Maria Sharapova fails drug test

Joe_ Public

walshb wrote: »

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!:)

How do you arrive at the six months though? If you dont consider meldonium a ped, on what grounds should there be a ban at all? Don't get the rationale there.

Mr.Prodston

The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jun/08/maria-sharapova--drugs-in-sport-tennis

“It only emerged in evidence at the hearing that no member of Ms Sharapova’s team, apart from Mr Eisenbud, actually knew that she was taking Mildronate,” said the ruling of the three-man panel headed by Charles Flint QC.

While Sharapova would continue to write down various medications and vitamins on seven separate doping control forms between 2014 and 2016, she never disclosed that she was taking Mildronate. So even though the tribunal accepts that Sharapova did not know the drug was banned, it found her explanation for why she did not inform testers she was doing so – as is considered best practice – “untenable”.

“Ms Sharapova was cross-examined on the failure to disclose Mildronate on the list of medications she provided on doping control forms. Her explanation was that she understood the form only to require her to disclose a medication or supplement if she had taken it every day for the last seven days, because otherwise the list would be very long,” it said.

“In fact at Wimbledon 2015 she had used Mildronate six times in the past seven days, and, at the Australian Open 2016, five times in the past seven days. On the forms in evidence she had disclosed taking a number of substances including vitamin C, Omega 3, Biofenac and Voltaren [anti-inflammatories which may be taken orally or in gel form], Veramyst [a nasal spray containing a corticosteroid] and Melatonin [a hormone]. In most cases she declared only two of those substances on each form so that the list would not have been very long if she had added Mildronate.”The saga began more than a decade earlier, as Sharapova originally revealed in her dramatic mea culpa in March this year. One year after her career-launching Wimbledon victory as a 17-year-old, the Russian started taking Mildronate as part of a cocktail of 18 substances prescribed by a Dr Skalny based on her family history. The tribunal found that while Dr Skalny had not diagnosed cardiovascular disease, the primary ailment it is used to treat, he was justified in prescribing it given her family history as a “cardioprotective agent and as a preventative agent for diabetes”.

Quite honestly I could have quoted an awful lot more from this but it's some of the highlighted parts of this which are most damning. I mean not disclosing she was taking Mildronate because the list would have been long is quite frankly a ridiculous argument or as the report says "untenable".

The fact her agent's claims were described as "unbelievable" isn't helpful to her cause. I mean this is actually the excuse:

"Eisenbud claimed that while in previous years he had printed off the banned list and taken it to the Caribbean to consider by the pool, in 2015 he had not taken his annual vacation because he had split up with his wife. Hence, he argued, he never checked whether meldonium had been added – as it had in light of growing concerns that it was being taken for performance-enhancing reasons by huge swathes of athletes."

If only she had mentioned to anybody else in her team she was taking then perhaps they could have checked. I detest this smilie with every fibre of my being but it seems applicable here: :rolleyes:

Look she could well have made a genuine error in being ignorant of the banned list in 2016 but it comes back to the moral argument about doping/performance enhancing. It'll be an absolute farce if the ban gets reduced. This is as clear cut as it gets.

Perhaps it's a bit glib but I can sum it all up thanks to this classic Homer Simpson moment:

Marge - Telling Athletes not to use these substances
Homer - Sharapova
The Pie - Mildronate/Mildonium
The Cupboard - The risk involved in being ignorant to outside agents

“She is the sole author of her own misfortune”

That's my take on this and if I had my way all dopers would get the punishment they deserve, this just happens to be Sharapova. If this doesn't try to be stamped out then what the hell is the point of anything!

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

^ While all of this is technically true the substance wasn't banned until January of this year so why does it matter how or when she was taking it before?

If they were to ban those gel sachets next year there'd be a long list of people who were taking them this year.

I accept she was taking it after it was banned and that it ignorance is no excuse for it but I don't really see why they get to use anything she did before against her?

Perhaps all the evidence points towards her using it for something other than it's medical qualities but is that really relevant over the past 10 years?

Halloween Jack

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

^ While all of this is technically true the substance wasn't banned until January of this year so why does it matter how or when she was taking it before?

If they were to ban those gel sachets next year there'd be a long list of people who were taking them this year.

I accept she was taking it after it was banned and that it ignorance is no excuse for it but I don't really see why they get to use anything she did before against her?

Perhaps all the evidence points towards her using it for something other than it's medical qualities but is that really relevant over the past 10 years?

It's totally relevant if you are trying to prove it was deliberate, rather than inadvertent use I would have thought...

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Halloween Jack wrote: »

It's totally relevant if you are trying to prove it was deliberate, rather than inadvertent use I would have thought...

Yes, but she admitted to taking it in January. They didn't need to prove it was deliberate.

Halloween Jack

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Yes, but she admitted to taking it in January. They didn't need to prove it was deliberate.

She admitted taking it but claimed it was inadvertent because she didn't know it was banned/wasn't aware that mildronate was meldonium iirc.

If she had just admitted it was deliberate there would have been no tribunal and she'd have got 4 years

Joe_ Public

Halloween Jack wrote: »

She admitted taking it but claimed it was inadvertent because she didn't know it was banned/wasn't aware that mildronate was meldonium iirc.

If she had just admitted it was deliberate there would have been no tribunal and she'd have got 4 years

Essentially her whole strategy backfired against her. It looked like by admitting it straight out and holding the press conference, her team thought they could be in control of the situation, but that probably only pissed off the ITF more and they just didn't believe her account of her history using the drug. I think that's why they pushed so hard for the 4 years. They were, as she suggested, trying to make an example of her, but she herself is partly to blame for that.


Alternatively, if Sharapova had brazened it out, not admitted her guilt, she could now be in the bracket of other meldonium users who have had their bans temporarily rescinded. She'd have been playing in France last week and there's a fair chance that she'd have ultimately escaped with a warning.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

^ Yes, this seems very possible. Going back to the Yulia Efimova case, she's a known doper and has served a previous ban for something else and she still managed to get her ban overturned, for now. Given Sharapova's failed test was only a few weeks into January she could easily have used the uncertainty about the drug to her advantage.

walshb

Joe_ Public wrote: »

How do you arrive at the six months though? If you dont consider meldonium a ped, on what grounds should there be a ban at all? Don't get the rationale there.

Because the jury is still out on this substance, one that was only recently added to the list. A substance that she was legally ingesting for many years. When all this (and more) is considered then 2 years is very harsh. 6 months for negligence is fair here.

Joe_ Public

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

^ Yes, this seems very possible. Going back to the Yulia Efimova case, she's a known doper and has served a previous ban for something else and she still managed to get her ban overturned, for now. Given Sharapova's failed test was only a few weeks into January she could easily have used the uncertainty about the drug to her advantage.

Actually it wouldn't surprise me at all if they subsequently try to go that route. Efimova claims her failed test - in February - was due to a dose she'd taken prior to January 1, yet it seems a test she'd taken in January had returned negative. Go figure!

Joe_ Public

walshb wrote: »

Because the jury is still out on this substance, one that was only recently added to the list. A substance that she was legally ingesting for many years. When all this (and more) is considered then 2 years is very harsh. 6 months for negligence is fair here.

What jury is that? Not the one that matters anyway. Every substance has to go on the list at some point, that's why it's constantly monitored and upgraded annually. I understand there's some debate as to the workings of this drug, but Wada are pretty emphatic about its performance enhancing nature, I see no reason to query that. Besides, how can you square the 200 or so positive tests that have been recorded so far this year - are there really that many supposedly peak fit young athletes with cardiac problems? Should they really be allowed in elite sport in the first place?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Actually it wouldn't surprise me at all if they subsequently try to go that route. Efimova claims her failed test - in February - was due to a dose she'd taken prior to January 1, yet it seems a test she'd taken in January had returned negative. Go figure!

Well, I don't trust Efimova at all, but her people clearly know how to work the system. Unless WADA get back to them pretty quickly with hard science she'll be at the Olympics.

I don't get how it's so hard to figure out how long it stays in the system for? If they were monitoring it for a year or more before adding it to the list surely it's one of the first things they should have looked into. And assuming they did controlled tests on athletes, they should have some sort of record of how long it stays in your system. I mean, someone failing a test in January means at most all they need to prove is that it's out of your system in less than 3-4 weeks. They could have proven, or disproved, that twice over since Sharapova announced she failed.

Joe_ Public

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Well, I don't trust Efimova at all, but her people clearly know how to work the system. Unless WADA get back to them pretty quickly with hard science she'll be at the Olympics.

I don't get how it's so hard to figure out how long it stays in the system for? If they were monitoring it for a year or more before adding it to the list surely it's one of the first things they should have looked into. And assuming they did controlled tests on athletes, they should have some sort of record of how long it stays in your system. I mean, someone failing a test in January means at most all they need to prove is that it's out of your system in less than 3-4 weeks. They could have proven, or disproved, that twice over since Sharapova announced she failed.

Yeah, I think one of the possible factors is that mildronate was only ever designed for short-term use, so the general view was that it was gone from the system within a short period, 3 or 4 days. But because these athletes were taking it over much longer periods and, in may cases, over the recommended doses, it will take much longer to be flushed out, possibly months in some cases. Other drugs like cannabis work in a similar way. It has the makings of a bit of a mess really and Sharapova might still be able to capitalise from it.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Yeah, I think one of the possible factors is that mildronate was only ever designed for short-term use, so the general view was that it was gone from the system within a short period, 3 or 4 days. But because these athletes were taking it over much longer periods and, in may cases, over the recommended doses, it will take much longer to be flushed out, possibly months in some cases. Other drugs like cannabis work in a similar way. It has the makings of a bit of a mess really and Sharapova might still be able to capitalise from it.

Well, she might have been able to if she hadn't admitted taking it in January. Which is a weird thing in itself to say. If we believe her, that she genuinely didn't know it had been banned, and accept that she was trying to be upfront and honest about it all, she still gets banned for taking it after it was added to the list. However, it now seems that she would have been much better off lying about it all and trying to get off on a technicality, which other athletes are doing successfully.

What does that say about the entire system?

Joe_ Public

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Well, she might have been able to if she hadn't admitted taking it in January. Which is a weird thing in itself to say. If we believe her, that she genuinely didn't know it had been banned, and accept that she was trying to be upfront and honest about it all, she still gets banned for taking it after it was added to the list. However, it now seems that she would have been much better off lying about it all and trying to get off on a technicality, which other athletes are doing successfully.

What does that say about the entire system?

She is in a bit of a check mate alright, but could still see them trying to piggyback in on the back of the uncertainty, the desperate will try anything.

And you do make a good point: it's a weird scenario. But you have to ask how honest was she really? If she'd been truly honest, she would have flagged her use of meldonium on the anti-doping forms and, that way, it would have been flagged to authorities that she was a potential risk to herself and the whole situation probably avoided.

Instead she's tried to make out that she didn't deem it important enough to disclose on the forms - yet Vitamin C tablets apparently were - and they simply didn't believe her. It's unfortunate that the like of Efimova and others get off on a technicality, but does that mean we should have sympathy for Sharapova? Not in my book anyway.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Joe_ Public wrote: »

She is in a bit of a check mate alright, but could still see them trying to piggyback in on the back of the uncertainty, the desperate will try anything.

And you do make a good point: it's a weird scenario. But you have to ask how honest was she really? If she'd been truly honest, she would have flagged her use of meldonium on the anti-doping forms and, that way, it would have been flagged to authorities that she was a potential risk to herself and the whole situation probably avoided.

Instead she's tried to make out that she didn't deem it important enough to disclose on the forms - yet Vitamin C tablets apparently were - and they simply didn't believe her. It's unfortunate that the like of Efimova and others get off on a technicality, but does that mean we should have sympathy for Sharapova? Not in my book anyway.

It's very weird that she didn't declare it on her forms, given it was a legal substance up until Jan 2016. It makes no sense. Whether she was taking it for medical reasons or not is irrelevant there, so why not declare it?

It's a very messy situation and it doesn't reflect well on Sharapova, of course, but the wider Meldonium issue doesn't reflect that well on WADA either. I would think anything that they're adding to the list they should know inside out and remove any kind of loopholes for athletes that test positive for it.

walshb

Joe_ Public wrote: »

What jury is that? Not the one that matters anyway. Every substance has to go on the list at some point, that's why it's constantly monitored and upgraded annually. I understand there's some debate as to the workings of this drug, but Wada are pretty emphatic about its performance enhancing nature, I see no reason to query that. Besides, how can you square the 200 or so positive tests that have been recorded so far this year - are there really that many supposedly peak fit young athletes with cardiac problems? Should they really be allowed in elite sport in the first place?

If they are so sure why is it that only in 2016 they add it to the list? Surely it can't be such a sure thing if it took all this time to verify that it enhances performance? These lists need to be scrapped and they need to have only substances that actually and really improve performance. I mean, technically water improves perofrmace. Should that be on the list. I love chocolate, and it improves my performance when I run. Should it be on the list?

She is guilty of being ignorant. Not of being a PED cheat!

Joe_ Public

walshb wrote: »

If they are so sure why is it that only in 2016 they add it to the list? Surely it can't be such a sure thing if it took all this time to verify that it enhances performance? These lists need to be scrapped and they need to have only substances that actually and really improve performance. I mean, technically water improves perofrmace. Should that be on the list. I love chocolate, and it improves my performance when I run. Should it be on the list?

She is guilty of being ignorant. Not of being a PED cheat!

Well I don't think they knew anything about it until after 2012 when it started showing up on tests. So I guess there's a research period and then a monitoring period before it gets the yes/no for inclusion. I don't see any problems with the procedure. I'm not a scientist or a chemist, but common sense tells me hundreds of healthy young athletes cannot be taking a drug for heart problems. And I'm happy here to be guided by common sense.

And I'm happy too if the banned list errs on the side of caution rather than the other way round. I believe young athletes should be taught not to feel they have to fill their bodies with all manner of drugs and supplements in order to keep up with their rivals. According to Sharapova's testimony, she was taking 18 different medications while still a teenager and by 2010 this had risen to 30. I mean FFS! I have an uncle who suffers from chronic bronchitis and has had a quadruple bypass and he's not on half that number. There's just something seriously off about that.

Anyway ignorance is not a defence for any athlete, Sharapova or otherwise. If you believe she was a victim of injustice here, fine, but she tested positive, ignorance was not a mitigating factor.

walshb

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Well I don't think they knew anything about it until after 2012 when it started showing up on tests. So I guess there's a research period and then a monitoring period before it gets the yes/no for inclusion. I don't see any problems with the procedure. I'm not a scientist or a chemist, but common sense tells me hundreds of healthy young athletes cannot be taking a drug for heart problems. And I'm happy here to be guided by common sense.

And I'm happy too if the banned list errs on the side of caution rather than the other way round. I believe young athletes should be taught not to feel they have to fill their bodies with all manner of drugs and supplements in order to keep up with their rivals. According to Sharapova's testimony, she was taking 18 different medications while still a teenager and by 2010 this had risen to 30. I mean FFS! I have an uncle who suffers from chronic bronchitis and has had a quadruple bypass and he's not on half that number. There's just something seriously off about that.

Anyway ignorance is not a defence for any athlete, Sharapova or otherwise. If you believe she was a victim of injustice here, fine, but she tested positive, ignorance was not a mitigating factor.

Athletes and people take drugs-substances for all variety of reasosns. Why wouldn't any athlete take a substance (that shows to improve performance) that is available and legal? It makes perfect sense that they do. It makes no senses for an athlete who wants to succeed to not try his/her best. Now, where the issue is is when that means cheating. In today's world of science and technology and gains, these athletes are treated like machines, and willingly so. It's what makes us compete, and it's what makes us want to be the best. Where on earth do the authorities draw the line? As it stands there is "cheating" happening that is very legal. Money/finances and accessibility being the cheat. Plenty of athletes are already playing catch up against other athletes due to geography and due to finanaces. Oh, but that's all legal, yet, it's the greatest PED of all.

In Maria's she is wrong. I agree. But the punishment is harsh considering all the facts.

Joe_ Public

walshb wrote: »

Athletes and people take drugs-substances for all variety of reasosns. Why wouldn't any athlete take a substance (that shows to improve performance) that is available and legal? It makes perfect sense that they do. It makes no senses for an athlete who wants to succeed to not try his/her best. Now, where the issue is is when that means cheating. In today's world of science and technology and gains, these athletes are treated like machines, and willingly so. It's what makes us compete, and it's what makes us want to be the best. Where on earth do the authorities draw the line? As it stands there is "cheating" happening that is very legal. Money/finances and accessibility being the cheat. Plenty of athlets are already playing catch up againbst other athletes due to geography and due to finanaces.

In Maria's she is wrong. I agree. But the punishment is harsh considering all the facts.

I accept what you say up to a point. Firstly, the line has to be drawn somewhere and, given the high thresholds and noted abuse of the TUE system, you could even argue that, if anything, it offers the athletes too much leeway to cheat. I assume microdosing is still rife although the blood passports should, in theory, take care of it.

I don't think anyone would say the anti-doping system is perfect, it's continually evolving and changing all the time, but it's the only system we've got and when you consider how unscrupulous Russian sport seems to be for instance - they actually don't appear to accept doping as cheating at all - I think it's only right that the war against cheating is stepped up.

I don't know what kind of legal cheating you're referring to, by simply having more money and resources than your opponent isn't cheating by any definition I know. What is happening at Manchester City, for example, isn't very noble in my view, it may not even pass the fair play laws, but I don't see it as cheating.

MrKingsley

walshb wrote: »

Athletes and people take drugs-substances for all variety of reasosns. Why wouldn't any athlete take a substance (that shows to improve performance) that is available and legal? It makes perfect sense that they do. It makes no senses for an athlete who wants to succeed to not try his/her best. Now, where the issue is is when that means cheating. In today's world of science and technology and gains, these athletes are treated like machines, and willingly so. It's what makes us compete, and it's what makes us want to be the best. Where on earth do the authorities draw the line? As it stands there is "cheating" happening that is very legal. Money/finances and accessibility being the cheat. Plenty of athletes are already playing catch up against other athletes due to geography and due to finanaces. Oh, but that's all legal, yet, it's the greatest PED of all.

In Maria's she is wrong. I agree. But the punishment is harsh considering all the facts.

But the facts of the case are that she had the new lists of banned substances. This drug was on it, yet she continued to take it. She now has to face the consequences. Two years is more on the lenient side of things in my view

walshb

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I accept what you say up to a point. Firstly, the line has to be drawn somewhere and, given the high thresholds and noted abuse of the TUE system, you could even argue that, if anything, it offers the athletes too much leeway to cheat. I assume microdosing is still rife although the blood passports should, in theory, take care of it.

I don't think anyone would say the anti-doping system is perfect, it's continually evolving and changing all the time, but it's the only system we've got and when you consider how unscrupulous Russian sport seems to be for instance - they actually don't appear to accept doping as cheating at all - I think it's only right that the war against cheating is stepped up.

I don't know what kind of legal cheating you're referring to, by simply having more money and resources than your opponent isn't cheating by any definition I know. What is happening at Manchester City, for example, isn't very noble in my view, it may not even pass the fair play laws, but I don't see it as cheating.

I used the word cheating with inverted commas. The playing field is already legally not near balanced.

Joe_ Public

walshb wrote: »

I used the word cheating with inverted commas. The playing field is already legally not near balanced.

Ok fair enough, though I'm not certain how you're saying this relates to the doping argument or if you're suggesting there's some kind of moral equivalence between the two. Because somebody else has loads of money, or was born privileged in some way, surely doesn't give another the right to dope up to the gills in order to nullify that advantage. I know you didn't say that, but can't follow where your argument leads otherwise.

walshb

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Ok fair enough, though I'm not certain how you're saying this relates to the doping argument or if you're suggesting there's some kind of moral equivalence between the two. Because somebody else has loads of money, or was born privileged in some way, surely doesn't give another the right to dope up to the gills in order to nullify that advantage. I know you didn't say that, but can't follow where your argument leads otherwise.

I suppose my argument is that the authorities are reseraching these substances that might or might not give a "performance enhancement." It's stupid. There are currently plenty of substances that enhance your performance that are not banned. There is just far too much subjectivity here.

I get that EPO and HGH and anabolic steroids really do improve performance. There are athletes who are celarly behind others based on geography and finanaces. It's all part of enhancemnet. Allow them all to use whatever means they like to perofrm to the best of their ability. The cream will still rise to the top.

Serioulsy, an athlete in the middle of the jungle is offered the best of services that a counrty like the UK provides their elites, or doses of fooking Melondium? What you think he/she will go for?

Joe_ Public

walshb wrote: »

I suppose my argument is that the authorities are reseraching these substances that might or might not give a "performance enhancement." It's stupid. There are currently plenty of substances that enhance your performance that are not banned. There is just far too much subjectivity here.

I get that EPO and HGH and anabolic steroids really do improve performance. There are athletes who are celarly behind others based on geography and finanaces. It's all part of enhancemnet. Allow them all to use whatever means they like to perofrm to the best of their ability. The cream will still rise to the top.

Serioulsy, an athlete in the middle of the jungle is offered the best of services that a counrty like the UK provides their elites, or doses of fooking Melondium? What you think he/she will go for?

I accept there's always a bit of angst about the list, whats on it and what isn't, and it's easy to pick holes. But what substances should be on it that aren't? You mentioned chocolate earlier, but I didn't imagine you were being serious about that.

I've heard lots of arguments over the years for opening the whole thing up to everybody, a big free for all between chemists and manufacturers, but you're saying doping should only be made legal to certain athletes below an agreed poverty line. At least I think that's what you're saying. I have to admit it's an interesting twist to a familiar line, but I have no idea how you police it. As well as being dangerous and unethical, I think it's off the wall bonkers and completely unenforceable.

And there's already plenty of evidence to suggest institutionalised doping is endemic in countries with relatively low GDPs ie Jamaica and Kenya to name just two. History has taught us that peds are not exclusively a rich man's drug.

walshb

But I am not only talking about PEDS in the substance sense. It should be called PE, not PED. There are plenty of performance enhancers that aren't drugs or substances. And they are not available equally to all.

walshb

Take the case of Formula 1. The drivers are dope tested. The cars gets away scott free. Ludicrous.

gordongekko

walshb wrote: »

But I am not only talking about PEDS in the substance sense. It should be called PE, not PED. There are plenty of performance enhancers that aren't drugs or substances. And they are not available equally to all.

You can't be a little bit guilty. She took a banned drug, she should get a lifetime ban. The fact that it wasn't banned at one stage is just clouding the waters. If she didn't take dubious medication she wouldn't be banned.

Joe_ Public

walshb wrote: »

Take the case of Formula 1. The drivers are dope tested. The cars gets away scott free. Ludicrous.

I presume you are talking about things like the Nike project, or hypobaric tents, cryotherapy units and all that. There are probably some grey areas there alright, nobody said it was going to be easy. But the fact you can't control wealth, distribution of resources isn't reason to justify a laxer doping regime in my view anyway.

As for cars, they lie outside my area of interest. Ludicrous sport if you ask me, but then nobody did

frostyjacks

walshb wrote: »

Take the case of Formula 1. The drivers are dope tested. The cars gets away scott free. Ludicrous.

Ever try getting a urine test from a car? Not easy.

Re Maria Cheatapova, I would have more respect for her if she held her hands up and admit she was cheating. The continual denials and hand-washing is shameless.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

gordongekko wrote: »

You can't be a little bit guilty. She took a banned drug, she should get a lifetime ban. The fact that it wasn't banned at one stage is just clouding the waters. If she didn't take dubious medication she wouldn't be banned.

You don't get a lifetime ban for failing one drug test, regardless of what the drug is.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

frostyjacks wrote: »

Re Maria Cheatapova, I would have more respect for her if she held her hands up and admit she was cheating. The continual denials and hand-washing is shameless.

She has held her hands up and admitted taking it though.

As opposed to the athletes who won't even admit they were taking it and are using a loophole to get away with it.

gordongekko

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

You don't get a lifetime ban for failing one drug test, regardless of what the drug is.

Thats just because it cant be upheld in court at the moment and the sports organisations are afraid to be undermined by losing a case to test the law

walshb

frostyjacks wrote: »

Ever try getting a urine test from a car? Not easy.

Re Maria Cheatapova, I would have more respect for her if she held her hands up and admit she was cheating. The continual denials and hand-washing is shameless.

There has been no denying. The panel have concluded that she did not intend to cheat!

adrian522

She accidentally cheated did she?

the manner in which the medication was taken, its concealment from the anti-doping authorities, her failure to disclose it even to her own team, and the lack of any medical justification must inevitably lead to the conclusion that she took Mildronate for the purpose of enhancing her performance”.

Taking this drug on the sly, not telling even her own doctors, not reporting it on doping control forms, not having any medical reason to be taking it all adds up to cheating.

She admitted to taking the banned drug so she should have got a 4 year ban. Not sure the reason for the lenient ban, only 2 years and backdated to January.

In any case she is now appealing to the CAS.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jun/14/maria-sharapova-appeals-two-year-drugs-ban

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

She wants the decision on the ban made in time to allow her go to the Olympics which suggests she wants it overturned completely, which is a bit much to ask. Or maybe she wants it reduced to 6 months backdated? Either way it's a big ask.

yerwanthere123

I think if she can get it reduced slightly so that she'll return in 2017 then we'll definitely see her back, if it stays at it is I'm not so sure. How could she motivate herself to keep training/practising for tournaments that would be two seasons away? Either way her legacy is ruined now, a sad end for her career really.

I'd have hoped that this whole saga would open up a lot of the other going-ons on tour, but if anything I think it'll have the opposite effect. Interestingly though, those blood bags that were ordered to be destroyed will now be handed over. I doubt anything'll happen though.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/36527895

Joe_ Public

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

She wants the decision on the ban made in time to allow her go to the Olympics which suggests she wants it overturned completely, which is a bit much to ask. Or maybe she wants it reduced to 6 months backdated? Either way it's a big ask.

Yeah, think she just needs to get it reduced to 6 months and she's on track for Rio. Previously she'd have been banned from the Olympics having tested positive but they got rid of that rule in favour of extending bans to 4 years. WADA don't often lose at CAS though.

Rjd2

Murray the voice of reason.


https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jun/14/andy-murray-maria-sharapova-excuse-appeal

Johnmb

Joe_ Public wrote: »

WADA don't often lose at CAS though.

It's not WADA she's appealing against, it's the ITF ban length only (i.e. not their findings). She's saying that they found that she did not intentionally break the ban, so for a first time offence 2 years is unfairly harsh and should be reduced. Since nobody is appealing the findings, I don't think CAS can look into any of facts to draw their own conclusions, they can just look at the ban and the finding that she didn't intentionally break the rules and determine if it was unduly harsh. She could very easily win a reduction given that is was a first time offence.

Joe_ Public

Johnmb wrote: »

It's not WADA she's appealing against, it's the ITF ban length only (i.e. not their findings). She's saying that they found that she did not intentionally break the ban, so for a first time offence 2 years is unfairly harsh and should be reduced. Since nobody is appealing the findings, I don't think CAS can look into any of facts to draw their own conclusions, they can just look at the ban and the finding that she didn't intentionally break the rules and determine if it was unduly harsh. She could very easily win a reduction given that is was a first time offence.

You're right of course, think I had a brainfart when posting above. It does seem fairly conceivable alright that she could get a reduced ban, I don't think anybody would argue that the federation was, rightly or wrongly, seeking to make an example of her. But if she's trying to get an 18 month reduction in order to compete in Rio, then I think she has her work cut out for her.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

It's looking pretty grim for all the Russians at the moment. Sharapova should count her blessings that everyone thinks she's American now. Some of the stuff coming out the last few days about what they've been up to is astonishing.

RosyLily

WADA President has adding fuel to Team Sharapova's fire with his comments about her earnings. (LINK) Reedie said that the organisation does loads of work on a budget of less than $30 million a year. Then goes on to say,

"For me the only satisfactory element in Madame Sharapova’s case was that in one year she can earn more money than the whole of Wada’s budget put together.”

So basically, he enjoyed handing down the ban because she's successful? Not exactly comments becoming of the WADA President.

BTW, Madame Sharapova?? Does that sound condescending or is it just me?

yerwanthere123

RosyLily wrote: »

WADA President has adding fuel to Team Sharapova's fire with his comments about her earnings. (LINK) Reedie said that the organisation does loads of work on a budget of less than $30 million a year. Then goes on to say,

So basically, he enjoyed handing down the ban because she's successful? Not exactly comments becoming of the WADA President.

BTW, Madame Sharapova?? Does that sound condescending or is it just me?

Oh yeah, totally condescending and patronising, which I imagine was the intention.

As you say, it certainly adds fuel to the fire. Makes it seem as if they went after her more for status than anything else. Not sure if it'll make a difference though. She's still training however, she uploaded some Facebook pictures today.

RosyLily

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

Oh yeah, totally condescending and patronising, which I imagine was the intention.

As you say, it certainly adds fuel to the fire. Makes it seem as if they went after her more for status than anything else. Not sure if it'll make a difference though. She's still training however, she uploaded some Facebook pictures today.

The idiot should have kept his mouth shut!! I'd say the majority of people already knew WADA were making an example of Maria, then he goes and basically confirms it.

Now Sharapova's attorney is demanding an apology from Reedie. She's still confident of a return to tennis....probably sooner rather than later.

Stay tuned next week for another episode!!:pac:

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

She's off to study business at Harvard now....

Neyite

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

She's off to study business at Harvard now....

Not pharmacology?

yerwanthere123

It's only a five day course apparently, which costs $12,000 :eek:

Hunchback

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

It's only a five day course apparently, which costs $12,000 :eek:

I'm actually glad because (I was thinking when I saw the picture she posted that) if it was a 'proper' course lasting a number of years we might not see her on the tennis court again. And I'd like to see her on the court again.

Halloween Jack

Hunchback wrote: »

I'm actually glad because (I was thinking when I saw the picture she posted that) if it was a 'proper' course lasting a number of years we might not see her on the tennis court again. And I'd like to see her on the court again.

If It was up to me she'd be seen IN court...