This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35752114
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35752114
8
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Will be interesting to see how this pans out, on the face of it the punishment should be at the more lenient end of scale. Anything less than a 6 months ban though and WADA need challenge.
Will be interesting to see how this pans out, on the face of it the punishment should be at the more lenient end of scale. Anything less than a 6 months ban though and WADA need challenge.
1
1
14
7
7
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:
What is a full ban? There are drug offences and drug offences. Is she comparable to Gareth Warburton or Lance Armstrong?
My suspicion is that the tennis authorities will be too soft on her, because she makes them lots of money, but that doesn't change the fact that as things have been presented, this is a less serious test failure than most.
What is a full ban? There are drug offences and drug offences. Is she comparable to Gareth Warburton or Lance Armstrong?
My suspicion is that the tennis authorities will be too soft on her, because she makes them lots of money, but that doesn't change the fact that as things have been presented, this is a less serious test failure than most.
5
1
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
"The Latvian company that manufactures meldonium says the normal course of treatment for the drug is four to six weeks -- not the 10 years that Russian tennis star Maria Sharapova says she used the substance."
It is reported that the Association of Tennis Professionals is a very strong union and not that vigilant as they should be regarding doping.
"The Latvian company that manufactures meldonium says the normal course of treatment for the drug is four to six weeks -- not the 10 years that Russian tennis star Maria Sharapova says she used the substance."
It is reported that the Association of Tennis Professionals is a very strong union and not that vigilant as they should be regarding doping.
3
1
9
1
In reply to The New NickB:
How do you think it's less serious than other drugs? It's not used to treat the non diseases she claims to be using it for. It's a PED, she along many, many other athletes have been using it as a PED for decades, it's just that they only got around to banning it in Feb. Another illustration of how ineffective /bent WADA et al are.
Taken in by the Disney baby blues or the pure Disney story she gave to the press?
D
How do you think it's less serious than other drugs? It's not used to treat the non diseases she claims to be using it for. It's a PED, she along many, many other athletes have been using it as a PED for decades, it's just that they only got around to banning it in Feb. Another illustration of how ineffective /bent WADA et al are.
Taken in by the Disney baby blues or the pure Disney story she gave to the press?
D
7
2
In reply to The New NickB:
I'm not sure it is a less serious failure. It's a PED in that it can be used to increase endurance and aerobic capabilities. I suspect it'd not been banned previously because it's only available in Latvia and a few neighbouring countries. It's being reported that quite a few Russian athletes and sportspeople have been using it and have failed tests this year.
> My suspicion is that the tennis authorities will be too soft on her, because she makes them lots of money, but that doesn't change the fact that as things have been presented, this is a less serious test failure than most.
I'm not sure it is a less serious failure. It's a PED in that it can be used to increase endurance and aerobic capabilities. I suspect it'd not been banned previously because it's only available in Latvia and a few neighbouring countries. It's being reported that quite a few Russian athletes and sportspeople have been using it and have failed tests this year.
3
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
I know this is from Wikipedia but it looks like a fair few have been "caught out" by not "knowing" it was banned. I'm sorry, but as a pro athlete you need to know and keep up to date with what is banned. And if you have enough money, pay someone else to do it! But not knowing is no excuse.
I work as a vet with elite sports horses and before giving anything you check the Prohibited substance list, even if on a repeat prescriptions. Rules change, as a sports medicine vet you need to keep up with it. Its no different for human counterparts.
"Earlier the same day, Russian ice dancer Ekaterina Bobrova announced she had also tested positive for meldonium at the 2016 European Figure Skating Championships. Bobrova was "shocked" about the test result, she stated that she had been aware of meldonium's addition to the banned list (on 1 January 2016) and had been careful to avoid products containing banned substances.[38] Other athletes who are provisionally banned for using meldonium include Swedish Ethiopian-born middle-distance runner Abeba Aregawi,[39] Turkish middle-distance runner Gamze Bulut,[40] Ethiopian long-distance runner Endeshaw Negesse,[41] Russian cyclist Eduard Vorganov,[42] and Ukrainian biathletes Olga Abramova[43] and Artem Tyshchenko.[44]"
I know this is from Wikipedia but it looks like a fair few have been "caught out" by not "knowing" it was banned. I'm sorry, but as a pro athlete you need to know and keep up to date with what is banned. And if you have enough money, pay someone else to do it! But not knowing is no excuse.
I work as a vet with elite sports horses and before giving anything you check the Prohibited substance list, even if on a repeat prescriptions. Rules change, as a sports medicine vet you need to keep up with it. Its no different for human counterparts.
"Earlier the same day, Russian ice dancer Ekaterina Bobrova announced she had also tested positive for meldonium at the 2016 European Figure Skating Championships. Bobrova was "shocked" about the test result, she stated that she had been aware of meldonium's addition to the banned list (on 1 January 2016) and had been careful to avoid products containing banned substances.[38] Other athletes who are provisionally banned for using meldonium include Swedish Ethiopian-born middle-distance runner Abeba Aregawi,[39] Turkish middle-distance runner Gamze Bulut,[40] Ethiopian long-distance runner Endeshaw Negesse,[41] Russian cyclist Eduard Vorganov,[42] and Ukrainian biathletes Olga Abramova[43] and Artem Tyshchenko.[44]"
4
In reply to BedRock:
Its not that people are taking drugs that should not surprise us, its why didn't the masking agent didn't mask it, just sloppy on the part of the athletes nutritional team.
Its not that people are taking drugs that should not surprise us, its why didn't the masking agent didn't mask it, just sloppy on the part of the athletes nutritional team.
4
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
To echo Paul Kimmage's thoughts, to be a great sportstar you don't need Angina, Asthma, Bilharzia or Testicular cancer...but it sure helps.
To echo Paul Kimmage's thoughts, to be a great sportstar you don't need Angina, Asthma, Bilharzia or Testicular cancer...but it sure helps.
