What is Meldonium, the drug Maria Sharapova has been taking?

Yes, the very high number of athletes who have tested positive in the short time since the ban came into effect suggests that WADA has not effectively communicated the ban. They knew the drug was being legally used across a wide section of sports before the ban came into effect. Their communication of the impending ban needed to be unequivocally clear and unmissable by being specified in the subject line of the email.

You are aware that the Russian track team is on the verge of being banned from Rio because of the organized doping going on? And the Chinese have well-documented form for doping in swimming, and are under investigation for doping in athletics as well. That's not racism, that's history. As for giving cheaters a break, surely the only warning they need is, don't do it at all because you'll be banned. Show me an athlete with a positive drug test who didn't claim his drink was spiked or he got it accidentally or he didn't know - Ben Johnson would still have his gold medal under your system. On to the subject of commonly available drugs. Right. Anabolic steroids, EPO, etc are all licenced and legal when prescribed for medical purposes. So, common and easy to get. Should WADA legalize them, knowing that the long term use of those drugs for non-medical reasons has the potential to cause the athlete devastating long-term damage? Should spectators and fans be prepared to accept a situation in which athletes are forced to put their health at risk in order to be competitive? Me, I have ethical issues with that. As for the speeding comparison, it's quite simple. Right now, the WADA rules ban certain drugs, just as the traffic laws define the speed limit. Violate either one, and don't expect to escape being penalized because (a) you didn't know the rules; (b) you only did it once; (c) you don't agree with the rules. If you want to change the rules, then you start lobbying for those changes, but in the meantime, you observe the rules in order to enjoy the privilege of competing or driving.

As of the time of writing, a further 98 atheletes have tested positive. Perhaps the warning really was just hard to read?

my apologies. Time for some pie with humbleness included. There is a "modifications" list that mentions the drug under both names. If she got the modifications and the original list then I am not sure why she had not read it. I know emails are boring but that one was probably important

There is quite a good article about a possible confusion on the naming - http://theconversation.com/taking-her-medicine-maria-sharapova-grand-slammed-56175. Meldonium is the drug but the trading name is Mildronate. Milldronate is not on the banned list. However, Meldonium is. Mildronate is the name that appears on the packaging. The list is downloadable as a link in that story. I guess it depends on what was in the email she was sent - as in Meldonium (also know as Mildronate). I am not defending her as it seems an odd drug to take. Plus she is accessing it from outside of the country she lives in which also seems strange and a little desperate. But I can understand the confusion on the name. Maybe the could state it as Meldonium (Mildronate) on the banned list. Also on googling this drug there is a lot of disagreement amongst chemists and pharmacists on whether it greatly aids anybody

OK, now you've brought up the conspiracy card. Any others that you've got up your sleeve? How do you know about these Chinese and Russian scientists, or are you just throwing around a bit of casual racism? My line would be drawn at substances that are legally and commonly available. I realise that different countries have different ideas about what might be legal but I think banning a player for one year for taking an over the counter drug (such as Ryan Crowley) or a sports milkshake (Ahmed Saad), or a drug that has been available for 10 years is quite ludicrous. Totally ludicrous. Also, I think a warning system or a different type of financial penalty for first offence, just to wipe out any possibilty of inadvertent use of a drug (such as Ahmed Saad) would be more appropriate. Then they can have a more severe four or five year ban for a second offence. If WADA was willing to do that, then I would accept that it's not just an antiquated old man's society keen to keep the noble pursuit of purity in sport, just for the sake of it. Any why all these comparisons with a speeding fine, when they are totally different circumstances? Just backs up what I said before. It's a 'rules are rules' argument, rather than looking at the validity of the rules, as well as the agenda behind WADA.

Yes, they're ahead of a multi-government, multi-million dollar outfit. Pharmaceutical companies have billions at their fingertips, and so do the nations and federations sponsoring so much of the illicit drug development and delivery. You think a bunch of bureaucrats in Geneva are going to be ahead of leading edge scientists paid for by the Russian or Chinese governments? You're pretty naive. And yeah, they've been watching it closely for a year. Do you imagine it's the only drug they're watching, or that it's been their top priority? You claim to be in the sensible corner, but all you've done so far is talk about the stupidity of the current drug rules. So, oh sensible one, tell me what the drug rules ought to be. Where would you draw the line, if anywhere? To me, what WADA is doing is setting a speed limit. You go over it, you get nailed. You can't plead ignorance. You don't like the speed limit, lobby your sports federation to get it changed, but until it is, you observe it.

