Maria Sharapova announces positive drug test

[NewMelbournian]

I felt 12 months was more than enough but 15 is an improvement on the original. She is not a worse cheater than Essendon for example, they got 12 and if you think that's fair (I do) then 12 was enough for her. Other lower profile athletes caught for the same substance as her have got less. She was punished for being honest and admitting she did take it in the few short weeks it was banned.

 

[Muggs]

Interesting that CAS specifically states the de novo nature of their hearing giving them the ability to disagree with the conclusions of the ITF tribunal in Sharapova favour.

After its de novo review here, the Panel has determined it does not agree with many of the conclusions of the Tribunal, except as otherwise specifically indicated herein.

Two things stood out to me that they disagreed on.

1. Sharapova could delegate the responsibility to check if substances are banned to her management, just as she delegated whereabouts responsibilities.

2. Unlike what the ITF tribunal found she did not hide the fact she was taking the substance from her enterourage

 

[Muggs]

I felt 12 months was more than enough but 15 is an improvement on the original. She is not a worse cheater than Essendon for example, they got 12 and if you think that's fair (I do) then 12 was enough for her. Other lower profile athletes caught for the same substance as her have got less. She was punished for being honest and admitting she did take it in the few short weeks it was banned.

As I said in the other thread EFC got 24 months, backdated due to delays not reduced due to fault like Sharapova.

If CAS found that responsibly for checking can be delegated, where the players hard done by for not getting any NSF discount? CAS where critical of the players on this, but where happy with Sharapova doing so.

In saying this the players defence team did very little in way of arguing for a reduced sentence based on NSF, trying to get them off. Where as Sharapova arguement to CAS was purely on fault.

Advocacy does matter.

 

[HairyO]

I felt 12 months was more than enough but 15 is an improvement on the original. She is not a worse cheater than Essendon for example, they got 12 and if you think that's fair (I do) then 12 was enough for her. Other lower profile athletes caught for the same substance as her have got less. She was punished for being honest and admitting she did take it in the few short weeks it was banned.

Being honest would be admitting that she was taking it for a physical advantage, not to treat some made up medical condition.

 

[NoAFLinmycomp]

As I said in the other thread EFC got 24 months, backdated due to delays not reduced due to fault like Sharapova.

If CAS found that responsibly for checking can be delegated, where the players hard done by for not getting any NSF discount? CAS where critical of the players on this, but where happy with Sharapova doing so.

In saying this the players defence team did very little in way of arguing for a reduced sentence based on NSF, trying to get them off. Where as Sharapova arguement to CAS was purely on fault.

Advocacy does matter

The difference here appeared to be the change in status of the substance she had beeen using legitimately (under the rules) at that time; and her degree of fault in not picking up the change.

So a very different scenario to absolving yourself of any personal responsibility of any substance checking, at all.

The panel were very specific in calling out the targeted focus of the case that they were adjudicating on and resulting award given.

The next time this happens (2017 changes were announced last week) one would think the penalties would be higher, as there has been a very high profile reminder.

http://www.lawinsport.com/sports-la...-the-ban-of-maria-sharapova-to-fifteen-months
...
"The Panel found that Ms Sharapova committed an anti-doping rule violation and that while it was with “no significant fault”, she bore some degree of fault, for which a sanction of fifteen months is appropriate. The Panel wishes to point out that the case it heard, and the award it has rendered, was only about the degree of fault that can be imputed to the player for her failure to make sure that the substance contained in a product that she had been taking over a long period remained in compliance with the anti-doping rules."

 

[Muggs]

The difference here appeared to be the change in status of the substance she had beeen using legitimately (under the rules) at that time; and her degree of fault in not picking up the change.

So a very different scenario to absolving yourself of any personal responsibility of any substance checking, at all.

The panel were very specific in calling out the targeted focus of the case that they were adjudicating on and resulting award given.

The next time this happens (2017 changes were announced last week) one would think the penalties would be higher, as there has been a very high profile reminder.

http://www.lawinsport.com/sports-la...-the-ban-of-maria-sharapova-to-fifteen-months
...
"The Panel found that Ms Sharapova committed an anti-doping rule violation and that while it was with “no significant fault”, she bore some degree of fault, for which a sanction of fifteen months is appropriate. The Panel wishes to point out that the case it heard, and the award it has rendered, was only about the degree of fault that can be imputed to the player for her failure to make sure that the substance contained in a product that she had been taking over a long period remained in compliance with the anti-doping rules."