14
1
In reply to tony:
Well it wasn't banned. It is clearly used beyond its intended medical use to gain an advantage, but it wasn't banned. It seems she tested positive weeks after the ban came in, stupid and she has absolute liability, but I don't think it will make it in to the big bad book of Russian doping!
Well it wasn't banned. It is clearly used beyond its intended medical use to gain an advantage, but it wasn't banned. It seems she tested positive weeks after the ban came in, stupid and she has absolute liability, but I don't think it will make it in to the big bad book of Russian doping!
5
2
In reply to BedRock:
Yes I read this as well. I gave her the benefit of the doubt after the press conference. Then I read how many other Russian athletes had been banned for the drug. Also that it is clinically used to treat angina and myocardial infarction. Not something that you would associate with a 20 something who has won grand slam events during the same period. It seems fairly obvious that this drug would typically better suit doping than it would health problems for this demographic. Then of course there is the fact that she is Russian, which shouldn't count against her, were it not for the athletics team having recently been banned in relation to institutional cheating. All these things combined makes her look a lot guiltier to me. Maybe there are genuine reasons for taking the drug that have not been made public and fair enough. I guess it also depends on how her case compares to other Russian athletes who have been banned.
Yes I read this as well. I gave her the benefit of the doubt after the press conference. Then I read how many other Russian athletes had been banned for the drug. Also that it is clinically used to treat angina and myocardial infarction. Not something that you would associate with a 20 something who has won grand slam events during the same period. It seems fairly obvious that this drug would typically better suit doping than it would health problems for this demographic. Then of course there is the fact that she is Russian, which shouldn't count against her, were it not for the athletics team having recently been banned in relation to institutional cheating. All these things combined makes her look a lot guiltier to me. Maybe there are genuine reasons for taking the drug that have not been made public and fair enough. I guess it also depends on how her case compares to other Russian athletes who have been banned.
2
In reply to BedRock:
With a host of athletes across a number of sports all failing the same test, it will be interesting to see how they are all punished.
With a host of athletes across a number of sports all failing the same test, it will be interesting to see how they are all punished.
1
1
In reply to Mr. Lee:
She may be Russian, but she's been living in the US since she was 7 or 8 (I think). I'd bet there are loads of substances which enhance performance in some way that aren't banned and are being taken by atheletes competing in every sport at the top level, but not by cheats, oh no siree, at least not up until the rules change...
She may be Russian, but she's been living in the US since she was 7 or 8 (I think). I'd bet there are loads of substances which enhance performance in some way that aren't banned and are being taken by atheletes competing in every sport at the top level, but not by cheats, oh no siree, at least not up until the rules change...
5
In reply to The New NickB:
At least she owned up.
It was a stupid mistake though, to not check current prohibited list.
But it was a legal drug and isn't believed to be a major advantage. I think 4-8 months.
I certainly think we should be more lenient on those like her who come out, explain, plead guilty and they should be able to resume their career, like the welsh runners.
I think it's a similar case, stupidity, but the rule is simple, as an athlete you are responsible so you should check supplements and medications.
However leniency should be a one time only offer and bans should be much stiffer if not lifetime the second time around.
At least she owned up.
It was a stupid mistake though, to not check current prohibited list.
But it was a legal drug and isn't believed to be a major advantage. I think 4-8 months.
I certainly think we should be more lenient on those like her who come out, explain, plead guilty and they should be able to resume their career, like the welsh runners.
I think it's a similar case, stupidity, but the rule is simple, as an athlete you are responsible so you should check supplements and medications.
However leniency should be a one time only offer and bans should be much stiffer if not lifetime the second time around.
1
1
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Further analysis from the Beeb is pretty sarcastic in its condemnation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35754677
I like the quote about how careful she is not to endorse a non contracted water supplier when she's out by removing the label and then this is such a surprise. That rat stinks like the stinkiest rat.
Ive been a fan of hers for some time (no, not because of that) but because I dearly want some balance to the women's game which has been missing with Serena's dominance. I wouldnt be surprised if she fades into the background now and ultimately retires.
I dont think she'll need to pick up social security though.
Further analysis from the Beeb is pretty sarcastic in its condemnation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35754677
I like the quote about how careful she is not to endorse a non contracted water supplier when she's out by removing the label and then this is such a surprise. That rat stinks like the stinkiest rat.
Ive been a fan of hers for some time (no, not because of that) but because I dearly want some balance to the women's game which has been missing with Serena's dominance. I wouldnt be surprised if she fades into the background now and ultimately retires.
I dont think she'll need to pick up social security though.
2
In reply to Roadrunner5:
>Apparently it came up on the banned list from January 2016.
Her defence is that she didnt read the email. Not much of a defence if Im honest.
> At least she owned up.
> It was a stupid mistake though, to not check current prohibited list.
> But it was a legal drug and isn't believed to be a major advantage. I think 4-8 months.
>Apparently it came up on the banned list from January 2016.
Her defence is that she didnt read the email. Not much of a defence if Im honest.
In reply to Roadrunner5:
She didn't exactly come out tho' - she was caught out. But on the subject of pleading guilty and explaining, Michale Johnson argues that you need to allow people to get caught and not be banned for life, so that the authorities can learn from them. There's clearly no incentive to come clean if you know you're going to have the book thrown at you. I must admit, I'm not entirely persuaded - I do tend to the lifetime ban argument.
Yup, once is bad enough, repeat offenders should be out of the game for good.
> I certainly think we should be more lenient on those like her who come out, explain, plead guilty and they should be able to resume their career, like the welsh runners.
She didn't exactly come out tho' - she was caught out. But on the subject of pleading guilty and explaining, Michale Johnson argues that you need to allow people to get caught and not be banned for life, so that the authorities can learn from them. There's clearly no incentive to come clean if you know you're going to have the book thrown at you. I must admit, I'm not entirely persuaded - I do tend to the lifetime ban argument.
