Sharapova announces failed drug test

Veejay wrote:@ LK loud mouthed smug sour puss sharapova's "we'll see" threat amounts to nothing in madrid 
doesnt look like she took my advice cause she threw everything she had at bouchard and still lost
its looking more and more to me like she desperately needs to go back on meldonium again,suggesting further more that its every bit a PED for her as i suspected

Must have been her heart problem that was playing up or was it her diabetes. Ah well, never mind, she can still continue to sell diabetes inducing sugarpovas to little kids for a living.

TMF wrote:

Veejay wrote:@ LK loud mouthed smug sour puss sharapova's "we'll see" threat amounts to nothing in madrid 
doesnt look like she took my advice cause she threw everything she had at bouchard and still lost
its looking more and more to me like she desperately needs to go back on meldonium again,suggesting further more that its every bit a PED for her as i suspected

Must have been her heart problem that was playing up or was it her diabetes. Ah well, never mind, she can still continue to sell diabetes inducing sugarpovas to little kids for a living.

dont you think its a miracle how her condition miraculously disappeared? theres been virtually no talk of it since she claimed she had one...djokovic should fire his guru and do whatever sharapova has been doing...

legendkillar wrote:Indeed Vee. Don't mind being proven wrong last night. Been a while since I saw an emotionally charged match with the crowd invested. Such a shame such rivalries are missing in the sport.

What I will say is if Bouchard played every match like that she'd be back in the top 10 in no time at all. Challenge now is backing that result up.

you werent proven wrong LK it was big mouth sharapova who alluded to the fact that she will have the last laugh on court 
that must have been a pretty humiliating loss after such a threat

bogbrush wrote:I saw a bit of it. Boy, was it low standard tennis.

It would have been far better had they settled their differences in the traditional way; mud wrestling.

i agree,who would you bet on winning the mud wrestling Bogbrush? 
i would place my bet on sharapova..i reckon that meldonium would give her the edge 

Veejay wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I saw a bit of it. Boy, was it low standard tennis.

It would have been far better had they settled their differences in the traditional way; mud wrestling.

i agree,who would you bet on winning the mud wrestling Bogbrush? 
i would place my bet on sharapova..i reckon that meldonium would give her the edge 

Oh she'd win, but I'd pay more to watch Genie!

bogbrush wrote:

Veejay wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I saw a bit of it. Boy, was it low standard tennis.

It would have been far better had they settled their differences in the traditional way; mud wrestling.

i agree,who would you bet on winning the mud wrestling Bogbrush? 
i would place my bet on sharapova..i reckon that meldonium would give her the edge 

Oh she'd win, but I'd pay more to watch Genie!

id pay to watch both with serena as the referee    
serena would suit sumo wrestling more though 

RG does NOT grant a main draw or qualifying wild card to mara sharapova
good on them i say,no one coming back from a doping ban should be given wilds cards on a silver plate,let them earn their place 
sorry NITB,doesnt seem like RG agree with you that everyone is dying to see maria playing 
as you can see,they dont need her or care to see her compete there 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/39932614

Excellent


"There can be a wildcard for the return from injuries - there cannot be a wildcard for the return from doping," French Tennis Federation chief Bernard Giudicelli Ferrandini said.

LOL - all those euphemisms team Sugarpova were bandying about - at least this guy is telling it as it is.

i guess that there will not be any wild cards for unintentional dopers either lol
sharapova,her team and sponsors can try to spin this with all the politically correct terms they can come up with,RG will just  make them look stupid by calling it what it is  
so if she makes the semi final this week in rome she will most likely be ranked high enough to qualify for wimbledon
wouldnt it be hilarious if they refused her entry into the wimbledon main draw even though she was eligible

bad day for sharapova,first refused a wild card by RG now theres an injury enforced retirement from rome which means that sharapova cannot qualify for the wimbledon main draw 
she is however eligible for the qualifiers though 
looks like she desperately needs to go back on meldonium

So the Aegon Classic have given her wildcard so that she plays there for the next 2 years. Let's see that principle go up in smoke once she gets near the top again.

Never liked Birmingham the shithole!

the tournament must be desperate for big name attractions,but shes been a favourite there for as long as i can remember,using that as her warm up grass event ever since she won wimbledon 
i dont know what the point is,she may not even qualify to play wimbledon but if the eagon classic is giving her a wild card then we have to assume that the all england club  will most likely too 
it would make wimbledon look bad if they gave her a wild card and RG didnt

Sharapova opts to go to W qualifying rather than request a WC. I suspect she knows they woulda just told her to go and qualify.

Emancipator wrote:Sharapova opts to go to W qualifying rather than request a WC. I suspect she knows they woulda just told her to go and qualify.

she is eligible to play to qualify for the main draw but if the eagon classic is giving her a wild card then you have to wonder if wimbledon may just give her one too

This might interest a few tonight

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/40056765

legendkillar wrote:This might interest a few tonight

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/40056765

thats how both michael jackson and prince got hooked on drugs and became drugs addicts,through painkillers 
they can be very very addictive and in both instances led to taking harder types of opioids 
prince apparently died from a heroin overdose even though he was HIV+ and jackson a synthetic stronger version of heroin 
that was legally administered to him
its debatable whether meldonium has performance enhancing abilities,but if in sharapovas case you have to wonder if she could have been hooked on it,especiallay having taken it for 10+ years... so even more the reason to continue taking the drug knowing that the drug was being banned

Veejay wrote:

legendkillar wrote:This might interest a few tonight

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/40056765

thats how both michael jackson and prince got hooked on drugs and became drugs addicts,through painkillers 
they can be very very addictive and in both instances led to taking harder types of opioids 
prince apparently died from a heroin overdose even though he was HIV+ and jackson a synthetic stronger version of heroin 
that was legally administered to him
its debatable whether meldonium has performance enhancing abilities,but if in sharapovas case you have to wonder if she could have been hooked on it,especiallay having taken it for 10+ years... so even more the reason to continue taking the drug knowing that the drug was being banned

you don't make sense and you know it. It s not by repeating it like a broken record that you, let alone us, are going to believe it.

No athlete with $$millions sponsors would take the risk to take such an easily traceable drug. She was found out and the loss of being caught was much bigger than the benefit of taking it. It does not add up. you have yet to tell why she'd be prepared to sacrify her career and sponsors for a non-proven increase in chances to win a slam

Tenez wrote:

Veejay wrote:

legendkillar wrote:This might interest a few tonight

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/40056765

thats how both michael jackson and prince got hooked on drugs and became drugs addicts,through painkillers 
they can be very very addictive and in both instances led to taking harder types of opioids 
prince apparently died from a heroin overdose even though he was HIV+ and jackson a synthetic stronger version of heroin 
that was legally administered to him
its debatable whether meldonium has performance enhancing abilities,but if in sharapovas case you have to wonder if she could have been hooked on it,especiallay having taken it for 10+ years... so even more the reason to continue taking the drug knowing that the drug was being banned

you don't make sense and you know it. It s not by repeating it like a broken record that you, let alone us, are going to believe it.

No athlete with $$millions sponsors would take the risk to take such an easily traceable drug. She was found out and the loss of being caught was much bigger than the benefit of taking it. It does not add up. you have yet to tell why she'd be prepared to sacrify her career and sponsors for a non-proven increase in chances to win a slam

ive asked you this question before and you never bothered to reply,how do you know for a fact that meldonium is easily traceable? can you proof it?
im not saying that there arent tests that can detect the drug but there is a massive difference between "traceable" and "easily traceable" 
didnt LK point out that there were a load of athletes who have tested positive for meldoniums after it was banned?
are you really going to expect me to believe that they ALL missed the memo that the drug was banned? 
does that not proof that there are loads of athletes who risked taking an "easily traceable drug " as you put it risking their careers in the process?
otherwise how do you explain them knowing that the drug was banned and them testing positive for the banned drug?
every athletes who fails a drugs test has risked their career,endorsement and whatever comes with it so your argument makes NO SENSE 
or are you going to tell me that every single athlete who ever failed a drugs test never intended to cheat and never intended to risk their career,endorsements and whatever $$ in the process?

why are you defending someone who has lied her way out of failing a drugs test?
see its one thing to believe that banning meldonium was all political,but that has nothing to do wth someone lying to cover up failing a drugs test
if it was really just an honest mistake like missing the memo then why lie about it when there is no reason to?
throughout this entire conversation you have completely ignored and refused to address it
why is that?

Veejay wrote:ive asked you this question before and you never bothered to reply,how do you know for a fact that meldonium is easily traceable? can you proof it?

Eh yes she was caught twice and others who were using it were alos found out straight away. Some even did not get any penalty cause they could prove that the traces found dated from before teh ban! So that shows it is extremely traceable.

That answers your question once and for all! You need other arguments. so to teh next one:

im not saying that there arent test that can detect the drug but there is a massive difference between "traceable" and "easily traceable" 

No there is not at this level. If it is traceable, it is traceable and therefore easily traceable. as mentioned they can find it the body months after used!!!

so sorted that point. next:

didnt LK point out that there were a load of athletes who have tested positive for meldoniums after it was banned?
are you really going to expect m to believe that they ALL missed the memo that the drug was banned? 

Yes some must have missed it as they it was used very commonly and the CAS AGREED that the anti-doping agencies must have made a better effort to communicating. And secndly as mentioned before because teh subs stays in the body for long some were caught but not punished!!!!. I
Sorted again. up to the next point!

does that not proof that there are loads of athletes who risked taking an "easily traceable drug " as you put it risking their careers in the process?

No. it does not prove anything as all those caught were caught just after the badly communicated ban. You could prove a point if now they were to be caught again with melodium.....but guess what? no one has been caught again with melodium since!!!!!
So that sorts your last point and up tp the next one!

otherwise how do you explain them knowing that the drug was banned and them testing positive for the banned drug?

you keep repeating yourself...so I guess yuo are lacking of tangible arguments. So up to your next point:

every athletes who fails a drugs test has risked their career,endorsement and whatever comes with it so your argument makes NO SENSE 

Unless teh drug as just been banned. If she had been caught with a long time banned steroids my judgement woudl be very different. What don't you understand? Going in circle again???
Up to the next point:

or are you going to tell me that every single athlete who ever failed a drugs test never intended to cheat and never intended to risk their career,endorsements and whatever $$ in the process

And round and round you go!!! long tome banned drug v just banned drug! You-can-spot-difference? Not sure in what language I need to put it across!!

Up to your next point (or is it the same again?):

why are you defending someone who has lied her way out of failing a drugs test?
see its one thing to believe that banning meldonium was all political,but that has nothing to do wth someone lying to cover up failing a drugs test

Now you are denying the facts. She came forward to tell us she had failed a drug test and she assumed her responsibilty. What don;t you understand there again?

if it was really just an honest mistake like missing the memo then why lie about it when there is no reason to?

Again more denial of teh fact. That's exactly how her sentence was reduced by telling the jury it was an honest mistake and they perfectly understood hence the reduction in the ban.

throughout this entire conversation you have completely ignored and refused to address it
why is that?

It's funny, unlike you I don't support Serena nor Sharapova so I coudl not care less about whether she was guilty or not. I am just judging by myself and like the jury it is very clear that she made a genuine mistake as your main point (easily traceable) has been debunked.

But what you have failed to explain for a 1000th time is why wasn't she or other top atheletes not caught before with easily traceable drugs? What was Sharapova's interest in being caught with high doses of melodium twice!!! like as you said many others just after the ban ....but not since?

You do not make sense....but that's not the first time. Sorry to say.

Tenez wrote:

Veejay wrote:ive asked you this question before and you never bothered to reply,how do you know for a fact that meldonium is easily traceable? can you proof it?

Eh    yes she was caught twice and others who were using it were alos found out straight away. Some even did not get any penalty cause they could prove that the traces found dated from before teh ban! So that shows it is extremely traceable.

That answers your question once and for all! You need other arguments. so to teh next one:

im not saying that there arent test that can detect the drug but there is a massive difference between "traceable" and "easily traceable" 

No there is not at this level. If it is traceable, it is traceable and therefore easily traceable. as mentioned they can find it the body months after used!!!

so sorted that point. next:

didnt LK point out that there were a load of athletes who have tested positive for meldoniums after it was banned?
are you really going to expect m to believe that they ALL missed the memo that the drug was banned? 

Yes some must have missed it as they it was used very commonly and the CAS AGREED that the anti-doping agencies must have made a better effort to communicating. And secndly as mentioned before because teh subs stays in the body for long some were caught but not punished!!!!. I
Sorted again. up to the next point!

does that not proof that there are loads of athletes who risked taking an "easily traceable drug " as you put it risking their careers in the process?

No. it does not prove anything as all those caught were caught just after the badly communicated ban. You could prove a point if now they were to be caught again with melodium.....but guess what? no one has been caught again with melodium since!!!!!
So that sorts your last point and up tp the next one!

otherwise how do you explain them knowing that the drug was banned and them testing positive for the banned drug?

you keep repeating yourself...so I guess yuo are lacking of tangible arguments. So up to your next point:

every athletes who fails a drugs test has risked their career,endorsement and whatever comes with it so your argument makes NO SENSE 

Unless teh drug as just been banned. If she had been caught with a long time banned steroids my judgement woudl be very different. What don't you understand? Going in circle again???
Up to the next point:

or are you going to tell me that every single athlete who ever failed a drugs test never intended to cheat and never intended to risk their career,endorsements and whatever $$ in the process

And round and round you go!!! long tome banned drug v just banned drug! You-can-spot-difference? Not sure in what language I need to put it across!!

Up to your next point (or is it the same again?):

why are you defending someone who has lied her way out of failing a drugs test?
see its one thing to believe that banning meldonium was all political,but that has nothing to do wth someone lying to cover up failing a drugs test

Now you are denying the facts. She came forward to tell us she had failed a drug test and she assumed her responsibilty. What don;t you understand there again?

if it was really just an honest mistake like missing the memo then why lie about it when there is no reason to?

Again more denial of teh fact. That's exactly how her sentence was reduced by telling the jury it was an honest mistake and they perfectly understood hence the reduction in the ban.

throughout this entire conversation you have completely ignored and refused to address it
why is that?

It's funny, unlike you I don't support Serena nor Sharapova so I coudl not care less about whether she was guilty or not. I am just judging by myself and like the jury it is very clear that she made a genuine mistake as your main point (easily traceable) has been debunked.

But what you have failed to explain for a 1000th time is why wasn't she or other top atheletes not caught before with easily traceable drugs? What was Sharapova's interest in being caught with high doses of melodium twice!!! like as you said many others just after the ban ....but not since?

You do not make sense....but that's not the first time. Sorry to say.

no actually it doesnt,just because she tested positive for the drug proves that there are tests that can detect the drug,but that doent prove that its "easily traceable" so where is your proof that it is? come on show us the facts where it says that meldonium  that it is "easily traceable" 
there is a massive difference between saying a drug is easily traceable and traceable
easily traceable alludes to the fact that anyone using meldonium can test positive,traceable suggests that is a possibility no matter how small,that its plausible that someone who uses the drug could somehow still avoid testing positive..
the point is that you dont know how easy or hard it is to trace the drug,youre just assuming that its easy when the testing could possibly be quite complicated 
and what about masking agents? if there is a masking agent that could mask the drug then how is the drug easily traceable
come on no blanket statments,show us the proof
as far as i know CAS agreed that more should have been done to let sharapova know that the drug was being banned but many have the opinion that had to do with pressures from companies that she endorsees to reduce her doping ban and sugar coat it with a nice politically correct term like " unintentional doper"
none of the other tennis players complained that not enough was done to make them aware that the drug was being banned only sharapova used it as an excuse for failing a drugs test,had she never failed a drugs test would she still have complained that not enough was done to make her aware of which drugs were bring banned? i doubt it
she claimed that she should have been told personally,well no one else was told personally so why should she receive special treatment?
but thats sharapova,has every other case who tested positive for medlonium after it was banned denied that they didnt get the memo and has every other case  gone to CAS and had the doping sentence reduced or the athlete exonerated? has every other case been ruled by CAS that more should have been done to make the athletes aware that the drug was being banned?
has any other athletes who tested positive even used the same excuse sharapova did or say that more should have been done to make them aware that the drug was being banned? 
can you name every case thats been exonerated due to the drug just being banned recently and if you can what about the rest who havent? what is their excuse? 
can you show us proof of all of the above rather  then just assume or presume to make you case? 
you claimed that no one has tested positive for banned substance medonium ever since it was banned

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/videos/sports/nada-bans-top-athlete-after-testing-positive-for-meldonium.html
http://www.india.com/sports/top-indian-athlete-suspended-by-nada-after-testing-positive-for-meldonium-2164740/
as you can see the athlete was banned recently last monday it seems 
you say that no athelete would risk their career,well youre wrong because sharapova did risk her career by taking the drug,whether it was done intentionally or not,she still did it
if she wasnt sure about meldonium,all she needed to do was go online to find out 
it was her responsibility as a professional athlete to know whether the drug was banned,it was her career on the line,thts what being professional in anything is all about,you can take the initiative and no one has to policeman you
so youre wrong she did risk everything by assuming and presuming 
i am not denying any facts 
sharapova lied about the reasons why she was taking meldonium and she also didnt disclose using meldonium on a doping control form for 10 years,that is very incriminating and is a clear breach of doping control rules so why are you defending that? 
if you could care less about her being guilty or not guilty,why are you defending her lying? 
throughout this entire conversation you have tried to prove her innocence saying that this was all political because she was russian and how youre saying that you dont care whether she is guilty or not?   then why are you defending her again now? 
you claim that serena is one of the biggest dopers in the sport,but at the same time shes never tested positive for a banned substance before,so how do you explain that if we go by your principle that sharapova never failed a drugs test before so therefore that proves that she couldnt possibly be a doper
according to your logic serena who never failed a drugs test before is a guilty doper but because sharapova who never failed a drugs test before,couldnt possibly be a cheater simply because she never failed a drugs test before? even though shes the one who failed a drugs test not serena?   
so is it your logic that never testing positive for a drugs test before is proof that someone doesnt dope or that it proves that someone who fails a drugs for the first time,never intended to use a banned substance and is innocent?
how many tests did lance armstrong pass? correct me if i'm wrong but i heard that it was well over 150,i think i may even have read somewhere they he may have never failed a drugs test 
i dont make sense? lol ok...nor do you sorry 
im sorry to say no one here apart from NITB or anywhere else i have read agrees with you on this subject,that speaks volumes to me
show me who else agrees with you?

Tuned into last night. Absolutely insightful. Listening to Lewis Moody former England rugby international talking about how his immune system buckled under the constant intake of painkillers. Even more insightful was how clued in and careful the doctors were. Taking every precaution to warn them of the risks of long term drug dependency and what doses and concoctions they recommended just to get these athletes on to the training ground alone! What was clear from Lewis's experience was that the number 1 concern for the athletes was the athlete's health and that in some cases they refused to prescribe certain drugs because of athletes abusing them.

legendkillar wrote:Tuned into last night. Absolutely insightful. Listening to Lewis Moody former England rugby international talking about how his immune system buckled under the constant intake of painkillers. Even more insightful was how clued in and careful the doctors were. Taking every precaution to warn them of the risks of long term drug dependency and what doses and concoctions they recommended just to get these athletes on to the training ground alone! What was clear from Lewis's experience was that the number 1 concern for the athletes was the athlete's health and that in some cases they refused to prescribe certain drugs because of athletes abusing them.

very interesting LK
didnt sharapova in her lying press conference claim that she was advised or prescribed to take meldonoium for a heart condition or at least for some kind of medical condition?
it was later reported that you would only need to take meldonium for a few weeks to treat the condition,yet sharapova was taking the drug for 10 years!!??
are we to believe that the doctor told her to take the drug for 10 years,completely ignoring the highlighted part above??
i find that very hard to believe and in my opinion is just further proof of her lies and bogus condition 

so why was sharapova taking meldonium as a long term drug if there was no condition that existed for 10 years that needed to be treated and if as some may say the drug isnt performance enhancing?
i would really like to know the answer to that

legendkillar wrote:Tuned into last night. Absolutely insightful. Listening to Lewis Moody former England rugby international talking about how his immune system buckled under the constant intake of painkillers. Even more insightful was how clued in and careful the doctors were. Taking every precaution to warn them of the risks of long term drug dependency and what doses and concoctions they recommended just to get these athletes on to the training ground alone! What was clear from Lewis's experience was that the number 1 concern for the athletes was the athlete's health and that in some cases they refused to prescribe certain drugs because of athletes abusing them.

So you see I was right when I said they (ie Graf) take/took a minimum of 8 Ibu a day in competition.

Nowhere does the prescription in those anti-inflammatory drugs say they can take as much and the doctors can only warn but as mentioned, if you train for 4 years for the olympics or if you reach finals of tournaments regularly, you are going to abuse the drugs cause that's what sport is today: pushing limits beyond. Just look at those rugby players nowadays. they are all built alike: Steroids muscles with minimum of fat.

