Maria Sharapova announces positive drug test

Remove this Banner Ad

These Meldonium positives have got out of control - Something has gone wrong, either with the communication with athletes, or more likely the substance lingering in the system for long periods.

One thing I know about athletes, is doping/cheating is professionally and fastidiously organised - This will be an interesting story to follow.
 
yaco55 said:
These Meldonium positives have got out of control - Something has gone wrong, either with the communication with athletes, or more likely the substance lingering in the system for long periods.

One thing I know about athletes, is doping/cheating is professionally and fastidiously organised - This will be an interesting story to follow.
Click to expand...

Re the glow time of Meldonium.

From what I can find, it appears to be 24-48 hrs.
http://www.bluelight.org/vb/threads/771993-PEDs-for-endurance-Meldonium

Have you got a source to the contrary - would be interested to read it.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

This is still playing out. So "stay or pursue" means Sharapova could still play whilst this is worked through?

I can't remember if she admitted that she was still using after 01/01/16?

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/n...nt-on-meldonium-notice-issued-to-stakeholders


WADA Statement on Meldonium Notice issued to Stakeholders

WADA issued Notice to Stakeholders regarding meldonium
The Notice provides clarification regarding its inclusion on the Prohibited List; existing excretion studies and those underway; and, the results management and adjudication process
It reinforces the principle of strict liability for athletes under the World Anti-Doping Code; and, the assessment of fault under the Code that is the duty of the robust Results Management and Adjudication process
Yesterday, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) issued a Notice regarding meldonium to its stakeholders that are primarily signatories to the World Anti-Doping Code (Code). The Notice provides clarification regarding its inclusion on the Prohibited List; existing excretion studies and those that are underway; as well as guidance regarding the Results Management and Adjudication process.

“There is no doubt as to the status of meldonium as a prohibited substance,” said WADA President, Sir Craig Reedie. “There is equally no doubt that the principle of strict liability under the Code; as well as, the well established process for results management and adjudication prevail,” he continued.

“Since meldonium was prohibited on 1 January of this year, there have been 172 positive samples for the substance, for athletes across numerous countries and sports,” Reedie said. “Concurrently, there has been a call by stakeholders for further clarification and guidance,” he continued. “WADA recognizes this need -- that meldonium is a particular substance, which has created an unprecedented situation and therefore warranted additional guidance for the anti-doping community.”

In keeping with the Code, an athlete remains wholly responsible for any prohibited substance found in their body. In the event that a prohibited substance is detected, the onus in on the athlete to explain how the substance got into their body.

There is currently limited data available on excretion studies relating to meldonium; and, as such, several studies are currently being conducted involving WADA accredited laboratories, which WADA will share when available. Until such time, the Notice provides guidance as to how organizations should manage meldonium cases within their respective jurisdictions, which may be to ‘pursue’ or ‘stay’ until further excretion research has been made available.
 
NoAFLinmycomp said:
This is still playing out. So "stay or pursue" means Sharapova could still play whilst this is worked through?

I can't remember if she admitted that she was still using after 01/01/16?

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/n...nt-on-meldonium-notice-issued-to-stakeholders


WADA Statement on Meldonium Notice issued to Stakeholders

WADA issued Notice to Stakeholders regarding meldonium
The Notice provides clarification regarding its inclusion on the Prohibited List; existing excretion studies and those underway; and, the results management and adjudication process
It reinforces the principle of strict liability for athletes under the World Anti-Doping Code; and, the assessment of fault under the Code that is the duty of the robust Results Management and Adjudication process
Yesterday, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) issued a Notice regarding meldonium to its stakeholders that are primarily signatories to the World Anti-Doping Code (Code). The Notice provides clarification regarding its inclusion on the Prohibited List; existing excretion studies and those that are underway; as well as guidance regarding the Results Management and Adjudication process.

“There is no doubt as to the status of meldonium as a prohibited substance,” said WADA President, Sir Craig Reedie. “There is equally no doubt that the principle of strict liability under the Code; as well as, the well established process for results management and adjudication prevail,” he continued.

“Since meldonium was prohibited on 1 January of this year, there have been 172 positive samples for the substance, for athletes across numerous countries and sports,” Reedie said. “Concurrently, there has been a call by stakeholders for further clarification and guidance,” he continued. “WADA recognizes this need -- that meldonium is a particular substance, which has created an unprecedented situation and therefore warranted additional guidance for the anti-doping community.”

