Maria Sharapova announces positive drug test

[Proper Gander]

Agree, but considering the findings two years due to lack of intent it was not the conclusion. It is a possibility she had intent but she did enough to demonstrate otherwise.

Why I see a CAS appeal as a risk, a different panel may make a different finding on intent.

Given age etc, she may have decided that a 2 year ban is long enough that she wouldn't return to the game in that case, in which case the risk of the ban turning from 2 to 4 years wouldn't be a factor.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

I'm going more with her pants down, red handed to me suggests intent which was not found..

I prefer to think of her pants down too

 

[FFC_RoyBoys]

I prefer to think of her pants down too

59% of the world population agree with this thought.

 

[Slartibartfast]

If she truly believed the drug she was taking was legitimate why did she not list them to the drug testers.
I am just trying to think what other honest sportsmen have not declared drugs taken and cried I'm innocent when caught.

 

[Muggs]

Considering the evidence in the report I am not convinced that there wasn't at least some intent, Maria would increase uses before big matches, never mentioned this medication to American medical people or the WTA but mentioned it to Russian doctors despite living the whole time in America.

I think it started off being for a medical condition but it seems that after 2012 the intent was a big darker.

Had a proper read through, found it interesting that the tribunal found she took it intentionally to enhance performance, but did not find that she intentionally took a banned substance. Also found that she intentionally hid this from members of her support team, doping officers etc.

Can see an argument how this applies to the EFC 34.

Also found the discussion on why they awarded her no signficant fault interesting, again draw parallels with the EFC 34. A lot of emphasis placed on her individual checking, or lack there off.

The 2015 version of the WADA code with its clear division of intent, and fault I think is a good one. Said before that reading some of the previous no significant fault discounts CAS has given it seemed like they used the no significant fault clause as a de facto intent clause, it's why I believed the players would get some discount. This is now clearly two separate issues.

 

[Muggs]

If she truly believed the drug she was taking was legitimate why did she got list them to the drug testers.
I am just trying to think what other honest sportsmen have not declared drugs taken and cried I'm innocent when caught.

Panel basically found she thought it gave her an advantage, she hid it on purpose, than stuffed up when they changed it its status on her.

They believed her when she said she would have stopped taking it if she knew. She relied on others to check not herself.

Hence lack of intent but full fault findings.

 

[Muggs]

I guess 'intent to take something banned' can be looked at in two ways. It could be argued that Meldonium is banned, she intended to take Meldonium, therefore she intended to take something that is banned. Or it could be argued that she didn't intend to take a banned substance because she thought that Meldonium was not banned. I would think that there would be something in the new code to assist with getting the correct interpretation.

This is the problem with expressing arguments in natural language. It's always ambiguous.

There is a section on this with a few tests in the code, Sharapova award goes into them, intent is focused on knowingly. or significant risk of, taking a banned substance and knowingly disregarding that risk.

The athelte knowledge is key here. What did they know and how did they act based on those risks.

So in Sharapova's case why she knowingly took the substance, she did not know it was banned.

So got the intent discount, but not the fault discount - which is more what did the athelte do individually to ensure they have the knowledge needed to avoid taking a banned substance.

 

[Badesumofu]

The 2015 version of the WADA code with its clear division of intent, and fault I think is a good one. Said before that reading some of the previous no significant fault discounts CAS has given it seemed like they used the no significant fault clause as a de facto intent clause, it's why I believed the players would get some discount. This is now clearly two separate issues.

And you can see the effect of this in a lot of posters here who thought it odd that reckless drug cheats (such as the EFC34) get the same penalty as deliberate drug cheats. It makes sense to distinguish between people who ought to have known better and people did know better but cheated anyway. Although it might have been interesting to see how the new code would have been applied to the EFC 34. Could you argue that they knowingly took a significant risk of taking a banned substance by submitting themselves to dozens or hundreds of offsite injections without being absolutely sure what the injections were? Well you could certainly argue it, but I'm inclined to think they'd still have gotten 2 years under the new code.