At the end of the day drug is rampant. we have been saying it for years but now even the authorities say so. That's actually why I think the war has now moved on the political side.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Tuned into last night. Absolutely insightful. Listening to Lewis Moody former England rugby international talking about how his immune system buckled under the constant intake of painkillers. Even more insightful was how clued in and careful the doctors were. Taking every precaution to warn them of the risks of long term drug dependency and what doses and concoctions they recommended just to get these athletes on to the training ground alone! What was clear from Lewis's experience was that the number 1 concern for the athletes was the athlete's health and that in some cases they refused to prescribe certain drugs because of athletes abusing them.

So you see I was right when I said they (ie Graf) take/took a minimum of 8 Ibu a day in competition.

Nowhere does the prescription in those anti-inflammatory drugs say they can take as much and the doctors can only warn but as mentioned, if you train for 4 years for the olympics or if you reach finals of tournaments regularly, you are going to abuse the drugs cause that's what sport is today: pushing limits beyond. Just look at those rugby players nowadays. they are all built alike: Steroids muscles with minimum of fat.

At the end of the day drug is rampant. we have been saying it for years but now even the authorities say so. That's actually why I think the war has now moved on the political side.

im still waiting to hear what you have to say tenez,heres the link that destroys your entire theory that no one has tested positive for meldonium since it was banned and that no one would risk their careers and everything else to take a drug that is so "easily traceable"

http://www.india.com/sports/top-indian-athlete-suspended-by-nada-after-testing-positive-for-meldonium-2164740/
why was this indian athlete busted and served a suspension for failing a drugs test for meldonium?
is it because this indian athlete is russian?

Veejay wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Tuned into last night. Absolutely insightful. Listening to Lewis Moody former England rugby international talking about how his immune system buckled under the constant intake of painkillers. Even more insightful was how clued in and careful the doctors were. Taking every precaution to warn them of the risks of long term drug dependency and what doses and concoctions they recommended just to get these athletes on to the training ground alone! What was clear from Lewis's experience was that the number 1 concern for the athletes was the athlete's health and that in some cases they refused to prescribe certain drugs because of athletes abusing them.

very interesting LK
didnt sharapova in her lying press conference claim that she was advised or prescribed to take meldonoium for a heart condition or at least for some kind of medical condition?
it was later reported that you would only need to take meldonium for a few weeks to treat the condition,yet sharapova was taking the drug for 10 years!!??
are we to believe that the doctor told her to take the drug for 10 years,completely ignoring the highlighted part above??
i find that very hard to believe and in my opinion is just further proof of her lies and bogus condition 

so why was sharapova taking meldonium as a long term drug if there was no condition that existed for 10 years that needed to be treated and if as some may say the drug isnt performance enhancing?
i would really like to know the answer to that

Moody at the age of 25 developed Colitis. He attributed that to his constant intake of painkillers. However, there was no direct link between a constant intake of painkillers leading to Colitis, however it was established that constant intake of painkillers can severely damage the immune system, which in turn leads to such conditions developing.

In terms of long term drug dependency and lasting side effects, it is literally on a case by case basis. Most medications will always come with the caveat of 1 in 10 or 1 in a 100 and so on in rating the likelihood of an individual side effects.

Not so much in treatment, but with doping to clearly lies with the ethics of both doctor and athlete, however also the risk appetite of the athlete. Highly effective dopers will not just look at masking agents, but also substance thresholds and what residual trace will be left in the system after the substance is administered. Thing to remember with the tracing, it could be one chemical of several in the substance that get's traced and hence it's 'signature' will point to the main substance.

Relating back to the Sharapova case. The rationale for taking the substance complete baloney, however as Tenez has said like me, the actual offence was neglect. In other words if she had absolute clarity of the impending ban of the substance, she would've stopped taking it with immediate effect. The news conference was a shambles. She essentially dug herself an un-necessary hole. No need to lie as the drug until 2016 was legal.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Tuned into last night. Absolutely insightful. Listening to Lewis Moody former England rugby international talking about how his immune system buckled under the constant intake of painkillers. Even more insightful was how clued in and careful the doctors were. Taking every precaution to warn them of the risks of long term drug dependency and what doses and concoctions they recommended just to get these athletes on to the training ground alone! What was clear from Lewis's experience was that the number 1 concern for the athletes was the athlete's health and that in some cases they refused to prescribe certain drugs because of athletes abusing them.

So you see I was right when I said they (ie Graf) take/took a minimum of 8 Ibu a day in competition.

Nowhere does the prescription in those anti-inflammatory drugs say they can take as much and the doctors can only warn but as mentioned, if you train for 4 years for the olympics or if you reach finals of tournaments regularly, you are going to abuse the drugs cause that's what sport is today: pushing limits beyond. Just look at those rugby players nowadays. they are all built alike: Steroids muscles with minimum of fat.

At the end of the day drug is rampant. we have been saying it for years but now even the authorities say so. That's actually why I think the war has now moved on the political side.

That was never in dispute. My objection was against a lack of oversight provided by a doctor or even information leaflet provided by the substance.

Rugby players are not ALL built on muscle alone. Have you ever seen the build of a prop or even defence for NFL? That's a mass of muscle and fat!

Drug dependency is nothing new, however the complications that follow on from years of abuse and dependency is largely kept quiet. I've reached the opinion now they should just legalise the majority of PED's. I can't see they would cause any longer term damage that legal substances do! Health of the athlete is paramount.

the point i was making LK is how could a doctor prescribe medication that was only necessary to take for a few weeks for a condition,for 10 years?? taking into consideration as you said "every precaution to warn them of the risks of long term drug dependency"
sorry but the 2 dont add up,if a doctor knew the risks involved would they really advise or prescribe medication to someone for 10 years when they only needed to take it for a few weeks?

im sorry but i dont agree with your assumption that had sharapova known that the drug was banned,that she would have stopped using it immediately 
you cannot prove that she would have stopped using the drug,you dont know,youre just assuming that she would have but you cannot prove it as a fact,therefore you cannot rule out the possibility that she could have continued using the drug in spite of knowing that the drug was banned
what are you basing your assumption on?
shes already proven to lie about the whole thing and hid the fact that she was using the drug on a doping control form,so what are you basing your assumption on? if its its her honesty and credibility then youve lost all credibility 
are you really going to take her word for it after she lied?
at the end of the day,its sharapova who tested positive for a banned substance
everyone can spin this as much as they want to make it look like it was political,or just gross neglect..but no one can deny the lies that were told to get her out of this situation

In relation to your first point Vee, as I stated it largely depends on the ethics of the doctor and the athlete and also the risk appetite of the athlete. Moody pointed out that the doctors on occasions refused to prescribe certain drugs because of the health of the athlete. In the Sharapova case, clearly ethics were amiss and the risk appetite was high.

About my assumption. You and I have both said we are unsure to the 'levels and limits' of Meldonium's enhancing properties. Tenez quoted that former doping chap who concluded Meldonium had no enhancing properties. If we take the side of caution and say for example Meldonium's enhancing properties are significantly less than say Testosterone, then as an athlete if you were taking a substance with low performing enhancing properties that was to be banned, that logic would dictate that the athlete would stop given the potential for legal substitutes would be greater than that of a high performing enhancing substance. All highly speculative I know, but I am adding what my thought process would be and what I would expect a doctor's to be in that situation.

