Maria Sharapova fails drug test

Dirty Dingus McGee

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

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

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

These doping rules are pointless in my opinion.As I posted on another thread it's just so arbitrary what actually is and is not a performance enhancing substance.

If people really want a 100% clean sport what needs to be done in order to ensure a 100% clean sport is that all athletes cannot take a single tablet or receive an injection (or any manufactured substance) as long as they are active in the sport.If they do either (for real life health reasons) they have to take time off until the substance is fully out of their system.

I check Australia's doping body and even though Berocca clearly has some mild performance enhancing quality as long as you don't inject yourself with it you can use it which is a complete hippocracy in my opinion.

sbsquarepants

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

These doping rules are pointless in my opinion.As I posted on another thread it's just so arbitrary what actually is and is not a performance enhancing substance.

There's hardly a tournament played anywhere in the world (in any sport) where at least 1 of the competitors isn't receiving pain killing injections - if that is not enhancing their performance then what is.
Can barely walk without it, can run no problem with it - sounds like a significant performance enhancement to me!

Augme

Johnmb wrote: »

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.

This is what the makers of the drug have said on their website about it

Grindeks’s website says that in addition to its use for cardiovascular disease, the drug is used “for the improvement of work capacity of healthy people at physical and mental overloads and during rehabilitation period.”

And

Still, one of the drug’s inventors, Ivars Kalvins, told a newspaper in 2009 that the drug had been used to increase the endurance of Soviet troops lugging heavy equipment in Afghanistan

Sounds a lot like a PED to me.

Augme

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

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

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

Well anyone who eats Red meats, dairy products, certain fish, nuts, seeds, artichokes, asparagus, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, collard greens, garlic, mustard greens, okra, parsley, kale, apricots, bananas, bee pollen, brewer's yeast, buckwheat, corn, oatmeal, rice bran, rye, and whole wheat is taking L-Carnitine.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

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

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

Sharapova was taking a legal drug and you can see what people think of that.

yerwanthere123

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Sharapova was taking a legal drug and you can see what people think of that.

I know, but sometimes I think the reaction to these things would be different depending on the people. I'm sure if it was Roger many more people would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

PressRun

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

I know, but sometimes I think the reaction to these things would be different depending on the people. I'm sure if it was Roger many more people would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I think Sharapova's gotten off pretty lightly, tbh. If it was Serena Williams, I think there would have been much more serious backlash.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

I know, but sometimes I think the reaction to these things would be different depending on the people. I'm sure if it was Roger many more people would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I was just thinking earlier with all the Nadal accusations flying again it's weird how Federer has never had even the slightest hint of a doping accusation and he's achieved far greater things than Nadal.

yerwanthere123

PressRun wrote: »

I think Sharapova's gotten off pretty lightly, tbh. If it was Serena Williams, I think there would have been much more serious backlash.

I fail to see how the backlash could have gotten more serious with Sharapova, to be honest. She's facing a ban, several sponsors have dropped her, her whole career us being dismissed by many as invalid, she's being labelled a drugs cheat by many... pretty serious stuff. It frustrates me how any issue with Sharapova somehow gets related back to Serena, and how people (not you) have tried to make it a race issue :rolleyes:

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I was just thinking earlier with all the Nadal accusations flying again it's weird how Federer has never had even the slightest hint of a doping accusation and he's achieved far greater things than Nadal.

I guess it's primarily down to physique and playing styles. Federer's rabid fandom also has a lot to do with it, as well as the fact he's never had any suspicious absences from the game.

Halloween Jack

If you tend to think that tennis has a serious problem with ped's and you examine other sports which experienced similar scandals (baseball, cycling, track and field) then the only logical assumption would be that likely all the top players are doping. Saying you think player a is juiced but player b is clean is just bias or wishful thinking imo.

PressRun

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

I fail to see how the backlash could have gotten more serious with Sharapova, to be honest. She's facing a ban, several sponsors have dropped her, her whole career us being dismissed by many as invalid, she's being labelled a drugs cheat by many... pretty serious stuff. It frustrates me how any issue with Sharapova somehow gets related back to Serena, and how people (not you) have tried to make it a race issue :rolleyes:

I doubt she'll even get that long a ban, tbh, and I think she'll probably get her sponsors back too. An example will be briefly made of her and then it'll return to normal. That's how I see it playing out.

The Sharapova/Serena comparisons are made because they're rivals. Same as the Roger/Rafa comparison you're making.

walshb

Whether or not Maria was ingesting this for performance enhancing or not pre Jan 1 of this year means nothing. It was not against the rules. I think her team screwed up here. It's just a bit too far fetched to believe that at this stage of her career that she would deliberately ingest a banned substance that had just been added to the list. It makes very little sense.

walshb

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I was just thinking earlier with all the Nadal accusations flying again it's weird how Federer has never had even the slightest hint of a doping accusation and he's achieved far greater things than Nadal.

He hasn't achieved far greater things. Has a better slam record, but when it's all added up they both have remarakable records. The Nadal suspicions have no basis other than speculatuion and innuendo. Not a single solid piece of evidence presented.

Federer is and always has been a clean and honest competitor.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

walshb wrote: »

He hasn't achieved far greater things. Has a better slam record, but when it's all added up they both have remarakable records. The Nadal suspicions have no basis other than speculatuion and innuendo. Not a single solid piece of evidence presented.

Federer is and always has been a clean and honest competitor.

That's what I mean though, some athletes people just have no doubts about, others it only takes a rumour to make people wonder. As you say, all the Nadal accusations are based on nothing but a lot of people still believe them, or want to believe them.

It's just funny, is all I'm saying.

yerwanthere123

walshb wrote: »

He hasn't achieved far greater things. Has a better slam record, but when it's all added up they both have remarakable records. The Nadal suspicions have no basis other than speculatuion and innuendo. Not a single solid piece of evidence presented.

Federer is and always has been a clean and honest competitor.

Personally, I do believe Federer is 100% clean, but in reality there's no way you can make a statement like that as if it's a fact. We have no idea.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

Personally, I do believe Federer is 100% clean, but in reality there's no way you can make a statement like that as if it's a fact. We have no idea.

I would imagine up until last week if people were asked to list the players they thought might fail a drug test they wouldn't have listed Sharapova on it. They're clean until they're not.

walshb

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

Personally, I do believe Federer is 100% clean, but in reality there's no way you can make a statement like that as if it's a fact. We have no idea.

To say we have no idea is wrong. We have some idea. Logic and events and happenings at least allow us to make an informed and edeucated belief. It's not like I believe he is clean with next to nothing to back it up or strengthen the belief.

We "kind of" can claim it as fact. We have 0 proof to refute the claim. If someone hasn't done (or been shown to do something) then we have to assume they haven't done something. I know where you are coming from. But it's a bit an anomaly.

The Nadal suspicion, I agree, has a little more to it, but really, it has no solid basis. At least not in the way some people are ready to label him a cheat. The guy as been on the tour for many years and he never failed any tests, plus, there is something about Nadal that strikes me as good and sincere and honest. I do not think he would deceive and cheat his way through the sport. I could be wrong, of course.

mickmackey1

Style of play obviously has a lot to do with it. Nadal's is based on physical power whereas Federer's artistry is something no drug can assist with.

walshb

mickmackey1 wrote: »

Style of play obviously has a lot to do with it. Nadal's is based on physical power whereas Federer's artistry is something no drug can assist with.

Drugs can assist with stamina and recovery in training. It's not as simple as the point you are making. Drugs can give you that little bit extra on court. It's not like we can see it clearly with players. So, even though Fed is graceful and elegant and smooth, that doesn't really prove anything as regards whether or not he ever used PEDs to improve his performance. Performance for the likes of Federer isn't always about style and grace. Even the stylish players require power and fitness and explosiveness! Anyway, to me both men exhibit and portray a clean and honest look and feel. Add in Nole and Andy and some others.

Chivito550

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

That's what I mean though, some athletes people just have no doubts about, others it only takes a rumour to make people wonder. As you say, all the Nadal accusations are based on nothing but a lot of people still believe them, or want to believe them.

It's just funny, is all I'm saying.

Dodgy links with doping doctors such as Fuentes tend to make people wonder. Long absences followed by a sudden return to blistering form make people wonder.

I also know somebody who works in tennis and that person told me it is common knowledge in tennis circles that he has doped.