> However leniency should be a one time only offer and bans should be much stiffer if not lifetime the second time around.
Yup, once is bad enough, repeat offenders should be out of the game for good.
In reply to robert-hutton:
But it wasn't banned.
Most of the very top will be using every possible advantage, every possible TUE, like inhalers, like asthma..
There's a difference between illegal and unethical, but that's top level sport.
I know many runners who use diet pills, appetite suppressors, even cocaine as a drug of choice rather than the calories of alcohol... which would come up in a test but testing does not happen in running outside of the top .1%
> "The Latvian company that manufactures meldonium says the normal course of treatment for the drug is four to six weeks -- not the 10 years that Russian tennis star Maria Sharapova says she used the substance."
> It is reported that the Association of Tennis Professionals is a very strong union and not that vigilant as they should be regarding doping.
But it wasn't banned.
Most of the very top will be using every possible advantage, every possible TUE, like inhalers, like asthma..
There's a difference between illegal and unethical, but that's top level sport.
I know many runners who use diet pills, appetite suppressors, even cocaine as a drug of choice rather than the calories of alcohol... which would come up in a test but testing does not happen in running outside of the top .1%
In reply to Roadrunner5:
It's difficult to believe that her team missed both that and the December email. She didn't "own up". She was caught and then took over the PR process and lied abut her reasons for taking it.
> At least she owned up.
> It was a stupid mistake though, to not check current prohibited list.
> But it was a legal drug and isn't believed to be a major advantage. I think 4-8 months.
>
If she was taking it for medical reasons then I'm Andy Murray. Apparently the Russian doping authority had highlighted it as becoming illegal last September. It's difficult to believe that her team missed both that and the December email. She didn't "own up". She was caught and then took over the PR process and lied abut her reasons for taking it.
Post edited at 16:14
6
In reply to tony:
I do agree with him. This is a multi million dollar industry. The testers are behind the curve, it's an arms race.
But, I've said many times, we have to chase the coaches out of the sport.
I'm amazed at the US Nike trail running team. I know many of their runners and don't think they dope, but Nike have teamed up with Carmichael Training Systems for many of their runners.. Armstrong's coach who made his name off Lance's success and is directly implicated in his doping. It's just incredible Nike and those runners want to be associated with him.
I do agree with him. This is a multi million dollar industry. The testers are behind the curve, it's an arms race.
But, I've said many times, we have to chase the coaches out of the sport.
I'm amazed at the US Nike trail running team. I know many of their runners and don't think they dope, but Nike have teamed up with Carmichael Training Systems for many of their runners.. Armstrong's coach who made his name off Lance's success and is directly implicated in his doping. It's just incredible Nike and those runners want to be associated with him.
In reply to Andy Hardy:
That makes her look even more suspicious to me then. Given the drug is not approved by the FDA in the USA. Importation of the drug would not have been allowed either as I understand.
http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/ImportProgram/ucm173751.htm
> She may be Russian, but she's been living in the US since she was 7 or 8 (I think). I'd bet there are loads of substances which enhance performance in some way that aren't banned and are being taken by atheletes competing in every sport at the top level, but not by cheats, oh no siree, at least not up until the rules change...
That makes her look even more suspicious to me then. Given the drug is not approved by the FDA in the USA. Importation of the drug would not have been allowed either as I understand.
http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/ImportProgram/ucm173751.htm
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
I doubt she was. But that's not illegal is it? Did it need an actual TUE?
Medical supplements for non-illness reasons will be the norm at that level. But if it's not on the banned list its unethical rather than illegal.
> If she was taking it for medical reasons then I'm Andy Murray. Apparently the Russian doping authority had highlighted it as becoming illegal last September.
> It's difficult to believe that her team missed both that and the December email. She didn't "own up". She was caught and then took over the PR process and lied abut her reasons for taking it.
I doubt she was. But that's not illegal is it? Did it need an actual TUE?
Medical supplements for non-illness reasons will be the norm at that level. But if it's not on the banned list its unethical rather than illegal.
1
In reply to Roadrunner5:
Nike are a bit f*cked up tho' They've dropped Sharapova like a hot potato, but continued their support for Justin Gatlin. No idea how that works.
> I'm amazed at the US Nike trail running team. I know many of their runners and don't think they dope, but Nike have teamed up with Carmichael Training Systems for many of their runners.. Armstrong's coach who made his name off Lance's success and is directly implicated in his doping. It's just incredible Nike and those runners want to be associated with him.
Nike are a bit f*cked up tho' They've dropped Sharapova like a hot potato, but continued their support for Justin Gatlin. No idea how that works.
5
In reply to Roadrunner5:
But she lied in her "confession" which should count against her.
So that's what she should have said. Having lied about why she took it ,why should we believe her about why she kept taking it after it was made illegal?
> I doubt she was. But that's not illegal is it? Did it need an actual TUE?
But she lied in her "confession" which should count against her.
> Medical supplements for non-illness reasons will be the norm at that level. But if it's not on the banned list its unethical rather than illegal.
So that's what she should have said. Having lied about why she took it ,why should we believe her about why she kept taking it after it was made illegal?
In reply to Postmanpat:
Dunno. How long can it be picked up in tests for?
Strikes me more likely to be incompetence rather than deliberately gaming it (at this stage anyway. the use of it previously looks dubious but then since it wasnt banned then nothing more). Since logic would suggest anything recently banned is likely to be tested for. So would depend on how long it remains in the system for and/or belief that it would be hard to test for.
> So that's what she should have said. Having lied about why she took it ,why should we believe her about why she kept taking it after it was made illegal?
Dunno. How long can it be picked up in tests for?
Strikes me more likely to be incompetence rather than deliberately gaming it (at this stage anyway. the use of it previously looks dubious but then since it wasnt banned then nothing more). Since logic would suggest anything recently banned is likely to be tested for. So would depend on how long it remains in the system for and/or belief that it would be hard to test for.
