Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Maria Sharapova fails drugs test Watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Those of you who think this is an honest mistake should take note of this:

    The drug's intended use is for patients with angina and those who have just had a heart attack - quite serious conditions, and not to be expected in a world class athlete under 30 years old.
    The manufacturer recommends it be taken for no longer than six weeks.
    The reason it has just been banned is that WADA was finding that many athletes were taking it to help performance (apparently about 700 out of 2500 Russian athletes tested have heart problems).
    It is not licensed for use in either the USA (where Sharapova has lived for a decade) or the UK. Sharapova said her GP supplied it. Perhaps her GP is importing it illegally.
    The notice from WADA mentioned both names for the drug, including the one she says she knew it by.

    Still think she was just making an honest mistake? I expect WADA will be asking for evidence of her near-fatal heart condition.

    I think all drugs should be banned to athletes unless the athlete has a TUE in place, then performance enhancing ones would give rise to problems.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    "Russian athlete in doping scandal"
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Those of you who think this is an honest mistake should take note of this:

    The drug's intended use is for patients with angina and those who have just had a heart attack - quite serious conditions, and not to be expected in a world class athlete under 30 years old.
    The manufacturer recommends it be taken for no longer than six weeks.
    The reason it has just been banned is that WADA was finding that many athletes were taking it to help performance (apparently about 700 out of 2500 Russian athletes tested have heart problems).
    It is not licensed for use in either the USA (where Sharapova has lived for a decade) or the UK. Sharapova said her GP supplied it. Perhaps her GP is importing it illegally.
    The notice from WADA mentioned both names for the drug, including the one she says she knew it by.

    Still think she was just making an honest mistake? I expect WADA will be asking for evidence of her near-fatal heart condition.
    That may be right, but I think the Achilles heel for WADA, which the Court of Arbitration for Sport may well pick up on, is the level of publicity for the change in the case of a prescription medicine that is widely used in a particular part of the world.

    I don't think sport's "judges" will have a lot of sympathy with the "athletes' duty to check" argument where a common medicine is blacklisted for the first time. I have looked on the WADA website and no press release was issued in respect of the blacklisting. That means that the various magazines for competitors in different sports would not have picked up on it unless journalists had ploughed through the new doping lists and worked out what was significant in terms of legitimate use,

    Whilst one can be sceptical about a 28 year old tennis player, this ban will also be affecting veteran sport and more sedentary sports than lawn tennis where there is a much greater likelihood of legitimate use.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    That may be right, but I think the Achilles heel for WADA, which the Court of Arbitration for Sport may well pick up on, is the level of publicity for the change in the case of a prescription medicine that is widely used in a particular part of the world.

    I don't think sport's "judges" will have a lot of sympathy with the "athletes' duty to check" argument where a common medicine is blacklisted for the first time. I have looked on the WADA website and no press release was issued in respect of the blacklisting. That means that the various magazines for competitors in different sports would not have picked up on it unless journalists had ploughed through the new doping lists and worked out what was significant in terms of legitimate use,

    Whilst one can be sceptical about a 28 year old tennis player, this ban will also be affecting veteran sport and more sedentary sports than lawn tennis where there is a much greater likelihood of legitimate use.
    I understand Sharapova was notified five times altogether about the impending change, and this press notice, for instance, seems very clear to me:

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...nces/73073450/

    As you can see, it names only one drug, is very timely and mentions both the drug's names (Sharapova claims she only knew one of the names).

    Bear in mind that these athletes were not really using the drug for medical reasons. They were taking it as an aid to competition and would (or should, if they had any sense) been monitoring it (as it was already on the watch list) in the expectation it would become banned at some stage. It seems to me that WADA has bent over backwards to give notice.

    In her case, the fact she was US-resident and it is not legally available there speaks volumes, especially when taken together with the claim her family doctor prescribed it.

    Your point about veteran sport is a good one, but such competitions are not generally drug-tested and, anyway, TUEs are freely available in case of genuine need. My son has been an amateur athlete in an Olympic sport for twelve years, starting as a junior and reaching international standard briefly, and has not been drug-tested once (and we have seen no sign of drug-testing among his peers).

    If she were a genuine heart patient (and remember, this drug is designed to be used only to help recovery after a heart attack for four to six weeks at a time, or to help angina patients) she would be able to get a TUE with no trouble. She has not mentioned that her team is onto that particular task, has she? And I bet a shilling that none of the other 700 elite athletes taking it have not done so either. Obviously, she does not really have a heart condition that would justify its use.

    Her addition of "indicators of diabetes" into the mix is specious. The drug is not designed for that use (though it may help) and "indicators of diabetes" will be found to translate as "my great uncle Oleg was believed to have had diabetes in the 1950s and its the best I can do to appear innocent".
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    I understand Sharapova was notified five times altogether about the impending change, and this press notice, for instance, seems very clear to me:

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...nces/73073450/

    As you can see, it names only one drug, is very timely and mentions both the drug's names (Sharapova claims she only knew one of the names).

    Bear in mind that these athletes were not really using the drug for medical reasons. They were taking it as an aid to competition and would (or should, if they had any sense) been monitoring it (as it was already on the watch list) in the expectation it would become banned at some stage. It seems to me that WADA has bent over backwards to give notice.

    In her case, the fact she was US-resident and it is not legally available there speaks volumes, especially when taken together with the claim her family doctor prescribed it.
    .
    I think the Associated Press report was very clear and if that has been widely picked up, then she is probably done for. Direct emails depend on their context. The Law Society send me several a week. I wouldn't want that to be my only notification of significant regulatory change.

    If a doctor is prescribing this, then it must be a doctor in the old country. I wouldn't rule that out. A lot of emigrants do go "home" for medical treatment.

    A Swede of Ethiopian origin has also been caught. She says she thought her Ethiopian doctor was prescribing vitamins. I think it is indicative of the extent to which athletes do sub-contract out what they are taking. I suspect she neither knew nor cared what it was. She had no doubt simply been assured by someone in whom she placed confidence that it was OK, which of course it used to be.





    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    I think the Associated Press report was very clear and if that has been widely picked up, then she is probably done for.
    She is definitely done for. There is no "innocent mistake" interpretation of what she has stated unless she can come up with clear, unambiguous evidence that she is a heart attack victim. Genuinely ill rich people do not use Russian GPs when they live in the USA, and genuine heart attack victims are not elite athletes.

    The truth is she was taking the drug purely for competitive gain and missed it being taken off the watch list (which was itself an amber warning that she was in dodgy ground) and pout on the ban list. very foolish for someone sailing so close to the wind.

    The whole episode shows how dodgy some of these people's morals are. I think WADA should require athletes to apply for a TUE for anything that isn't on an approved green list. It would eliminate all doubt.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    She hasn't got much of a defence besides her savvy PR and her charm approach which is coming across really sleezy IMO. Fact is she knew, had she checked her emails, in September that the drug was on the banned list and had enough time to wean herself off and compete without any problems in Australia. She didn't so she has to pay the price but imagine it'll be a lighter sentence yet she's no Serena Williams in the titles stakes in tennis but she's earned alot so an early retirement will be eased with the cash she's earned.
    • TSR Support Team
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    PS Reviewer
    In shocking news multi million pound sports stars take PEDs to gain advantage. Only Sharapova and her doctor/ coach were too dumb to be on one that they can test for.

    They're all on PEDs; why wouldn't you?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Seems she may get away with it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/36034369
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheMagicRat)
    Seems she may get away with it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/36034369
    I'm curious on that front as i don't recall her stating that she stopped using the drug before January 1. Although i do imagine that any serious action is doubtful.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _Morsey_)
    I'm curious on that front as i don't recall her stating that she stopped using the drug before January 1. Although i do imagine that any serious action is doubtful.
    Yeah, I don't remember if she said anything like that. Either way, it all seems a bit shambolic from WADA.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I have also heard about Maria Drug test results.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 20, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Quick link:

    Unanswered sport threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.