Sharapova announces failed drug test

You did not answer their questions.

Tenez wrote:To coin your phrase, would I take your word for it? Winking the very fact Meldonium is not used in the UK or available to purchase OTC speaks volumes. So if it was as harmless as you make out, it would be in stores worldwide!
===================
It does not speak volume at all. It's another false statement. It's simply a drug developped, manufactured and prescribed in Eastern countries since the 70s. That's why. There are many equivalent drugs in teh UK and US. BTW, Meldonium is not an illegal (Unscheduled) drug (not in the doping sense) in the US.

You may remember that I have studied Neurophysiology at uni....Though it's a long time now since I last updated myself with drugs and hormones, I know quite a bit about it.  Meldonium is a vasodilator though it is not used in the UK, there are many such drug equivalent in teh western world:
https://www.drugs.com/drug-class/vasodilators.html
I am not sure those are on the WADA list but worth having a look.

I don't understand why any top athlete would risk any kind of reprimand by taking a drug that isn't performance enhancing for the sake of it.

Exactly. So again, why did she take it? Cause she simply overlooked her emails or the person meant to look at it for her!....

Meldonium is not aspirin but in a way both are good for the heart. I take aspirin for my heart regularly and millions in Asia take Meldonium. Not rocket science.

Ten I am a qualified pharmacy technician with 8 years in pharmacy, so I have a lot of experience in prescribing guidelines and doses of drugs and what have you. Simply the bible I used was the BNF which detailed all drugs and doses and effects/side effects and properties.

I am not inclined to use drugs.com given it is an American website (strange choice for yourself and your political stance) and different countries have different prescribing guidelines and recommendations. Given I don't have a chemistry qualification, would be impossible to consider wide ranging opinions on drugs.

I've highlighted the bold as that totally discredits your whole statement. Just because one drug is good for the heart doesn't automatically mean it quantifies for comparison with others on a like for like basis. As I stated previously, drugs classified by their primary uses will contain different and complex properties. Especially when many forms of the drug exist Trade name of drugs which are companies 'version' of the generic drug in this case Meldonium.

I've also highlighted you've used Asia as a reference and given Sharapova is European and also based in America, I find that again that statement odd. Why is a European native based in America chasing a drug that is banned in that country given it's 'minimal' enhancing properties? I ask the question which you didn't answer. Why didn't Sharapova take Aspirin if in your opinion it is every bit the same as Meldonium?

Forget the e-mail issue or the drug's status with WADA. Look at the question I am putting forward. Put yourself in an Athlete's position. I am hurting from the wear and tear of sport. I need something. Do I go with the tried and tested Ibuprofen or Aspirin which are likely never to feature on the banned list of WADA and is readily available at all pharmacies or chemists? Or do I go with another drug which is not available in most countries that does the same thing?

legendkillar wrote:
Forget the e-mail issue or the drug's status with WADA. Look at the question I am putting forward. Put yourself in an Athlete's position. I am hurting from the wear and tear of sport. I need something. Do I go with the tried and tested Ibuprofen or Aspirin which are likely never to feature on the banned list of WADA and is readily available at all pharmacies or chemists? Or do I go with another drug which is not available in most countries that does the same thing?

Well you are not a chemist so please do not make suggestions as to what does what. I know that drugs can vary but many generic drugs can do as well as originals and even if some formula may vary some induced benefit might not.

But again that is not even the point. You are asking Sharapova to make a decision she has no clue about. She doesn't not even read her emails...do you really expert her to make a connoisseur decision on what drug to take? It's legal...That is all that matters to her. Can't you (3) see that simple point?

I do believe you are completely biased on her. I still have not read a single reasonable argument why she would compromise her career on taking an illegal drug without the care in the world?

STill waiting after 20 posts of same non-sense.

And I know you are once again going to revert to whether the drug is benefiical or not.....but that's not the point here. Try to give me a single reason why an athlete of such reputation and fame would try to risk it all on a drug knowing it would be tested?

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:
Forget the e-mail issue or the drug's status with WADA. Look at the question I am putting forward. Put yourself in an Athlete's position. I am hurting from the wear and tear of sport. I need something. Do I go with the tried and tested Ibuprofen or Aspirin which are likely never to feature on the banned list of WADA and is readily available at all pharmacies or chemists? Or do I go with another drug which is not available in most countries that does the same thing?

Well you are not a chemist so please do not make suggestions as to what does what. I know that drugs can vary but many generic drugs can do as well as originals and even if some formula may vary some induced benefit might not.

But again that is not even the point. You are asking Sharapova to make a decision she has no clue about. She doesn't not even read her emails...do you really expert her to make a connoisseur decision on what drug to take? It's legal...That is all that matters to her. Can't you (3) see that simple point?

I do believe you are completely biased on her. I still have not read a single reasonable argument why she would compromise her career on taking an illegal drug without the care in the world?

STill waiting after 20 posts of same non-sense.

And I know you are once again going to revert to whether the drug is benefiical or not.....but that's not the point here. Try to give me a single reason why an athlete of such reputation and fame would try to risk it all on a drug knowing it would be tested?

I absolutely agree Ten, and on that point neither are you! So don't you make suggestions as to what does what.

Your telling me that an athlete has no idea what the risks are in taking Aspirin or Ibuprofen?

I've answered your question and I'll answer it again. In the case of Sharapova, clearly there was a negligence to the correspondence informing her that Meldonium was soon to be banned. Depending how big her team is, they are all guilty of negligence. However, every and any athlete knows the WADA list comes out every year. Not rocket science is it? It would be like me in my current career not keeping up to date with the regulations when e-mails are sent round and then not abiding by them and then carry out an activity without applying them and then saying in my defence "I don't read those e-mails" that would not fly and that shouldn't excuse or exonerate Sharapova! Now without a shadow of a doubt when it dawned on her what was happening she probably (my assumption of course) looked at previous cases of Gasquet and Cilic and even further back Agassi and thought that given how lightly they got off, that the same leniency would be applied to her.

If your question is why would a high profile athlete take a drug with no major enhancing benefits? Who knows. Why do they take recreational drugs or other stimulants. Each decision is purely individual.