"Athletes and chemists are always one step ahead when it comes to illicit drugs." So, they ahead of a multi-government, multi-million dollar outfit? They've been 'watching it for a year'? What about the other nine years that the drug has been on the market? Seems like there's two corners in this debate – the sensible corner pointing out the stupidity of many of drug rules and the need for sensible reform, and the silly corner which is on the side of 'rules are rules', without thinking about what those rules might be, and whether there are any political agendas behind the scenes. WADA absolutely loves these sort of cases. Like any other government funded agency, the more publicity, the more supposed cheats it uncovers, the more likely it is to continue getting government support, continuing its own existing. If it ruins the careers of sportspeople, well, that's collateral. To me, it's akin to jailing people for smoking a joint.

I'm not sure why you are amazed that WADA isn't on top of every performance enhancing drug out there the minute it appears. Athletes and chemists are always one step ahead when it comes to illicit drugs. The fact is, they've been watching this one for a year or so, have developed an idea of how many athletes are using it, and have studied the latest research on its qualities. Now they've decided to ban it. End of story, or at least of this particular story. You clearly disagree with the drug policies governing sports, and that's fair enough. Personally, I regard those who use drugs to enhance performance as cheats and I support WADAs efforts to try to keep sports honest. I suspect it's a losing battle though, and the point will come where anything goes. Athletes will die young (Pantani, Flo Jo, many others) but I guess that's a small price to pay for victories won and records broken, and the crowd kept entertained.

Also, noticed Dick Pound riding his hobby horse today. These people are maniacal nutcases that have this old conservative and puritanical approach to the use of drugs in sport. An important question is – if the drug is such a performance enhancing drug, why did it take 10 years to detect? A four-year ban for using a drug that's wasn't banned for 10 years seems overkill and foolish. Reform WADA might be a better option.

Thanks for this Mr Frost. I was just asking myself all the questions you've answered here. Great info.

But it was OK to use the drug for 10 years? If I was using something for a medical issue for that long and, all other things being equal, I probably wouldn't think about checking the sports code. Sure, it's up to the athlete to check, but why is a drug OK to use for 10 years, then not OK? That's the real big news in this - why did it take so long and does that mean all athletes using the drug before January 1 2016 have been cheating all this time?

The drug is used for people with serious cardio-vascular problems. I doubt a world-class tennis player has a legitimate medical requirement for the drug, but since it improves oxygen flow, it also increases endurance and shortens recovery times, so it has a nice little side effect that might be very useful to an athlete. I don't think it's maniacal purity, I think it's trying to keep the sports honest. Probably a losing battle, but perhaps worth fighting.

I agree. I wonder how they make these decisions. What exactly is performance enhancing and where do you draw the line? I am not trying to be clever just posing a question. I am getting on in years and play tennis from time to time with my sons. I give it my all but my breathing and ticker struggle. If I have Omega-3 before I play (Any Fish Oil; Calamari Oil; Krill Oil etc) it really helps me and my recovery is better. I am not trying to improve performance I am just looking after my heart. But would there be a definition of PEDs that prohibits my use of Fish Oil? If I was a professional athlete. Would all Tennis players be banned from the Fish and Chip shop. That would be tough going at Wimbledon.

It causes excessive good looks and occasional involuntary grunting. How could she defend it?

What a ridiculous situation. Sharapova had been using the drug for 10 years which, on the surface, she was using for what seems to be a medical condition. And then it becomes a 'banned' drug. After 10 years? That's a long time to test whether a drug is performance enhancing or not. Shows how stupid this WADA and the drug testing regime is, on some maniacal Christian pursuit of purity in sport. Now she's labeled a drug cheat for life, because WADA made a ruling after 10 years. Worse than the Essendon 34 decision.

This day and age there's no way she could have taken it without one of her team knowing and telling her it is now banned.she,s done the wrong thing I think a year out is pretty fair.In saying that she;s 28 and we all no how demanding the tennis tour is I reckon this could be a blessing in disguise for her and could prolong her career a break for a year and freshen the body up don't be surprised if she comes back and wins a slam of two after this.

Apparently this drug is widely used in the former USSR but not at all in the USA. Sharapova did say she received the relevant email and opened it but didn't read it. You would think her coaching staff should have been in on it. Sharapova has been great for womans tennis.

I understand that Meldonium isn't widely available outside the old soviet bloc.

Given she's travelling the world I doubt she would have a problem obtaining any drug she wanted from anywhere.