Her degree of fault is certainly what changed, just interesting on what basis it was changed. The ITF tribunal took a much stricter line on what her responsibilities and finding her manager was unqualified where as CAS found it was reasonable that her manager was responsible for checking, as he was qualified and she failed to tell him how to check, and put controls in place to ensure he checked, to the extent CAS even specifically stated "Such circumstances show some degree of fault on the part of the Player, but they do not exclude altogether the possibility for the Player to invoke NSF"

If you look at what basis he was qualified familiarity with anti-doping rules through doing such things as submitting whereabouts and TUEs both of which are the responsibilities of clubs, his income was dependant on her think you could make an argument that this could also apply to footy players and their clubs with the EFC making much the same mistakes.

Even taking this into account you right in that the change in status played a big part as well and CAS was critical of ITF in how they notified players about the change (probably the third big change) and this certainly played a factor in her getting 15 months.

 

[NoAFLinmycomp]

Interesting interview with Ings, turns out he was a witness called for Sharapova at CAS.

https://m.soundcloud.com/fiveaa/ric...ndcloud&utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=twitter

 

[NoAFLinmycomp]

Her degree of fault is certainly what changed, just interesting on what basis it was changed. The ITF tribunal took a much stricter line on what her responsibilities and finding her manager was unqualified where as CAS found it was reasonable that her manager was responsible for checking, as he was qualified and she failed to tell him how to check, and put controls in place to ensure he checked, to the extent CAS even specifically stated "Such circumstances show some degree of fault on the part of the Player, but they do not exclude altogether the possibility for the Player to invoke NSF"

If you look at what basis he was qualified familiarity with anti-doping rules through doing such things as submitting whereabouts and TUEs both of which are the responsibilities of clubs, his income was dependant on her think you could make an argument that this could also apply to footy players and their clubs with the EFC making much the same mistakes.

Even taking this into account you right in that the change in status played a big part as well and CAS was critical of ITF in how they notified players about the change (probably the third big change) and this certainly played a factor in her getting 15 months.

From Ings' comments in the interview, it was a failure on 4 levels, so Sharapova was one of 4 parties responsible for the failure.
WADA for "sending out an email and hoping all athletes read it".
ITF for not communicating effectively, including followup/reinforcement at the first major tournament of the year.
Sharapova's support team for not identifying the change and acting on it.
Sharapova herself in not reading the WADA communication and acting, instead relying on support team to do so.

Ings' take on it was that yes she was clearly guilty of a violation, but there was no intent and there were other contributing factors that were outside her direct control.

Point was made that the penalty is still harsher than that given to the EFC players by CAS. Looking at the 4 points of failure for Sharapova, I only see a parallel to possibly two points of failure for EFC players - they didn't check, they outsourced their reponsibility. And as you point out, the defence at CAS was poorly positioned. Individually, I think CAS may have been more open to reducing the penalties further, who knows.

The net impact was also considerably more than probably the entire EFC outfit, in $ terms.

What is in her benefit I guess, is that she did not change or hide her use after it was deemed illegal.

There was a brief reference to the outstanding appeal to Swiss court, where Ings' commented that he still felt it was a "hail mary shot".

 

[Randomizor]

Her degree of fault is certainly what changed, just interesting on what basis it was changed. The ITF tribunal took a much stricter line on what her responsibilities and finding her manager was unqualified where as CAS found it was reasonable that her manager was responsible for checking, as he was qualified and she failed to tell him how to check, and put controls in place to ensure he checked, to the extent CAS even specifically stated "Such circumstances show some degree of fault on the part of the Player, but they do not exclude altogether the possibility for the Player to invoke NSF"

If you look at what basis he was qualified familiarity with anti-doping rules through doing such things as submitting whereabouts and TUEs both of which are the responsibilities of clubs, his income was dependant on her think you could make an argument that this could also apply to footy players and their clubs with the EFC making much the same mistakes.