In reply to JMGLondon:
Sorry, but Kimmage is getting very tedious these days - yes he wrote a great book (25 years ago), but ever since he seems to justify his own cheating by claiming that everyone else, then and now, whatever the sport, also cheated. The only people he has any respect for seem to be other cheats who have also confessed, such as Landis. If he doesn't accept Froome's Bilharzia story (as a reason for his apparent sudden improvement) then he should do some proper investigative journalism to expose it.
As to Sharapova, it's an odd one. She's been mis-using a PED for 10 years, a drug not even approved in the adopted home. A drug which a lot of here fellow east-european athletes have also been using (about 20% it seems). Who gave it to her, why and what questions did she ask ? But if she was consciously cheating, you'd think she be a bit more careful to check for changes.
Maybe she has a case for leniency, a 2 year ban rather than 4, but only if she gives an adequate explanation. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if she was back for the Olympics.
> To echo Paul Kimmage's thoughts, to be a great sportstar you don't need Angina, Asthma, Bilharzia or Testicular cancer...but it sure helps.
Sorry, but Kimmage is getting very tedious these days - yes he wrote a great book (25 years ago), but ever since he seems to justify his own cheating by claiming that everyone else, then and now, whatever the sport, also cheated. The only people he has any respect for seem to be other cheats who have also confessed, such as Landis. If he doesn't accept Froome's Bilharzia story (as a reason for his apparent sudden improvement) then he should do some proper investigative journalism to expose it.
As to Sharapova, it's an odd one. She's been mis-using a PED for 10 years, a drug not even approved in the adopted home. A drug which a lot of here fellow east-european athletes have also been using (about 20% it seems). Who gave it to her, why and what questions did she ask ? But if she was consciously cheating, you'd think she be a bit more careful to check for changes.
Maybe she has a case for leniency, a 2 year ban rather than 4, but only if she gives an adequate explanation. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if she was back for the Olympics.
1
1
In reply to tony:
I just saw that... very odd.
> Nike are a bit f*cked up tho' They've dropped Sharapova like a hot potato, but continued their support for Justin Gatlin. No idea how that works.
I just saw that... very odd.
In reply to The New NickB:
Two years for a first offence (I think not 100%).
I don't think it's comparable to Armstrong, haven't heard of Warburton. I don't think this is a less serious offence than a 'deliberate' test fail. The athlete is responsible for what they take in and she was notified of the change, it's a shame but otherwise it's the perfect excuse.
Two years for a first offence (I think not 100%).
I don't think it's comparable to Armstrong, haven't heard of Warburton. I don't think this is a less serious offence than a 'deliberate' test fail. The athlete is responsible for what they take in and she was notified of the change, it's a shame but otherwise it's the perfect excuse.
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:
Warburton was banned for 6 months for taking a banned substance in a supplement. It was accepted that he did not know the banned substance was in the supplement, but that he was responsible for anything he took, which he accepted. He was banned for 6 months.
On the face of it, I think the Sharapova case is slightly more serious than that.
The comparison with him and Armstrong is really to show the two ends of the spectrum sanction wise.
Warburton was banned for 6 months for taking a banned substance in a supplement. It was accepted that he did not know the banned substance was in the supplement, but that he was responsible for anything he took, which he accepted. He was banned for 6 months.
On the face of it, I think the Sharapova case is slightly more serious than that.
The comparison with him and Armstrong is really to show the two ends of the spectrum sanction wise.
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:
Its not at all, plenty of athletes have received far shorter bans, 3-6 months is quite typical. I'd be amazed if it was greater than a year TBH.
I'm not sure re Warburton, that stunk, I've been to the UKA seminars/talks where we quite clearly told that ANY supplements must be sent to UKA for testing. He'd not owned up to using them.. I'm even more amazed runners I know still use Mountain Fuel.
Its not at all, plenty of athletes have received far shorter bans, 3-6 months is quite typical. I'd be amazed if it was greater than a year TBH.
I'm not sure re Warburton, that stunk, I've been to the UKA seminars/talks where we quite clearly told that ANY supplements must be sent to UKA for testing. He'd not owned up to using them.. I'm even more amazed runners I know still use Mountain Fuel.
In reply to Roadrunner5:
The real issue is why Meldonium was banned in 2015, not before. As usual, cui bono?
Every man and their dog (OK, anyone training with ex-USSR athletes in various disciplines) knew that quite a few were taking the stuff even 20 years ago, almost like people here would use creatin supplements. Guess it was everyone who could cope and not feel as if they had drunk a few pints of coffee.
The whole sudden interest in cleaning up athletics does not happen because the Americans are suddenly becoming interested in clean sports (otherwise they could start with their own big four leagues), but because it is a useful stick to beat the Russians with.
Wouldn£t it be great to kick the Russians out of Rio, from a US foreign policy point of view?
Same with football, the US couldn£t give a flying f*ck about FIFA, but putting WC2018 in jeopardy, which would be a huge loss of face for the Russians, is something completely different.
Doesn£t excuse Sharapovas amateurish actions, though. I wonder how long meldronate can be detected. Did she continue using it until end of December and hope to be clean come Melbourne? In this case I would be sure she could have afforded a sneaky pre test and could have caught a useful flu if still positive, or even better, angina or whatever else merited a TUE.
CB
forgot my estimate for the ban: long enough to look tough, i.e. keep her out of Rio, but short enough to not endanger her career, after all she makes good money for the WTC.
The real issue is why Meldonium was banned in 2015, not before. As usual, cui bono?
Every man and their dog (OK, anyone training with ex-USSR athletes in various disciplines) knew that quite a few were taking the stuff even 20 years ago, almost like people here would use creatin supplements. Guess it was everyone who could cope and not feel as if they had drunk a few pints of coffee.
