Retrospective punishment is shunned in many legal systems. To make criminal what was previously not is one of the most invidious tendencies of a regime that fosters the arbitrary over the certain.
This is not something that seems to enter the minds of such indignant moralists as former Australian tennis player Pat Cash, or grand slam winner Jennifer Capriati. On hearing that Maria Sharapova had confessed to testing positive to the banned substance of meldonium, now deemed a performance enhancing drug, the anger issued forth.
Cash, a former Wimbledon champion, decided to dismiss the entire Sharapova show as an elaborately disingenuous farce. Health reasons did not wash – they were arguments that were “hard to swallow”.
This show of retrospective crucifixion continued with Capriati, who wished to see Sharapova stripped of everything in the name of some abstract greater good. “I had to lose my career and never opted to cheat no matter what.” There were no highly paid doctors for Capriati, no team of colluding cheating assistants.
Such sentiments are unsurprising, given that the Sharapova sports empire is a sizeable one. For 11 years, she has made the Forbes list as the world’s highest earning female athlete. She has always been a figure to take down.
British sprinter and 100m finalist at the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Jeanette Kwakye, was certainly in no mood to respect the quasi-aristocrat of tennis, one she scorned as a media manipulator. “What we have in Maria Sharapova is a media darling.” Sharapova was wily, cunningly using the press outlets to “spin and put things in her favour by breaking her own news.”
» The Roar’s Joe Frost on meldonium and what it does to athletes.
Other tennis figures, such as two-time Wimbledon champion Petra Kvitova, called it “a sad day for tennis.” Sharapova had been foolish in not being attentive to the list of banned substances. “It was a huge mistake and she is taking responsibility for it.”
Former World Anti-doping Agency chief Dick Pound had little sympathy, suggesting that the tennis star had been “reckless beyond description”. The point for Pound was a simple one: warning was given on September 30, and she had a few months to consider getting off the drug. Even with possessing “a medical team somewhere” she did nothing.
The sporting establishment, along with the sponsors that crowd it with their contracts and cheques, has always been in a curious relationship with the sporting star. As such a figure rises, they are meant to be clean, noble and free of temptations associated with what are termed “performance enhancing” products. The way the nature of that enhancement is determined is conceptually problematic. As fame grows, so does the desperation.
What has emerged in the rat race of competition is the false notion that athletes are not going to find every single means of beating their opponents. A contrived ethics of competition, one based on clean competition, has emerged, pitting the moral guardians against the satanic cheaters. That this neat binary should even exist in its entirely is a nonsense that has gained traction.
Malachy Cherkin righteously proclaims that Sharapova’s revelations show how the dopers are ahead of the testers. “On meldonium, we now know that the doping circle of the sports world had a ten-year jump on the authorities.”
Showing how the court of public opinion is invariably less sophisticated than the court of legal deliberation, Cherkin would have little truck with the tennis star’s explanations. “For a decade, she took a drug designed primarily to treat a medical condition she did not have, a drug unlicensed in the country where she has lived since she was seven years old, a drug whose side effects include an inability to train longer and recover quicker.”
Potentially, anything that would heal the wear and tear of an athlete would be off the cards, prohibited for the very obvious point it assists. In the true code of the Spartan warrior, one would then have to eschew anything that would improve a performance on pitch or field. Ban those energy drinks; prohibit those band aids; stay off any form of medication that aids in any remote fashion.
Sharapova has herself suggested a body and state of being that is distinctly not Spartan in nature: a family history of diabetes, an irregular EKG heart test, and a tendency to fall ill on a regular basis. Meldonium, she claimed, came to the rescue.
Sharapova’s legal options are, to that end, not as limited as initially thought. A possible claim is that of a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE). Having taken meldonium since 2006, only to then find it placed on the banned list by WADA in January this year, permits some legroom, though it may be a difficult argument to make.
Its necessity is also something her legal counsel John J. Haggerty, will be pressing before the International Tennis Federation. “Maria’s medical records… do make it clear that the medical treatment was necessary and recommended by her doctor.”
Such an argument may not hold much water in the strict liability world of WADA. Haggerty, to that end, is further arguing that the dosage being taken by the athlete “was substantially less than any dosage that has been linked to the performance-enhancing attributes of mildronate (another term for meldonium).”
The regime in place to detect the purported outrages in the business of doping is variable. Drugs that were legal can be subsequently deemed illegal by executive diktat, an artificial decision that immediately assumes that those taking medication are somehow doing so to purposely bypass regulations.
Sharapova was evidently negligent, and some punishment may well be in order. But a vengeful stripping of all previous titles should then lead to the obvious point about how far the system itself ought to be stripped.