Even taking this into account you right in that the change in status played a big part as well and CAS was critical of ITF in how they notified players about the change (probably the third big change) and this certainly played a factor in her getting 15 months.

Would Dank really count as "qualified" though? I'd argue Reid would be the qualified one in EFC's scenario.

 

[Muggs]

Would Dank really count as "qualified" though? I'd argue Reid would be the qualified one in EFC's scenario.

i was not specific to Dank, meant the club as a whole, as its the club overall that's responsible for the players anti-doping arrangements, (whereabouts, TUEs etc) just as in Sharapova case it's her manager and his organisation...

 

[Muggs]

Point was made that the penalty is still harsher than that given to the EFC players by CAS. Looking at the 4 points of failure for Sharapova, I only see a parallel to possibly two points of failure for EFC players - they didn't check, they outsourced their reponsibility. And as you point out, the defence at CAS was poorly positioned. Individually, I think CAS may have been more open to reducing the penalties further, who knows.

The net impact was also considerably more than probably the entire EFC outfit, in $ terms.
.

Personally I would argue penalty wise players was harsher as their actual penalty was two years it was only administrative delays that pushed it to approx 14 months, something not at play in Sharapovas case. The players were given zero NSF discount, both had similar amounts of provisional suspension counted. A NSF reduction is personal shows you did something right, and administrative reduction due to prosecution doing things wrong. Thus from a reputation point of view penalty harsher on the players.

Would add an additional failure, doping forms.

Net impact $ who knows, but two very different things international sports star compared to a single country played sport. Also depends what you measuring, counting what the various insurance companies are paying out or not?

 

[NoAFLinmycomp]

Personally I would argue penalty wise players was harsher as their actual penalty was two years it was only administrative delays that pushed it to approx 14 months, something not at play in Sharapovas case. The players were given zero NSF discount, both had similar amounts of provisional suspension counted. A NSF reduction is personal shows you did something right, and administrative reduction due to prosecution doing things wrong. Thus from a reputation point of view penalty harsher on the players.

Would add an additional failure, doping forms.

Net impact $ who knows, but two very different things international sports star compared to a single country played sport. Also depends what you measuring, counting what the various insurance companies are paying out or not?

Yes the net impact could be well debated. It was a point that the radio personalities dwelled on so I thought it a point of comparison to add.

Taking in to account the insurance coverage (or not coverage if it is later recouped) for the court shenanigans and payouts, I think there were some figures on the web that were north of the $30m, that pundits on this HTB had put forward for the total EFC impact - up to $50m:

http://time.com/money/4361558/tennis-maria-sharapova-doping-ban-cost/

Back on the reduction due to NSF, I think that was CAS' point and was also Ings' angle - WADA and particularly ATF were also at fault, due to poor nature of communication for a previously approved substance, that is so readily available and used in that country.

It was an interesting angle - would love to see one of the legal sites now interpret this outcome and how ot could have changed the EFC CAS defence, had it happened first.

Interesting that towards the end, Ings riterated that he felt that neither Sharapova and the EFC 34 were intended drug cheats.

He's occasionally guilty of presenting as "soured ex-employee" at times, but I didn't have the same reaction this time, although he was still sticking to the "failure of the anti-doping bodies" line - probably why he was bought in as a witness FOR Sharapova!

 

[Muggs]

Back on the reduction due to NSF, I think that was CAS' point and was also Ings' angle - WADA and particularly ATF were also at fault, due to poor nature of communication for a previously approved substance, that is so readily available and used in that country.

It was an interesting angle - would love to see one of the legal sites now interpret this outcome and how ot could have changed the EFC CAS defence, had it happened first.

No issue with putting the blame mostly at the feet of the ITF - Sharapova defence highlighted how many of the other sporting federations and NADO handled this compared to the ITF. Just find it kind of strange blame WADA not not telling the athletes, but WADA told the sporting federations she praised...

From a legal angle don't think it changes much, the cases Sharapova team cited were all available to the defence in the EFC case, she did not really set any new precedent. The EFC 34 defence team just did a shocking job on NSF in my opinion (as I said so at the time of the decision).