The whole sudden interest in cleaning up athletics does not happen because the Americans are suddenly becoming interested in clean sports (otherwise they could start with their own big four leagues), but because it is a useful stick to beat the Russians with.
Wouldn£t it be great to kick the Russians out of Rio, from a US foreign policy point of view?
Same with football, the US couldn£t give a flying f*ck about FIFA, but putting WC2018 in jeopardy, which would be a huge loss of face for the Russians, is something completely different.
Doesn£t excuse Sharapovas amateurish actions, though. I wonder how long meldronate can be detected. Did she continue using it until end of December and hope to be clean come Melbourne? In this case I would be sure she could have afforded a sneaky pre test and could have caught a useful flu if still positive, or even better, angina or whatever else merited a TUE.
CB
forgot my estimate for the ban: long enough to look tough, i.e. keep her out of Rio, but short enough to not endanger her career, after all she makes good money for the WTC.
Post edited at 18:26
2
2
In reply to cb294:
Creatine's a strange one.
Did you see Lomu's mate came out saying he blames creatine for the kidney damage much of them suffered.
Creatine's a strange one.
Did you see Lomu's mate came out saying he blames creatine for the kidney damage much of them suffered.
In reply to Roadrunner5:
No I'm not sure. I know two years for first offence and life for a second offence is the penalties in road cycling though.
No I'm not sure. I know two years for first offence and life for a second offence is the penalties in road cycling though.
In reply to Roadrunner5:
Would that be due to the concentrations of proteins in it? I ask because I think I gave myself kidney ache very briefly by eating as much protein as I could after braking my wrist, the two happened at the same time - that is.
> Creatine's a strange one.
> Did you see Lomu's mate came out saying he blames creatine for the kidney damage much of them suffered.
Would that be due to the concentrations of proteins in it? I ask because I think I gave myself kidney ache very briefly by eating as much protein as I could after braking my wrist, the two happened at the same time - that is.
Post edited at 19:46
In reply to Timmd:
yeah, kidney damage from excessive protein consumption in body builders is quite common, normally from excessive use of protein supplements rather than pure diet.
yeah, kidney damage from excessive protein consumption in body builders is quite common, normally from excessive use of protein supplements rather than pure diet.
In reply to Postmanpat:
Whether she was taking it for medical reasons is irrelevant. Until January it was perfectly legal and she simply didn't read the memo informing her that it was now banned and so made a mistake. It's a strict liability offence but Lance Armstrong she ain't.
Whether she was taking it for medical reasons is irrelevant. Until January it was perfectly legal and she simply didn't read the memo informing her that it was now banned and so made a mistake. It's a strict liability offence but Lance Armstrong she ain't.
3
2
1
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
No, she's not Lance Armstrong, but she appears to have lied about why she took it, which should count against her.
> Whether she was taking it for medical reasons is irrelevant. Until January it was perfectly legal and she simply didn't read the memo informing her that it was now banned and so made a mistake. >
No, she's not Lance Armstrong, but she appears to have lied about why she took it, which should count against her.
Post edited at 22:11
1
In reply to Roadrunner5:
Kidney problems are common in athletes that need to cut weight, which seems unlikely in rugby players. Also, I cannot envisage a indirect link (e.g., having dodgy kidneys as such making you better at some aspect of the sport). It is therefore most likely caused by something they all do or take, such as legal supplements.
I used creatine myself for a few years, it really helps a lot. I assume that professional rugby players took and still take much more of such supplements, quite possibly in uncontrolled combinations that may well have long term side effects.
Medical "support" of athletes anyway often does more damage than good. The list of stuff the German shot putter Birgit Dressel took in the days before she died make for scary reading (I know this is medications, not supplements, but still): According to court documents, following an acute but slight hip injury she received one injection Xylomed (a local anaesthetic) plus Diclofenac (a NSAID), Next day, Diclofenac at increased doses, Metamizol (another NSAID), Godamed (like aspiri, 15 tablets), Diazepam tablets, suppositories with Paracetamol and Codein, more Aspirin, Heparin creme.
Day three, high doses of Ibuprofen IV. She then collapsed, was admitted to hospital, where she received Buscopan (a spasmolytic). Later that day she was transferred to an ICU, where she died despite blood transfusions and attempts to reset her acidotic metabolism.
At court, it was also established that she had used Stanozolol at 6 tabs per week and received more than 400 injections of 15 different drugs during the last 16 months of her life.
Scary,
CB
Kidney problems are common in athletes that need to cut weight, which seems unlikely in rugby players. Also, I cannot envisage a indirect link (e.g., having dodgy kidneys as such making you better at some aspect of the sport). It is therefore most likely caused by something they all do or take, such as legal supplements.
I used creatine myself for a few years, it really helps a lot. I assume that professional rugby players took and still take much more of such supplements, quite possibly in uncontrolled combinations that may well have long term side effects.
Medical "support" of athletes anyway often does more damage than good. The list of stuff the German shot putter Birgit Dressel took in the days before she died make for scary reading (I know this is medications, not supplements, but still): According to court documents, following an acute but slight hip injury she received one injection Xylomed (a local anaesthetic) plus Diclofenac (a NSAID), Next day, Diclofenac at increased doses, Metamizol (another NSAID), Godamed (like aspiri, 15 tablets), Diazepam tablets, suppositories with Paracetamol and Codein, more Aspirin, Heparin creme.
Day three, high doses of Ibuprofen IV. She then collapsed, was admitted to hospital, where she received Buscopan (a spasmolytic). Later that day she was transferred to an ICU, where she died despite blood transfusions and attempts to reset her acidotic metabolism.
At court, it was also established that she had used Stanozolol at 6 tabs per week and received more than 400 injections of 15 different drugs during the last 16 months of her life.
Scary,
CB
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
Maybe not.
"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...
