Tennis

Page 112 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 21, 2015
377
0
0
Re: Re:

Maxiton said:
Zinoviev Letter said:
Now something that clearly was "targeting the Russians" was putting Meldonium on the banned list in the first place. It's a substance that seems to be as easy to get hold of as sweets in Russia, but which doesn't appear to be widely used elsewhere - eg the 2015 study that showed 724 out of 4,316 Russian athletes with it in their system.

It seems hard to argue that putting it on the banned list represents an *unfair* targeting of the Russians however.
A lot here just does not add up. First of all, why is the drug specific to Russian athletes? Perhaps because it was developed in the Soviet Union for use by soldiers in the Afghanistan war.

Why would a multi-million dollar athlete, competing in a heavily doped sport, walk right into a drug control with an easily detectable, banned drug in her system? For that matter, why would WADA wait for ten years to ban the drug, if it's so performance enhancing? And, if the drug was newly banned but Sharapova relied on it for therapeutic purposes, why would she not simply apply for a TUE? The worst they could say was "no".

And, lastly, why would ITF sacrifice one of its main attractions and arguably tarnish its own sport for political purposes?

I think I have a possible answer to this last one: on this earth there are things and concerns and threats far more powerful than the ITF.
The drug is only approved and widely available in limited parts of Eastern Europe. Apparently, you can buy it over the counter in Russia. It's probably perceived as genuinely performance enhancing among coaches/enablers, and therefore persistently popular among athletes there. In other countries, you would have to import it, which is against the law in many jurisdictions without appropriate importation licenses.

Athletes are often ahead of the curve with doping, and work out what's effective before WADA does (Conte's "The Clear" is a good example). 10 years is indeed a long time, but the medication was on WADAs "watch-list" last year, which means they had cottoned-onto its abuse potential.

On balance, I suspect Sharapova was using this for PE rather than a true medical indication, but that she and her team made a genuine error in failing to realize that a rule change had taken place. This has to be the case if it's indeed true that Sharapova listed the drug on her Aus Open doping control form (as Lindsey Davenport reported her lawyer saying in a private conversation)

She could have applied for a TUE, but based on my knowledge of the pharmacology and approved indications, she would not have been granted it, but that is probably moot.....
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
i was thinking along the same lines.
For years on end all these tennis puppets have received the ITF memo, which is "dope like its 1999, we make sure u wont see any consequences".
it seems Wada didnt get the memo in 2016 or decided to ignore it.
Why? as fred says, it could b some wider antirussian agenda.

there are other possible explanations as well, i guess.
maybe something more damning on sharipova and/or other tennis players was about to be leaked, and this was ITFs attempt to be ahead of that leak?

Or maybe zinoviev is on the right track and sharepowa just didnt pass the iq test. But agree with max and fred that thats somewhat odd.
 
May 14, 2010
5,310
2
0
Re: Re:

Freddythefrog said:
Why would an athlete with a fully tooled up support staff walk into a test glowing ?

Break it down - why would she continue to use a banned drug ? Because she (and more importantly her team) had been conditioned not to bother caring.

Why didn't she (and they) care ? Because there were no sanctions.

Why were there no sanctions surely the ITF have sanctions against "dopers"? Well they do but the testing and implementation is probably corrupted. No press release on any positives. The most feeble excuse, if they even bother to have a hearing, is accepted as justified reason for consumption and hey presto the most marketable female asset the ITF have is bullet proof.

So WADA came up with a new list - just what has changed at the ITF from Sharipova's point of view. This is the sport with bent umpires betting on matches they fix and they get a silent ban. Then look at some of the male stars. Is she criminal number one ?

Of course she did not intend to get caught and from what seems to be coming out, the problem was WADA went looking for her and administered the test not the ITF and once they had their mitts on her positive, the ITF were powerless to close down the story.

WADA may well be running a "let's go catch us some pesky Ruskies" program to fit in with some wider narrative
, but keeping it with Sharipova, the story is quite contained .

[And talking of silent bans, did we ever find out why the single source of information on Femke's brothers EPO ban was some monthly newsletter and it did not feature on the UCI pdf ? ] So the ITF being able to keep the lid on a variety of its stars doping results would seem to be the only rational driving motive for why the support team of the most wealthy female sports star on the planet allowed her not to see the change in status of a known performance enhancing drug as a threat that required a change in practice.
sniper said:
i was thinking along the same lines.
For years on end all these tennis puppets have received the ITF memo, which is "dope like its 1999, we make sure u wont see any consequences".
it seems Wada didnt get the memo in 2016 or decided to ignore it.

Why? as fred says, it could b some wider antirussian agenda.

there are other possible explanations as well, i guess.
maybe something more damning on sharipova and/or other tennis players was about to be leaked, and this was ITFs attempt to be ahead of that leak?

Or maybe zinoviev is on the right track and sharepowa just didnt pass the iq test. But agree with max and fred that thats somewhat odd.
I think Freddy hit the nail on the head. This appraisal takes all known facts into account and seems to be logical. WADA is thick as thieves with those colluding to take down Russian international sport. (And as sniper points out, doping is normally a non-issue in tennis.) Still, she should be eligible for a retroactive TUE.
 
The other thing to be taken into account is that the 724 Russian athletes who had meldonium in their systems when the substance was being looked at by WADA in 2015, for the purposes of deciding whether or not it should be put on the banned list, are among the very most obvious candidates for targeted testing in world sports.
 
Re:

The Hitch said:
Evening standard headline is "sharapova £100 million mistake".

Does the 100 million refer to the money she will lose for being caught, or for the money she made by doping to the top of the tennis world for a decade?
Open back page - players like Andy Murray hace been calling for years for the sport to take a tougher attitude for doping.

Lol.

The evening standard is usually crap (of course it is, it's free) but owned by a Russian I didn't expect them to fly the Uk natural supremacy myth so highly
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
The Hitch said:
Evening standard headline is "sharapova £100 million mistake".

Does the 100 million refer to the money she will lose for being caught, or for the money she made by doping to the top of the tennis world for a decade?
Open back page - players like Andy Murray hace been calling for years for the sport to take a tougher attitude for doping.

Lol.

The evening standard is usually crap (of course it is, it's free) but owned by a Russian I didn't expect them to fly the Uk natural supremacy myth so highly
thats pervers.

re bbc, i was recalling this sue barker del potro postmatch interview, 2012-ish, where he won after going behind two sets. sue asks "how did you pull that off?" delpo: "well during that injury break the doc gave me some pills, they must have been magic pills because i felt much better aterwards". All Sue could muster in response was to laugh like a farmer with toothache.
 
Jun 21, 2015
377
0
0
Nike have been endorsing Sharapova for 17 years....

They threw her under the bus pretty quick compared to Tiger....
 
Jun 21, 2015
377
0
0
Re: Re:

Maxiton said:
arcus said:
Nike have been endorsing Sharapova for 17 years....

They threw her under the bus pretty quick compared to Tiger....
Also compared to Lance . . . .
But Gatlin is golden :rolleyes:

Party line is probably either.....
1] "Bummer, given recent events, we can't really have a relationship with you while you're provisionally/officially sanctioned for doping, but we'll see you on the other side, wink wink.. BTW, whose doing your PR?".
or
2] "You're not pulling in the money anymore, and so were using this opportunity to walk away"

I favor the former.
 
May 14, 2010
5,310
2
0
Re: Re:

arcus said:
Maxiton said:
arcus said:
Nike have been endorsing Sharapova for 17 years....

They threw her under the bus pretty quick compared to Tiger....
Also compared to Lance . . . .
But Gatlin is golden :rolleyes:

Party line is probably either.....
1] "Bummer, given recent events, we can't really have a relationship with you while you're provisionally/officially sanctioned for doping, but we'll see you on the other side, wink wink.. BTW, whose doing your PR?".
or
2] "You're not pulling in the money anymore, and so were using this opportunity to walk away"

I favor the former.
Or, 3] they know the jig is up for the Russians.
 
Jun 21, 2015
377
0
0
Maria Sharapova's failed drugs test was "reckless beyond description", according to former World Anti-Doping Agency president *** Pound.

"You are taking something on a list. I am sorry, that is a big mistake - of course she should have known," said Pound, who was head of Wada from 1999 to 2007. She is taking something that is not generally permitted in her country of residence [USA] for medical purposes, so she says, so there must be a doctor following this. Anytime there is a change to the list, notice is given on 30 September prior to the change. You have October, November, December to get off what you are doing. All the tennis players were given notification of it and she has a medical team somewhere. That is reckless beyond description."
"A drug like this over a long period of time is contraindicated. It means you would not take it over a long period of time. That is why there was an urge to put the drug on the list. A lot of people were taking it for performance enhancing. Most of the drugs of choice for dopers were built for therapeutic reasons - like EPO and others. That was supposed to regenerate blood if you had cancer treatment or surgical intervention if you needed to increase blood supply. Someone has said: 'Hmm, more oxygen in the blood? Hmm, very interesting. Let's see if we can use it for that purpose."
"There is a side effect to every drug, somebody must be monitoring this."

http://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/35757814
 
May 11, 2009
1,301
0
0
Re:

The Hitch said:
Evening standard headline is "sharapova £100 million mistake".

Does the 100 million refer to the money she will lose for being caught, or for the money she made by doping to the top of the tennis world for a decade?
I doubt it after all the drug was not proscribed until this year. So she was not violating WADA rules except ethically. She would surely win if a lawsuit opened up against her.
 
Mar 19, 2009
2,811
0
0
So many people getting popped for it...are we perhaps not yet grasping how "good" it is? Or, to some degree addictive in that the userjust won't give it up?

Nike does seem to become slightly more eager to drop dopers. They have been getting a lot of complaints on their lax policies. And, she's Russian, so there's likely to be powerful whispers in the deciders' ears.
 
May 14, 2010
5,310
2
0
Re:

arcus said:
Maria Sharapova's failed drugs test was "reckless beyond description", according to former World Anti-Doping Agency president **** Pound.

"You are taking something on a list. I am sorry, that is a big mistake - of course she should have known," said Pound, who was head of Wada from 1999 to 2007. She is taking something that is not generally permitted in her country of residence [USA] for medical purposes, so she says, so there must be a doctor following this. Anytime there is a change to the list, notice is given on 30 September prior to the change. You have October, November, December to get off what you are doing. All the tennis players were given notification of it and she has a medical team somewhere. That is reckless beyond description."
"A drug like this over a long period of time is contraindicated. It means you would not take it over a long period of time. That is why there was an urge to put the drug on the list. A lot of people were taking it for performance enhancing. Most of the drugs of choice for dopers were built for therapeutic reasons - like EPO and others. That was supposed to regenerate blood if you had cancer treatment or surgical intervention if you needed to increase blood supply. Someone has said: 'Hmm, more oxygen in the blood? Hmm, very interesting. Let's see if we can use it for that purpose."
"There is a side effect to every drug, somebody must be monitoring this."

http://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/35757814
But of course he would say that. He has historical ties to WADA, and certainly showed plenty of faux outrage towards Russian athletics. Doesn't change a thing. Turns out, he's just as corrupt as the rest.
 
Jun 21, 2015
377
0
0
Re:

The Hitch said:
Evening standard headline is "sharapova £100 million mistake".

Does the 100 million refer to the money she will lose for being caught, or for the money she made by doping to the top of the tennis world for a decade?
I guess it's a random estimate of how much future endorsement earnings she'll lose :confused: .

Since she's already worth ~$200M, this will never impact her financial well-being, nor those close to her, so I doubt she's crying into her beer over finances.

Her pain will not be due to money. It will be about loss of reputation, unless her minders manage to totally smooth this over, which they might :rolleyes:
 
Jun 21, 2015
377
0
0
The PR hand of contrition... It lets us know who we can really trust ;)



(from Paul Kimmages twitter)
 
Maxiton said:
Merckx index said:
Maxiton said:
I wonder how many other players on the tennis circuit were taking this drug. Since the authorities have a list, ostensibly, of every drug taken by the players, they would be aware that she's been taking the drug for ten years. If they then suddenly ban the drug, what efforts did they make to get the word to their athlete? And if the drug's sole purpose is performance enhancement, why wait for ten years to ban it?
She was sent an email notifying her that the drug was banned, but says she didn't read it. The drug was on WADA's watch list in 2015, if not sooner, so if she'd been following things at all, she certainly would have realized that she needed to check before continuing to use it in 2016.
With that much money and juice at stake, it seems difficult to believe that she or someone on her team wouldn't open such emails and read them. It also seems really difficult to believe that WADA or ITF would leave it to an email, for god's sake.