 

[Muggs]

And you can see the effect of this in a lot of posters here who thought it odd that reckless drug cheats (such as the EFC34) get the same penalty as deliberate drug cheats. It makes sense to distinguish between people who ought to have known better and people did know better but cheated anyway. Although it might have been interesting to see how the new code would have been applied to the EFC 34. Could you argue that they knowingly took a significant risk of taking a banned substance by submitting themselves to dozens or hundreds of offsite injections without being absolutely sure what the injections were? Well you could certainly argue it, but I'm inclined to think they'd still have gotten 2 years under the new code.

Agree with all of this.

 

[jenny61_99]

I prefer to think of her pants down too

59% of the world population agree with this thought.

Classy boys.

Wonder how you'd feel someone saying this about your daughters...sisters...mother? I know it's "tongue in cheek" and a throw away line, but you know what? It's not needed, or appropriate. Think it... just don't say it.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

if anyone wants to see my mum with her pants down then good on them.

And meh, she's the highest paid tennis player in the world despite not being the best. She knows what she's selling

 

[jenny61_99]

if anyone wants to see my mum with her pants down then good on them.

And meh, she's the highest paid tennis player in the world despite not being the best. She knows what she's selling

That's disgusting.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

Classy boys.

Wonder how you'd feel someone saying this about your daughters...sisters...mother? I know it's "tongue in cheek" and a throw away line, but you know what? It's not needed, or appropriate. Think it... just don't say it.

Also disappointed and surprised that the thought wasn't self-edited before reaching the page. Gross and not funny.

 

[FFC_RoyBoys]

Classy boys.

Wonder how you'd feel someone saying this about your daughters...sisters...mother? I know it's "tongue in cheek" and a throw away line, but you know what? It's not needed, or appropriate. Think it... just don't say it.

Not you taste in a light hearted comment - fair enough, but if you find that offensive, I would suggest that you never watch Tim Minchin.

 

[jenny61_99]

Not you taste in a light hearted comment - fair enough, but if you find that offensive, I would suggest that you never watch Tim Minchin.

I'm not talking about Tim Minchin.. I'm talking about inappropriate comments made in here. You blokes need to understand that it is just not on. Laugh all you like. Declare PC gone mad, whatever. If I see comments disrespectful to women - and really, there was absolutely no need for it - I will call it out. Before you make some throw away line sexualising women -remember your wife, your daughter, your sister, your mother.

And there endeth today's sermon. Please, just think before you post s**t like that.

 

[yaco55]

I expect the remaining meldonium cases which go to Anti-Doping Tribunals to be strongly fought by lawyers - I struggle to see any athlete being found guilty with the doubts raised about excretion times for meldonium - And if found guilty straight off to CAS.

 

[Muggs]

I expect the remaining meldonium cases which go to Anti-Doping Tribunals to be strongly fought by lawyers - I struggle to see any athlete being found guilty with the doubts raised about excretion times for meldonium - And if found guilty straight off to CAS.

Can certainly see atheltes being found guilty, i.e. ones like Sharapova who kept taking it after 1st January. The doubt around exertion times is not a automatic get out jail card.

Wouldn't be surprised to find those who tested positive be subject to target testing to ensure their levels keep dropping.

 

[PoppedCorn]

Weren't they sent notifications around Aug or Oct saying it would be banned on Jan 1?

Surely they couldve asked to be tested after that email to see how long it lingers in the system?
If they aren't looking likely to be clean by Jan but have been off it since oct they could at least show levels are dropping but not quick enough??

 

[Muggs]

Weren't they sent notifications around Aug or Oct saying it would be banned on Jan 1?

Surely they couldve asked to be tested after that email to see how long it lingers in the system?
If they aren't looking likely to be clean by Jan but have been off it since oct they could at least show levels are dropping but not quick enough??

WADA did do research on this but has since come out and said futher research needed as seems be lasting longer than expected.

Personally suspect the research undertaken did not look into how long it lasts in atheltes who have been taking it for years and as itwas still legal to take on Dec 31 so testing the effects on these atheltes is difficult they did not have to stop early October when the updated list got released.

 

[sameolds33]

Maria's off to Harvard Business School apparently...http://scroll.in/latest/810658/suspended-from-tennis-maria-sharapova-says-shes-off-to-harvard

 

[NoAFLinmycomp]

Nope - no help for Sharapova here ....

I wonder how many cases end up being dropped?