Exemptions:
"when 1) the intended use [of the drug] is unapproved and for a serious condition for which effective treatment may not be available domestically either through commercial or clinical means; 2) there is no known commercialization or promotion to persons residing in the U.S. by those involved in the distribution of the product at issue; 3) the product is considered not to represent an unreasonable risk; and 4) the individual seeking to import the product affirms in writing that it is for the patient's own use (generally not more than 3 month supply) and provides the name and address of the doctor licensed in the U.S. responsible for his or her treatment with the product or provides evidence that the product is for the continuation of a treatment begun in a foreign country/area."
Looks to me as if someone needs to be certifying that she has a medical condition for which meldonium is an effective treatment...
> Whether she was taking it for medical reasons is irrelevant. Until January it was perfectly legal
Maybe not.
"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...
Exemptions:
"when 1) the intended use [of the drug] is unapproved and for a serious condition for which effective treatment may not be available domestically either through commercial or clinical means; 2) there is no known commercialization or promotion to persons residing in the U.S. by those involved in the distribution of the product at issue; 3) the product is considered not to represent an unreasonable risk; and 4) the individual seeking to import the product affirms in writing that it is for the patient's own use (generally not more than 3 month supply) and provides the name and address of the doctor licensed in the U.S. responsible for his or her treatment with the product or provides evidence that the product is for the continuation of a treatment begun in a foreign country/area."
Looks to me as if someone needs to be certifying that she has a medical condition for which meldonium is an effective treatment...
In reply to Roadrunner5:
Yes, US law. I was responding to the comment that she wasn't doing anything illegal. She lives in the US doesn't she?
I've no idea whether anyone has broken the law, but if they haven't it looks as if they will be relying on a technicality. It's clearly an abuse to be taking a drug you don't need for medical reasons. Maybe the WADA rules should just say that.
Of course, if she's been struggling with angina or heart disease all these years, I'm impressed.
Yes, US law. I was responding to the comment that she wasn't doing anything illegal. She lives in the US doesn't she?
I've no idea whether anyone has broken the law, but if they haven't it looks as if they will be relying on a technicality. It's clearly an abuse to be taking a drug you don't need for medical reasons. Maybe the WADA rules should just say that.
Of course, if she's been struggling with angina or heart disease all these years, I'm impressed.
In reply to Dave Garnett:
From Ross Tucker:
That this drug is being used by even one in 50 athletes (and one in six in Russia, where it is more readily available by virtue of its Latvian “birth”) should highlight the absurdity of it all – a regulated drug, prescription only, being more prevalent in elite athletes than in many elderly, ill populations is an untenable situation.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/mar/09/maria-sharapova-meldonium-bann...
> Of course, if she's been struggling with angina or heart disease all these years, I'm impressed.
From Ross Tucker:
That this drug is being used by even one in 50 athletes (and one in six in Russia, where it is more readily available by virtue of its Latvian “birth”) should highlight the absurdity of it all – a regulated drug, prescription only, being more prevalent in elite athletes than in many elderly, ill populations is an untenable situation.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/mar/09/maria-sharapova-meldonium-bann...
1
7
In reply to Dave Garnett:
I always thought she had acute angina.
> Yes, US law. I was responding to the comment that she wasn't doing anything illegal. She lives in the US doesn't she?
> I've no idea whether anyone has broken the law, but if they haven't it looks as if they will be relying on a technicality. It's clearly an abuse to be taking a drug you don't need for medical reasons. Maybe the WADA rules should just say that.
> Of course, if she's been struggling with angina or heart disease all these years, I'm impressed.
I always thought she had acute angina.
3
In reply to Dave Ferguson:
At last, someone saying what we've all been thinking.
> can't we just let her off, coz shes fit?
At last, someone saying what we've all been thinking.
4
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Whether or not she was taking it for medical reasons previously (I don't believe that for a second) is irrelevant - they had fair warning of it being added to the banned list and had time to stop using it if they were already doing so. She should get a proper ban, whatever 'proper' is. I have read that an offence deemed to be deliberate would be 4 years, but for an accidental case, the standard is 2, though I do see conflicting reports.
Whatever they do, tennis needs to come down hard on it in my opinion because allowing excuses like this through just opens the door for more and more doping problems...Armstrong unfortunately proved this to be the case. Showing a hard stance on it may at least show they will not tolerate such violations.
Whether or not she was taking it for medical reasons previously (I don't believe that for a second) is irrelevant - they had fair warning of it being added to the banned list and had time to stop using it if they were already doing so. She should get a proper ban, whatever 'proper' is. I have read that an offence deemed to be deliberate would be 4 years, but for an accidental case, the standard is 2, though I do see conflicting reports.
Whatever they do, tennis needs to come down hard on it in my opinion because allowing excuses like this through just opens the door for more and more doping problems...Armstrong unfortunately proved this to be the case. Showing a hard stance on it may at least show they will not tolerate such violations.
1
In reply to Byronius Maximus:
I have a big issue with the fairness of "coming down hard" when authorities decide to do it in the middle of a case and one person bears the brunt. If the authorities decided to come down hard, set appropriate rules and guidelines for penalties, and then applied them consistently, that's fine, but to be presented with a case like Sharapova's and THEN decide to get tough is not the right way to go.
I have a big issue with the fairness of "coming down hard" when authorities decide to do it in the middle of a case and one person bears the brunt. If the authorities decided to come down hard, set appropriate rules and guidelines for penalties, and then applied them consistently, that's fine, but to be presented with a case like Sharapova's and THEN decide to get tough is not the right way to go.
1
In reply to Byronius Maximus:
The DT is reporting on the basis of interviewing her lawyer that they are contemplating a retrospective therapeutic use application which if granted would presumably minimise any penalty. Presumably this was their plan when she made her so called "confession".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tennis/2016/03/09/maria-sharapova-could-be-saved...
