Full 28 pages here:
http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award_4643__FINAL__internet.pdf
Relatively short summary: In this case, there is no argument that an anti-doping violation occurred. The entire case, then is about how much fault Sharapova bears for the violation.
The CAS had three realistic options:
1. Determine that Sharapova bore "No Fault", which would almost assuredly result in them reducing the ban to time served.
2. Determine that Sharapova bore "Significant Fault", as the ITF argued for, which would result in the CAS declining to amend the previous decision (i.e. uphold the full 2 year ban).
3. Determine that Sharapova bore "No Significant Fault", i.e. some fault, but not significant compared to other factors in the case. This decision would by rule lead them to impose a ban ranging from 1 year (for "minimum fault") to a maximum of 2 years. Sharapova's team argued for this "NSF" ruling, but wanted the CAS to ignore the sentencing period rule and reduce the ban to 8 months (i.e. time already served).
They decided that Sharapova bore "No Significant Fault", which is important because if they had not determined that they would not have amended the sentence. They did, however, determine that she bore more than the minimum amount of fault for not properly instructing her agent in monitoring the anti-doping list. They felt that 15 months adequately reflected her relative amount of fault compared to the fault borne by the ITF for its notification procedures, which they found inadequate.
My take: I don't agree with two parts of their decision:
1. I don't think the ITF's notification was inadequate. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect an athlete or their agent to click through a couple links on a webpage once a year to make sure their substances are still in the clear.
2. I don't agree with the way they dismissed/ignored the fact that she never disclosed taking Mildronate/meldonium on her medication forms. They seem to take the stance that even if she had disclosed it, it would not have affected how the ITF notified players about the change, which they felt were inadequate and (inferring from the sentence) a larger factor in causing the ADV than Sharapova's negligence. I disagree- I think if someone in their anti-doping compliance department knew one of the leading star players took the drug regularly, it could have changed how the notifications took place.
Bottom line: I would have been happier with either a "SF" finding or a "NSF" finding with a sentence more clearly weighted to show Sharapova bore more fault than the ITF- something like 21 months. But I don't think this ruling is a travesty of justice.
Note that the difference between Sharapova and Lepchenko's case is that the ITF determined in Lepchenko's case "bore no fault or negligence for the violation", which is why they reinstated her immediately. I agree with that ruling- apparently WADA's guidelines on how fast the drug's concentration drop in the body were wrong, leading them to reissue guidance on that subject. Lepchenko knew the rules and followed them as best she (or anyone else, really) understood them, which is the difference.
