Doping Again !

Spectator · All-time great

RE: Doping Again !

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

But she does say that not only did she not read the letter properly but she didn't go to the link provided.

So there was plenty of information for her (and all lowly ranked athletes) to use and access, freely, and easily. And she didn't do it.

I don't see what else the authorities should do.

And of course it wasn't a deliberate attempt to cheat. Because it wasn't cheating, it was legal.

But if the main reason athletes use it is to increase bloodflow and have the extra endurance benefits that this brings, then there is a reasonable chance that that was her motivation too (quite legal, again, because it wasn;t banned) and that the family history of diabetes is a bit of a smoke screen.

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

For those not familiar with the Alain Baxter case, he used to take Vicks nasal spray when he had a cold. There was no problem at all with it. When he went Stateside for the Winter Olympics, he got a cold and so bought a Vicks nasal spray, unaware that the American version had different ingredients including a banned substance even though the name and packaging were identical to the UK version. Although the authorities accepted it was a "genuine mistake" and didn't ban him, they still took away his bronze medal.

This only goes to highlight that even having a name of a product checked doesn't solve all the problems as the ingredients of the same medication can vary depending on where you bought them.

Using the "WADA email" idea in my earlier, this would excuse the athlete in such cases. If the athlete has emailed to check a medication and NOT been warned of this possibility by WADA, then for me, the athlete has shown good faith and WADA would be the ones at fault for not warning about such matters. After all, they are supposed to be the experts, not the athletes.

RBBOT · Futures qualifying

It also brings the competence of WADA into question: it's clearly not a new drug if she's been taking it for 10 years and the medical profession clearly knew what it did or they wouldn't have perscribed it, so why did it take them this long to ban it? edit: according to Wikipedia it's been around for 40 years.

-- Edited by RBBOT on Monday 7th of March 2016 10:08:14 PM

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Bob, yes, but she's been taking it for 10 years. On a regular basis.

So she can't email WADA every time she takes it.

So she emails them the first time (or checks on the site or whatever). And that's fine.

But if something now changes (as here), then WADA have to inform the athletes. As they did. With a full information page. Which she didn't check.

-- Edited by Coup Droit on Monday 7th of March 2016 09:58:08 PM

wolf · Tennis legend

Would she have needed a TUE to use it previously?

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

If you use the UK Anti-Doping site, it allows you to link to a site that provides a database of all drugs, for all sports, in most countries of purchase (as approved by the US, Japanese and Canadian authorities as well as the UK)

It takes about 30 seconds to bring up meldonium (and it also sublists all other variants and brands) and it clearly says it is prohibited for 'in competition' and 'out of competition' use.

www.ukad.org.uk/support-personnel/checking-medications/

www.globaldro.com/Home

It couldn't be much easier.

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

Coup Droit wrote:
But she does say that not only did she not read the letter properly but she didn't go to the link provided.

So there was plenty of information for her (and all lowly ranked athletes) to use and access, freely, and easily. And she didn't do it.

I am not saying she is innocent. I am only trying to define what she is guilty of, which in this case is laziness, in my opinion. I have no doubt that when she first took the medication, (whatever her reasons) she had it checked and was cleared to take it. Perhaps the question that should be asked is that if it has such a beneficial effect, then why wasn't it on the banned list in the first place. The only reason I can think of is that the effects weren't fully understood at the time.

But how far does we go in deciding what is legal and what is illegal. I am sure sports people around the world take a variety of "supplements" that are completely legal. I am thinking of things such as Vitamin Supplements for example. I even do some translation work for a company here that provides special "Salt Water" capsules that players take. It is supposed to be good for the health and I know Liverpool FC used to put it in their contracts that players had to take one capsule daily when Rafa Benitez was manager. It is totally legal as it doesn't directly "enhance performance" but if it keeps players healthy, it will enable them to avoid ill health, train more and therefore could be considered to indirectly enhance performance. Where do we draw the line ?

For me, such questions are not for the athletes but for the authorities. From the athletes perspective, if it is legal (i.e. not on the banned list) then I don't think we can criticize anyone for taking it.

As for Sharapova, I feel the powers that be, will make an example of her and she can have no complaints.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

I completely agree, Bob.