Interesting that towards the end, Ings riterated that he felt that neither Sharapova and the EFC 34 were intended drug cheats.

He's occasionally guilty of presenting as "soured ex-employee" at times, but I didn't have the same reaction this time, although he was still sticking to the "failure of the anti-doping bodies" line - probably why he was bought in as a witness FOR Sharapova!

Ah the good old debate this forum had many (many many) times on what is a cheat, is a cheat someone who breaks the rules, or is a cheat someone who intentionally breaks the rules.

Personally with Ings on this one, cheats are someone who intentionally breaks the rules, CAS highlighted Sharapova did not do so intentionally, and in the players case never ruled on intent as was not an issue pre 2015 WADA code.

 

[NewMelbournian]

Being honest would be admitting that she was taking it for a physical advantage, not to treat some made up medical condition.

That's nonsense. Every medication on earth is designed to give you a benefit, or advantage, of some kind. If it didn't you wouldn't take it. It applies to her and every athlete who isn't in trouble. Read up about the leaks that show all the athletes who are allowed to take banned substances.

 

[HairyO]

That's nonsense. Every medication on earth is designed to give you a benefit, or advantage, of some kind. If it didn't you wouldn't take it. It applies to her and every athlete who isn't in trouble. Read up about the leaks that show all the athletes who are allowed to take banned substances.

So she had a medical complaint which required taking this medicine?

Otherwise which bit was nonsense?

 

[Bombermania]

Personally with Ings on this one, cheats are someone who intentionally breaks the rules, CAS highlighted Sharapova did not do so intentionally, and in the players case never ruled on intent as was not an issue pre 2015 WADA code.

Having read the ITF report I am not so sure, there seems to be plenty of evidence to suggest that Maria was bending the rules.

-Never mentioned the medication to American doctors or the WTA, but raised it with her Russian doctors
-Her manager's evidence was questionable
-She stopped seeing the first doctor and kept taking the medication long after the need to do so
-Increased use before big matches

The ITF report was pretty damming.

 

[Muggs]

Having read the ITF report I am not so sure, there seems to be plenty of evidence to suggest that Maria was bending the rules.

-Never mentioned the medication to American doctors or the WTA, but raised it with her Russian doctors
-Her manager's evidence was questionable
-She stopped seeing the first doctor and kept taking the medication long after the need to do so
-Increased use before big matches

The ITF report was pretty damming.

CAS was pretty damming on the ITF and disagreed with them on your first three points.

Even the ITF said she had no intent to take a PED.

Find it kind of amusing to be brought up on this by a Bomber supporter as was using this to highlight there is a difference between intent to be in a program and gain an edge and intent to take a PED.

Difference between going to the edge of the cliff and going over the cliff

 

[yaco55]

Personally I would argue penalty wise players was harsher as their actual penalty was two years it was only administrative delays that pushed it to approx 14 months, something not at play in Sharapovas case. The players were given zero NSF discount, both had similar amounts of provisional suspension counted. A NSF reduction is personal shows you did something right, and administrative reduction due to prosecution doing things wrong. Thus from a reputation point of view penalty harsher on the players.

Would add an additional failure, doping forms.

Net impact $ who knows, but two very different things international sports star compared to a single country played sport. Also depends what you measuring, counting what the various insurance companies are paying out or not?

A good post as usual - My question - Did Sharapova list meldonium on her doping control form ?

 

[Muggs]

A good post as usual - My question - Did Sharapova list meldonium on her doping control form ?

No hence the additional failure doping forms (I.e being the same)...answered your question in the post you responded to.

 

[yaco55]

Interesting. Sounds like if she had denied and protested her innocence she might have been in the clear. Can't see how she could possibly participate in the Olympics after an admission of guilt. Sounds more like classic F***-you Russian Federation defiance.

Nailed it - Sharapova was praised for being honest at her presser to announce her positive drug test - I questioned her stance at the time and its come back to bite her - Stayed silent and she would be probably be playing tennis now, seeing what a fiasco Meldonium has been in sport.

 

[yaco55]

Anyway as I posted many months ago 'Meldonium' has been a fiasco of the highest order - Many innocent athletes had their years ruined by the incompetence of WADA - One hopes this never happens again.