The Tennis Thread
Discussion
Yes so the slick PR machine goes into overdrive. At the end of the day she's a professional athlete and it's her responsibility and hers alone about what she puts inside her body. If it was a cyclist he or she would be thrown to the wolves. Why should she be any different. Previous good character or not knowing this was a banned substance should have absolutely no relevance.
272BHP said:
You get very few of these scandals in sports like soccer, rugby and boxing, probably because they have the good sense not to look too hard.
I did wonder if the fact that she was Russian (despite leaving at 7) had something to do with it. They were the first of the recent spate of Athletics dopers to be looked at closely, by German scientists, IIRC. Any other international sports the Russians could be embarrassed with by outing open secrets?I still can't get over the ineptitude of not checking the list. Under the bus she goes.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
She broke the rules, she's a cheat. It may have been inadvertent 
but that's irrelevant. Prior to 2016 she was just maixmising her performance using all legal means available - no issue with that (ethical and moral thoughts aside). The legal list changed, she didn't stop using that drug. It's not a Lance Armstrong scale of cheating and I'd expect that to be reflected the punishment meted out - that's where your proportionality comes in.The specific drug aids faster recovery, so it's not the in-match benefit, it's the "training harder for longer and still recovering for the next day's training" benefit.
ewenm said:
She broke the rules, she's a cheat. It may have been inadvertent but that's irrelevant. Prior to 2016 she was just maixmising her performance using all legal means available - no issue with that (ethical and moral thoughts aside). The legal list changed, she didn't stop using that drug. It's not a Lance Armstrong scale of cheating and I'd expect that to be reflected the punishment meted out - that's where your proportionality comes in.
The specific drug aids faster recovery, so it's not the in-match benefit, it's the "training harder for longer and still recovering for the next day's training" benefit.
I'm pretty sure Sharapova is the tip of the iceberg. Whatever she was taking, there was almost certainly still a 'level playing field'. There is a mindset of complacency that sets in among athletes of 'everyone's doing it'. They don't regard it as wrong and it becomes their normal. but that's irrelevant. Prior to 2016 she was just maixmising her performance using all legal means available - no issue with that (ethical and moral thoughts aside). The legal list changed, she didn't stop using that drug. It's not a Lance Armstrong scale of cheating and I'd expect that to be reflected the punishment meted out - that's where your proportionality comes in.The specific drug aids faster recovery, so it's not the in-match benefit, it's the "training harder for longer and still recovering for the next day's training" benefit.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
two facts.1) it was added to the banned list for 2016
2) she took it willingly.
The bigger issue for me is how she managed to obtain this drug for 10 years without it being questioned by someone in Tennis. I would like to hear from her "family" doctor as to why she used this for 10 years.
Lets see just how keen Tennis is to pursue this.
JNW1 said:
yonex said:
JNW1 said:
The reason people have moaned about drugs in cycling is because it's been endemic in that sport for years; I'd like to think tennis won't find itself in the same boat
It is in the same boat. There are no degrees of cheating. Operation Puerto? So far only cyclists have been sanctioned, but if WADA win an appeal and athletes are linked to the blood bags, tennis & football could be put in the spotlight. The doctor behind the scandal has claimed that Spain could be stripped of its European & World Cup wins...
telegraph said:
At the time of 2006 drugs raids it was not illegal in Spain to take drugs, but was rather an issue for the sporting bodies. Fuentes had allegedly told a prison informant when he was arrested as part of a second raid that he had information that could strip Spain of its World Cup and Uefa championship.
See Also:Operation Puerto
Serena Williams
Tennis has a steroid problem
Tennis flawed anit-doping program
Edited by jesusbuiltmycar on Wednesday 9th March 09:58
ewenm said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
She broke the rules, she's a cheat. It may have been inadvertent but that's irrelevant. Prior to 2016 she was just maixmising her performance using all legal means available - no issue with that (ethical and moral thoughts aside). The legal list changed, she didn't stop using that drug. It's not a Lance Armstrong scale of cheating and I'd expect that to be reflected the punishment meted out - that's where your proportionality comes in.The specific drug aids faster recovery, so it's not the in-match benefit, it's the "training harder for longer and still recovering for the next day's training" benefit.
The dopey eyed, hand on chest, medical mistake defence has done her and the sport no favours. If the powers that be had any spine, they would in the absence of proper medical evidence, throw the book at her and give her the full four year ban. If there is no documentary evidence of declaring the prescription on the relevant doping control form, there is no way of knowing how the drug was ingested.
There's no evidence that she is guilty of it, but blood microdoping is widely suspected in other sports, so why not Tennis? If there has been one lesson learned over the last ten years it's that what happens in one sport is not limited to that sport and is likely to be far more widespread than anyone might expect.
It is too easy to compare caffeine to a heart prescription medicine and shrug one's shoulders. There is clearly a big difference, perhaps not legally but certainly ethically and morally. Throw in the doping methods behind PED's and then it gets far, far worse.
Leithen said:
It is too easy to compare caffeine to a heart prescription medicine and shrug one's shoulders. There is clearly a big difference, perhaps not legally but certainly ethically and morally. Throw in the doping methods behind PED's and then it gets far, far worse.
I agree. Which is why, if we care about clean sport, the rules need to be stricter. We cannot expect athletes to be cleaner than the rules require them to be.I do wonder when this will be will hit the mens game, someone was named in the above Reddit thread as having used in the past. I was commenting just the other day on just how FIT the top guys are, the temptation to take a drug that could give you an extra 1% at that level, especially as you age, must be immense. I don't really want to think about it.
JNW1 said:
No idea what knowledge DocJock has to make the comment below but if true it seems clear the use of the drug could enhance physical performance and therefore someone taking it would in theory at least have an advantage over someone who wasn't? We obviously don't know whether Sharapova's ranking benefited from taking the drug but it's probably safe to say it wasn't affected adversely as a result of using it!
A competency in simple pharamcology from medical training and an ongoing interest in pharmacodynamics.DocJock said:
Err, the whole purpose of the drug in question is to increase oxygen uptake and increase physical endurance.
My only surprise is that it has avoided the banned substances list until now.
My only surprise is that it has avoided the banned substances list until now.
The drug is manufactured and marketed as an anti-ischaemic. In it's original trial (2005) it increased the fatigue resistance of angina patients (walk on a treadmill until they feel uncomfortable). Subsequent studies in Russia and China demonstrated increases in oxygen uptake and exercise capacity. One US study did not find this outcome. All of the studies were small, <200 subjects.
The latest, large study, in China, was published last year but the results are behind a paywall.
I don't know what to think about Sharapova's explanation. In Russia and China, if Meldonium is used therapeutically it is normally prescribed in conjunction with Lisinopril. Taking it on it's own seems odd.
Furthermore, as said earlier in the thread by ewenm, surely she would have had a therapeutic use exemption to cover this sort of occurence?
johnxjsc1985 said:
The bigger issue for me is how she managed to obtain this drug for 10 years without it being questioned by someone in Tennis. I would like to hear from her "family" doctor as to why she used this for 10 years.
Lets see just how keen Tennis is to pursue this.
Presumably she wasn't questioned because the substance wasn't on the banned list? Based on comments from people in the know it sounds like it should have been but if the authorities allowed it to slip through the net (no pun intended!) then in theory a player hasn't done anything wrong by taking it and therefore no questions were necessary? Lets see just how keen Tennis is to pursue this.
glazbagun said:
I do wonder when this will be will hit the mens game, someone was named in the above Reddit thread as having used in the past. I was commenting just the other day on just how FIT the top guys are, the temptation to take a drug that could give you an extra 1% at that level, especially as you age, must be immense. I don't really want to think about it.
I agree. There's no doubt there are players who work extremely hard on their fitness and do so in a genuine and honest way (and I believe Andy Murray is one of the best examples of that). However, there have also been question marks around one or two others and after the events of this week you can't help but wonder if there isn't a high profile player in the mens game who could fall foul of the rules in the same way Sharapova has..... johnxjsc1985 said:
two facts.
1) it was added to the banned list for 2016
2) she took it willingly.
The bigger issue for me is how she managed to obtain this drug for 10 years without it being questioned by someone in Tennis. I would like to hear from her "family" doctor as to why she used this for 10 years.
Lets see just how keen Tennis is to pursue this.
Quote I've just seen from Dick Pound of WADA1) it was added to the banned list for 2016
2) she took it willingly.
The bigger issue for me is how she managed to obtain this drug for 10 years without it being questioned by someone in Tennis. I would like to hear from her "family" doctor as to why she used this for 10 years.
Lets see just how keen Tennis is to pursue this.
Dick Pound said:
When all is said and done, a lot more is said than is done
Sums up the attitude to doping in a lot of sports IMO.JNW1 said:
Presumably she wasn't questioned because the substance wasn't on the banned list? Based on comments from people in the know it sounds like it should have been but if the authorities allowed it to slip through the net (no pun intended!) then in theory a player hasn't done anything wrong by taking it and therefore no questions were necessary?
She was supposed to put it on her doping control forms. Presumably that includes all the stuff a player is taking. The length of her ban will depend on whether she did (According to The Times today)So WADA were tipped off and in a study found 17% of Russian athletes tested had Melodium and 2.2% of all nationalities!
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/mar/08/meldo...
For something that is only supposed to be taken for 4-6 weeks (as stated by the manufacturer) it seems to have been regularly popped like M&Ms.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/mar/08/meldo...
For something that is only supposed to be taken for 4-6 weeks (as stated by the manufacturer) it seems to have been regularly popped like M&Ms.
FourWheelDrift said:
So WADA were tipped off and in a study found 17% of Russian athletes tested had Melodium and 2.2% of all nationalities!
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/mar/08/meldo...
For something that is only supposed to be taken for 4-6 weeks (as stated by the manufacturer) it seems to have been regularly popped like M&Ms.
From the times today:http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/mar/08/meldo...
For something that is only supposed to be taken for 4-6 weeks (as stated by the manufacturer) it seems to have been regularly popped like M&Ms.
"A spokeswoman from Grindeks said via email to The Times: “Treatment course of meldonium may vary from four to six weeks [and] can be repeated twice or thrice a year. It is not to be prescribed to treat diabetes.”
There is also plenty of evidence that meldonium has long been known to boost performance in sport.
Before it was added to Wada’s banned list, Ivars Kalvins, the drug’s inventor, boasted in a scientific journal in Latvia: “Mildronate increases endurance properties and aerobic capabilities of athletes [and] does not provoke any undesired side-effects.”
maxxy5 said:
She was supposed to put it on her doping control forms. Presumably that includes all the stuff a player is taking. The length of her ban will depend on whether she did (According to The Times today)
Ok but if the substance wasn't banned what difference would it have made if she'd declared it; presumably the authorities still couldn't have taken any action because it wasn't an illegal substance at the time and therefore she wasn't doing anything wrong? However, if all players were meant to log this on doping control forms it would be really interesting to see who was taking it and then stopped when the rules changed; they will argue (rightly) that they were operating within the rules at the time but it seems clear that the continued use of this drug can only have been to enhance performance. Therefore, while technically those users were clean the reality is that they were exploiting a loophole and that being the case I'd be selecting them for random tests regularly and often over the coming months....Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff