Sharapova fails drug test

[GameSetAndMath]

Without really trying to take a position on guilt or innocence, I think this both helps and hurts Maria in her case.

Obviously, it helps in the sense that they can argue that so many people will not be stupid even if Maria is and all this means not enough is being done to communicate the rules properly.

On the other hand, it will hurt Maria as she cannot be let go off easily while other athletes using the drug are being punished strictly. So, some sort of uniformity in the level of punishment needs to be maintained. It would be difficult for them to let go off Maria alone easily. They would make a mockery of themselves if they let go off all 60 to 70 people with slap in the wrist.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Just throwing out some conspiracy theory here. Why did Maria admit that she has been taking Mildronate for 10 years? Incidentally, the statue of limitation for testing of archived blood samples is 10 years. Is it a coincidence that these two numbers are the same?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

SI's Wirthiem makes the following interesting point.

"Again, this part isn’t about guilt or innocence. If Sharapova had been using this drug for performance-enhancing purposes, she would have stopped. If it were therapeutic purposes, she could have requested a (therapeutic use exemption) TUE. That she did neither speaks to a remarkable error of omission"

So, may be, both she and her team goofed off on this. Of course, that does not mean she should be let go off without consequence.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Things getting murky. There is also the meldonium versus mildronate confusion argument. :dodgy:

 

[Bert]

New Sharapova's communication on her facebook page : here

 

[10isfan]

Just throwing out some conspiracy theory here. Why did Maria admit that she has been taking Mildronate for 10 years? Incidentally, the statue of limitation for testing of archived blood samples is 10 years. Is it a coincidence that these two numbers are the same?

Not a coincidence. The only time anyone would be foolish to lie is when the person can be proven as a liar. Same reason why she declined a retest.

 

[10isfan]

SI's Wirthiem makes the following interesting point.

"Again, this part isn’t about guilt or innocence. If Sharapova had been using this drug for performance-enhancing purposes, she would have stopped. If it were therapeutic purposes, she could have requested a (therapeutic use exemption) TUE. That she did neither speaks to a remarkable error of omission"

So, may be, both she and her team goofed off on this. Of course, that does not mean she should be let go off without consequence.

Why does Wertheim say she would have stopped? He needs to take a class in logic.

Pova's lawyer is good. He is throwing as much confusion into this case as possible so as to make a reasonable decision difficult. I would not be surprised if he single-handedly got all 80 cheaters cleared in the process of clearing her.

 

[Moxie]

New Sharapova's communication on her facebook page : here

I'm not surprised to hear her say that she didn't take it continuously. There's no reason to think she did, when she said she was taking it for 10 years. Doesn't mean 'every day.' And we can all relate to how boring some emails are, especially when multiple links and passwords are involved. But she has people for that. And she was taking a drug on a watch list. Send it to your manager and make him do the boring sifting. Plus, don't players talk about these things? I hear that she's not the most popular or accessible in the locker room, but don't you hear anything?

There were two articles in the NYTimes today about this. There rather long, but worth a skim.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/11/s...um-positive-tests.html?ref=international&_r=0
In this one, it says that 60 athletes have tested positive for Meldomium since the ban at the beginning of the year, and names some names. It also discusses Sharapova and getting it into the US, since it is banned here. Her lawyer, naturally, since she has always conformed to FDA guidelines, but this is potentially another problem for her.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/11/s...ollection=International Sports&pgtype=article

This is very interesting as to who reads what, and how they keep in check with their doctors, etc. One doctor says they're not that comprehensible, even for him. This is compelling: "Scott Clark, a Chicago-based doctor who works with four American players on the ATP Tour, said he “wouldn’t typically” check continually on a substance that a player had already been taking for a while. 'The list we get is difficult to read and comprehend, even as a doctor,” Clark said. “And they, WADA, seem to always leave a way out. If these guys are interested in a supplement, I send it in through the channels to get it approved. But always at the end, there’s a WADA disclaimer: Take it at your own risk.'”

 

[GameSetAndMath]

SI's Wirthiem makes the following interesting point.

