Doping Again !

indiana · Tennis legend

RE: Doping Again !

Spectator · All-time great

Yes, according to this interview, that's precisely what he was told: www.nytimes.com/2016/05/31/sports/tennis/david-haggerty-leads-international-tennis-federation-toward-greater-transparency.html. But there are some clear issues with doing so, in the sense that the article implies that it could aid those who wish to cheat the system. So instead Nadal is currently fighting a legal battle against the person who accused him of having doped.

I am appalled by the WTA's continued PR focus on Sharapova - but not surprised. The entire PR focus of the organisation (barring Courtney Nguyen's work, which is often interesting) appears to be on form over substance.

-- Edited by Spectator on Thursday 2nd of June 2016 12:16:22 PM

The Optimist · ATP qualifying

Maria banned until January 2018.

Etienne · Club Coach

Good.

theemptyvessel · Club Coach

Mixed feelings on this. I don't condone what she did but prior to January 1st it was not banned and was being used by countless other players. The positive test in itself has already damaged her legacy and image severely and to follow that with a ban that effectively ends her career does seem a touch draconian. I thought 1 year would be appropriate but sometimes being a big name can work against you in these cases as the authorities seek to prove to the media how seriously they take the issue by making an example of their fallen star. I am certain our friend Putin will be weighing on the issue in short order.

Etienne · Club Coach

After her admission they had very little choice.

Another point worthy of note is she apparently didn't list Meldonium/Mildronate on any doping control form in 2014 and 2016 (the only dates referred to in this context in the full decision), i.e. she didn't want people to know she was taking it.

It also comes out that she was no longer seeing the doctor who originally recommended she take mildronate. Which begs the question of where she obtained it from, given it is not available to purchase in the USA where she lives, and is illegal to import.

AliBlahBlah · All-time great

Oh! It is very far from over, or at least Maria thinks so.
From her statement:

"I cannot accept an unfairly harsh two-year suspension. With their decision of a two-year suspension, the ITF tribunal unanimously concluded that what I did was not intentional. 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. I intend to stand for what I believe is right and that's why I will fight to be back on the tennis court as soon as possible. I will immediately appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport."

wimdledont · Challenger level

She's (not very) appealing.

kundalini · Specialist Reporter + Intermediate Club Player

The full verdict is brutal reading for not only Maria but also Eisenbud. Their argument has so many holes in it that not only does it fail the credibility test, it actually starts to become laughable as you get deeper into it.

www.itftennis.com/media/231178/231178.pdf

philwrig · Hall of fame

I'm fair enough with the ban, but there seem to be plenty of other athletes who have taken the same drug, getting off relatively scott free. Not sure about the consistency.

indiana · Tennis legend

Maria's downfall seems to have to become all public and in putting the busy / overlooked argument she admitted continuing to take it.

Then the doubts / defenses of how long it stayed in the system after 1st January arose and may indeed get many off who may or may not have really stopped taking it. But if the authorities can't prove it should be out the system then the case against these athletes is very dodgy.

By trying to take control of the agenda she effectively hung herself. Her case is different.

As for the earlier interesting ( maybe rather tongue in cheek ) discussion point that WADA should have more clearly been saying "Maria, stop taking Meldonium!" well if she was apparently hiding the fact that she was taking it even when legal, then tough cookie on that one and it does invite many more doubts as to her 'stories'.

-- Edited by indiana on Wednesday 8th of June 2016 06:55:25 PM

AliBlahBlah · All-time great

kundalini wrote:
The full verdict is brutal reading for not only Maria but also Eisenbud. Their argument has so many holes in it that not only does it fail the credibility test, it actually starts to become laughable as you get deeper into it.

www.itftennis.com/media/231178/231178.pdf

That full judgement is fascinating, scathing and completely unvarnished.
It's about as close to saying that the defence was flimsy, inconsistent and borderline mendacious as the legal language of the verdict would allow.
It also directly addresses the concerns others have mentioned above, over why some athletes using Meldonium might get differing sentences, and why the question of how long the drug stayed in the system was irrelevant - it takes those and other limbs of defence head-on, and more or less forensically destroys them.

Aside from the repercussions for Ms. Sharapova, it does make me rather worried. Mr. Eisenbud emerges with scarcely any more credibility or attention to the duty of care of his charges than does his client. He is still Ms. Robson's agent, is he not?

Sim · County player

My initial reaction was that a 2 year ban was a bit steep, but having read the report it seems perfectly reasonable.

In not declaring her use of meldonium to the authorities, or to most of her team, she knew she was, at the very least, bending the rules to get a physical advantage. In the end this probably lead to her downfall - had more members of her team known about it then the chances of at-least one checking the new rules would have been pretty high.

Makes you wonder which matches she would not have won had she not taken it..............

vohor · Grand Slam Champion

Yep, Sharapova bang to rights; can't see the CAS reducing the 2 years either.

Oakland2002 · All-time great

Arguably a good day for the ITF, the athletes and tennis in general. What upsets me is that Maria has been taking Meldonium on her own admission from at the very least the age of 17 on the advice of Doctor, with the best will in the world the grounds for being prescribed it are dubious and from the way I read it predominantly based on her family history of heart disease and diabetes. There are many more efficacious ways to mitigate against this risk, the fact that she has her own brand of confectionary which she actively promotes is counter intuitive. Why would you mess with your metabolism in this way if prevention is the primary objective?

I do think at appeal the validity of her arguments for taking it should be re-examined in the context of her other behaviors in relation to long term mitigation of risk to diabetes, lack of consistency in that respect perhaps suggests that its performance enhancing capability may have been a consideration and lengthening of the ban to a 4 year term potentially considered.

The good news is that now it is banned other young athletes will be prevented from taking it and Maria can be carefully monitored in the future to assess its long term impact

-- Edited by Oakland2002 on Thursday 9th of June 2016 12:29:48 PM