In keeping with the Code, an athlete remains wholly responsible for any prohibited substance found in their body. In the event that a prohibited substance is detected, the onus in on the athlete to explain how the substance got into their body.

There is currently limited data available on excretion studies relating to meldonium; and, as such, several studies are currently being conducted involving WADA accredited laboratories, which WADA will share when available. Until such time, the Notice provides guidance as to how organizations should manage meldonium cases within their respective jurisdictions, which may be to ‘pursue’ or ‘stay’ until further excretion research has been made available.
Click to expand...
So they are unsure how long the substance stays in the body?
 
jenny61_99 said:
So they are unsure how long the substance stays in the body?
Click to expand...
Sounds like it.

Although that should still be a case of "user beware", as it was known since October that was to be listed and it was monitored for use during a lot of last year?

I wouldn't have thought that it was also WADA's responsibility to communicate a safe "excretion window", for individual athletes, so as not to ping hot from 01/01/16.
Umm, don't dwell too much on "excretion window", as a mental image ...:eek:

TUEs would be the exception still, one would think.
 
Interesting angle - did Sharapova declare it if/when she has been tested, including the last run-down to it being listed?

EFC's place in sports doping history enshrined, for many, future references.

http://m.theage.com.au/sport/tennis...ia-president-steve-healy-20160421-gobxpk.html
....
But Healy believes that whether or not Sharapova disclosed her meldonium use during the drug-testing process will be "a critical factor" in the length of her penalty, based on the CAS judgement to uphold WADA's appeal against the AFL tribunal decision to clear 34 past and present Essendon footballers players of taking the banned peptide Thymosin beta-4 in 2012.

"If she had disclosed it, I think she'd actually get some sympathy because you'd say 'ok, pretty bad error in December or even before that not to have picked it up, but she wasn't trying to hide it, she actually acknowledged it herself', and I think that would go to penalty," Healy told Fairfax Media.
....
 
http://www.bbc.com/sport/swimming/36354552
Russia's Yulia Efimova has had her provisional suspension for doping lifted by swimming's governing body.

The 24-year-old, who won 200m breaststroke bronze at the London 2012 Olympics, was given a provisional ban after testing positive for meldonium.

The International Swimming Federation (Fina) lifted the ban after advice from the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada).
A statement from Fina read: "Wada is to undertake further scientific research on meldonium and have therefore recommended to Fina that the suspension of the swimmer should be lifted."
Click to expand...
 
Sharapova has been named in Russian Olympic team, with the Russian Tennis org saying her case will be resolved this week.

The World Anti-Doping Association (Wada) then admitted in April that scientists were unsure how long meldonium stayed in the system, suggesting athletes who tested positive for the substance before 1 March could avoid bans.

However, Sharapova has already admitted she continued taking meldonium past 1 January, when the substance was added to Wada's banned list.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/36388049
 
Spongebob said:
Sharapova has been named in Russian Olympic team, with the Russian Tennis org saying her case will be resolved this week.

The World Anti-Doping Association (Wada) then admitted in April that scientists were unsure how long meldonium stayed in the system, suggesting athletes who tested positive for the substance before 1 March could avoid bans.

However, Sharapova has already admitted she continued taking meldonium past 1 January, when the substance was added to Wada's banned list.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/36388049
Click to expand...
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.
 
Spongebob said:
Sharapova has been named in Russian Olympic team, with the Russian Tennis org saying her case will be resolved this week.

The World Anti-Doping Association (Wada) then admitted in April that scientists were unsure how long meldonium stayed in the system, suggesting athletes who tested positive for the substance before 1 March could avoid bans.

However, Sharapova has already admitted she continued taking meldonium past 1 January, when the substance was added to Wada's banned list.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/36388049
Click to expand...

Just Russia going we need to submit out team for the Olympics soon, maybe before the ITF tribunal announces the penalty, If she gets treated softly and gets 6 months she can play at the Olympics, if she cant play we promote a reserve instead. Either way her name needs to be on the paper work.
 
She's a top chick, where's the proof, it was legal last year, victim of the system!

Was interesting to note that they believed she had misunderstood that it was illegal by confusing the names but still highlighted her responisbilty to know what is going into her body.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Spongebob said:
Sharapova gets 2 years.

http://www.news.com.au/sport/tennis...n/news-story/891acc0cba783dd80488e14f6efaabd6



World awaits JoondalupJ coming to her defence.
Click to expand...

Having a quick look through the decision the reasons for her getting two years and not one, I.e argument around no significant fault are near identical to the EFC 34 case. Did not disclose on her doping control form, yet disclosed other substances, no effort to check the substance herself, relied on assurances of others etc.

