dishonestly in order to gain an advantage.

Sharapova has (possibly) been dishonest in getting prescribed a drug for 10 years for a condition she (possibly) doesn't have, or doesn't have anymore.

She's behaved dishonestly in order to gain an advantage. But it wasn't illegal (until this year).

To cheat is to break the rules to gain an advantage - no more and no less.

Disguising a shot is behaving dishonestly to gain an advantage, it's hardly cheating now is it.

Ormus

sbsquarepants wrote: »

To cheat is to break the rules to gain an advantage - no more and no less.

Disguising a shot is behaving dishonestly to gain an advantage, it's hardly cheating now is it.

Disguising a shot is not dishonest! This is getting silly and dragging the thread off topic. The definition I gave you is straight from the dictionary. PM me if you want clarification.

sbsquarepants

I don't need clarification. Behaving within the rules is not cheating, plain and simple, that's why they have rules - to lay out clearly what is acceptable and what isn't.

frostyjacks

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I don't need clarification. Behaving within the rules is not cheating, plain and simple, that's why they have rules - to lay out clearly what is acceptable and what isn't.

Well there's no rule to stop you paying some goons to break your opponents legs before a tournament. By your logic that's not cheating. She is a cheat and a liar to boot. She's taking us all for mugs.

sbsquarepants

I wouldn't call that cheating, I'd call it assault and there are laws against it. Ask Tonya Harding:D

yerwanthere123

Interesting. I wonder who's taking this, and whether people view taking a legal drug as cheating.

https://twitter.com/Qetusi92/status/709125872628998144

Dirty Dingus McGee

frostyjacks wrote: »

Well there's no rule to stop you paying some goons to break your opponents legs before a tournament. By your logic that's not cheating. She is a cheat and a liar to boot. She's taking us all for mugs.

Prior to 01/01/2016 She wasn't breaking the rules.

The rules are the rules and if by not breaking the rules you actually are breaking the rules then rules are completely pointless.