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/n...ated-stakeholder-guidance-regarding-meldonium

" WADA issues updated Stakeholder guidance regarding Meldonium

Further to results of additional urinary excretion studies for meldonium, WADA issued updated Stakeholder guidance regarding Results Management and Adjudication of meldonium cases.
The guidance is for cases where athletes claim that the substance was taken before 1 January 2016; and, is determined by the Urine Collection Date and Urinary Concentration of meldonium found in an athlete’s sample.
On 30 June, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) issued updated guidance regarding the prohibited substance meldonium to stakeholders that are primarily signatories to the World Anti-Doping Code (Code).

On 13 April 2016, WADA had issued a preliminary Notice providing guidance as to how organizations should manage meldonium cases within their respective jurisdictions. The Notice served to assist Stakeholders with the Results Management and Adjudication of meldonium cases until additional commissioned urinary excretionary studies relating to meldonium had been conducted by WADA-accredited laboratories.

Last week, WADA received study results, which enabled the Agency to provide updated guidance to organizations managing cases where athletes claim that the substance was taken before 1 January 2016. The guidance is determined by the Urine Collection Date and the Urinary Concentration of Meldonium found in an athlete’s sample.

This updated guidance confirms that from 1 March (and up until 30 September) 2016, cases with a low concentration of meldonium found in an athlete’s sample (less than 1 μg /mL) are compatible with a no fault finding. Other cases are to be managed according to guidance by the responsible anti-doping organizations (ADOs).

The List Committee decided that meldonium needed to be added to the 2016 Prohibited List (List) based on evidence of clear abuse of the substance while it was on the List’s 2015 Monitoring Program. Typically, WADA does not commission excretion studies for substances that are added to the List as the Agency is generally able to rely on this information being provided by the manufacturer or regulatory authorities. In the case of meldonium, however, no information relating to urinary excretion was available and so once it was added to the List, WADA undertook excretion studies.

“We are pleased that the necessary urinary excretion studies have now progressed; and that, the guidance we are now able to provide our stakeholders to help them manage meldonium cases is clear and scientifically robust,” said WADA President, Sir Craig Reedie.

“The addition of meldonium to the Prohibited List created an unprecedented situation and therefore, during a transitional period, it warranted additional guidance for those in the anti-doping community tasked with managing cases,” said Oliver Niggli, Director General. “We place full trust in the ability of our Stakeholders to manage meldonium cases effectively, and will be on hand to assist them as necessary.” "

And from the update. ...

"To summarize, this means that for urinary concentrations of meldonium:
• below 1 µg/mL, for samples collected on or before 30 September 2016, results management
may proceed and a finding of no fault may be made unless there is other evidence indicating
use of meldonium on or after 1 January 2016.
• between 5 and 15 µg/mL, for samples collected on or before 29 February 2016, and
concentrations between 1 and 5 µg/mL for samples collected between 1 March and before
30 September 2016, ADOs may contact the WADA Science Department at Science@wada-
ama.org for assistance facilitating scientific review and interpretation.
• above 0.1 µg/mL (or 100 ng/mL), for samples collected after 30 September 2016, normal
results management shall proceed in accordance with the World Anti-Doping Code and the
relevant ADO’s rules.
• given the results of the studies, it cannot be excluded that, at very low dosages, as indicated in the above table, the use of meldonium could have occurred before the Prohibited List was
published by WADA on 29 September 2015. In these unique circumstances, WADA would
consider it acceptable that the athlete’s results not be disqualified or be reinstated in the
absence of any evidence that meldonium was used after 29 September 2015.

Finally, Specific Gravity should be taken into account to correct the concentration of the
samples (corrected to 1.020) in cases where the correction would be more favorable to the
athlete.
We trust that this guidance will be helpful to all anti-doping organisations that are managing
meldonium cases. "

 

[Spongebob]

Maria's appeal to CAS not to be determined until September.

Damned foreigners have put her out of the Olympics.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Looks like she was trying to use a filabuster by saying they needed lots of time to gather all documents etc ,so can I please play Olympics until hearing is heard.
No dice.
Appeal deferred.

 

[blackshadow]

Maria's off to Harvard Business School apparently...http://scroll.in/latest/810658/suspended-from-tennis-maria-sharapova-says-shes-off-to-harvard

What is it with dopers and business schools?

 

[Satan]

Ban cut to 15 months according to media reports
http://m.bbc.com/sport/tennis/37549424