Maria Sharapova did what few athletes accused of doping do – she admitted guilt.
In a well-crafted media conference on Monday she made all the right utterances.
She was sorry, profoundly so, with her apology directed to the fans and the sport itself.
Such was her contrition she informed the anti-doping authorities there was no need to undertake the normal follow-up test on her B-sample – put simply she was guilty of ingesting a banned substance.
She received brownie points from many for getting on the front foot. The reaction from players, both past and present, however ran the entire spectrum.
World number one Serena Williams, who is neither a fan nor friend of Sharapova, praised the Russian, saying she “showed a lot of courage to admit what she had done and what she had neglected to look at”.
No thoughts were proffered by Williams on what sanctions Sharapova should be dealt.
Fellow American and dual Australian Open winner, Jennifer Capriati left nobody in any doubt as to what should happen to the former world number one.
She took to social media to lambast Sharapova and she did not hold back.
She demanded she be stripped of her 35 professional career titles which include two French Opens and wins at each of the other grand slams.
Capriati’s reaction was predicated on the fact that Sharapova admitted to having used the banned substance, meldonium, for ten years.
Capriati’s desire simply cannot happen.
Up until January 1 this year Sharapova, and any other athlete, was free to use meldonium as it was not on the WADA banned list.
» The Roar’s Joe Frost on meldonium and what it does to athletes.
The authorities cannot touch her career record and prizemoney earned prior to January 1.
Rightly, she has been stripped of her $400,000 cheque for progressing to the quarter-final stage of this year’s Australian Open, the event at which she returned the positive test.
As of this weekend, she will be under a provisional one-year ban from the sport while the relevant authorities determine just how long her final ban from the sport should be.
As of January 1, 2015, WADA doubled the penalty for a first doping offence to a minimum four years.
While deliberate cheating leads to the four-year ban, athletes guilty of “inadvertent doping” receive a two-year ban – although they can get a further reduction if they have “substantial proof that they were not at fault or intending to cheat”.
These clauses will be taken into account in imposing the final ban of Sharapova.
Since her media mea culpa on Monday there has been growing evidence that would support the world’s highest-earning sportswoman receiving the maximum four-year suspension, or at least, close to it.
She admitted on Monday to not having read the email from WADA which outlined that meldonium would be added to the prohibited list on January 1.
Since then it has come to light that players had been advised repeatedly prior to the drug’s inclusion on the banned list that it was on the WADA watch list.
Alerts were issued to every player on the circuit – male and female – three times by the sport’s overarching peak body, the International Tennis Federation while the Women’s Tennis Association sent out two warnings.
These were an automatic heads-up to any players who were taking the drug that they needed to quit doing so.
Hence Sharapova, on six separate occasions, was supplied with information about the pending addition of meldonium to the banned list and the fact that it had indeed become a banned substance.
At her media conference she only alluded to the fact that she had not opened nor read the email that stated that the drug had been placed on the banned list, the last of the six alerts she received.
To fail to read that communique was a major error by Sharapova.
To seemingly not have read the preceding five warnings smacks of an athlete who holds anti-doping in her sport in scant regard.
Former WADA president, Canadian lawyer Dick Pound, labeled Sharapova’s actions as “reckless beyond belief”.
As for the drug itself, the sole manufacturer is based in Riga, the capital of Latvia.
Interestingly the United States, where Sharapova has been based for 15 years, has not approved the drug for human use with the Food and Drug Administration yet to give it the tick of approval despite the fact that it has been in production since the early 1970s.
Sharapova stated on Monday that she has used the drug for the past decade as a result of suffering from a magnesium deficiency and a family history of diabetes.
At no point during the process during which meldonium moved from the watched list to the banned list did Sharapova seemingly push to receive a medical exemption for its use.
In early 2015 studies were conducted worldwide to ascertain the prevalence of meldonium use among elite athletes as there were growing concerns that it was being ingested in order to improve oxygen uptake.
The results, taken from 8300 random samples had alarm bells ringing at WADA, as researchers found that 182 samples showed traces of the drug.
That figure represented more than twice the rate of any single drug on WADA’s banned list. It seemed clear to the authorities that meldonium was being used on a widespread basis to boost athletic performance.
Since it was banned on January 1, a further eight athletes have returned positive tests – five Russians, two Ukrainians and a Swede.
Questions have been raised in the medical community about the likely benefits that Sharapova would have received with respect to the two reasons she gave for her use of the drug.
Some have said that meldonium would do little, if anything, to impact on the conditions Sharapova admitted to.
Additionally, other medicos have stated that meldonium would never be prescribed to a healthy, young athlete for more than a four to six-week treatment cycle which flies in the face of Sharapova’s admission of having used the drug for a decade.
In the end, the key error Sharapova made was the fact that despite receiving five written warnings that a drug she had freely used for a decade was on WADA’s watch list and a subsequent email stating it had been banned, she flagrantly disregarded all six pieces of correspondence.
As impressive as her media conference was it seems fanciful that she will escape a lengthy ban.
It could well be argued that given the myriad warnings she received about meldonium and her refusal to cease using it she is, in fact, guilty of deliberate and calculated doping.
Such a finding would see her outed for four years.
On the face of the evidence put forward to date that may not be an unreasonable result.
At 28, a woman who should have been remembered for her tennis and the image she carefully constructed on the way to becoming women’s sports biggest earner, may well go down in the annals of sport with the most unwanted of reputations – that of a flagrant drug cheat.
Sally smith
Guest
Sharpova should be banned Rules are rules If it had been one of the Williams sister's they would have been dragged through the mud, stripped of their titles and snagged off ever more As it is sharpova is able to be dealt with with dignity She has been allowed to slink off and has been banned politely from afar for only 2 years and there has been no talk of stripping her titles She has been dealt with with dignity and politeness She should be made a example and be banned ignorance is not an excuse
Maggie
Guest
LTOKR: "What is essentially being argued is that the positive athletes knew that the drug was banned, and that they would therefore immediately be screened for it, but that the almost certainty of being banned upon being caught was worth the improvement in their performances, despite the fact that any tangible reward for victory would be immediately confiscated upon the discovery that they had been taking the drug, and their reputations would be permanently tainted by their association with it. They did this and didn’t even attempt to cover their tracks? Really?" I too find this hard to comprehend. And now it is now being reported that over 90 athletes around the world have been picked up in drug testing as using meldonium in the short period since the ban came into effect on 1 January 2016. One athlete (Sharapova) failing a drug test is a problem for Sharapova - but 90 athletes failing is surely a problem for WADA. They must have known there were a huge number of athletes (legally) using this drug, so surely the communication about its ban had to be unequivocally clear and unmissable. We have been told there were five warnings leading up to the ban. Sharapova claims mention of meldonium was buried in these communications, not easily read. No one has to date produced five easily-read communications to contradict Sharapova's claim. Surely with such wide-spread use of this drug, WADA should gave sent out multiple communications with the drug specifically mentioned by both names (meldonium, Mildronate) in the title. I am beginning to think WADA need to declare a penalty moratorium for meldonium usage up to the end of March and then restart the ban.
EddyJ
Guest
Well, maybe the chemist should appear on medal winner's podium with the athlete. The whole world is a circus act, I can't see what sport should be exempt from the madness of humanity. Yes, let them keep the medals. Except, you're right – only the first Tour medal for Lance, not the other six. And Melbourne Storm should be given back their premiership cups – they were the best team by far, and who cares about a little bit of creative accounting in the boardrooms.
Let The One King Rule
Guest
What that stipulation essentially means is that the FDA reserves the right to consider each case of attempted importation on its own merits, rather than having a one-size-fits-all ruling. In practice, this means that unless you are trying to bring in something explicitly flagged as being hazardous, the FDA is not going to make a move to confiscate it from you. I have been bringing foreign prescriptions into the US every year for the last 20 years and have never had a personal stock confiscated. Whether the pills were used for the medical condition described or in order to enhance performance is irrelevant. The WADA allowed their use. The US government allowed them into the country. What exactly is the issue? Your analogy is not an apt one, regarding steroids. None of the atheletes tested in this case were attempting to circumvent the testing, mess with the outcomes, or in any way, shape or form, hide the fact that they were taking the drug from WADA. 'The risk is worth the reward' is a possible philosophy if we're talking about actual risk. That would imply that the atheletes believed there was a possibility that their use would go undetected. That contention is simply ridiculous, however, when you are also contending that the athletes in question knew that they would be specifically tested for the banned substance in the immediate future, having received, read, and processed the official communication from WADA. What is essentially being argued is that the positive athletes knew that the drug was banned, and that they would therefore immediately be screened for it, but that the almost certainty of being banned upon being caught was worth the improvement in their performances, despite the fact that any tangible reward for victory would be immediately confiscated upon the discovery that they had been taking the drug, and their reputations would be permanently tainted by their association with it. They did this and didn't even attempt to cover their tracks? Really?