Other athletes are bound to feel jitters down their respective spines on the WTA circuit – who will be next? The popularity of tennis, just as that of the Tour de France, is hardly going to diminish by this revelation. People will continue watching, deluded into thinking that such competitions are clean and fair. Sharapova could hardly have been the only one in this mess, and the hidden dopers will be watching with terrified interest.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com
Josh
Guest
That's fair enough Northerner. Yes apparently - according to this article - there is more information in Russian Languages. I am not saying it is not a PED. I just have not really seen good clear evidence yet that it has. But if somebody could point me to it, that would be fine. I don't get too much into conspiracy theories. However, this drug is widely used in the Eastern Bloc and taken by doctors to Ethiopia. It does not seem to be used very much by westerners, in particular in America where it is not approved by the FDA (But I would imagine you could get your hands on it if you wanted to). Could it be possible that somebody dislikes the Eastern Bloc or is a bit jealous. I cannot prove that but it would not be too surprising. What do you think? I also believe it is great to have a body weeding out the drug cheats, as long as it is done fairly that is terrific.Cheers Northerner
northerner
Guest
@Josh - I agree this article is hardly proof that the drug is performance enhancing, but I thought it gave a pretty good overview of the situation. I suspect most of the actual evidence of its performance enhancing qualities would be in Russian-language journals, since it doesn't seem to be licensed outside the former Soviet Union. I'm certainly not up to reading medical journals in Russian! (I can barely manage them in English). It may be a big assumption, but presumably WADA has access to those journals and the capacity to translate them.
Josh
Guest
Thanks Northerner. I stumbled on that article before. I have not plowed through the references either. I don't think the article says a lot but it "suggests" a lot. Such as "One review (4) of the effects of Meldonium on exercise performance listed the following benefits". One review??? Then it went on to say they could not translate the Russian results on testing and could only translate one Russian paper that said it helped rats swim better. It also said it was not approved by the FDA for use in the USA.However it does seem to have a great reputation in the Eastern Bloc, and has had massive sales. It must do some good. Surely not everyone buying it is an athlete. I feel a lot of what you say is usually excellent and helpful and you provide facts. But I think there must be a better article than the one you and I have read to prove performance enhancement. For the article to say that 182 out of 8400 athletes tested positive proves....???? I guess - moving forward - that no athlete could ever now say that they "did not know".
Maggie
Guest
I said "a gotcha" not "the gotcha". I was addressing a particular point seemingly viewed by many as damning.
Jerry
Guest
Actually the "gotcha" moment was when she failed an in-competition drug test
Maggie
Guest
And before you all say "phooey" to this as a possible explanation: I can't be bothered doing an in depth Internet search, but a very brief search immediately found one reference that supports the effectiveness of mildronate (meldonium) use to improve immune deficiency in patients with chronic bronchial complaints. "The immunity status of 35 patients with chronic bronchitis and infectious and allergic bronchial asthma was studied. Defects in the humoral immunity were revealed. To correct the immunity status, all the patients were treated with mildronate. The immunomodulatory effect of mildronate was found in all the groups of the patients. Mildronate was shown to increase the activity of a secondary immune response and the bronchial potency in the persons with infectious and allergic asthma." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2149494
Maggie
Guest
People keep using the fact that Sharapova has used this drug for 10 years as a "gotcha" indicator. But we don't know how frequently she has used it over those 10 years (although her lawyer has said she didn't use it every day). I've used Panadol for over 40 years on those infrequent occasions that I've needed relief from severe pain. The only thing my 40 year usage reflects is that Is that I've found it effective for the purpose I take it. If Sharapova found meladonium effective in providing immune protection benefits (which is what I understood she was saying in terms of frequently becoming ill, particularly with the flu) then it is not surprising she continued to use it. Now I know many don't believe that was her reason for taking it but we simply don't have enough information to know conclusively. Which is why in my opinion we should wait until the ITF have considered her case before rushing to judgement.
northerner
Guest
Or, without the drug, maybe she wouldn't have one the ones she did? Eh??? Neither of us will ever know how much role the drug played, if any, in her career. Maybe it gave her a bit of and edge, but the talent was still there.
jerry
Guest
It's problematic to make a case for retrospective penalties given the standing of the drug in question had changed at the start of 2016. Nonetheless, there ought not be much leniency with regards to whether this was accidental or not. It is clear that the drug has the potential to be performance enhancing and to use over such a long time period is highly questionable in the context of claims of medical necessity. Quite an unfair advantage really..........and worthy of sanctioning
sheek
Roar Guru
Ah hah, "your comment is awaiting moderation". What is the trigger word this time - naughty? serial? drug cheat? poorly? stronger? majors?