If it's legal and you take it, no issue - whatever the slightly dodgy benefits.

But she took it (or at least tested positive for it) after the ban date (1st Jan 2016) so it's only then that it becomes a positive drug test.

steven · Tennis legend

Bob in Spain wrote:
For those not familiar with the Alain Baxter case, he used to take Vicks nasal spray when he had a cold. There was no problem at all with it. When he went Stateside for the Winter Olympics, he got a cold and so bought a Vicks nasal spray, unaware that the American version had different ingredients including a banned substance even though the name and packaging were identical to the UK version. Although the authorities accepted it was a "genuine mistake" and didn't ban him, they still took away his bronze medal.

This only goes to highlight that even having a name of a product checked doesn't solve all the problems as the ingredients of the same medication can vary depending on where you bought them.

Using the "WADA email" idea in my earlier, this would excuse the athlete in such cases. If the athlete has emailed to check a medication and NOT been warned of this possibility by WADA, then for me, the athlete has shown good faith and WADA would be the ones at fault for not warning about such matters. After all, they are supposed to be the experts, not the athletes.

I imagine the precise ingredients can change over time even in a given country as well.

Of course it's shocking that neither Maria nor anyone on her team checked the email/link, though these things always look stupider/dodgier with hindsight than they were in reality - you check 99 things out of 100, if you're really unlucky, the 100th catches you out and everyone thinks you never check anything at all. It's also true that WADA did send out the information required, but for a lower-ranked player with no pharmaceutical background and little or no backup, it must be almost impossible to keep track of all this.

I think WADA should do something like your email suggestion, though it would have to either be quite sophisticated (taking into account all possible medicine and/or ingredient names, updates when the formulations of medicines changes, alerts about different ingredients in different countries, etc) or, as you suggest, there should be massive mitigation if a player, given their ranking/level of medical support, could not realistically have been expected to know that they were taking a banned substance. Of course, this latter argument wouldn't apply to a top player, but if I was a Futures player, I'd be as careful as I could reasonably be to check everything but still be scared of getting caught out in the way that someone like Alain Baxter was.

What's really sad is that tennis seems to be very good at catching those who make genuine mistakes (that doesn't mean I don't agree that players should take responsibility for having made such mistakes, but Maria has taken responsibility in this case), because those who make genuine mistakes don't try to cover their tracks because they don't know there are any tracks to cover, but not so good at catching the real cheats.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

The Anti-Doping site list of prohibited substances is fascinating (very comprehensive, easy to use, no athlete can have any problems with it, I don't think any player can honestly say that it's not easy to check, not matter what their ranking or resources).

And, on a side note, it tells you the most searched items - which for the UK athletes is paracetemol, lemsip and iboprufen, and for american athletes is cannabis, caffeine and cortisone - make of that what you will !

steven · Tennis legend

I don't know what was sent to the players, but @amlucas55 on Twitter just tweeted me this link - www.itftennis.com/media/220473/220473.pdf

In fairness to WADA then, that's not too complicated!

RBBOT · Futures qualifying

steven wrote:

I don't know what was sent to the players, but @amlucas55 on Twitter just tweeted me this link - www.itftennis.com/media/220473/220473.pdf

In fairness to WADA then, that's not too complicated!

Am I reading that wrong, or it does appear to state that motorcycle racers can now race while drunk!

paulisi · Tennis legend

Sorry, but I'm not buying this sob story one little bit.

Too many people in her camp knew what she was taking and there was plenty of warning, especially in Russia, where it is commonly used, that it would be banned.

Give her the maximum ban.

savva0122 · Intermediate Club Player

As a pharmacist, I can see no reason why she was taking this drug for medical reasons. It's medical use is for ischaemia (angina) and she has not got that. It's not licensed anywhere other that Lithuania and Russia and the only reasonable suggestion is that she was taking this as a performance enhancer- albeit legal up to 1.1.16- I can't see why her "family doctor" would give her this for any other reason.

I guess she was stupid to get caught but think this is different to taking "supplements"- this is a prescription drug with definite effects not being used for its legitimate purpose.

I don't think Baxter's case is comparable- his was a definite, one off, transgression Borne of ignorance and the product he used has such an infinitesimal amount of stimulant it would produce no effect, particularly in an elite athlete.