northerner
Guest
Yes, you proposed a severe financial penalty for the first cheating offence. I believe I made the point that we should then restore Ben Johnson's gold medal. I'm okay with that, if you are. I guess that means Lance Armstrong gets his first Tour win back, too. i can think of a great many other examples. The thing you are missing is, I do listen to what you're saying but I disagree with it. I think that, back in the bad old days of the Cold War, the East Europeans resorted to drugging for propaganda reasons. I think as sports became more professionalised, American and other athletes then resorted to PEDs for the money they could make. And I think that sport has become something I no longer recognize as a result. No record, no victory, is what it seems. And I don't like it. It used to be "citius - altius - fortius" and the best athlete won. Now it's the best chemist who should be getting the medals.
northerner
Guest
From the FDA website: :"” The United States Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Act) (21 U.S.C. section 331) prohibits the interstate shipment (which includes importation) of unapproved new drugs. Thus, the importation of drugs that lack FDA approval, whether for personal use or otherwise, violates the Act.”” It then goes on to list the guidelines under which the FDA will not normally intervene in personal importation of an unlicenced drug for personal use. It goes on to say, that: "the guidance document is not, however, a license for individuals to import unapproved (and therefore illegal) drugs for personal use into the U.S., and even if all the factors noted in the guidance are present, the drugs remain illegal and FDA may decide that such drugs should be refused entry or seized." As I say, if this FDA says the drugs are illegal, who am I to question it? For the rest, the question for me is why Sharapova was taking the drug. The medical experts seem to be pretty much in agreement that it was unlikely to be for a heart condition or to prevent diabetes. That leaves us with the strong possibility that she took it for performance enhancing reasons. Of course she can't be punished for taking a drug during the period when it wasn't on WADA's list, but to me it puts a bit of a cloud over the performances during those years. As for other athletes taking the drug, you only have to look at the history of anabolic steroid and EPO usage to know that athletes will take enormous longer term risks for short term gain.
Let The One King Rule
Guest
Actually, US law stipulates no such thing, provided that the FDA hasn't flagged it as an unreasonable risk, you are bringing in no more than a 3 month supply, verify in writing that it is for your use, provide a prescription from the foreign doctor, and do not peddle it to American residents. I am from the US, and regularly travel home with prescriptions not approved by the FDA, and have never been asked to produce a permit or to consult an American doctor. The article's contention, if not yours, is that Sharapova is somehow to be blamed not just for her positive test, but for taking the drug for years before it was actually banned by WADA. I brought up antidepressants because they're syptomatic of the whole pharmaceutical industry - most 'safe' drugs haven't had their long term effects explored, but the average joe doesn't know this. They only know that there are no reports of long term harm. That's good enough for them to take the drug anyway. Here was a pill that met the same criteria. For Sharapova, it would seem to present no more harm or risk than any FDA approved medication, could be easily acquired, and was allowed in competition. Why should she not have taken it prior to its recent banning? As of the time I write this, a further 98 atheletes have tested positive for the same drug as Sharapova. Are we seriously to suggest that the entire lot decided that the effects of the drug were so potent that it was worth the risk to keep taking -despite knowing that they would be specifically tested for it-?
EddyJ
Guest
Oh well, you've definitely got a bee in the bonnet about drugs in sport. Yes, I remember all those athletes using steriods in the 1970s but it was naive and moralistic countries like Australia that complained bitterly about it, only because they weren't smart enough to implement their own drugs in sport regime. I've already proposed a solution, which is a severe financial penalty for first offence, but then you use a different example (the AFL three-strikes example) to denigrate my solution. And instead of relying on opinions, or what I may be saying, why not broaden your mind and read some learned academic research about relaxation of the rules governing the use of drugs in sport? There's some interesting peer reviewed material which, based on what you've been posting, you'll completely disagree with, but why not take the time to read it. This has now become a boring argument, where you are just so intent on winning the argument without listening to anything I have to say. How do you know WADA is not corrupt? How do you know WADA doesn't take bribes? I'm not accusing that it does, but how would you know? Oh that's right, because you have your ear to the ground on everything, including that WADA is definitely not involved in any corruption. For the third time, my solution is to have a severe penalty for the first detection, so we don't have someone wiped out for innocuous and inadvertent testing, but at least there's a severe financial penalty in place. Then have a four year ban for second offence. I know that you'll use your great knowledge to find great fault with this, but that's what would make the situation more fair. And then we wouldn't have had to put up with that stupid Essendon 34 situation for three years, or wasting time posting on this page.
northerner
Guest
On the day that Sharapova tested positive, the drug was prohibited under WADA and unlicenced in the US. The importation into the US of unlicenced drugs, whether for personal use or not, is illegal unless the person had an import permit outlining the need for the drug and the American doctor who would be overseeing its use. You cannot argue that the drug was legal either under American or WADA rules. It simply isn't true. And surely, your point about anti-depressants supports my argument, not yours. Its taken years to learn about the long-term side effects of those drugs, so how can you argue that meledonium, which is strictly for short term use anyway, is safe for long term use?
northerner
Guest
Pauly - there's a difference between something being toxic in the short term and something having long term health implications. If you take panadol for the occasional headache, you're fine. If you take it for a long time to deal with hangovers, you're looking at the potential for serious liver damage. It's not a simple formula - this drug is safe, this one isn't. I doubt any doctor would claim to be able to draw a clear line on what is and is not dangerous for everyone, because metabolisms vary. You're right about the ruthless commodification of sports. My point is, who's paying for it? Ultimately, that's the fans, who don't care what it takes for their team to win, for new records to be set, new heroes found. The athletes take the drugs because they want the money, the adulation, that the fans give them. I suspect WADA is fighting a losing battle to stop that, but I still think it's a battle that ought to be fought.
northerner
Guest
I understand perfectly well what your point is. You don't like WADA and want the rules changed. Fine. What I'm asking you to articulate, is what exactly you want to replace the current rules with. It's not enough to say that WADA is just another bloated bureaucracy (which it is) or that it's inflexible and arbitrary (which it can certainly be) - it's what you think should replace it, what the rules ought to be. Provide a better model. As for athletes intentions, damn right I'm cynical. I watched the Russians and East Germans rorting the sporting system in the 70s and 80s; I saw cycling doing the same from the Delgado through the Armstrong era and beyond. Everyone knew they were all doped to the gills, but nobody did anything. American baseball, Chinese swimming, you name it, nothing was what it seemed, and the whole world knew it. Ben Johnson admitted, and so have plenty of others, that the automatic response of athletes when caught, fair and square, by doping tests, was to lie about it. Why on earth should I assume that Sharapova is doing anything other than damage protection, just like all the other athletes who've been caught? Have a read of some of the excuses that have got athletes out of lengthy bans and then tell me I should put any trust in what they have to say. Do I think WADA is in it to protect athletes? In an indirect sense, yes, because doping is not a good thing for the human body. But it's primary object is to protect the sport itself. I think of baseball, and what Babe Ruth and, much later, Roger Maris achieved, and then look at the steroid driven McGuire and Bonds, and wonder how they can even be compared with the guys that did it clean. Baseball is not the better for the drug driven records, neither are swimming, cycling or athletics. And as for progressive warnings and suspensions, the AFL's three strike policy has worked a treat, hasn't it? No, I don't believe in progressive penalties. I think Ben Johnson should have lost that gold medal, not just been given a warning. Corruption? Sure, there is corruption in the police force, and heaven knows, in some of the sporting bodies - IAAF, ICU, FIFA. But WADA isn't part of that corruption. It warns athletes well in advance of what the rules are, what the prohibited substances are, and it doesn't fake drug tests. You might not like the way it applies the rules, you might not like the drugs and methods it chooses to target, but it's up front about what's prohibited and it's not producing false tests to nail athletes it doesn't like. And it's not taking bribes (unlike the aforementioned organizations). So, I ask again, what parameters do you draw for your improved version of drug regulation in sport?
Let The One King Rule
Guest
The drug was legal, in that it was not banned under WADA, nor was its use prohibited in the United States. Its -purchase- and -sale- in the United States was illegal. The herbal medication Cold FX cannot be sold or bought in Australia. Anybody who wishes, however, can buy it overseas and bring it in the country, provided it is for personal use. Nobody in their right mind would call it illegal. Melodium enjoyed and enjoys the same status in the United States. You can't buy it but if you buy it elsewhere, it's perfectly legal to use it. As for 'the absence of evidence of long term repercussions' not meaning there aren't any long term effects - this is true even of 100% legal drugs. Antidepressants, for example, have been legal for 60 years but their long term repercussions have only been discovered in the last 10. That is because there simply were no studies done on long term side effects, despite the fact that antidepressants have been marketed and promoted as correcting lifelong chemical imbalances, and requiring lifelong maintenance.
EddyJ
Guest
Well I rest my case: "Ever heard of the logical fallacy called the “ad hominem” attack?"... and then you proceed to explain it. I'm not asking you to bow to my opinion, it's just that you haven't moved on from your ‘rules are rules’ argument. My point is that WADA needs to be reformed, it's agenda, and what it's attempting to achieve, need to be looked at too. But you stick your comparisons with road rules and traffic infringements. It's not so much your points (which sure, might be valid but just defend the status quo), but your really condescending and sanctimonious tone. I think the equivalent would be looking at the many police forces around Australia – sure, there's a set of rules that govern everyone, but how corrupt have the polices forces been, especially in NSW? How many times have police broken rules, but then pontificate about everyone needing to respect the rules? How about the Catholic church? They have rules too, but have broken everyone of them too haven't they? Why do think that athletes are the likely criminals, and WADA are untouchable, and beyond reproach? I think you should wear your cynics hat and just start thinking about what WADA is, and start entertaining the idea that they're a political operator, as cynical and corrupt as any other organisation and, maybe, they're just not the good guys in all of this. You're seem to be really cynical about athletes intentions (see your comments about Sharapova), but why are you not cynical about WADA? Because they're supposedly the 'good guys’? WADA are supposed to act in the interests of athletes but, in my opinion, they're more interested in entrapment and banning athletes. As mentioned before, I'd take them more seriously if there was a code where first offense leads to a harsh financial penalty (say $US100,000 or 10% of their earnings in that year, and the players banned until they pay it) and then a harsh ban (say four years). This would be a great compromise. What's your compromise solution?
northerner
Guest
Sure thing. Just because I don't bow down to your opinion on this subject, I'm the one who's a know-it-all? Ever heard of the logical fallacy called the "ad hominem" attack? It comes when you attack the person you're arguing with, because you can't or won't attack the argument they're making. I've attacked your argument, you've attacked me. Classic.
EddyJ
Guest
My goodness Northerner, I've never met someone who knows so much about everything and anything, and then some! And you are so right on everything too! Since you already know everything, and you are completely right, and I am completely wrong (meaning that you couldn't possibly learn anything from anyone else) I'll have to leave this conversation behind.
northerner
Guest
You say, the drug is 100% legal and has no long term repercussions. Not entirely true. First, she doesn't live in Latvia, she lives in the US and it isn't legal there. Second, it's prohibited under WADA so it's not "legal" for athletes anywhere. And third, the absence of evidence of long term repercussions doesn't mean there aren't any long term effects, just that they haven't been reported or studied (at least not in English). Do you think that might possibly be because the drug is only meant for very short term use?
Let The One King Rule
Guest
Seriously, why the hell not? The drug was legal, and given her resources, easily available. Why shouldn't she take it? To date, I don't think anyone has produced evidence of long term side effects, so what we're left with is a drug of dubious efficacy, which may or may not treat the condition, but which has a slight effect on peak performance and is a 100% legal with no real long term repercussions. Why not try it?
Josh
Guest
Hey Northerner. I mentioned the fact that the drug was not named as Mildronate in the Prohibited List of Drugs released in September 2015 effective January 2016. But I have since realised there is "the summary of modifications". I am happy to eat humble pie. If the list with the modifications was sent in an email then that should have been enough for at least somebody to see. It does seem that she has admitted to an email she should have read sent to her on December 22nd 2015. The heading was "'Main Changes to the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme for 2016'. You would think that she could have read that one. If Sharapova had read this, she could have applied for a "Therapeutic Use Exemption" and still taken it - if approved. I could not definitely say she is a cheat. She might not be so bright. Emails are boring and I certainly don't read them all. But if I received one that might impact on my career - no matter what the career - I would at least read that one
paulywalnuts
Guest
"You do realize that all drugs, even the anodyne ones like Panadol, have side effects, some of them minor, some of them far more serious?" Gee, I did not know that...seriously, whodathunkit. The rest of your post would suggest you didn't even read or attempt to understand my post. But do carry on...
EddyJ
Guest
This is selective moralism – what was your opinion of Sharapova, pre-January 1 2016? She was using the same substance for 10 years before that, and used exactly the same substance after January 1 2016. Now, many people are saying that she's just been a drug cheat all along. I think the penalty is just too harsh, as well as people jumping on the bandwagon because she's Russian. What about someone like Shane Warne? Because he's Australian, that scandal was downplayed so much that people rarely consider him to be a 'drug' cheat, just someone that is now a celebrity tool.