Nice seeing anti-doping panels being consistent.

The 4 years down to 2 was due to lack of intent to take something banned. This was a point introduced in the 2015 code, and not relevant to the EFC 34 case as intent did not need to be addressed under the 2010 code.
 
Essendon will be replacing its prematch air raid siren with a number of loud grunts.

I expected 12 months, based on what was previously known about the case it seemed to be an accident but the evidence in the report is a bit more damming, things like not listing the medication in 2015 and for not seeking medical advice for some time.
 
Muggs said:
The 4 years down to 2 was due to lack of intent to take something banned. This was a point introduced in the 2015 code, and not relevant to the EFC 34 case as intent did not need to be addressed under the 2010 code.
Click to expand...
Ah - hadn't found a copy of the decision as yet and was wondering if the 2 year ban was a point of interest for WADA, from their brief statement.

Agree with rdhopkins that at this point it would more likely be Sharapova that would appeal to CAS, alongside potentially a few others in the same predicament. Expecting she may have a local appeal option first, or is that an AFL speciality?

The consistency for the decision is good though - all being held to similar standards.

It will be interesting to see how good Sharapova's legal team is (in comparison to other, recent examples) and and who they bring in for guidance; and later CAS panel selection, if it pans out that way.

WADA's brief statement:

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2016-06/wada-statement-regarding-maria-sharapova-case

"WADA acknowledges the decision issued today by the International Tennis Federation’s (ITF) Independent Tribunal which found that Maria Sharapova committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV) for the use of banned substance Meldonium, and that, as a consequence, a period of ineligibility of two (2) years has been imposed, commencing on 26 January 2016.

As with all decisions made by Anti-Doping Organizations, WADA will review the decision, including its reasoning, and will subsequently decide whether or not to use its independent right of appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)."
 
Last edited:
NoAFLinmycomp said:
Ah - hadn't found a copy of the decision as yet and was wondering if the 2 year ban was a point of interest for WADA, from their brief statement.

Agree woth rdhopkins that at this point it is more likely that Sharapova would appeal to CAS, alongside potentially a few others in the same predicament. Expecting she may have a local appeal option first, or is that an AFL speciality?

The consistency for the decision is good though - all being held to similar standards.

It will be interesting to see how good Sharapova's legal team is (in comparison to other, recent examples) and and who they bring in for guidance; and later CAS panel selection, if it pans out that way.

WADA's brief statement:

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2016-06/wada-statement-regarding-maria-sharapova-case

"WADA acknowledges the decision issued today by the International Tennis Federation’s (ITF) Independent Tribunal which found that Maria Sharapova committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV) for the use of banned substance Meldonium, and that, as a consequence, a period of ineligibility of two (2) years has been imposed, commencing on 26 January 2016.

As with all decisions made by Anti-Doping Organizations, WADA will review the decision, including its reasoning, and will subsequently decide whether or not to use its independent right of appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)."
Click to expand...

ITF released it with their press release

http://www.itftennis.com/news/231175.aspx
 
NoAFLinmycomp said:
Sharapova would appeal to CAS, alongside potentially a few others in
It will be interesting to see how good Sharapova's legal team is (in comparison to other, recent examples) and and who they bring in for guidance; and later CAS panel selection, if it pans out that way.

WADA's brief statement:

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2016-06/wada-statement-regarding-maria-sharapova-case

"WADA acknowledges the decision issued today by the International Tennis Federation’s (ITF) Independent Tribunal which found that Maria Sharapova committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV) for the use of banned substance Meldonium, and that, as a consequence, a period of ineligibility of two (2) years has been imposed, commencing on 26 January 2016.

As with all decisions made by Anti-Doping Organizations, WADA will review the decision, including its reasoning, and will subsequently decide whether or not to use its independent right of appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)."
Click to expand...

Is worth pointing out that Sharapova admitted to taking a dose before each game during to Australian open. So she could be different from a number of cases as its not about it remaining in her system, she was still actively using it.

Therefore any appeal to CAS is risky (the AFL is the oddball) as they could decide differently on intent with a de novo hearing and all. Particularly if WADA appeals on this basis.
 
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.
 
Muggs said:
I'm going more with her pants down, red handed to me suggests intent which was not found..
Click to expand...

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.
 
Bombermania said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Maria Sharapova announces positive drug test

Similar threads

A
This is the way to treat drug cheats
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
PoppedCorn
PoppedCorn

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top