Re: Re:
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.....
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.....