"Again, this part isn’t about guilt or innocence. If Sharapova had been using this drug for performance-enhancing purposes, she would have stopped. If it were therapeutic purposes, she could have requested a (therapeutic use exemption) TUE. That she did neither speaks to a remarkable error of omission"

So, may be, both she and her team goofed off on this. Of course, that does not mean she should be let go off without consequence.

Why does Wertheim say she would have stopped? He needs to take a class in logic.

Well his logic is that she was taking it before as it was legal. One may call it unethical, but at
least there are no consequences for it. Now that she knows it is illegal, Wirthiem's position is that she would have stopped in fear of the consequences to her vast profits from being glamor sports girl (which has reached a point where her dismal results does not matter much; as long as she is out there playing she can be milking lot of money out of the sponsors, even if she does not win much).

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Apparently, WTA gave talking points to the players on how to handle questions from reporters about Maria's downfall.

Before the start of the Indian Wells event this week, the Women’s Tour Association went so far as to provide players with “a brief Q&A” containing suggested answers to the key questions. On the subject of collateral damage caused to the sport, the recommended reply was: “I’m not prepared to speculate about the future. I think it’s important for the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme to complete its process and render its judgment.”

The above passage is from an article by Simon Briggs in Telegraph. This is exactly why people do not trust ATP, WTA and ITF. They have conflict of interest here and in all other cases of doping and matchfixing. They have vested interests in protecting the image of the sport.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Sharapova hits back about five warnings informing the change through her facebook page. She still maintains she was taking it for medical reasons as per doctor's advice.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

According to a doctor,

“Well, it’s for angina, and she doesn’t have angina. Everyone has a family history of diabetes; you don’t take medicine for that. Irregular heartbeats in a high performing athlete are an electrical problem; angina is a plumbing problem, because the pipes can’t supply demand. In the real world, a fit person with no medical problems doesn’t need cardio-protection; their hearts are generally self-protected.”

Read more in the article titled you are a sucker if you believe in Maria's story

 

[10isfan]

[/quote]

Well his logic is that she was taking it before as it was legal. One may call it unethical, but at
least there are no consequences for it. Now that she knows it is illegal, Wirthiem's position is that she would have stopped in fear of the consequences to her vast profits from being glamor sports girl (which has reached a point where her dismal results does not matter much; as long as she is out there playing she can be milking lot of money out of the sponsors, even if she does not win much).
[/quote]

Of course she would have stopping doping if she knew. That is obvious. What I meant was that Wertheim should conclude she didn't know the drug was added to the banned list.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Well his logic is that she was taking it before as it was legal. One may call it unethical, but at
least there are no consequences for it. Now that she knows it is illegal, Wirthiem's position is that she would have stopped in fear of the consequences to her vast profits from being glamor sports girl (which has reached a point where her dismal results does not matter much; as long as she is out there playing she can be milking lot of money out of the sponsors, even if she does not win much).
[/quote]

Of course she would have stopping doping if she knew. That is obvious. What I meant was that Wertheim should conclude she didn't know the drug was added to the banned list.
[/quote]

That is exactly what he concluded. That is what he means by "error of omission". See the original post again.

 

[Billie]

I share some of your views on western foreingn policy teddy... but this is irrelevant when considering the Sharapova case... and you're not making a coherent argument.

You agree that he admitted she took the drug, when it was banned... On that basis (geopolitics aside)... sell me an argument where she shouldn't be banned?

I don't think anyone is arguing (not even Teddy) that Maria shouldn't be banned. I don't think that is the issue. Or that she or her team shouldn't have been more diligent in following the news, especially when she was taking something. That shows me that she didn't think that medication was performance enhancing. She is not stupid, so what is the other explanation? Whatever the reason, she should suffer the consequences. But slowly her whole career is getting tainted, even if the drug was legal until 2.5 months ago.

How about this notion that all Russian athletes should be banned from the Olympic games in Rio? Isn't that targeting everybody, even the ones who don't use this drug? It is a well known fact, at least now, that some Russian coaches gave this medication to their athletes. But they claim that it is not a performance enhancing drug, that is helps them with vigorous training and recuperation process. Even a London pharmacist, who is on medical and antidoping commission of the European Olympic committees, thinks that evidence that this drug enhances performance is thin.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/10/s...-russian-athletes-maria-sharapova-doping.html

I am against all drugs, if I can endure pain, I won't take anything against it. I won't take anything when I am depressed or in bad mood. Yet there are people living in constant consummation of all kinds of drugs when natural alternatives are available. There are illnesses that drugs are the only way to help fight them. But our society has become drug obsessed, unfortunately, so we see the cases where medications are used when there are alternatives: right food, meditation, healthier living. I think athletes are the same as us, ordinary people.

As for recovery means, who knows what else is out there that coaches use to help their athletes? The main question is what gets banned and what doesn't and on whose recommendation.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

"Under the rules as they stand there are four conditions that allow an athlete to apply for a TUE after a positive test: if there was an emergency treatment or treatment for an emergency condition, an exceptional circumstance that would mean the athlete didn’t have the opportunity to submit a TUE application, if it was a low-level athlete (not applicable here) and, finally, a catch-all “fairness” provision that would allow Wada or the ITF to grant a retroactive TUE if they believed it was fair to do so."

The above paragraph is taken from a Guardian article. If MS goes for retroactive TUE, certainly it cannot be granted under provisions 1) emergency or 3) lowly girl. She need to get it under provisions 2) exceptional situation or 4) deemed fair.

If she manages to get retroactive TUE, the whole ban will be completely eliminated (except for the time served until the verdict comes).

But, I really doubt her lawyer/team is stupid enough to try for TUE. All these medical reasons are to dupe the uninformed general public and to retain marketing ability and thus sponsors. They will accept behind closed doors to ITF that she was taking it for performance enhancement, but it was legal and goofed off once it became illegal and work out a deal. The deal would include sealing of what transpired in the negotiations and her medical record. In the end, we will never know. So, the willing suckers can always give a benefit of doubt that her medical condition was genuine while spending his/her money on Nike and Head.

 

[tossip]

no matter how much she appeals she is going down...I think someone in her tight knit group snitched.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Hilarious! :lolz:

Here is the complete set of talking points issued by the WTA to all the players as they anticipated lot of enquiries about MS downfall at IW pressers. Is this a Cult Group or WTA? :cover

No wonder, Serena did not bother to say anything other than Maria is courageous.

The only women's players who had the courage to criticize were Jennifer Capriati and Ashley Hakelrod. Both of them are retired players. Is that a coincidence? Active players must have been afraid to go against the cult guru Steve Simon who said “I am very saddened to hear this news about Maria. Maria is a leader and I have always known her to be a woman of great integrity. Nevertheless, as Maria acknowledged, it is every player's responsibility to know what they put in their body and to know if it is permissible."


If Maria wants to spin it, it is OK and understandable. But, WTA also wants to spin it, as they feel they are in it together. This is why we cannot trust ATP/ITF/WTA.

 

[Glenys]

Billie, can i just ask as I'd like to know

If it's not a PED but it "speeds recovery" isn't that PED? enhancing the rate the athlete recovers rather than leaving it to nature? (just curious as one of the things I've read about the drug i sthat it can do that)

 

[Front242]

The answer depends on whether you want to believe her guilt or innocence. If the former, you would conclude that Pova was not using it for health reasons, but to gain an unfair advantage. If the latter, you would conclude that WADA did not do a good enough job distributing the updated list.

It is a sad day when people can twist this such that WADA has to defend itself.

It's not their job to make sure the players read the emails/leaflets, etc. People trying to make WADA out as the bad guy are the height of idiocy. Can't for the life of me understand how anyone could think Sharapova was innocent. Athletes playing cardio intensive sports DO NOT have heart problems or risk of diabetes since the age of 18 and anyone who believes Sharapova and her team's lies are morons, no other way to put it really. As for magnesium deficiency the first thing to do is take extra magnesium lol. PS, I'm not disagreeing with anything you posted, just basically adding to it