I mean, you have it on record that this athlete has been using this drug. She has been submitting this info to you for ten years. You decide to prohibit the drug. How do you notify this athlete? By sending an email? I should think a meeting would be needed, or at least a phone call.

If there was a meeting or a phone call, and she was still found positive, then that's her tough luck. But if it was only an email, then somebody at WADA or ITF is negligent, and Sharapova should suffer no sanction.
It's not WADA's role to personally email any athlete about changes to the prohibited list. Nor indeed the role of any federation or sports admin body. Any such information provide by such organisations would be a broadcast message. WADA publish the information annually on their website and issue a media release.

It happens at the same time every year and it has always been an athlete's responsibility to check on the changes that are announced well in advance of them taking effect.
 
coinneach said:
Just wondering if any cyclist will be sweating about this test?

And, can anyone advise me, if a cyclist was taking it for performance enhancement in 2015, would that not also be liable for a ban?
It was added to the prohibited list effective 1 January 2016. Only one cyclist (Vorganov) has been popped for it this year so far AFAIK.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Re:

Zinoviev Letter said:
The other thing to be taken into account is that the 724 Russian athletes who had meldonium in their systems when the substance was being looked at by WADA in 2015, for the purposes of deciding whether or not it should be put on the banned list, are among the very most obvious candidates for targeted testing in world sports.
it is like shooting ducks in a barrel

*yes I know i tortured this metaphor and it is fish not ducks but I could not see how I could get cured herring and swedish fish into the joke.

#Chechnya
#NeilHamburger #DragCity
 
Re: Re:

Maxiton said:
arcus said:
Maria Sharapova's failed drugs test was "reckless beyond description", according to former World Anti-Doping Agency president **** Pound.
But of course he would say that. He has historical ties to WADA, and certainly showed plenty of faux outrage towards Russian athletics. Doesn't change a thing. Turns out, he's just as corrupt as the rest.
I strongly disagree. It appears you are not aware of Pound's career where he has routinely railed against doping. Read his book "Inside Dope" In that book he lays out in pretty clear and convincing language the problems with doping. Also he has more than "historical ties" to WADA. He helped found WADA. Without WADA the sports world would be worse than it already is. It is not WADA that is the problem in doping its the athletes and their coaches, doctors and retinue.

In addition in 2015/2016 he authored the investigation into Russian doping with two others. Your comment suggests you have a very superficial understanding of Pound's role and crusade against doping. To suggest he is corrupt is absurd and defamatory.
 
Re: Re:

RobbieCanuck said:
Maxiton said:
arcus said:
Maria Sharapova's failed drugs test was "reckless beyond description", according to former World Anti-Doping Agency president **** Pound.
But of course he would say that. He has historical ties to WADA, and certainly showed plenty of faux outrage towards Russian athletics. Doesn't change a thing. Turns out, he's just as corrupt as the rest.
I strongly disagree. It appears you are not aware of Pound's career where he has routinely railed against doping. Read his book "Inside Dope" In that book he lays out in pretty clear and convincing language the problems with doping. Also he has more than "historical ties" to WADA. He helped found WADA. Without WADA the sports world would be worse than it already is. It is not WADA that is the problem in doping its the athletes and their coaches, doctors and retinue.

In addition in 2015/2016 he authored the investigation into Russian doping with two others. Your comment suggests you have a very superficial understanding of Pound's role and crusade against doping. To suggest he is corrupt is absurd and defamatory.
He's also recently given a lot of support to Coe. Who surely even you can't deny is a major part of the problem.
 
Jul 15, 2013
550
0
0
taking a bag of 2015 blood with meldonium in it during the second week of AO 16 makes more doping sense to me and makes more sense than none of her medical advisors telling her to get off it when they must have known she was on it for a long time and that it was about to change from allowed to banned.

Somebody f'd up but that is a much more plausible f up imo
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS