Cheater gets suspended.

[helix]

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/tennis/maria-sharapova-ban-1.3622062

Pretty smile didn't help this time.

[NSXCIGAR]

I'm not a fan of hers, but I think "cheater" is a bit unwarranted. There's a pretty weak case to be made that she was using it at all to boost performance. She had been prescribed the drug for 10+ years for other medical issues, and it also had a different name. Most agree this drug would have a negligible effect on performance anyway. It had only been banned for a few months before she tested positive for it, and I believe she legitimately wasn't aware. 2 years for an unintentional use is pretty severe.

That being said, as a modern professional athlete making many millions there's no excuse for testing positive for anything these days. You should be acutely aware of any drug you ingest and one can easily afford a regular, comprehensive testing regimen to insure nothing you're taking is banned, ever--especially when the punishment is so severe. A mistake, certainly, and she will apparently pay the price. But I don't think the "cheater" label is applicable.

[helix]

It has just recently been banned after many pro athletes have been discovered using it for years. Doubtful it was being taken for any reason but performance enhancement.

"As a doping drug, Meldonium is used to enhance athletic performance by increasing the overall endurance of the athlete and speeding up their recovery time after a strenuous workout. This helps them with endurance in that they can train for a longer amount of time without needing breaks in between. They also have decreased recovery time, which means that they can return to competition or practice sooner without feeling as sore or tired as they would have without the assistance of the drug."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meldonium

[luv2fly]

She is still HOT IMHO!  Her pic and "cheating" gives me bad thoughts...

[wabashcr]

38 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I'm not a fan of hers, but I think "cheater" is a bit unwarranted. There's a pretty weak case to be made that she was using it at all to boost performance.

Did you read the Tribunal's explanation?  There is no logical conclusion other than that she was using it to enhance performance.  She may have had a legitimate reason to start using it 10 years ago, but she was clearly cheating when she continued to use it after switching doctors and not disclosing it to anyone.

[stigmata]

My opinion is sport is full of cheats.

Some will get caught most won't..

 

[NSXCIGAR]

1 hour ago, wabashcr said:

Did you read the Tribunal's explanation?  There is no logical conclusion other than that she was using it to enhance performance.  She may have had a legitimate reason to start using it 10 years ago, but she was clearly cheating when she continued to use it after switching doctors and not disclosing it to anyone.

I don't think it's that clear since the penalty was only 2 years instead of 4, consistent with un-intentional violations. The ITF investigation determined it was un-intentional. She also claims the drug was prescribed under a different name, which she may have disclosed to the team doctor or others. Nobody on her team seemed to check the 2016 banned list that was sent out...which is very odd. But one would think if she was taking something so knowingly, she'd be very aware of what substances were banned and not at any given time.

She also got caught almost immediately, which is consistent with someone not having a clue. As to why she or nobody on her team had a clue--well, that's a different story--and a more curious one. There is no excuse for that and she certainly deserves the penalty--those are the rules and she and/or her team ignored them. But to be a cheater, intent is necessary--even intentionally ignoring the rules--but I believe it's just not possible to show that in this case. Careless, stupid, foolish, sure. But intentional cheater--can't be sure.

As far as the drug itself, much of what I've read from experts weighing in has basically indicated that it's not really a performance-enhancing drug so much as a recovery-enhancement drug used during training. The only reason it was banned was that more people evidently began recently taking it--which means nothing really.

[Orion21]

Her explanation must not have been logical enough to absolve her of guilt.  But these doping rules are pretty rigid.  There usually isn't any room for explanation.  You either are positive or not.  If you are positive you are banned.  

[helix]

One would have to assume Sharapova's team to be an elite group,she is #1 ranked .

[westg]

1 hour ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I don't think it's that clear since the penalty was only 2 years instead of 4, consistent with un-intentional violations. The ITF investigation determined it was un-intentional. She also claims the drug was prescribed under a different name, which she may have disclosed to the team doctor or others. Nobody on her team seemed to check the 2016 banned list that was sent out...which is very odd. But one would think if she was taking something so knowingly, she'd be very aware of what substances were banned and not at any given time.

She also got caught almost immediately, which is consistent with someone not having a clue. As to why she or nobody on her team had a clue--well, that's a different story--and a more curious one. There is no excuse for that and she certainly deserves the penalty--those are the rules and she and/or her team ignored them. But to be a cheater, intent is necessary--even intentionally ignoring the rules--but I believe it's just not possible to show that in this case. Careless, stupid, foolish, sure. But intentional cheater--can't be sure.

As far as the drug itself, much of what I've read from experts weighing in has basically indicated that it's not really a performance-enhancing drug so much as a recovery-enhancement drug used during training. The only reason it was banned was that more people evidently began recently taking it--which means nothing really.

What it means is you can train harder for longer ,,,,if you are taking something that enables you to recover quicker it gives you an advantage ..no ?

[Ken Gargett]

clearly something that gives you an advantage but then you could say employing specialists to provide the best diet is designed to give you an advantage. 

my first thoughts are that if you take a banned substance, there must be strict liability and hence she is guilty. i gather that the authorities accepted it was unintentional and hence the reduction. also heard a while back that she was one of about 90 athletes who have been caught by the change in status of this substance. the others being less high profile so we have heard little (not sure how true all that is). i gather she is appealing the decision as there are 'irregularities' with the entire procedure. i read somewhere - again, no idea if true - that the change in status was not actually announced. it was simply added to the list, in a bureaucratic manner with no one realising, bar a few officials. if so, then i do have some sympathy. if she is successful, the doping authorities will look like the biggest incompetents on the planet. 

my thoughts were that there should be no room for 'unintentional'. she has a team that should have made certain she was not taking anything she shouldn't have. ban should be the full whack. but there do seem to be some oddities involved here and i suspect we have not heard the last of it. 

[Jeremy Festa]

My thoughts are this is tennis and I should have had a second slice of French toast for breakfast because I am hungry already.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[westg]

2 minutes ago, Jerocco said:

My thoughts are this is tennis and I should have had a second slice of French toast for breakfast because I am hungry already.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Served cold ....she is an incredibly good looking woman ....with a filthy body  

[wabashcr]

I don't think it's that clear since the penalty was only 2 years instead of 4, consistent with un-intentional violations. The ITF investigation determined it was un-intentional. She also claims the drug was prescribed under a different name, which she may have disclosed to the team doctor or others. Nobody on her team seemed to check the 2016 banned list that was sent out...which is very odd. But one would think if she was taking something so knowingly, she'd be very aware of what substances were banned and not at any given time.

She also got caught almost immediately, which is consistent with someone not having a clue. As to why she or nobody on her team had a clue--well, that's a different story--and a more curious one. There is no excuse for that and she certainly deserves the penalty--those are the rules and she and/or her team ignored them. But to be a cheater, intent is necessary--even intentionally ignoring the rules--but I believe it's just not possible to show that in this case. Careless, stupid, foolish, sure. But intentional cheater--can't be sure.

As far as the drug itself, much of what I've read from experts weighing in has basically indicated that it's not really a performance-enhancing drug so much as a recovery-enhancement drug used during training. The only reason it was banned was that more people evidently began recently taking it--which means nothing really.

The tribunal just wasn't able to disprove her story that she didn't know the substance had been recently added to the banned list. So they couldn't give her the 4 years for intentional doping. They made it pretty clear she took it before training and matches to enhance her performance, and she hid it from doctors and the anti-doping authorities in recent years.

Seems to me she knew it was too late to stop using it to pass a screen, so she settled on the ignorance strategy. She also tried to claim the WTA knew she was using the substance all along and should have said something. The tribunal basically called her a liar. I think the intent to deceive qualifies this as cheating, but I can understand why others might take a more charitable view.

[NSXCIGAR]

26 minutes ago, wabashcr said:

The tribunal just wasn't able to disprove her story that she didn't know the substance had been recently added to the banned list. So they couldn't give her the 4 years for intentional doping. They made it pretty clear she took it before training and matches to enhance her performance, and she hid it from doctors and the anti-doping authorities in recent years.

Seems to me she knew it was too late to stop using it to pass a screen, so she settled on the ignorance strategy. She also tried to claim the WTA knew she was using the substance all along and should have said something. The tribunal basically called her a liar. I think the intent to deceive qualifies this as cheating, but I can understand why others might take a more charitable view.

Why would she need to hide it from doctors and anti-doping agencies for years if it wasn't a banned substance? She can take it whenever she likes if it's not banned. If there were evidence of concealing it in that fashion, I would think the 4-yr suspension would certainly be warranted on that fact alone, and the ITF would have determined that. But again, even if she did conceal it, why would she feel the need to conceal something that's not banned? That makes no sense.

Why would it have been too late to pass a screen? I can't imagine the stuff or its metabolites can be detected past a week. She and her team are smart enough to recognize there is no excuse. The ignorance strategy is pointless--it's 2 yrs even if she was telling the truth. She clearly is guilty of violating the rules and that's that, but to be called a cheater there needs to be proof of intent, which I can't see based on what I've seen. 

If I was in a sport where a single dirty test can ruin your career I'd be checking those ITF substance release emails very carefully. I find it really hard to believe she or nobody else on her team checked that email with the new list of banned substances. It's almost worse to be so careless than it would be if she actually did intentionally dope! It's mind-boggling, really, that she and her team could allow that to happen, which, I think, is why people are immediately concluding it had to be intentional. I see that point, but there's still some odd inconsistencies in the intentional theory.

[westg]

She and her team had been notified 5 times to the changes of this particular drug and others ....Bye her own admission she had been taking it for 10 years , prescribed bye the family doctor. I would have come something  else.

[JohnS]

Well, there's nothing more that can be done now. She has to sit out another 18 months. Shane Warne, the great Australian spin bowler, was banned for 12 months for taking a diuretic in 2003 and he was good enough to come back. If she has the talent that's what she needs to focus on.

[Ken Gargett]

1 minute ago, JohnS said:

Well, there's nothing more that can be done now. She has to sit out another 18 months. Shane Warne, the great Australian spin bowler, was banned for 12 months for taking a diuretic in 2003 and he was good enough to come back. If she has the talent that's what she needs to focus on.

john, actually, it seems that there can be more. she is apparently appealing the decision. we have a long way to go. 

as for warnie, and if you think that maria S's excuses are wobbly, remember that warnie blamed his mum, my understanding from a mutual friend was that warnie was told that whatever the pills were, they would help him lose weight. so he scoffed them like lollies. never occurred to him that they might be illegal. 

as a pollie recently said, you can't legislate against human stupidity (although saying that to the family of a woman who had just been eaten by a croc may not have registered high on the sensitivity meter!). 

[Miner]

7 minutes ago, JohnS said:

Well, there's nothing more that can be done now. She has to sit out another 18 months. Shane Warne, the great Australian spin bowler, was banned for 12 months for taking a diuretic in 2003 and he was good enough to come back. If she has the talent that's what she needs to focus on.

And Shane had a valid excuse, his mum gave it to him and no one argues with their mum !!

[wabashcr]

Why would she need to hide it from doctors and anti-doping agencies for years if it wasn't a banned substance? She can take it whenever she likes if it's not banned. If there were evidence of concealing it in that fashion, I would think the 4-yr suspension would certainly be warranted on that fact alone, and the ITF would have determined that. But again, even if she did conceal it, why would she feel the need to conceal something that's not banned? That makes no sense.

Why would it have been too late to pass a screen? I can't imagine the stuff or its metabolites can be detected past a week. She and her team are smart enough to recognize there is no excuse. The ignorance strategy is pointless--it's 2 yrs even if she was telling the truth. She clearly is guilty of violating the rules and that's that, but to be called a cheater there needs to be proof of intent, which I can't see based on what I've seen. 

If I was in a sport where a single dirty test can ruin your career I'd be checking those ITF substance release emails very carefully. I find it really hard to believe she or nobody else on her team checked that email with the new list of banned substances. It's almost worse to be so careless than it would be if she actually did intentionally dope! It's mind-boggling, really, that she and her team could allow that to happen, which, I think, is why people are immediately concluding it had to be intentional. I see that point, but there's still some odd inconsistencies in the intentional theory.

The tribunal said she didn't disclose that she was taking it to her new doctors or any of her advisers, all of whom would have known it was banned or soon to be banned. I assume she either admitted that, thinking it would help her ignorance defense, or they interviewed those people. I refuse to believe an elite athlete would just forget to mention she was taking something like Melodnium. I don't know why she would hide something like that, but evidently she did.

As for Melodnium testing, evidently WADA determined they may have banned people who took it before it was banned, but tested positive after. http://deadspin.com/wada-which-*****-up-many-things-admits-it-****ed-up-o-1770710523

I think the ignorance defense was to get a reduced suspension, not to get off entirely. She was able to craft a narrative that she was dumb, but not cheating. So 2 years instead of 4. But I believe 2 years was the top end for unintentional doping, so she was really hoping for much less.

If she had admitted she was taking it for performance before it was banned, I'd find the ignorance plea a little more believable. But she said she was taking it for legitimate medical purposes. The tribunal determined that wasn't true, at least recently. I think she lied because anyone who was taking it for performance knew it was in the process of being banned. Using legitimate drugs for off label performance enhancement is just staying one step ahead of the authorities. It's a loophole. I think she's trying to avoid any appearance of impropriety, and she got caught in a lie.

[westg]

Warnie was banned for  a diuretic ..not particularly good for loosing weight ...they flush water from your body ...so only a temporary fix... you have a drink of water and you put that weight immediately back on .  You can only take a few at the very most ...or you will die  (fact)  . Lasix as in Warnes case, is banned because it is a masking agent for other drugs particularly  cocaine . Or you can flush other drugs out with diuretics

[MIKA27]

3 hours ago, westg said:

What it means is you can train harder for longer ,,,,if you are taking something that enables you to recover quicker it gives you an advantage ..no ?

Yes but on a simple example so does consuming Protein. It helps muscle recover and grow, should that also be illegal? 

[MIKA27]

2 hours ago, westg said:

Served cold ....she is an incredibly good looking woman ....with a filthy body  

Dirty, dirty girl...

[MIKA27]

3 hours ago, helix said:

One would have to assume Sharapova's team to be an elite group,she is #1 ranked .

Yes and they are also Russian 

[NSXCIGAR]

4 minutes ago, wabashcr said:

The tribunal said she didn't disclose that she was taking it to her new doctors or any of her advisers, all of whom would have known it was banned or soon to be banned. I assume she either admitted that, thinking it would help her ignorance defense, or they interviewed those people. I refuse to believe an elite athlete would just forget to mention she was taking something like Melodnium. I don't know why she would hide something like that, but evidently she did.

As for Melodnium testing, evidently WADA determined they may have banned people who took it before it was banned, but tested positive after. http://deadspin.com/wada-which-*****-up-many-things-admits-it-****ed-up-o-1770710523

I think the ignorance defense was to get a reduced suspension, not to get off entirely. She was able to craft a narrative that she was dumb, but not cheating. So 2 years instead of 4. But I believe 2 years was the top end for unintentional doping, so she was really hoping for much less.

If she had admitted she was taking it for performance before it was banned, I'd find the ignorance plea a little more believable. But she said she was taking it for legitimate medical purposes. The tribunal determined that wasn't true, at least recently. I think she lied because anyone who was taking it for performance knew it was in the process of being banned. Using legitimate drugs for off label performance enhancement is just staying one step ahead of the authorities. It's a loophole. I think she's trying to avoid any appearance of impropriety, and she got caught in a lie.

The lack of disclosure certainly is odd, but there's no reason at all for her not to disclose it for 10+ years at a time when it wasn't even close to being banned and was widely used. She claims she only knew it by another name, but her team would have known what it was by that other name...that's just very strange. Concealing something for no reason is very bizarre.

Interesting info about the lack of research on secretion times. I agree completely--that would have been the wisest defense, and one that might hold some water on appeal and eliminated the need for all the who-what-when spin. She could simply claim she last took it prior to 2016. Instead, she weaved a weird web of ignorance and carelessness. It would certainly be easy enough to verify whether she was taking it for legitimate medical purposes--interview the prescribing doctor.

I will say that even if she was taking it for performance-based reasons, I see nothing wrong with that at all, even immediately prior to the banning of the substance. Athletes take all kinds of supplements, vitamins and chemicals. Always have, always will. Their only responsibility is to avoid those substances specifically banned. Staying one step ahead of the authorities, to me, would be attempting to conceal the taking of already banned substances. Lance Armstrong, for example, was staying one step ahead of the authorities.

I really don't know what she was thinking going with the careless/ignorance/medical defense. The secretion time defense is the only viable one, both in terms of appeal and for public relations. I guess she went with the blonde defense!