The old adage no smoke without fire comes into play.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

I mentioned swimmer Yulia Efimova at some point on this thread in relation to athletes in a sport usually knowing who the dopers are within that sport.
She's apparently tested positive for this same stuff and is now looking at a lifetime ban from the sport. She was swimming only a few weeks ago and set a new WR at one meet. Don't think anyone in the swimming world will be too upset about this one.

RosyLily

ITF will announce their decision on Maria at 4pm.

WinnyThePoo

WOW . I honestly thought we would not hear of it again till she came back.

RosyLily

2 year ban. ITF Statement: http://www.itftennis.com/news/231175.aspx

Kind of surprised if I'm being honest. Research into meldonium seems a bit hazy to me but I'm no scientist. The press conference probably did her no favours; most players would just hide.

AFAIK, Sharapova can appeal.

RosyLily

From her Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/sharapova/posts/10153477001037680

This part stood out to me:

The ITF spent tremendous amounts of time and resources trying to prove I intentionally violated the anti-doping rules and the tribunal concluded I did not. You need to know that the ITF asked the tribunal to suspend me for four years – the required suspension for an intentional violation -- and the tribunal rejected the ITF’s position.

She's appealing the decision. ITF vs. Sharapova II

Joe_ Public

What exactly is Sharapova trying to say? That she was the victim of some kind of witchhunt by her own federation? Why weren't they entitled to push a case that they believed in and what does the cost and resources matter? Presumably she's going to incur a lot of cost herself in order to get it reduced to one year.

RosyLily

Joe_ Public wrote: »

What exactly is Sharapova trying to say? That she was the victim of some kind of witchhunt by her own federation? Why weren't they entitled to push a case that they believed in and what does the cost and resources matter? Presumably she's going to incur a lot of cost herself in order to get it reduced to one year.

It seems like she's alleging the ITF are making an example of her. Case will go to CAS. They reduced Cilic's ban so Sharapova could get a reduction.

Joe_ Public

RosyLily wrote: »

It seems like she's alleging the ITF are making an example of her. Case will go to CAS. They reduced Cilic's ban so Sharapova could get a reduction.

If I've read it correctly, she could have got 1 year if it could be proved she wasn't negligent as to how the banned drug got in her system. I don't she how she could possibly not have been negligent. Still, you never know how these rulings will go, although her problem is it's a much different climate than 2013 when Cilic was having his troubles.

sligeach

She'll appeal and it'll be reduced to a year. Watch this space.

Tombo2001

RosyLily wrote: »

From her Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/sharapova/posts/10153477001037680

This part stood out to me:



She's appealing the decision. ITF vs. Sharapova II

That's comical....

The ITF spent a tremendous amount of time and resources trying to prove she intentionally violated doping laws.

Wow.......they were doing their job, how dare they!

Halloween Jack

So if you read the report she was taking meldonium before training and an hour before matches, she doubled the dose before matches of 'special importance'. But it's definitely for health reasons and not performance/advantage

She also never disclosed the fact that she was taking the substance at any stage on her anti doping controls in 2014 or 2015. She has been taking 30 different medications since 2006 I think and 10+ prior to that.

Tombo2001

Its gas to look at the facebook comments "So glad you have been vindicated Maria" "Cant wait to see you back on the circuit" etc etc....

Its very clear that the attitude problem regarding doping in Eastern Europe is not just with the athletes and the authorities, but also the public.

I honestly believe that if an Irish sport star of similar status was involved, that the Irish sporting public would have no tolerance for it.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Well, if you look at the history of doping in tennis and all the allegations that are floating around other players and the ITF's habit of using "silent bans" it isn't that much of a leap to think they are making an example of her.

Cilic took something that was on the banned list a long time and blamed his mum and they let him off fairly lightly.

I haven't read all the details yet but the fact that so many other Russian athletes have had their bans overturned by their respective federations, again, it's not hard to come to the conclusion they're making a point.

Who knows. We'll see where it goes.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Its gas to look at the facebook comments "So glad you have been vindicated Maria" "Cant wait to see you back on the circuit" etc etc....

Its very clear that the attitude problem regarding doping in Eastern Europe is not just with the athletes and the authorities, but also the public.

I honestly believe that if an Irish sport star of similar status was involved, that the Irish sporting public would have no tolerance for it.

Not sure it's just the Russians defending her. She's been pissing me off lately on twitter with all the RTs of that stupid T-shirt.

Halloween Jack

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Well, if you look at the history of doping in tennis and all the allegations that are floating around other players and the ITF's habit of using "silent bans" it isn't that much of a leap to think they are making an example of her.

Cilic took something that was on the banned list a long time and blamed his mum and they let him off fairly lightly.

I haven't read all the details yet but the fact that so many other Russian athletes have had their bans overturned by their respective federations, again, it's not hard to come to the conclusion they're making a point.

Who knows. We'll see where it goes.

The silent band are interesting, a cynic might think that sharapova continued taking the substance, knowing it was now banned on the assumption that she would get away with it or have it covered up, this is something we know with certainty has happened before (Agassi) and rumour has it, is common with the itf. If you believe that, you'd then have to think sharapova was unlucky with timing (what with all the furore over doping at the moment) and they are making an example of her or she seriously pissed somebody off...

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

^ I'd assume they're not happy she didn't do their silent ban and announced her failed test herself. Whether that had an impact on what happened since, I don't know.

RosyLily

What I don't get is, Sharapova tested positive for meldonium 5 times in 2015, did no one from the ITF or WADA go to her and say, "BTW it'll be illegal to take that next year so you better stop." I know it's the player's responsibility first and foremost to know these things but she is (was?) a big money maker for tennis. You'd think they'd make more of an effort to let her know meldonium was going on the list.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

RosyLily wrote: »

What I don't get is, Sharapova tested positive for meldonium 5 times in 2015, did no one from the ITF or WADA go to her and say, "BTW it'll be illegal to take that next year so you better stop." I know it's the player's responsibility first and foremost to know these things but she is (was?) a big money maker for tennis. You'd think they'd make more of an effort to let her know meldonium was going on the list.

There's so much on twitter at the moment I can keep up but I saw something earlier saying the ITF didn't get the results of the 2015 tests until the end of the year. ... or something like that. Which sounds ridiculous in itself.

Halloween Jack

RosyLily wrote: »

What I don't get is, Sharapova tested positive for meldonium 5 times in 2015, did no one from the ITF or WADA go to her and say, "BTW it'll be illegal to take that next year so you better stop." I know it's the player's responsibility first and foremost to know these things but she is (was?) a big money maker for tennis. You'd think they'd make more of an effort to let her know meldonium was going on the list.

The idea that she didn't know it was banned is a lie pretty much, she knew well and was taking it for its performance enhancing properties.

MrKingsley

RosyLily wrote: »

What I don't get is, Sharapova tested positive for meldonium 5 times in 2015, did no one from the ITF or WADA go to her and say, "BTW it'll be illegal to take that next year so you better stop." I know it's the player's responsibility first and foremost to know these things but she is (was?) a big money maker for tennis. You'd think they'd make more of an effort to let her know meldonium was going on the list.

When the story first broke her excuse was that she was sent an email of the updated list and her trainer/nutritionist examined it but she herself did not read it properly.

Its an utter sham IMO. Shes tested for something on the banned list. Its in her system. She should get the maximum.

She is the highest earning female athlete in the world and clearly has a huge team around her, some of whom whose sole responsibility it would be to make sure that she is not putting anything illegal in her body. The 'accidental/unintentional' argument is bull.

If she succeeds with her appeal and its cut in half then she could be playing in march next year. An utter joke if that turns out to be the case

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

MrKingsley wrote: »

When the story first broke her excuse was that she was sent an email of the updated list and her trainer/nutritionist examined it but she herself did not read it properly.

Its an utter sham IMO. Shes tested for something on the banned list. Its in her system. She should get the maximum.

She is the highest earning female athlete in the world and clearly has a huge team around her, some of whom whose sole responsibility it would be to make sure that she is not putting anything illegal in her body. The 'accidental/unintentional' argument is bull.

If she succeeds with her appeal and its cut in half then she could be playing in march next year. An utter joke if that turns out to be the case

First of all she is not the highest paid female athlete anymore.