The issue I have seen with this whole political nonsense argument is that what we have is 2 - Meldonium (developed in Eastern Europe) + 2 - Russia (Eastern Europe) = 4 WADA banning the substance to catch out all Russian athletes because of the more pressing issue of Russia as a country and the actions of Putin. Interesting theory. Not one I buy into.

legendkillar wrote:
I absolutely agree Ten, and on that point neither are you! So don't you make suggestions as to what does what.

Well I do have a degree in Neurophysiology and the hormone and humoral system which is exactly about the effet of hormones and drugs on our body. But I certainly cannot boast about it cause that was a long time ago...however I perfectly remember the logic behind it. In fact I remember very well that we had to learn long lists of substances affecting our glands and para and (ortho)sympathic system.

Ask yourself rather how such a common drug like Meldonium has only been the attention of WADA in September 15 and forced on the banned list less than 3 months later right on time before the Olympics. I am stunned at how people never read teh agenda of the powers above.

Your telling me that an athlete has no idea what the risks are in taking Aspirin or Ibuprofen?

Where did I say that? When Athletes take a minimum of 8 Ibu per dayThey probably know it's not great...but it's not a choice..or they lose a $300k final and the sponsors money whihc go with it....so they have to rely on professional doctors who have experience highly competitive sport. And it's not a tennis player which has only hit the ball all day since 5 who is going to contradict his or her doctor. Is it?

I've answered your question and I'll answer it again. In the case of Sharapova, clearly there was a negligence to the correspondence informing her that Meldonium was soon to be banned. Depending how big her team is, they are all guilty of negligence.

Yeah.......that's it. That's the only thing that matters to me. The intent of taking an illegal drug is not suspected on that occasion. She may have used illegal ones but that's a different matter.

However, every and any athlete knows the WADA list comes out every year. Not rocket science is it? It would be like me in my current career not keeping up to date with the regulations when e-mails are sent round and then not abiding by them and then carry out an activity without applying them and then saying in my defence "I don't read those e-mails" that would not fly and that shouldn't excuse or exonerate Sharapova! Now without a shadow of a doubt when it dawned on her what was happening she probably (my assumption of course) looked at previous cases of Gasquet and Cilic and even further back Agassi and thought that given how lightly they got off, that the same leniency would be applied to her.

To me what matters is that Cas concluded the ITF may not have done all its best effort to alert athletes of the change.
And once again I feel it's very much in line with giving all those TUEs to "NATO" athletes and almost none to Eastern ones.

If your question is why would a high profile athlete take a drug with no major enhancing benefits? Who knows. Why do they take recreational drugs or other stimulants. Each decision is purely individual.

But no high profile athlete get caught nowadays with it....she got caught twice in 2 months. So clearly it conforts my point (and yours now) that it was negligence.

Looks like we are moving in the right direction.

The issue I have seen with this whole political nonsense argument is that what we have is 2 - Meldonium (developed in Eastern Europe) + 2 - Russia (Eastern Europe) = 4 WADA banning the substance to catch out all Russian athletes because of the more pressing issue of Russia as a country and the actions of Putin. Interesting theory. Not one I buy into.

I am not sure I understand your point (or rather the logic behind it) but The fact remains. Everything that comes from Russia is evil whereas "we" are always saints and in our rights.

In the same way I had a hard time convincing people Nadal was taking time to recover between points and not because of weird and sudden OCD, I don;t expect people to realise how much manipulated they are by their media and the system in general. However we all notice that the richs get richer and fewer and poors get poorer and more of them, so I notice the few certainly get it their way while the masses don't.

Ten you and the multi quote function!!

1) Yes you have that degree, however I've worked in the pharmacy industry and so I know the cautious nature in which they are reluctant to ever make like for like comparisons with different drugs with 2 different chemical make ups. Makes no sense to compare 2 different drugs just for 1 or 2 properties they share with others.

The second point fits nicely into the last point I made on the agenda WADA or something sinister behind them for making a substance which is seemingly low in enhancing properties banned.

2) You said this earlier in response to my response "do you really expert her to make a connoisseur decision on what drug to take" Does Aspirin and Ibuprofen come under that statement? Or are we talking wider drugs that require prescription? Over the counter medicine I would expect any human alive to make an informed decision as to whether purchase a drug. Even before the exchange of money and drugs they can still ask the pharmacist for advice. If you point was aimed at the former, doesn't matter then.

3) Well we can agree on that score. Negligence all the way.

4) I am not so sure I buy that entirely. The TUE's as I stated earlier is more of a political debate. Here we are talking Sharapova. Depends where you sit on the issue on form of communication. Nowadays it seems e-mail is the preferred method of communication. I think CAS showed too much sympathy in her case. Instead of looking at sympathising Sharapova, let's look instead at what actions she could've taken to avoid this issue. All she had to do was read an e-mail. They spend enough time on Twitter/Facebook. Read your emails Maria! Sure she will bank that in the lessons learnt folder.

5) So you agree with me now it's negligence and not an admin error  glad we are on the same page in that regard. The accountability sits with Maria at the end of the day. She is the athlete. With everything that is part and parcel of being a top well known athlete, she needs to ensure she covers all her bases.

6) That was more speculative on my part to the rationale that it was a political issue that drove the Sharapova issue. British athletes, even the cyclists are now facing scrutiny so I expect that image to come crashing down like a house of cards.

The time between points in regard to Nadal. I thought the OCD was more aimed at the bottles and butt picking and hair brushing?

I don't have an issue with Sharapova or dislike her for that matter. My stance is and always will be if you test positive for any banned substance, you get banned. Simple as that. I never buy into the "severity of the offence or circumstances" either. My issue is the constant over-turning of bans. Sends the message if you test positive, think of a far fetched story and likelihood is that you'll get off.

Tenez wrote:
Well I do have a degree in Neurophysiology and the hormone and humoral system which is exactly about the effet of hormones and drugs on our body. But I certainly cannot boast about it cause that was a long time ago...however I perfectly remember the logic behind it. In fact I remember very well that we had to learn long lists of substances affecting our glands and para and (ortho)sympathic system.