> Whether or not she was taking it for medical reasons previously (I don't believe that for a second) is irrelevant - they had fair warning of it being added to the banned list and had time to stop using it if they were already doing so. She should get a proper ban, whatever 'proper' is. I have read that an offence deemed to be deliberate would be 4 years, but for an accidental case, the standard is 2, though I do see conflicting reports.
>The DT is reporting on the basis of interviewing her lawyer that they are contemplating a retrospective therapeutic use application which if granted would presumably minimise any penalty. Presumably this was their plan when she made her so called "confession".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tennis/2016/03/09/maria-sharapova-could-be-saved...
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
That's a fair point, and neither do I like the idea of "making an example" of someone. What I mean is that they shouldn't be lenient in their punishment, which I'm quite worried they will be, given Sharapova's position in the sport and the way she's managed this from a PR side.
That's a fair point, and neither do I like the idea of "making an example" of someone. What I mean is that they shouldn't be lenient in their punishment, which I'm quite worried they will be, given Sharapova's position in the sport and the way she's managed this from a PR side.
In reply to Postmanpat:
If that happens, then it is utter bulls**t and tennis is creating even more of a problem for itself. (Should add that I've not read the article you linked).
If that happens, then it is utter bulls**t and tennis is creating even more of a problem for itself. (Should add that I've not read the article you linked).
In reply to BedRock:
I'm on this page - as the chap interviewed on R4 said, if you have a $20m business that's dependednt on you playing tennis and a team ensuring that you can, you read the lists very carefully, including the active ingredient names not just the brand.
Clearly used as a PED over a long period; clearly banned; clearly caught. 2-4 years.
I'm on this page - as the chap interviewed on R4 said, if you have a $20m business that's dependednt on you playing tennis and a team ensuring that you can, you read the lists very carefully, including the active ingredient names not just the brand.
Clearly used as a PED over a long period; clearly banned; clearly caught. 2-4 years.
5
Up to 490 athletes may have been taking meldonium during the 2015 European Games in Baku, a study has revealed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/35764420
That must be vastly higher than the rate you would expect in the general healthy and young population.
Maybe any drug that is detected or legally prescribed at a multiple of the normal prevalence for the age group should be declared a suspected PED and banned 12 months later rather than ten years later.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/35764420
That must be vastly higher than the rate you would expect in the general healthy and young population.
Maybe any drug that is detected or legally prescribed at a multiple of the normal prevalence for the age group should be declared a suspected PED and banned 12 months later rather than ten years later.
In reply to Postmanpat:
To quote her layer, then:
“Without a doubt,” Haggerty added, “mildronate aids in the treatment of cardiac symptoms and Maria was taking that because her she was diagnosed by her doctor with abnormal EKG [electrocardiogram] results."
Ok, stretching it for an elite athlete, but plausible.
"She was also diagnosed as having diabetes indicators and again mildronate is a drug which aids in reducing diabetes indicators."
Rather a happy conincidence that she "happens" to have a second set of symptoms the drug is useful for treating.
"Finally, mildronate provides cell protection which is crucial in addressing low or weak immunity which is another condition Maria was diagnosed with."
Alarm bells here, surely??? Ok, I know elite athletes can be more susceptible to illness, but this really is too much of a coincidence that she has 3 sets of health problems that can all be treated with mildronate, which happens to have performance enhancing properties. I'm sure that there are other medicines, readily available in the US, that could have been used instead, which don't have these properties, so why go to all the trouble of obtaining mildronate from Eastern Europe?
"The doctor’s diagnosis and his treatment recommendations were consistent and medically necessary. And the dosage Maria was taking was substantially less than any dosage that has been linked with the performance-enhancing attributes of mildronate.”
Yeah, right. And I'm a brain surgeon. Recommended by her "family doctor", who presumably is not her "tennis doctor" - how convenient. And in order to treat 3 conditions, she can't possibly have been taking the bare minimum dose, surely?
What I'd like to see is all her tournament entry documents for the last 10 years where she is supposed to have stated all medication she's taking. If mildronate is stated on a reasonable number of them, then I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. If it isn't, then I'd find it extremely hard to believe she only took it between tournaments and therefore didn't need to declare it even once.
As it stands, up to January this year, she wasn't doing anything illegal (from the point of view of tennis - getting the drug into the US is another matter), but it certainly seems to me to have been hammering right on the edge of what is ethical and fair.
I think she should accept whatever punishment is deemed appropriate by the ITF/WADA and not insult everyone by mucking about with retrospective TUEs.
To quote her layer, then:
“Without a doubt,” Haggerty added, “mildronate aids in the treatment of cardiac symptoms and Maria was taking that because her she was diagnosed by her doctor with abnormal EKG [electrocardiogram] results."
Ok, stretching it for an elite athlete, but plausible.
"She was also diagnosed as having diabetes indicators and again mildronate is a drug which aids in reducing diabetes indicators."
Rather a happy conincidence that she "happens" to have a second set of symptoms the drug is useful for treating.
"Finally, mildronate provides cell protection which is crucial in addressing low or weak immunity which is another condition Maria was diagnosed with."
Alarm bells here, surely??? Ok, I know elite athletes can be more susceptible to illness, but this really is too much of a coincidence that she has 3 sets of health problems that can all be treated with mildronate, which happens to have performance enhancing properties. I'm sure that there are other medicines, readily available in the US, that could have been used instead, which don't have these properties, so why go to all the trouble of obtaining mildronate from Eastern Europe?
"The doctor’s diagnosis and his treatment recommendations were consistent and medically necessary. And the dosage Maria was taking was substantially less than any dosage that has been linked with the performance-enhancing attributes of mildronate.”
Yeah, right. And I'm a brain surgeon. Recommended by her "family doctor", who presumably is not her "tennis doctor" - how convenient. And in order to treat 3 conditions, she can't possibly have been taking the bare minimum dose, surely?
What I'd like to see is all her tournament entry documents for the last 10 years where she is supposed to have stated all medication she's taking. If mildronate is stated on a reasonable number of them, then I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. If it isn't, then I'd find it extremely hard to believe she only took it between tournaments and therefore didn't need to declare it even once.
As it stands, up to January this year, she wasn't doing anything illegal (from the point of view of tennis - getting the drug into the US is another matter), but it certainly seems to me to have been hammering right on the edge of what is ethical and fair.
I think she should accept whatever punishment is deemed appropriate by the ITF/WADA and not insult everyone by mucking about with retrospective TUEs.
2
In reply to LastBoyScout:
One suspects that the ITF would love the excuse to minimize her penalty.
> I think she should accept whatever punishment is deemed appropriate by the ITF/WADA and not insult everyone by mucking about with retrospective TUEs.
One suspects that the ITF would love the excuse to minimize her penalty.
> As it stands, up to January this year, she wasn't doing anything illegal (from the point of view of tennis - getting the drug into the US is another matter), but it certainly seems to me to have been hammering right on the edge of what is ethical and fair.
> I think she should accept whatever punishment is deemed appropriate by the ITF/WADA and not insult everyone by mucking about with retrospective TUEs.
Spot on.
1
In reply to LastBoyScout:
Yes travelling to Russia, a country where you don't reside, to be prescribed a drug by a 'family doctor' that legally can't be brought back into the US doesn't really wash with me. Surely alternative medication available in the US as you say. Plenty of crooked Doctors in Russia (and other places) I'm sure that will be prepared to write fake prescriptions. Cycling pretty much demonstrated that. I believe Sharapova when she says she didn't check her email but that doesn't make her reasons for taking the drug look any less cynical in my eyes. I think this whole affair highlights as much as anything the arms race that is going on between WADA and athletes looking to gain advantages from drugs yet to be banned.
> Alarm bells here, surely??? Ok, I know elite athletes can be more susceptible to illness, but this really is too much of a coincidence that she has 3 sets of health problems that can all be treated with mildronate, which happens to have performance enhancing properties. I'm sure that there are other medicines, readily available in the US, that could have been used instead, which don't have these properties, so why go to all the trouble of obtaining mildronate from Eastern Europe?
Yes travelling to Russia, a country where you don't reside, to be prescribed a drug by a 'family doctor' that legally can't be brought back into the US doesn't really wash with me. Surely alternative medication available in the US as you say. Plenty of crooked Doctors in Russia (and other places) I'm sure that will be prepared to write fake prescriptions. Cycling pretty much demonstrated that. I believe Sharapova when she says she didn't check her email but that doesn't make her reasons for taking the drug look any less cynical in my eyes. I think this whole affair highlights as much as anything the arms race that is going on between WADA and athletes looking to gain advantages from drugs yet to be banned.
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Fair play to Andy Murray - not afraid to break the omertà in Tennis
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/mar/10/maria-sharapova-andy-murray-ba...
Fair play to Andy Murray - not afraid to break the omertà in Tennis
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/mar/10/maria-sharapova-andy-murray-ba...
In reply to Mr. Lee:
I believe Sharapova when she says she didn't check her email but that doesn't make her reasons for taking the drug look any less cynical in my eyes.
Why? If you generate 20m per annum you have people who check yr email, in fact several of yr team most likely receive copies of said email. The naivte.
D
I believe Sharapova when she says she didn't check her email but that doesn't make her reasons for taking the drug look any less cynical in my eyes.
Why? If you generate 20m per annum you have people who check yr email, in fact several of yr team most likely receive copies of said email. The naivte.
D
In reply to Dauphin:
Mildronate not indicated for treatment of an abnormal ECG; treat the illness and symptoms but not the ECG. Neither is it indicated for the other disease she hasn't got (diabetes - for which there is a family history but she doesn't have).
Unfortunately she's cheated and been caught doing so. Very sad.
B
Mildronate not indicated for treatment of an abnormal ECG; treat the illness and symptoms but not the ECG. Neither is it indicated for the other disease she hasn't got (diabetes - for which there is a family history but she doesn't have).
Unfortunately she's cheated and been caught doing so. Very sad.
B
In reply to ben b:
Sorry, the above was in response to Big Lee if that wasnt clear. My earlier post concurs with yours, treatment for non existent diseases, well maybe an 'athletes heart' with a drug that has little indication for use, prescribed by a family doctor, by a professional athlete worth millions. Sounds legit.
D
Sorry, the above was in response to Big Lee if that wasnt clear. My earlier post concurs with yours, treatment for non existent diseases, well maybe an 'athletes heart' with a drug that has little indication for use, prescribed by a family doctor, by a professional athlete worth millions. Sounds legit.
D
In reply to Dauphin:
Yep, I guess the response was more aimed at her no doubt well remunerated lawyer who is talking complete bollocks. Cell protection for a weak immune system? Yeah right.
Cheers
b
Yep, I guess the response was more aimed at her no doubt well remunerated lawyer who is talking complete bollocks. Cell protection for a weak immune system? Yeah right.
Cheers
b
In reply to Dauphin:
You've misunderstood me. I meant cynical with regards her reasons for taking the drug in first place. Before or after the ban date. A lot of athletes I'm sure are very up-to-date with what drugs offer performance enhancement but are yet to be banned. Plus there's always a doctor somewhere that will 'prescribe' for medical reasons in order to make the make the use of the drug look legit.
> Why? If you generate 20m per annum you have people who check yr email, in fact several of yr team most likely receive copies of said email. The naivte.
You've misunderstood me. I meant cynical with regards her reasons for taking the drug in first place. Before or after the ban date. A lot of athletes I'm sure are very up-to-date with what drugs offer performance enhancement but are yet to be banned. Plus there's always a doctor somewhere that will 'prescribe' for medical reasons in order to make the make the use of the drug look legit.
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...