Secondly, other athletes have done far worse and got their bans reduced.

walshb

Disgracefully harsh ban for a substance that still hasn't been shown as a PED!

MrKingsley

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

First of all she is not the highest paid female athlete anymore.

Secondly, other athletes have done far worse and got their bans reduced.

Ah stop with the nitpicking. She was the highest earning athlete at the time.

And I dont give a toss about other athletes from other sports. If the ITF want to be serious about tennis being a clean sport then throw the book at anyone(included cilic) whose found with anything in their systems.

Joe_ Public

Having read through the tribunal report, the most hilarious bit is where Sharapova's legal team tried to have the ITF barred from imposing any sanction on the basis of failing to warn her that her 2015 tests were showing up use of meldonium. Hilarious because not only did the ITF not know of this until March, 2016, after her positive tests in Melbourne, but the player herself was duty bound to inform them through disclosure on her anti-doping forms. That repeated non-disclosure constitutes a serious anti-doping offence on its own.

Her defence is weak and laughable, her manager comes across as an idiot. I can see why the ITF pushed for 4 years but, on balance, think the 2 years is the fairest result. Any reduction would be a complete joke.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

I know each sport has it's own governing bodies but it's so strange that they're dealing with this issue Iin different ways. FINA have overturned Yulia Efimova's provisional ban based on advice received from WADA themselves. Efimova has previously served a ban for some other substance, and yet FINA think that WADA's science isn't strong enough to ban her for using meldonium. The ITF on the other hand think WADA's science is good enough to look for 4 years.

Whichever side of the debate you land on there are a lot of inconsistencies and more questions than answers.

Joe_ Public

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I know each sport has it's own governing bodies but it's so strange that they're dealing with this issue Iin different ways. FINA have overturned Yulia Efimova's provisional ban based on advice received from WADA themselves. Efimova has previously served a ban for some other substance, and yet FINA think that WADA's science isn't strong enough to ban her for using meldonium. The ITF on the other hand think WADA's science is good enough to look for 4 years.

Whichever side of the debate you land on there are a lot of inconsistencies and more questions than answers.

I think what happened in the Efimova case is that Fina went back to WADA with questions about how the drug operates, how it breaks down in the body, when it leaves the system etc and WADA weren't able to give precise answers. Theyre not disputing the performance enhancing effects of the substance. The difference with Sharapova is that we know when she took the drug and how much she took, because she has admitted it herself. The grey areas in the case do not revolve around the drug itself. At least thats how I see it anyway.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I think what happened in the Efimova case is that Fina went back to WADA with questions about how the drug operates, how it breaks down in the body, when it leaves the system etc and WADA weren't able to give precise answers. Theyre not disputing the performance enhancing effects of the substance. The difference with Sharapova is that we know when she took the drug and how much she took, because she has admitted it herself. The grey areas in the case do not revolve around the drug itself. At least thats how I see it anyway.

It doesn't really matter how much of it she took if they can't prove it does anything.
I get what you're saying though. We know Sharapova took it after the date it became a banned substance, so whether it does anything or not is somewhat irrelevant in that respect.

I'm not defending Sharapova here, just to be clear. I just find it interesting that there are athletes in a variety of sports who are being dealt with in different ways, all for the same substance.

Joe_ Public

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

It doesn't really matter how much of it she took if they can't prove it does anything.
I get what you're saying though. We know Sharapova took it after the date it became a banned substance, so whether it does anything or not is somewhat irrelevant in that respect.

I'm not defending Sharapova here, just to be clear. I just find it interesting that there are athletes in a variety of sports who are being dealt with in different ways, all for the same substance.

But the question of what the drug does isn't at issue. It's on the banned list, it's illegal so you test positive for it, you're gone, that's it. What the Efimova case refers to is whether she tested positive for a drug she'd taken before it became banned and it hadn't cleared her system by the time of the test. None of that applies in the Sharapova case, we know she took the drug after the cut-off date of January 1.

gordongekko

walshb wrote: »

Disgracefully harsh ban for a substance that still hasn't been shown as a PED!

Seriously?

walshb

gordongekko wrote: »

Seriously?

Yes.

2 years for being arrogant and stupid? 2 years for using a PED? Not a fooking chance...

6 months would have been a fair ban here.

2 years for her rancid grunting!:)