I am with you on the lying element in her justification for taking the substance. Her publicist needs shooting for that debacle. Did more harm than good.

legendkillar wrote:In relation to your first point Vee, as I stated it largely depends on the ethics of the doctor and the athlete and also the risk appetite of the athlete. Moody pointed out that the doctors on occasions refused to prescribe certain drugs because of the health of the athlete. In the Sharapova case, clearly ethics were amiss and the risk appetite was high.

About my assumption. You and I have both said we are unsure to the 'levels and limits' of Meldonium's enhancing properties. Tenez quoted that former doping chap who concluded Meldonium had no enhancing properties. If we take the side of caution and say for example Meldonium's enhancing properties are significantly less than say Testosterone, then as an athlete if you were taking a substance with low performing enhancing properties that was to be banned, that logic would dictate that the athlete would stop given the potential for legal substitutes would be greater than that of a high performing enhancing substance. All highly speculative I know, but I am adding what my thought process would be and what I would expect a doctor's to be in that situation.

I am with you on the lying element in her justification for taking the substance. Her publicist needs shooting for that debacle. Did more harm than good.

fair enough but i dont believe that an honest doctor would prescribe a drug to a patient to use for 10 years when they would only have needed to use for a few weeks especially if there were risks involved.it goes against their code of conduct,the oath they have sworn to become a practising doctor and one of the main reasons why anyone decides to become a doctor,to save lives, and to help sick people,not put them at risk
if the presciption is dodgy,the doctor is dodgy and the athlete is dodgy,what does that tell you?

i do however think that its entirely plausible that if there was no condition ( or even doctor ) that an athlete would take all kinds of risks using banned drugs if the drugs happened to be performance enhancing
 
but im not really talking about meldonium as a performance enhancing drug
i am asking you how do you know that maria would have stopped using the drug if she knew that the drug is being banned?
how do you know that? you are not maria sharapova,you have no idea what shes thinking in her head or what shes doing behind closed doors
what proof are you basing that on? 
where are the facts to substantiate that assumption, if you have nothing to backing it up and youre only taking her word for it (which means nothing after she lied) then all it remains is an assumption

Veejay wrote:

legendkillar wrote:In relation to your first point Vee, as I stated it largely depends on the ethics of the doctor and the athlete and also the risk appetite of the athlete. Moody pointed out that the doctors on occasions refused to prescribe certain drugs because of the health of the athlete. In the Sharapova case, clearly ethics were amiss and the risk appetite was high.

About my assumption. You and I have both said we are unsure to the 'levels and limits' of Meldonium's enhancing properties. Tenez quoted that former doping chap who concluded Meldonium had no enhancing properties. If we take the side of caution and say for example Meldonium's enhancing properties are significantly less than say Testosterone, then as an athlete if you were taking a substance with low performing enhancing properties that was to be banned, that logic would dictate that the athlete would stop given the potential for legal substitutes would be greater than that of a high performing enhancing substance. All highly speculative I know, but I am adding what my thought process would be and what I would expect a doctor's to be in that situation.

I am with you on the lying element in her justification for taking the substance. Her publicist needs shooting for that debacle. Did more harm than good.

fair enough but i dont believe that an honest doctor would prescribe a drug to a patient to use for 10 years when they would only have needed to use for a few weeks especially if there were risks involved.it goes against their code of conduct an
if the presciption is dodgy,the doctor is dodgy and the athlete is dodgy,what does that tell you?
i do however think that its entirely plausible that if there was no condition ( or even doctor ) that an athlete would take all kinds of risks using banned drugs if the drugs happened to be performance enhancing
 
but im not really talking about meldonium as a performance enhancing drug
i am asking you how do you know that maria would have stopped using the drug if she knew that the drug is being banned?
how do you know that? you are not maria,you have no idea what shes thinking in her head or what shes doing behind closed doors
what proof are you basing that on? 
where are the facts to substantiate that assumption, if you have nothing to backing it up and youre only taking her word for it (which means nothing after she lied) then all it remains is an assumption

However, a doctor is employed by the athlete. An athlete who wishes to indulge on drug dependency will find a doctor that will indulge that. Yes it goes against their code of ethics, but the professional board isn't paying the doctor. The athlete is. As you alluded to in the Michael Jackson case. Doctor's can also issue consent or waiver forms which in cases absolves the doctor of some liability should something go wrong. We all sign one if being operated on in NHS hospitals.

In relation to the second point, in what context are you talking about Meldonium? Because we stray into different territories in thinking. I have maintained I am speculating to intentions. Indulge if you will as I will scenario play here.

I am a top athlete. There are PED's I take that are giving me the edge and have contributed hugely to success in my sport. Therefore, taking a banned substance and the risks involved are high. However, I am willing to risk that given the Risk/Reward ratio weighs heavily in Reward given I am not caught and avoid suspicion. The key here is the importance of the substance and how that is translating into my success.

I am a top athlete. There is a substance I use for therapeutic/recovery purposes. There are other alternatives I can use which are legal. However, I like this one as my doctor recommends it and does enable me to recover between matches and tournaments quicker. It hasn't contributed to a large scale to my success, but has helped me in part to remain healthy. It's about to be banned. However, there are other legal alternatives. I will check with my doctor about the alternatives and see if he can give me some reassurances that these alternatives can assist me like the current substance I am using. Maybe some clinical trials and patient experience will help ease my mind. The key here is the substance is not contributing to the level of a PED, but is playing a minor role. The key to weaning off dependency is finding alternatives that can fill that shortfall.

I am a top athlete. I am going to a party on Puff Daddy's yacht. There will be hookers and cocaine. Man I love a bit of white powder and did some in my late teens and man it was good. Only done it a couple of times. Not been caught. But, it's Puff Daddy and I might end up in OK magazine and then the testers will be outside my door. Maybe I will stick to the Cristal and do the powder another day. I can't afford a ban. As you see with recreational drug use, can destroy a career given it contributes nothing to the outcome of the success of the athlete or performance.

Do you see where I am going with this? If we are taking the position that Meldonium is not a PED and played no big part in Maria's success, then from a logical standpoint if she knew it was to be banned, you would want to explore alternatives before even plumping for a big risk for small reward surely? More so when you know being caught could cost you a small fortune!

hence the reason why i used the word " dodgy" i dont think that a genuine legitimate honest doctor would continue to prescribe medicine to someone if they didnt need after a few weeks especially if there were serious risks 
involved 
maybe some dodge doctor who isnt in it for the medicine but rather the paycheque.im sure that there are plenty of those kinds of doctors around,when michael jackson died there was a program about how these doctors abuse their position to keep their clients/drug addicts medicated 
but thats just my opinion,you can disagree if you want to and thats fine
but it raises another question,why was the doctor prescribing the drug for her anyway? its been proven that that her condition didnt need the drug to treat it for longer then a few weeks not 10 years
so why was she using it for 10 years? the only thing i can think of is that there was never any condition to begin with and that she was benefitting in some way form taking the drug,possibly as a PED

im not asking for the intension for why she took the drug or whether its a PED or not,i have said on many occasions that its still open for debate,do i believe that meldonium is a game changing drug? no..i have said that many times,i dont believe that it is,but there has to be some reason why it was banned and athletes were taking it

i dont know why youre trying to spin this LK i am asking you a very simple question,how you personally would know whether she would have stopped taking the drug had she "known" that the drug was banned 
the answer is very simple,you dont know so why cant you just admit it?
i dont know either,but im not the one assuming to know what she would have done

look at it this way,i tell you that i went to the gym this morning,but how do you know that i went to the gym this morning? i could have lied in bed all day or done something completely different
you only know what you are told to believe,but does that automatically mean that what im telling you to believe is the actual truth? how do you know if what im telling you is the truth? you dont know,thats the point
you dont know what i could have done this morning,youre only led to believe what i tell you
its the same with sharapova,no one knows what she would have done in the situation.you dont know,i dont know,no one apart from sharapova knows what she would have done
but just because she says that she would have stopped using the drug had she known that it was banned doesnt automatically mean that she would have have stopped 
of course she would say that she would have stopped had she known that the drug was being banned,she failed a drugs test and was trying to have her doping ban reduced.was saying that she would have continued to use the drug even if she knew it was banned really going to help reduce her doping sentence? obviously no!
the only option you have is to give her the benefit of the doubt and take her word for it that she is telling the truth
but how can you take her word for it and give her the benefit of the doubt when she has already lied proving that what she says simply cant be trusted?
 
my main point here is very simple that you dont know what she would have done,so why are you assuming that you know what she would have done when you dont know what she would have done?
why are you assuming that she would have stopped taking the drug had she known that it as banned,when you dont know?

to answer your question,no one knows whats going on behind the scenes regarding maria sharapova,you dont know if she is using other banned substances and using masking agents thats been helping her pass drug tests for the last 10 years
theres speculation floating around about all the players,but maria sharapova is the only one that we know of thats failed a drugs test recently 
the fact that she has failed a drugs test in my opinion proves that she is using drugs to compete and doesnt rule out the possibility that she may also be using banned substances,its entirely plausible that she could be just like its entirely plausible that any other player in the draw is doing the same thing

I am not putting a spin on anything Vee, I have stated numerous times my on view around Sharapova is speculative and not driven by facts I don't have. I am not saying I know she wouldn't stop using it, what I am saying from a logical standpoint is that if she was completely aware of Meldonium being banned, she might have considered an alternative course of action. Shoulda, woulda, coulda. It's open to debate.

I do believe that Sharapova wasn't privy to the information about the substance being banned, however I do believe the Russian authorities knew of it's impending ban. I think it was August/September the memo was sent round? Makes you wonder what the chuffing hell they were doing in that time!

legendkillar wrote:I am not putting a spin on anything Vee, I have stated numerous times my on view around Sharapova is speculative and not driven by facts I don't have. I am not saying I know she wouldn't stop using it, what I am saying from a logical standpoint is that if she was completely aware of Meldonium being banned, she might have considered an alternative course of action. Shoulda, woulda, coulda. It's open to debate.

I do believe that Sharapova wasn't privy to the information about the substance being banned, however I do believe the Russian authorities knew of it's impending ban. I think it was August/September the memo was sent round? Makes you wonder what the chuffing hell they were doing in that time!

In other words if she had absolute clarity of the impending ban of the substance, she would've stopped taking it with immediate effect

these were your words earlier hence the reason why i asked you what proof youre basing it on,you dont know if she would have stopped taking the drug or not,youre just assuming that she may have but that doesnt automatically mean that she would have
i dont think that using logic or common sense is reason enough to prove anything,perhaps for you but many people with no common sense do many illogical things.how many people do stupid things without thinking about the consequences? have you ever done something stupid without using your common sense or logic? i know that i have and i would be very very surprised if you never have 
have you never anything wrong on purpose thinking that youll never get caught or that youll get away with it? i have,i think that most people have so why is it so hard to imagine sharapova doing the same thing? what makes her so perfect that she's so above it all that she couldnt possibly ever doing anything wrong? 
look at tiger woods' DUI such a stupid mistake with such grave possible consequences,he should have known better,but that just proves that everyone makes stupid mistakes,so why couldnt sharapova make a stupid mistake thinking that she could continue using meldonium and not get caught? 

why are you assuming that that she isnt using other banned substances?you dont know if she is or isnt,so that doesnt rule out the possibility that she could be 
we already know that she uses drugs to compete,so in my opinion its entirely plausible that she could be used other banned subtances,so why would she then have to replace using meldonium with anything else when shes possibly already using something else? 
besides going by her story..there was no reason for her to replace meldonium with anything else.she had a " condition" that needed to be treated with meldonium so im sure being the highest paid female athlete in the world,that her team should have had no problem securing a TUE for her so that she could continue using the drug for her "condition" while competing 
  
TMF and i both think that she knew that the drug was being banned and decided to continue using the drug anyway
as seen with the indian athlete who has just been suspended for meldonium,its entirely plausible that an athlete would risk their career and everything else just to use meldonium.you may think thats stupid,illogical and no common sense but as i said earlier,people do a lot of stupid things without thinking of the consequences.
sharapovas head is so big,it wouldnt surprise me she if thought that she was completely invincible,untouchable and above the law
they are only ever sorry once they get caught,not while they continue committing the crime

I think using logic is a good thing to be honest. Nothing takes away from the fact she was guilty of taking a banned substance. It's a cold light of day fact. What point of view people take on it comes from the causes that lead to the action which I have said over and over again. I have no sympathy for those who get caught, however when more details come out with cases, then yes sometimes I can see how some athletes can trip themselves up by neglecting caution. Look at Alan Baxter. Cold light of day he failed a drugs test, however when you look at the case, some would argue he didn't set out with the intention of cheating. I am not saying Sharapova is perfect, far from it. This case proves that beyond doubt.

In terms of myself Vee, my programming or educating in line with my career requires me to be risk adverse. Only taking calculated risks in which the potential outcomes weigh heavily in my favour. I do think have to think of the consequences because I have to be detailed when advising my clients. My approach to risk has always been if you can eliminate it without having to invest much into, why wouldn't you? If the course becomes a lot safer and the outcome much more certain, don't see why people would take a risk if the outcome is to be the same.

When I done my procurement degree, I did a module on behaviours and cognitive ability and what drives and influences people. Was fascinating as when you put into practice, you see these drivers and how they shape people's logic. I try to be as pragmatic as possible with all things.

Veejay wrote:im still waiting to hear what you have to say tenez,heres the link that destroys your entire theory that no one has tested positive for meldonium since it was banned and that no one would risk their careers and everything else to take a drug that is so "easily traceable"

http://www.india.com/sports/top-indian-athlete-suspended-by-nada-after-testing-positive-for-meldonium-2164740/
why was this indian athlete busted and served a suspension for failing a drugs test for meldonium?
is it because this indian athlete is russian?

LOL!! You are really losing it. This proves my point. Is that all you found in your google search????

I was talking about "TOP athletes". Not an athlete who is so unknown that they did not even bother spell his name. That they did not even bother finding him an excuse.

Just be serious. You are better at commenting Trump's twitts than having a serious conversation!

Tenez wrote:

Veejay wrote:im still waiting to hear what you have to say tenez,heres the link that destroys your entire theory that no one has tested positive for meldonium since it was banned and that no one would risk their careers and everything else to take a drug that is so "easily traceable"

http://www.india.com/sports/top-indian-athlete-suspended-by-nada-after-testing-positive-for-meldonium-2164740/
why was this indian athlete busted and served a suspension for failing a drugs test for meldonium?
is it because this indian athlete is russian?

LOL!! You are really losing it. This proves my point. Is that all you found in your google search????

I was talking about "TOP athletes". Not an athlete who is so unknown that they did not even bother spell his name. That they did not even bother finding him an excuse.

Just be serious. You are better at commenting Trump's twitts than having a serious conversation!

moving the goal posts tenez?? lol youre embarrassing yourself...i dont believe that you ever said or implied "top athlete" but i will let you have that one cause you seem really desperate 
the address clearly says" TOP INDIAN ATHLETE SUSPENDED BY NADA AFTER TESTING POSITIVE FOR MELDONIUM"

"but guess what? no one has been caught again with melodium since!!!!!"
 these were your words in a response you me 

who are you to decide who a top athlete is and who isnt a top athlete? a top athlete in india is a top athlete to at least 1 billion indians 
everyone knows that apart from cricket india isnt exactly known for its athletes,its not a major sporting country so naturally any athlete from india wouldnt necessarily be a household name around the world
but again your argument makes no sense 
if an unknown player ranked 500 on the challengers circuit tested positive for meldonium,would that not count because the player is unknown and and not a top player?
what about if a unknown player ranked 500 on the challengers cricuit tested positive for nandrolone would that not count because the player is unknown and not a top player?
what about if a a player ranked 50 were to test positive for meldonium,would that not count or would that be top enough for you,or is top only if federer were to test positive for meldonium?  
whether youre the world no1 or the world no 1001,if you test positive for meldonium,you have failed a drugs test and you cannot dispute that
meldonium and nandrolone are both banned drugs,you can argue till youre blue in the face that meldonium isnt a PED,it will never change the fact that meldonium is a banned PED
it also doesnt matter whether you think meldonium is a PED or not,its a banned drug-case closed!

you may think that top players have far more to lose by risking to take banned substances but i think that is a myth,the lower ranked players are risking just as much  cause this is their livelihood and how they earn a living.they arent making millions upon millions,if they get a lifetime ban from the sport,thats it,they will have no millions in the bank that they can live off for the rest of their life..so theres just as much if not more on the line

sharapova and her team fabricated and conjured up a condition to give her a reason why she was using meldonium because she didnt want to admit that for the past 10 years shes been using the drug as a PED

you keep saying that meldonium is easily traceable,because the point youre trying to make is that no one is their right mind would throw everything away on a drug like meldonium that you think isnt even a PED and can be traced in a drugs test.you dont believe that anyone could be that stupid
and i can perfectly understand that point,who would be so stupid to risk everything youve ever worked for just to take a drug like meldonoum?
the answer that you fail to realise is actually very simple..only an idiot would be that stupid
there are many idiots in this world,there are many people would do stupid things,people who know better but still do it anyway and then only regret things afterwards when they have to face the consequences and repercussions of their actions 
look a tiger woods DUI,what a stupid mistake,he knew better but he still did..but he is only sorry cause he got caught,had he not got caught he would most likely have done it again
have you never done anything stupid in your life before,knowing better but still did it anyway? i know i have and i would be very very surprised if you never have,so why is it so hard to imagine that sharapova couldnt possibly do the same thing
i bet you that shes been kicking herself for being so stupid to get caught for meldonium 
the fact that a top indian athlete is serving a suspension for testing positive for meldonium is proof to me that that there are athletes out there who are stupid enough to risk everything on meldonium 
it is entirely plausible that someone could be that stupid 

at the end of the day the facts are that sharapova failed a drugs test after an email was sent to her to inform her that the drug was being banned 
she may claim that she never read the email  but you have no clue if she read the email or not,only sharapova knowns,but just because she says that she didnt ( very convenient excuse) doesnt automatically mean that she's telling he truth
she may make a fool out of you for choosing to give her the benefit of the doubt and taking her word for it,but shes not going to make a fool out of me because i dont believe her 
at least i have a reason not to believe her,i have something to base that on,she lied about a condition,the reasons why she was using meldonium and she lied by hiding the fact that she was using meldonium on a doping control form 
you on the other hand are just blindly believing her because you dont want to be proven wrong

Tenez, honestly, your argument is all over the place. Players can and have and will continue to risk everything if it gives them the edge. Some players are stupid - some are greedy - some are both. Sharapova is, as far as I've seen in her interviews, a money grabbing, ultra vain, narcissist who probably thought she would never be held accountable or be caught.

Also, has it ever occured to you that the big players are more likely to take the risk knowing that the governing bodies of most sports these days are so lenient in their punishments towards them?  Sharapova may even thought "Well, I might get caught - but at worst I'll be banned for a year".  Guess what?  She was right.  The next top pro who feels like hiding something isn't going to be tossing and turning over what happened to Sharapova, are they?

Same with John Higgins in snooker.  The greedy, cretinous millionaire tried to fix matches with his manager - joked about it on camera - and was let off the hook with a poultry fine and a 6 month ban over the dead part of the season. Gee, he sure learned his lesson.  Two people further down the rankings in snooker were banned for years (on even less evidence), because they weren't money makers for the sport.  It's interesting to note how he was also welcomed back as a hero who had made an innocent mistake.. lol.

So, you see, top players don't get punished as much (also think Lance - let off time and time again. Corruption.) and may take the "risk". Not brain surgery. Just because things don't add up how you personally believe they should does not make you correct.

legendkillar wrote:I think using logic is a good thing to be honest. Nothing takes away from the fact she was guilty of taking a banned substance. It's a cold light of day fact. What point of view people take on it comes from the causes that lead to the action which I have said over and over again. I have no sympathy for those who get caught, however when more details come out with cases, then yes sometimes I can see how some athletes can trip themselves up by neglecting caution. Look at Alan Baxter. Cold light of day he failed a drugs test, however when you look at the case, some would argue he didn't set out with the intention of cheating. I am not saying Sharapova is perfect, far from it. This case proves that beyond doubt.

In terms of myself Vee, my programming or educating in line with my career requires me to be risk adverse. Only taking calculated risks in which the potential outcomes weigh heavily in my favour. I do think have to think of the consequences because I have to be detailed when advising my clients. My approach to risk has always been if you can eliminate it without having to invest much into, why wouldn't you? If the course becomes a lot safer and the outcome much more certain, don't see why people would take a risk if the outcome is to be the same.

When I done my procurement degree, I did a module on behaviours and cognitive ability and what drives and influences people. Was fascinating as when you put into practice, you see these drivers and how they shape people's logic. I try to be as pragmatic as possible with all things.

sorry LK i missed this post
i totally agree with you using logic and common sense is something you would expect people to do,but my point is not everyone uses common sense or logic...the world is full of idiots and stupid people doing stupid things all the time,with no rationale,common sense of logic whatsoever
but even the smartest and brightest people make stupid mistakes from time to time.we are all capable of of doing that,none of us are perfect
so why would sharapova be an exception? what she did was incredibly stupid,whether it was done with intent or just gross neglect,it was a massive mistake no matter how you look at it
i just find it hard to grasp that some can only see the mistake as gross neglect and theres no possible way that it could have been done intentionally 
when ever has an athlete who tried to cheat not done it intentionally? if no one has ever tried to cheat intentionally then i would understand why it could possibly only be a case of gross neglect

You see Vee. Even Daniel is on your side. That shows how wrong you are.