Ask yourself rather how such a common drug like Meldonium has only been the attention of WADA in September 15 and forced on the banned list less than 3 months later right on time before the Olympics. I am stunned at how people never read teh agenda n't.

Wow, I am envious!

Always been very interested in medicine (though never wanted to be a doctor) and especially in that field.
I ended up doing some neurolinguistics at the end of my uni, but that's not nearly as interrsting as hormones.

They fascinating, aren't they!!!

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:
Well I do have a degree in Neurophysiology and the hormone and humoral system which is exactly about the effet of hormones and drugs on our body. But I certainly cannot boast about it cause that was a long time ago...however I perfectly remember the logic behind it. In fact I remember very well that we had to learn long lists of substances affecting our glands and para and (ortho)sympathic system.

Ask yourself rather how such a common drug like Meldonium has only been the attention of WADA in September 15 and forced on the banned list less than 3 months later right on time before the Olympics. I am stunned at how people never read teh agenda n't.

Wow, I am envious!

Always been very interested in medicine (though never wanted to be a doctor) and especially in that field.
I ended up doing some neurolinguistics at the end of my uni, but that's not nearly as interrsting as hormones.

They fascinating, aren't they!!!

What's fascinating is not so much the effect they have on us but how we produce them according to our state of mind. Which means that everything starts and ends in the mind.

Tenez wrote:
What's fascinating is not so much the effect they have on us but how we produce them according to our state of mind. Which means that everything starts and ends in the mind.

Wow, I didn't know that.

I am amazed how they affect us, I call them: juices of life.

As for the mind, an unknown universe... Only 3% of brains's surface "used" by us?

And then "the states" of mind...does science hit the brick wall there?

But it's all nothing without the spiritual dimension which binds it all together...

I heard a brilliant lecture in Belgrade in May about dreams. There were three people that each gave their persoective, all highly educated academics: a psychologist, psychiatrist, and a lecturer at SPC (church), and the last one was the most interesting by far.

Recently I have been fascinated by the pattern of trinity.

And generally maths/numbers the genius skeleton behind everythig.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/winter-olympics/37703011

Be interested to hear the views on this....

legendkillar wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/winter-olympics/37703011

Be interested to hear the views on this....

My view:
Who is this person?
What is her net worth?
Where are the household names?

It's a very different case than Shara's. This is a typical doping case. They do get some of them every now and then.

Why is it different? One of Skiing's biggest names.

I find it telling that the doctor resigned taking fault for the situation.

It's very different case cause:

1 - It;s a steroid.
2 - always was and always will be banned.
3 - they all come up with lipstick, kisses, or else....Shara said she voluntarily took the drug

For the Doctor it's not a big deal...everyone will know he had to sacrify his position but not his career.

Why not just be honest about your real intentions here, Tenez.  You simply aren't going to convince me or most others that she is innocent, so all this to and fro is pointless.  The facts as they stand point to her being guilty and - for a reason only you know - she is innocent while the rest of them are doping.  Why are you protecting this one person?

Daniel wrote:Why not just be honest about your real intentions here, Tenez.  You simply aren't going to convince me or most others that she is innocent, so all this to and fro is pointless.  The facts as they stand point to her being guilty and - for a reason only you know - she is innocent while the rest of them are doping.  Why are you protecting this one person?

bizarre logic isnt it? 
not only that,he questions why any pro athlete would risk their career and endorsements by taking drugs that are tested for but yet at the same time he is suspicious of players doping...
how many cases have there been in sport where athletes have ether been caught with banned substances i.e nandrolone or tested positive for a banned substance like nandrolone 
so not only is it entirely plausible,but its a proven fact that those athletes would risk their careers and endorsements but according tp tenez not sharapova 
i think that tenez and wilander will get along really well because they both are buying the lamest excuse and falling for the oldest trick in the book

I think there is misunderstanding of Tenez's stance. The argument is from his point is why would athlete continue to take a substance about to be banned by WADA when they know they will be tested? Which I think is a fair point.

legendkillar wrote:I think there is misunderstanding of Tenez's stance. The argument is from his point is why would athlete continue to take a substance about to be banned by WADA when they know they will be tested? Which I think is a fair point.

why do athletes take nadrolone knowing that they will be tested for it? because they want to cheat and believe that they can get away with it,so why is it so far fetched to think that sharapova would not do the exact same thing?
we already know for a fact that she looks to drugs to gain an edge cause she certainly didnt need meldonium for medical reasons,that to me proves that shes a potential doper 
lets also not forget that she tried to hide the fact that she was still taking meldonium,if you think that the rug is still legal and that you needed to use it for medical reasons then why lie and hide about taking it?
to me that proves that she knew that it was banned and reas the email tha told her that it was banned 
im using nandrolone cause its one of the oldest drugs around and has been tested for donkey years but yet you continue to hear of athletes either testing positive for it or getting caught with viles of it
that is the definition of a doper/cheater in sport,an athlete who tries to cheat and thinks that they can get away with it

Veejay wrote:

legendkillar wrote:I think there is misunderstanding of Tenez's stance. The argument is from his point is why would athlete continue to take a substance about to be banned by WADA when they know they will be tested? Which I think is a fair point.

why do athletes take nadrolone knowing that they will be tested for it? because they want to cheat and believe that they can get away with it,so why is it so far fetched to think that sharapova would not do the exact same thing?
we already know for a fact that she looks to drugs to gain an edge cause she certainly didnt need meldonium for medical reasons,that to me proves that shes a potential doper 
lets also not forget that she tried to hide the fact that she was still taking meldonium,if you think that the rug is still legal and that you needed to use it for medical reasons then why lie and hide about taking it?
to me that proves that she knew that it was banned and reas the email tha told her that it was banned 
im using nandrolone cause its one of the oldest drugs around and has been tested for donkey years but yet you continue to hear of athletes either testing positive for it or getting caught with viles of it
that is the definition of a doper/cheater in sport,an athlete who tries to cheat and thinks that they can get away with it

Meldonium has only recently been listed as banned, so prior to the test this year it was legal. I think she was the first athlete to be confirmed as testing positive for it. Effectively in relation to this substance we are breaking new ground and since the Sharapova exposure, more athletes (predominantly Russian) have tested positive for it. Now, not all of them surely have done a "Sharapova" and not read the email or correspondence from WADA!

I think most are in agreement as to the intentions behind Sharapova taking the drug (prior to being banned). I am unsure as to the doses that need to be in the system for "advantageous" properties to produce an enhanced effect.

I believe this was a case of negligence from Sharapova and those around her. What I don't like is bans being over-turned on the basis of "I didn't read the e-mail" not good enough!

She has exposed the leniency by governing bodies to over-turn bans and in turn they keep taking sympathetic approaches to athletes who violate the doping laws.

The question of why she didn't apply for a TUE with the substance being banned has 2 different views. 1 fits in with the negligent stance and the other is that she would never be granted with one. I think it's a mix of both.

legendkillar wrote:

Veejay wrote:

legendkillar wrote:I think there is misunderstanding of Tenez's stance. The argument is from his point is why would athlete continue to take a substance about to be banned by WADA when they know they will be tested? Which I think is a fair point.

why do athletes take nadrolone knowing that they will be tested for it? because they want to cheat and believe that they can get away with it,so why is it so far fetched to think that sharapova would not do the exact same thing?
we already know for a fact that she looks to drugs to gain an edge cause she certainly didnt need meldonium for medical reasons,that to me proves that shes a potential doper 
lets also not forget that she tried to hide the fact that she was still taking meldonium,if you think that the rug is still legal and that you needed to use it for medical reasons then why lie and hide about taking it?
to me that proves that she knew that it was banned and reas the email tha told her that it was banned 
im using nandrolone cause its one of the oldest drugs around and has been tested for donkey years but yet you continue to hear of athletes either testing positive for it or getting caught with viles of it
that is the definition of a doper/cheater in sport,an athlete who tries to cheat and thinks that they can get away with it

Meldonium has only recently been listed as banned, so prior to the test this year it was legal. I think she was the first athlete to be confirmed as testing positive for it. Effectively in relation to this substance we are breaking new ground and since the Sharapova exposure, more athletes (predominantly Russian) have tested positive for it. Now, not all of them surely have done a "Sharapova" and not read the email or correspondence from WADA!

I think most are in agreement as to the intentions behind Sharapova taking the drug (prior to being banned). I am unsure as to the doses that need to be in the system for "advantageous" properties to produce an enhanced effect.

I believe this was a case of negligence from Sharapova and those around her. What I don't like is bans being over-turned on the basis of "I didn't read the e-mail" not good enough!

She has exposed the leniency by governing bodies to over-turn bans and in turn they keep taking sympathetic approaches to athletes who violate the doping laws.

The question of why she didn't apply for a TUE with the substance being banned has 2 different views. 1 fits in with the negligent stance and the other is that she would never be granted with one. I think it's a mix of both.

excellent comment and i totally agree on so many points made
but in response to tenez's comment about athletes who would risk their career and endorsements by taking banned substances they know that they would be tested for,its a stupid question to ask when youre suspicious of certain athletes doping,especially of someone like rafael nadal
wouldnt he be risking his career and endorsements to cheat? so why is it entirely plausible for him to do that but sharapova?

Veejay wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Veejay wrote:

legendkillar wrote:I think there is misunderstanding of Tenez's stance. The argument is from his point is why would athlete continue to take a substance about to be banned by WADA when they know they will be tested? Which I think is a fair point.

why do athletes take nadrolone knowing that they will be tested for it? because they want to cheat and believe that they can get away with it,so why is it so far fetched to think that sharapova would not do the exact same thing?
we already know for a fact that she looks to drugs to gain an edge cause she certainly didnt need meldonium for medical reasons,that to me proves that shes a potential doper 
lets also not forget that she tried to hide the fact that she was still taking meldonium,if you think that the rug is still legal and that you needed to use it for medical reasons then why lie and hide about taking it?
to me that proves that she knew that it was banned and reas the email tha told her that it was banned 
im using nandrolone cause its one of the oldest drugs around and has been tested for donkey years but yet you continue to hear of athletes either testing positive for it or getting caught with viles of it
that is the definition of a doper/cheater in sport,an athlete who tries to cheat and thinks that they can get away with it

Meldonium has only recently been listed as banned, so prior to the test this year it was legal. I think she was the first athlete to be confirmed as testing positive for it. Effectively in relation to this substance we are breaking new ground and since the Sharapova exposure, more athletes (predominantly Russian) have tested positive for it. Now, not all of them surely have done a "Sharapova" and not read the email or correspondence from WADA!

I think most are in agreement as to the intentions behind Sharapova taking the drug (prior to being banned). I am unsure as to the doses that need to be in the system for "advantageous" properties to produce an enhanced effect.

I believe this was a case of negligence from Sharapova and those around her. What I don't like is bans being over-turned on the basis of "I didn't read the e-mail" not good enough!

She has exposed the leniency by governing bodies to over-turn bans and in turn they keep taking sympathetic approaches to athletes who violate the doping laws.

The question of why she didn't apply for a TUE with the substance being banned has 2 different views. 1 fits in with the negligent stance and the other is that she would never be granted with one. I think it's a mix of both.

excellent comment and i totally agree on so many points made
but in response to tenez's comment about athletes who would risk their career and endorsements by taking banned substances they know that they would be tested for,its a stupid question to ask when youre suspicious of certain athletes doping,especially of someone like rafael nadal
wouldnt he be risking his career and endorsements to cheat? so why is it entirely plausible for him to do that but sharapova?

Cheating in essence is a risk assessment isn't it? Any advantage that can be obtained by any means, athletes will seize on it, especially when vying for success. I can't remember now who it was, but their was a British coach who was trying to find out the amount of substance needed in the system to warrant a failed test and claimed it was for 'research purposes' Tenez was coming from an angle that Meldonium in it's form is minute in terms of enhancing properties. In other words if you are going to cheat, cheat big I guess and not get caught with something small.

Athletes put their trust in doctors and thus if a doctor tells you he will prescribe something illegal, however will limit doses so it doesn't border on the illegal limit, some will take a punt on that.