sheek
Roar Guru
I must confess I haven't read everything here. But if Sharapova is a naughty, serial drug cheat, then she has been very poorly advised for the past decade. Surely she could have got something much stronger to help her win another 10 majors. Eh?????
northerner
Guest
WADA didn't do this to Sharapova. She did it to herself. All she had to do was stop taking the drug (which you're only supposed to take for a few weeks anyway) and she'd have been fine. No one was ever going to punish her for taking the drug while it was still legal. She ignored all the warnings that the drug was about to be banned, made no effort to find a substitute for the alleged medical condtion in the interim, then ignore the notice that it had been banned, and she got caught. That is not WADA's fault. She was not set up. She and all the other athletes using the drug were given fair warning.
Bolter
Guest
Sharapova has been deliberately taking a performance enhancing drug for 10 years. One which is not meant for long-term use if used therapeutically. Seems parallel to cyclists and blood doping.
northerner
Guest
MF - just found this article which seems to says that there is indeed some evidence the drug is performance enhancing. Haven't plowed through the references it cites but it does give a better picture than anything I've read up to now on the subject: https://jakegshelley.wordpress.com/2016/03/03/what-is-melodoniummildronate/
northerner
Guest
MF - I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I wasn't using the Red Army story to explain WADA's decision, but to explain why the athletes decided to take the drug. The Red Army thought it was performance enhancing and the athletes thought it was too. WADA would have needed better reasons than that (one hopes so, anyway) to ban the drug, but I think most of the published research would have been in Russian and my Russian pretty much consists of Nyet and Dos Vidanya.. I assume from your comment below you've seen this article: http://www.wired.com/2016/03/original-users-meldonium-sharapovas-banned-drug-soviet-super-soldiers/ Oh, and the drug was only put on the watch list in Jan 2015.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
Further to this nagging feeling about the arbitrariness of it all. I've been trying to find out the scientific basis for including Meldonium on the Prohibited List - it seems reasonable that such a decision is based on hard science....right? But I keep stumbling across all this data about soviet bloc athletes using Meldonium in large numbers - and that's a reason to ban it because.... Certainly there is evidence, and the drug's maker markets the product in this manner, that it improves blood flow, so arguably that would be beneficial to an elite athlete. By the same token, the drug's maker, Grindeks, acknowledges that the drug could benefit people who aren't suffering from ischemia, but it reckons it could potentially hinder athletic performance instead of helping it. Interesting perspective - so why was it banned? Here's the statement from WADA, and I quote: "because of evidence of its use by athletes with the intention of enhancing performance." So because a bunch of dumbass athletes from the soviet bloc were using it, thinking that it helped them, that's enough reason to ban it? Given the drug has been on the watch list for years - surely someone would have worked out by now whether it is actually performance enhancing and not just another bit of quackery. You know, a tiny bit of scientific analysis wouldn't go astray. Arbitrary.
Ben
Guest
http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/tennis-damaged-by-failure-to-condemn-drug-cheat-sharapova-1.2566595 A pretty sensible article from Malachy Clerkin. I take it as a given that all successful professional athletes are using performance enhancing drugs or performance enhancing treatments. Maria made the mistake of getting caught out by the executive diktat - the proclamation that shifted the arbitrary line. As that line keeps shifting, participants keep getting caught and new methods of performance enhancement are uncovered there must be a point in time where the general public just loses interest in doping vilification of players who get caught. The top players of today already seem to accept PEDs and PETs simply as part of the game. And part of the game is not getting caught.
Brian
Guest
Yea I agree completely. The entire article seems to be about retrospective punishment, with the Sharapova situation essentially being merely incidental. While this would generally be fine, the attempts to link these two things are fairly tenuous at best and poorly argued. Just a bit of a strange article overall for a sports website. EDIT: Just noticed the author is a professor at RMIT. That would explain a fair bit. This reads much more like a lecture slide rather than something that is actually relevant to the situation at hand.
bobw
Guest
There is no issue of "retrospectivity" here - that would only be the case if Sharapova was being sanctioned for taking Meldonium before it was specifically made illegal.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
northerner But I still say to you - that the red army used it in Afgananistan (where they had their backsides handed back to them) is not really a good enough reason to whack something on the Prohibited List (especially when a myriad of useful substances are NOT on the Prohibited List). Now I understand there is probably a scientific basis to support its inclusion, so no problem there - but that's what should be used to support its inclusion, not what the red army were doing it in the distant past. Also, this substance probably aids recovery, but stacks of perfectly legal substances aid recovery - so once again, I'm left with this overwhelming feeling of arbitrariness.