Daniel - none of the point you make are related or make it clear whether Shara doped intently or not. Higgins story has nothing to do with Shara. Comparing those 2 cases and telling my arguments are "all over the place" is a bit of joke really...read your posts again and let me know who is "all over the place".

My argument is simple. Shara like any top athlete (I mean "top athlete", not an indian shepherd leaving his village and his goats to participates to the common wealths competition, only called "top athletes" by his goats which owns the Indian's paper!!!).

Nothing I have read here can convince me, or anyone with common sense I guess, that Shara was thick enough to take a drug very easily traceable knowingly hoping to get away with it.

In fact Vee and daniel can only be right if she gets caught again. Cause according to them she is really thick and apparently can get away with murder cause she is a top athlete. Therefore if they are right we shoudl find out very quickly as clearly she will take the drug again!

So now you have to be caught twice to be a doper?  Haha.  No wonder she chanced it with that policy in place.  She's been a very naughty girl - but she's ok as long as she doesn't do it again..

How does that send out a message of deterrence?  Innocent until you are proven guilty twice?  Sounds a hoot.

She broke a very serious rule.  Whether you believe she did it on purpose is irrelevant.  The punishment should be severe. Ignorance of the law is not a defence - this has been established for a VERY long time.

Daniel wrote:
She broke a very serious rule.  Whether you believe she did it on purpose is irrelevant.  The punishment should be severe. Ignorance of the law is not a defence - this has been established for a VERY long time.

That's your problem not mine. To me the intent is very important. Shw shoudl have been more careful certainly but that's something I can easily forgive. Higgins trying to get some extra cash by tanking is a bit less forgivable....though frankly...it's all about the $$ threshold.

But that's not even the point I make here. The point is that no TOP athlete with $$million of sponsors behind woudl risk get caught with such an easily traceable drug. It's common sense and those who think she is stupid enough to try it might not be any smarter.

It's not important. The rules are paramount. That's how justice works.  You can claim that you didn't know that not paying your taxes was a crime - or that you thought you'd declared all your taxes - or that you didn't mean for your punch to kill a person... or that you didn't know the drug you were taking is illegal, but the punishment will fit accordingly.

It's your problem that you don't understand a basic justice system.

Tenez wrote:You see Vee. Even Daniel is on your side. That shows how wrong you are.

Daniel - none of the point you make are related or make it clear whether Shara doped intently or not. Higgins story has nothing to do with Shara. Comparing those 2 cases and telling my arguments are "all over the place" is a bit of joke really...read your posts again and let me know who is "all over the place".

My argument is simple. Shara like any top athlete (I mean "top athlete", not an indian shepherd leaving his village and his goats to participates to the common wealths competition, only called "top athletes" by his goats which owns the Indian's paper!!!).

Nothing I have read here can convince me, or anyone with common sense I guess, that Shara was thick enough to take a drug very easily traceable knowingly hoping to get away with it.

In fact Vee and daniel can only be right if she gets caught again. Cause according to them she is really thick and apparently can get away with murder cause she is a top athlete. Therefore if they are right we shoudl find out very quickly as clearly she will take the drug again!

you said that no one has been caught using meldonium since,those were your words and i proved you wrong,so if youre wrong about that why should i believe you? 
you can insult the indian athlete all you want,call him all the childish names you picked up in kindergarden and insult where he comes from just to try and prove how tough a debater you are and how "right" you are but while youre at it just realise that it exposes far more about you then the athlete youre insulting just because i used his case to prove you wrong and you simply cannot stand being wrong
you will never change the fact that a top indian athlete failed a drugs test for meldonium proving you completely wrong so you can throw all the insults in the world till youre blue in the face..it just makes you look stupid and childish
the highlighted part you wrote is incorrect too
sharapova was thick enough to take a drug that was banned thinking that she could get away with it,hence the reason why she lied her way out of failing a drugs test
nothing you can do or say will ever change that sorry 

@LK im just wondering what you make of the absolutely ridiculous comment from tenez claiming that you have to be caught twice before you can be called an intentional doper 
and ignoring the fact that a top indian athlete failed a drugs test for meldonium,because that athlete doesnt count because he isnt a top athlete 
( i am literally peeing in my pants here  )

Dry your pants with Trump Original Toilet Paper, triple sheets, beats Andrex 

Daniel wrote:It's not important. The rules are paramount. That's how justice works.  You can claim that you didn't know that not paying your taxes was a crime - or that you thought you'd declared all your taxes - or that you didn't mean for your punch to kill a person... or that you didn't know the drug you were taking is illegal, but the punishment will fit accordingly.

It's your problem that you don't understand a basic justice system.

That's not the point here. I honestly don't care what you and people think about doing something wrong with intent or not. That's your view and "problem" and I don;t expect you to care what I think about it.

My point is that she did not do it with intent while trying to get away with it and only fools would think she "risked" it.

Veejay wrote:@LK im just wondering what you make of the absolutely ridiculous comment from tenez claiming that you have to be caught twice before you can be called an intentional doper 
and ignoring the fact that a top indian athlete failed a drugs test for meldonium,because that athlete doesnt count because he isnt a top athlete 
( i am literally peeing in my pants here  )

I am glad you find my point ridiculous. It clearly proves your point was ridiculous.

Jahu wrote:Dry your pants with Trump Original Toilet Paper, triple sheets, beats Andrex 

they should a sharapova version of it too for all those sharapova apologists slapping their beef in defence of their pathetic wet dream...

Tenez wrote:

Veejay wrote:@LK im just wondering what you make of the absolutely ridiculous comment from tenez claiming that you have to be caught twice before you can be called an intentional doper 
and ignoring the fact that a top indian athlete failed a drugs test for meldonium,because that athlete doesnt count because he isnt a top athlete 
( i am literally peeing in my pants here  )

I am glad you find my point ridiculous. It clearly proves your point was ridic

why did sharapova hide the fact that she was using meldonium on a doping control form tenez?
if shes innocent and her intention was never to cheat,then why hide that information?

Veejay wrote:@LK im just wondering what you make of the absolutely ridiculous comment from tenez claiming that you have to be caught twice before you can be called an intentional doper 
and ignoring the fact that a top indian athlete failed a drugs test for meldonium,because that athlete doesnt count because he isnt a top athlete 
( i am literally peeing in my pants here  )

This got quite out of hand last night

In terms of Ten's views, he is saying that the offence should also take into account the intention. You have to remember what makes the Sharapova case unique is that she failed on a drug which only recently was banned and in that instance I think, some would give her some slack. Complacency and neglect all the way. In terms of how Sharapova is classified in terms an intentional doper or not, end of the day she failed a drugs test and that is what is important here. Regardless of intent, the substance was banned and it was in her system.

As for traceability, for crying out loud all substances are traceable!! They have analysers and reagents that would trace any substance with the most minute presence left in the human body.