Sharapova could fail every drug test in the book, but I'd wager my house that she would still make it on the front of Sports Illustrated in a bikini!

legendkillar wrote:

Veejay wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Veejay wrote:

legendkillar wrote:I think there is misunderstanding of Tenez's stance. The argument is from his point is why would athlete continue to take a substance about to be banned by WADA when they know they will be tested? Which I think is a fair point.

why do athletes take nadrolone knowing that they will be tested for it? because they want to cheat and believe that they can get away with it,so why is it so far fetched to think that sharapova would not do the exact same thing?
we already know for a fact that she looks to drugs to gain an edge cause she certainly didnt need meldonium for medical reasons,that to me proves that shes a potential doper 
lets also not forget that she tried to hide the fact that she was still taking meldonium,if you think that the rug is still legal and that you needed to use it for medical reasons then why lie and hide about taking it?
to me that proves that she knew that it was banned and reas the email tha told her that it was banned 
im using nandrolone cause its one of the oldest drugs around and has been tested for donkey years but yet you continue to hear of athletes either testing positive for it or getting caught with viles of it
that is the definition of a doper/cheater in sport,an athlete who tries to cheat and thinks that they can get away with it

Meldonium has only recently been listed as banned, so prior to the test this year it was legal. I think she was the first athlete to be confirmed as testing positive for it. Effectively in relation to this substance we are breaking new ground and since the Sharapova exposure, more athletes (predominantly Russian) have tested positive for it. Now, not all of them surely have done a "Sharapova" and not read the email or correspondence from WADA!

I think most are in agreement as to the intentions behind Sharapova taking the drug (prior to being banned). I am unsure as to the doses that need to be in the system for "advantageous" properties to produce an enhanced effect.

I believe this was a case of negligence from Sharapova and those around her. What I don't like is bans being over-turned on the basis of "I didn't read the e-mail" not good enough!

She has exposed the leniency by governing bodies to over-turn bans and in turn they keep taking sympathetic approaches to athletes who violate the doping laws.

The question of why she didn't apply for a TUE with the substance being banned has 2 different views. 1 fits in with the negligent stance and the other is that she would never be granted with one. I think it's a mix of both.

excellent comment and i totally agree on so many points made
but in response to tenez's comment about athletes who would risk their career and endorsements by taking banned substances they know that they would be tested for,its a stupid question to ask when youre suspicious of certain athletes doping,especially of someone like rafael nadal
wouldnt he be risking his career and endorsements to cheat? so why is it entirely plausible for him to do that but sharapova?

Cheating in essence is a risk assessment isn't it? Any advantage that can be obtained by any means, athletes will seize on it, especially when vying for success. I can't remember now who it was, but their was a British coach who was trying to find out the amount of substance needed in the system to warrant a failed test and claimed it was for 'research purposes' Tenez was coming from an angle that Meldonium in it's form is minute in terms of enhancing properties. In other words if you are going to cheat, cheat big I guess and not get caught with something small.

Athletes put their trust in doctors and thus if a doctor tells you he will prescribe something illegal, however will limit doses so it doesn't border on the illegal limit, some will take a punt on that.

Sharapova could fail every drug test in the book, but I'd wager my house that she would still make it on the front of Sports Illustrated in a bikini!

excellent point and i believe thats what sharapova did and how she was caught
its my opinion that she saw the email and micro dosed thinking that she could beat the system, which also leads me to suspect that meldonium may be just the tip of the iceberg in her case
i totally understand that some drugs are game changers and others are not and its questionable how big an edge an athlete can get from some drugs,if an edge at all
but lets take meldonium out of the equation..and lets look at the double standard with regards to tenez's argument 
you cannot be suspicious of an athlete i.e rafeal nadal and then at the same time question if an athlete would risk their careers and endorsement to cheat..if youre suspicious of any athlete then you have to believe that they are willing to risk their careers and endorsements..
so if its entirely plausible that an athlete like rafael nadal would risk his career and endorsements based simply on the fact that youre suspicious that he may be doping,how can the same principle not apply to sharapova or any other athlete for that matter?
why is it entirely plausible that rafael nadal as an example would risk his career and endorsement but not sharapova..??
it has nothing to do with the drug,its the double standard
if youre open to the possibility that one athlete could be cheating then you have to be open to the possibility that any athlete could be cheating
if youre open to  the possibility that 1 athlete could cheating and therefore risking his/her career and endorsement then you have to be open to the possibility that any athlete could be cheating and therefore risking his/her career and endorsement but somehow to tenez sharapova couldnt possible be 1 cheating or 2 risking her career and endorsement 
even though shes the one that we know of who tested positive for a banned substance

The longer your posts guys the more it looks like your are trying to convince yourselves. Maybe you have succeeded in that respect.

Veejay wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Veejay wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Veejay wrote:

legendkillar wrote:I think there is misunderstanding of Tenez's stance. The argument is from his point is why would athlete continue to take a substance about to be banned by WADA when they know they will be tested? Which I think is a fair point.

why do athletes take nadrolone knowing that they will be tested for it? because they want to cheat and believe that they can get away with it,so why is it so far fetched to think that sharapova would not do the exact same thing?
we already know for a fact that she looks to drugs to gain an edge cause she certainly didnt need meldonium for medical reasons,that to me proves that shes a potential doper 
lets also not forget that she tried to hide the fact that she was still taking meldonium,if you think that the rug is still legal and that you needed to use it for medical reasons then why lie and hide about taking it?
to me that proves that she knew that it was banned and reas the email tha told her that it was banned 
im using nandrolone cause its one of the oldest drugs around and has been tested for donkey years but yet you continue to hear of athletes either testing positive for it or getting caught with viles of it
that is the definition of a doper/cheater in sport,an athlete who tries to cheat and thinks that they can get away with it

Meldonium has only recently been listed as banned, so prior to the test this year it was legal. I think she was the first athlete to be confirmed as testing positive for it. Effectively in relation to this substance we are breaking new ground and since the Sharapova exposure, more athletes (predominantly Russian) have tested positive for it. Now, not all of them surely have done a "Sharapova" and not read the email or correspondence from WADA!

I think most are in agreement as to the intentions behind Sharapova taking the drug (prior to being banned). I am unsure as to the doses that need to be in the system for "advantageous" properties to produce an enhanced effect.

I believe this was a case of negligence from Sharapova and those around her. What I don't like is bans being over-turned on the basis of "I didn't read the e-mail" not good enough!

She has exposed the leniency by governing bodies to over-turn bans and in turn they keep taking sympathetic approaches to athletes who violate the doping laws.

The question of why she didn't apply for a TUE with the substance being banned has 2 different views. 1 fits in with the negligent stance and the other is that she would never be granted with one. I think it's a mix of both.

excellent comment and i totally agree on so many points made
but in response to tenez's comment about athletes who would risk their career and endorsements by taking banned substances they know that they would be tested for,its a stupid question to ask when youre suspicious of certain athletes doping,especially of someone like rafael nadal
wouldnt he be risking his career and endorsements to cheat? so why is it entirely plausible for him to do that but sharapova?

Cheating in essence is a risk assessment isn't it? Any advantage that can be obtained by any means, athletes will seize on it, especially when vying for success. I can't remember now who it was, but their was a British coach who was trying to find out the amount of substance needed in the system to warrant a failed test and claimed it was for 'research purposes' Tenez was coming from an angle that Meldonium in it's form is minute in terms of enhancing properties. In other words if you are going to cheat, cheat big I guess and not get caught with something small.

Athletes put their trust in doctors and thus if a doctor tells you he will prescribe something illegal, however will limit doses so it doesn't border on the illegal limit, some will take a punt on that.

Sharapova could fail every drug test in the book, but I'd wager my house that she would still make it on the front of Sports Illustrated in a bikini!

excellent point and i believe thats what sharapova did and how she was caught
its my opinion that she saw the email and micro dosed thinking that she could beat the system, which also leads me to suspect that meldonium may be just the tip of the iceberg in her case
i totally understand that some drugs are game changers and others are not and its questionable how big an edge an athlete can get from some drugs,if an edge at all
but lets take meldonium out of the equation..and lets look at the double standard with regards to tenez's argument 
you cannot be suspicious of an athlete i.e rafeal nadal and then at the same time question if an athlete would risk their careers and endorsement to cheat..if youre suspicious of any athlete then you have to believe that they are willing to risk their careers and endorsements..
so if its entirely plausible that an athlete like rafael nadal would risk his career and endorsements based simply on the fact that youre suspicious that he may be doping,how can the same principle not apply to sharapova or any other athlete for that matter?
why is it entirely plausible that rafael nadal as an example would risk his career and endorsement but not sharapova..??
it has nothing to do with the drug,its the double standard
if youre open to the possibility that one athlete could be cheating then you have to be open to the possibility that any athlete could be cheating
if youre open to  the possibility that 1 athlete could cheating and therefore risking his/her career and endorsement then you have to be open to the possibility that any athlete could be cheating and therefore risking his/her career and endorsement but somehow to tenez sharapova couldnt possible be 1 cheating or 2 risking her career and endorsement 
even though shes the one that we know of who tested positive for a banned substance

I am more inclined to believe she didn't see the e-mail and that once she was informed she had failed a test, that previous offenders (in tennis) have successfully overturned bans with stories of innocent intentions which I think she felt she had a strong chance of obtaining. The case is unique as the substance wasn't previously banned and I think that stems from Tenez's argument. Prior to Meldonium being banned, she wasn't (to my knowledge) taking other substances. Which again I think is Tenez's point about someone taking substances which aren't banned to suddenly taking them. I don't buy she was taking Meldonium for 'Medical and Health reasons'

The argument for Nadal doping is basically the belief he has been on the hard and banned stuff from the get go. I don't think even Sharapova before all this was even suspected by anyone being on the hard stuff.

 Everyone has a view on this. I think the most obvious thing in all of this is the negligence of Sharapova coupled with the leniency of governing bodies on doping.

just because sharapova has never been a serious suspect like rafael nadal for instance doesnt rule out the possibility that she may be using game changing PED's,the mere fact that she tested positive for a banned substance when when theres been virtually no suspicion around her prior to that just proves that anyone could be cheating..you never know

i keep going back to this argument..
the drug had been legal prior to it being banned this year,so technically sharapova was doing nothing wrong and was well within her right to use it.
she didnt have to give a reason why she was using it,she owed no one an explanation..the mere fact that she had to conjure up a lie for the reasons why she was using it (when she didnt even need to) is the reason why i simply cannot believe her
lying = hiding the truth,and if she was doing nothing wrong then there was no reason to lie or hide the truth
so already her credibility in this case is shot for that lie
then theres the fact that she didnt disclose using meldonium on the doping control form
if she didnt know that the drug had been banned,never read the email and was using it for medical reasons then why hide the fact that youre using the drug,if youre as innocent as you claim you are then you would have written down that you were using it for medical reasons
then theres the fact that she somehow missed the email that told her the drug was banned but read the email that told her she failed a drugs test..
sorry but her story does just doesnt add up..
this is more then just a case of gross negligence,there were a lot of lies told to make it look like a case of gross negligence 
sharapova and her team knew if they spinned it that way the powers that be would have been lenient 
ignorance is the oldest trick in the book,so many athletes have gotten away with playing that card and it worked for sharapovas ban being over turned too

We are singing from the same hymn sheet. She claimed to take it because it was linked to 'family history' however as you pointed out she didn't apply for a TUE. Hence why it fits the story she didn't read the e-mail.

However, if she applied for a TUE I would imagine (well hope given how useless the governing bodies were) that they would reject it on the grounds she doesn't need to take medication for a condition she doesn't have!

I am in no way suggesting she is innocent. For me what doesn't stack up is why is an athlete who is residing in America going to great lengths to be treated with a substance banned in America for little enhancing properties when there are other more legal methods they could explore if it is taken to aide with "wear and tear and aches and pains"

This has been a PR masterclass from Sharapova. Somehow, despite the fact she is entirely in the wrong, she's left an impression that she has been a victim and wrongly punished. She hasn't. She has got off lightly. 

There are some excellent points made above, particularly  by LK. However, I think the main point to be made here is that the ITF/WTA treated her exactly as they would any other athlete who failed a test, despite the fact the WTA must have been devastated that their top star was going to be banned. The ITF's original decision was brutal in its criticism of her failings and a 2 year ban was pretty much bang on in my view. 

Indeed, generally the ITF seems to have a pretty robust approach to doping. Just a shame that the CAS keeps reducing the sentences!

People don't see the main point:

This is not whether Sharapova is doped or not.

It's about catching ones and allowing others based on their nationality.

In Sharapova's case, had she been a US citizen, she'd be a squeaky clean TUEd  athlete...just like Serena Williams.

I really don't know how to put this any simpler.

It is about Sharapova doping for crying out loud!

Look past this whole Nationality nonsense.

The offence and TUE are 2 separate issues!!!!!

That above in bold is the point. Anything about nationalities and TUE's, divert to that thread!!

noleisthebest wrote:People don't see the main point:

This is not whether Sharapova is doped or not.

It's about catching ones and allowing others.

In Sharapova's case, had she been a US citizen, she'd be a squeaqy clean TUEd  athlete...just like Serena Williams.

I really don't know how to put this any simpler.

we cant speak for the system,obviously it has a lot of flaws but we are specifically speaking about the sharapova case here.she told several lies,she used a lame excuse and she was able to get a reduced sentence because of a lame excuse..if thats not allowing her to dope and get pretty much getting away with it,then i dont know what is
if other cases arise then we will debate those cases
how do you know for a fact or can prove for a fact that some of those athletes who have TUE's dont actually need those drugs for medical reason?
its a very grey area but out of those who have TUE's there are bound to be some legitimate ones 
the  main problem with your argument is that youre looking at everyone else expect the one who has actually been found guilty
i simply dont understand your logic...will you be sympathetic to the rapist or peadophile simply because he was caught and the rest are running wild committing their sick crimes?

Veejay wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:People don't see the main point:

This is not whether Sharapova is doped or not.

It's about catching ones and allowing others.

In Sharapova's case, had she been a US citizen, she'd be a squeaqy clean TUEd  athlete...just like Serena Williams.

I really don't know how to put this any simpler.

we cant speak for the system,obviously it has a lot of flaws but we are specifically speaking about the sharapova case here.she told several lies,she used a lame excuse and she was able to get a reduced sentence because of a lame excuse..if thats not allowing her to dope and get pretty much getting away with it,then i dont know what it
if other cases arise then we will debate those cases
how do you know for a fact or can prove for a fact that some of those athletes who have TUE's dont actually need those drugs for medical reason?
the  main problem with your argument is that youre looking at everyone else expect the one who has actually been found guilty
i simply dont understand your logic...will you be sympathetic to the rapist or peadophile simply because he was caught and the rest are running wild committing their sick crimes?

As far as I can see, UNFORTUNATELY just about everyone is doping...

So what shall I do?

Stop watching tennis?

It's still a bloody fantastic game!

My chip on the shoulder is that some players get punsihed for doping and some don't.
It doesn't get more unfair than that in sport.

Might is right.

legendkillar wrote:It is about Sharapova doping for crying out loud!

Look past this whole Nationality nonsense.

The offence and TUE are 2 separate issues!!!!!

That above in bold is the point. Anything about nationalities and TUE's, divert to that thread!!

LK,

I wish it was nationality nonsense, and the state the world is in was just a bad dream, but it's not.

I replied to the rest in my previous to Vee.

noleisthebest wrote:

Veejay wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:People don't see the main point:

This is not whether Sharapova is doped or not.

It's about catching ones and allowing others.

In Sharapova's case, had she been a US citizen, she'd be a squeaqy clean TUEd  athlete...just like Serena Williams.

I really don't know how to put this any simpler.

we cant speak for the system,obviously it has a lot of flaws but we are specifically speaking about the sharapova case here.she told several lies,she used a lame excuse and she was able to get a reduced sentence because of a lame excuse..if thats not allowing her to dope and get pretty much getting away with it,then i dont know what it
if other cases arise then we will debate those cases
how do you know for a fact or can prove for a fact that some of those athletes who have TUE's dont actually need those drugs for medical reason?
the  main problem with your argument is that youre looking at everyone else expect the one who has actually been found guilty
i simply dont understand your logic...will you be sympathetic to the rapist or peadophile simply because he was caught and the rest are running wild committing their sick crimes?

As far as I can see, UNFORTUNATELY just about everyone is doping...

So what shall I do?

Stop watching tennis?

It's still a bloody fantastic game!

My chip on the shoulder is that some players get punsihed for doping and some don't.
It doesn't get more unfair than that in sport.

Might is right.

i think that that is everyones chip on their shoulder,that some get away with it and others dont
but rest assured NITB,the truth usually always has the last laugh...just look at the armstrong scandal,for years it looked like he got  away with it.who ever expected for it to implode so spectacularly?

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:It is about Sharapova doping for crying out loud!

Look past this whole Nationality nonsense.

The offence and TUE are 2 separate issues!!!!!

That above in bold is the point. Anything about nationalities and TUE's, divert to that thread!!

LK,

I wish it was nationality nonsense, and the state the world is in was just a bad dream, but it's not.

I replied to the rest in my  previous to Vee.

As I stated. You are confusing two issues into thinking it is one issue. It isn't.

The issue is another tennis player fails a drug test and gets the initial ban reduced. It's making a mockery of the sport!

Sharapova didn't fail the test because she was Russian. She failed because she is an idiot!

legendkillar wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:It is about Sharapova doping for crying out loud!

Look past this whole Nationality nonsense.

The offence and TUE are 2 separate issues!!!!!

That above in bold is the point. Anything about nationalities and TUE's, divert to that thread!!

LK,

I wish it was nationality nonsense, and the state the world is in was just a bad dream, but it's not.

I replied to the rest in my  previous to Vee.

As I stated. You are confusing two issues into thinking it is one issue. It isn't.

The issue is another tennis player fails a drug test and gets the initial ban reduced. It's making a mockery of the sport!

Sharapova didn't fail the test because she was Russian. She failed because she is an idiot!

correction,she failed the test cause she tried to cheat...theres no way around it!

Tenez wrote:The longer your posts guys the more it looks like your are trying to convince yourselves. Maybe you have succeeded in that respect.

I gave up trying to convince you in any debate, because facts and reason don't work.  You think she is innocent on very flimsy reasoning and nothing and no-one is going to change your mind or get you to see the other side - so why bother :P

I do know for a fact that if this were about Nadal, you would be here with the totally opposite opinion. That's the real issue.

Daniel wrote:

Tenez wrote:The longer your posts guys the more it looks like your are trying to convince yourselves. Maybe you have succeeded in that respect.

I gave up trying to convince you in any debate, because facts and reason don't work.  You think she is innocent on very flimsy reasoning and nothing and no-one is going to change your mind or get you to see the other side - so why bother :P

I do know for a fact that if this were about Nadal, you would be here with the totally opposite opinion. That's the real issue.

i have to agree with that

Daniel wrote:

Tenez wrote:The longer your posts guys the more it looks like your are trying to convince yourselves. Maybe you have succeeded in that respect.

I gave up trying to convince you in any debate, because facts and reason don't work.  You think she is innocent on very flimsy reasoning and nothing and no-one is going to change your mind or get you to see the other side - so why bother :P

I do know for a fact that if this were about Nadal, you would be here with the totally opposite opinion. That's the real issue.

Cause you are pretty open-minded and keen to admit you were wrong!?!

Veejay wrote:

Daniel wrote:

Tenez wrote:The longer your posts guys the more it looks like your are trying to convince yourselves. Maybe you have succeeded in that respect.

I gave up trying to convince you in any debate, because facts and reason don't work.  You think she is innocent on very flimsy reasoning and nothing and no-one is going to change your mind or get you to see the other side - so why bother :P

I do know for a fact that if this were about Nadal, you would be here with the totally opposite opinion. That's the real issue.

i have to agree with that

Again completely wrong. I have actually been very objective about Nadal. Show me where I have been biased about him? Unlike FK, I never blamed Federer's age for his losses to Nadal. My aim was always to try to find real explanations.

Tenez wrote:

Veejay wrote:

Daniel wrote:

Tenez wrote:The longer your posts guys the more it looks like your are trying to convince yourselves. Maybe you have succeeded in that respect.

I gave up trying to convince you in any debate, because facts and reason don't work.  You think she is innocent on very flimsy reasoning and nothing and no-one is going to change your mind or get you to see the other side - so why bother :P

I do know for a fact that if this were about Nadal, you would be here with the totally opposite opinion. That's the real issue.

i have to agree with that

Again completely wrong. I have actually been very objective about Nadal. Show me where I have been biased about him? Unlike FK, I never blamed Federer's age for his losses to Nadal. My aim was always to try to find real explanations.

i am going to use your own argument against you tenez..the more you comment the more you look like youre trying to convince yourself,maybe you have succeeded in this regard 

Tenez wrote:

Veejay wrote:

Daniel wrote:

I do know for a fact that if this were about Nadal, you would be here with the totally opposite opinion. That's the real issue.

i have to agree with that

Again completely wrong.

I can officially confirm Tenez is in the clear here.
If Nadal had been caught and forced to stop taking this diabetes prevention drug like Sharapova had, Tenez would be up all night fretting over Nadal's blood glucose levels.

Nadal is a clear doper. However like a real doper he woudl never get caught with a soft drug which has just been banned hoping he would get through it without being tested. Those top players have millions at stake. If they do get caught for a soft drug they have a good excuse.

I am not saying Shara is a clean player. That's certainly not my point. She has probably used the heavy stuff in the past. My point is that in this occasion, she was not trying to cheat. She was just careless.

So your argument about me defending Shara is plain wrong. I am only defending her on that occasion.....like I also defended Nadal on THASP at times against those ridiculous conspirationists.

Tenez wrote: My point is that in this occasion, she was not trying to cheat. 

Prove it.

You can't prove either way. It's just common sense and it happened to be the conclusion of the Cas as well (the Court of Arbitration for Sport)!

Tenez wrote:You can't prove either way. It's just common sense.

if you cant prove it then its not a fact just your opinion,just because you think that youre opinion right doesnt mean that you are
what we do know for a fact is that sharapova tested positive for a banned substance,shes been found guilty of doping offences and is serving a ban because of that

If we go by your "prove it" logic, then we have nothing to worry about - twnnis is a clean sport with only a nandful players caught and punished.

noleisthebest wrote:If we go by your "prove it" logic, then we have nothing to worry about - twnnis is a clean sport with only a nandful players caught and punished.

tenez is saying that nadal is a clear doper,which he cant prove as a fact but is trumpeting it as fact
but yet sharapova who has failed a drug test,has been found guilty of it and is serving a ban because of it, is not a fact of violating doping offences and therefore not classified as trying to cheat 

Tenez wrote: Nadal is a clear doper. However like a real doper he woudl never get caught with a soft drug which has just been banned hoping he would get through it without being tested. Those top players have millions at stake. If they do get caught for a soft drug they have a good excuse.

Nadal is not a "clear" doper. My personal view is that it is entirely possible to reach his level of fitness naturally. Of course, it's also entirely possible he took some shortcuts. There is no way to be certain either way. If anything, his obvious decline in both speed and endurance from c. 28 onwards suggests he may be clean.

Slippy wrote:

Tenez wrote: Nadal is a clear doper. However like a real doper he woudl never get caught with a soft drug which has just been banned hoping he would get through it without being tested. Those top players have millions at stake. If they do get caught for a soft drug they have a good excuse.

Nadal is not a "clear" doper. My personal view is that it is entirely possible to reach his level of fitness naturally. Of course, it's also entirely possible he took some shortcuts. There is no way to be certain either way. If anything, his obvious decline in both speed and endurance from c. 28 onwards suggests he may be clean.

I don't think it is possible. You can be as muscly as him naturally, you can hard as him naturally but when someone uses as much energy one cannot do it for 5 sets. One needs more red cells than naturally given.

I however actually don't believe he got those muscles naturally either. Same with Murray. Worse in fact as he is built like a tank but runs like a gazelle. We know about Djoko and the o2 egg so that at least makes it clear about how "natural" his fitnes is.....not.