# Sharapova



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 7, 2016)

Has announced she failed a drugs tests at the Aus Open


----------



## fundy (Mar 7, 2016)

gotta laugh at all the journos who have been penning nice things about her assuming she was retiring


----------



## rudebhoy (Mar 7, 2016)

Sharapova reveals that she has been taking medicine given to her by her doctor for the past 10 years that was not on the banned substances list. However, on 1 January it was added, with Sharapova unaware, and she confirms that she accepts that she has failed a drugs test.

"I know that with this I face consequences and I don't want to end my career this way and I hope that will have a chance to play again."

- if that is true, then I do have a lot of sympathy for her.


----------



## Imurg (Mar 7, 2016)

A medicine containing something that wasn't banned but became banned this year.
She didn't read the update email from WADA but she's come out and admitted that it's a mistake.
It's not like she's been doping intentionally for years. It has to be a mistake as this substance was only banned 2 months ago.


----------



## Val (Mar 7, 2016)

She looked devastated, seems to be a mistake but a costly one for her.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 7, 2016)

Yep seems more of an administration error and do feel sympathy for her.

But some responsibility must be with her and her team to ensure all the drugs lists are up to date


----------



## Imurg (Mar 7, 2016)

The Aussie Open started on 18th Jan.
She got the email on Dec 22nd
With Xmas and all that going on its quite conceivable that nothing was done until the New Year.
It's also quite possible that this stuff could stay in the body for a month - so she, possibly, couldn't have done anything but failed..


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 7, 2016)

I find it incredible that a top level sportsperson who has taken medicine for 10 years may face a ban because the said medicine has been added to a banned list.
If she can prove she has needed the medication then banned list or not, her medical history should be brought into the outcome.
Not interested in the rules are rules or she and her team should of checked.
Credit to her for coming out and making it public and I hope the Tennis authorities show some understanding and commonsense and give her a reduced ban or even a suspended ban.


----------



## fundy (Mar 7, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			I find it incredible that a top level sportsperson who has taken medicine for 10 years may face a ban because the said medicine has been added to a banned list.
If she can prove she has needed the medication then banned list or not, her medical history should be brought into the outcome.
Not interested in the rules are rules or she and her team should of checked.
Credit to her for coming out and making it public and I hope the Tennis authorities show some understanding and commonsense and give her a reduced ban or even a suspended ban.
		
Click to expand...

might want to check what the drug is and why shes been taking it. Its been commonly used by sports people for years for its performance enhancing benefits (im assuming Sharapova doesnt have Angina!)


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 7, 2016)

fundy said:



			might want to check what the drug is and why shes been taking it. Its been commonly used by sports people for years for its performance enhancing benefits (im assuming Sharapova doesnt have Angina!)
		
Click to expand...

Just watched her press conference and she gave her reasons which relate to her family history and diabetes and heart issues, she freely admits she's responsible, it's beyond me why it's ok to take it on 31 Dec and not on 01 Jan, she also didn't recognise it's banned name as it's different to the prescibed name.


----------



## fundy (Mar 7, 2016)

not convinced i buy what appears a convenient story

interesting article on meldonium

https://jakegshelley.wordpress.com/2016/03/03/what-is-melodoniummildronate/


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 7, 2016)

fundy said:



			not convinced i buy what appears a convenient story

interesting article on meldonium

https://jakegshelley.wordpress.com/2016/03/03/what-is-melodoniummildronate/

Click to expand...

My glass tends to half full and if she can prove medically the reasons she has taken it for so long then I'm currently giving her the benefit of the doubt, if it transpires she's a cheat then she deserves everything she gets.
Interesting article and the point that banned substances are only  put on the list once a year is unreal.


----------



## larmen (Mar 7, 2016)

If she had a medical need for that there would have been a TUE and she would be even fine continuing using it.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Mar 7, 2016)

I feel sorry for her, with it coming on email on the 22nd Dec and playing on 18th Jan even if she had stopped taking the medication would it have have got out of the system fully after ten years of taking it? I guess she and her team must take responsibility but seems a shame that a career has to end in this way


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 7, 2016)

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35750285


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Mar 7, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35750285

Click to expand...

Like the fact that despite it all she kept her humour with the downtown hotel and carpet quip.


----------



## rudebhoy (Mar 7, 2016)

HomerJSimpson said:



			I feel sorry for her, with it coming on email on the 22nd Dec and playing on 18th Jan even if she had stopped taking the medication would it have have got out of the system fully after ten years of taking it? I guess she and her team must take responsibility but *seems a shame that a career has to end in this way*

Click to expand...

has she retired?


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Mar 7, 2016)

rudebhoy said:



			has she retired?
		
Click to expand...

No but possible the tennis authorities will ban her and who knows if/when she'd return


----------



## ger147 (Mar 7, 2016)

HomerJSimpson said:



			No but possible the tennis authorities will ban her and who knows if/when she'd return
		
Click to expand...

If she does get a ban, and it's still an if at this stage, my guess is the maximum would be for 6 months and she's only just turned 28 so highly doubtful this is the end of her career.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Mar 7, 2016)

ger147 said:



			If she does get a ban, and it's still an if at this stage, my guess is the maximum would be for 6 months and she's only just turned 28 so highly doubtful this is the end of her career.
		
Click to expand...

What makes you think it'll just be 6 months? I hope you're right as I like her


----------



## FairwayDodger (Mar 7, 2016)

ger147 said:



			If she does get a ban, and it's still an if at this stage, my guess is the maximum would be for 6 months and she's only just turned 28 so highly doubtful this is the end of her career.
		
Click to expand...

It's a 4 year ban if they rule she took it deliberately to cheat, 2 year ban if accidental.


----------



## rudebhoy (Mar 7, 2016)

ger147 said:



			If she does get a ban, and it's still an if at this stage, my guess is the maximum would be for 6 months and she's only just turned 28 so highly doubtful this is the end of her career.
		
Click to expand...

she is struggling badly with injuries, she has only played 4 tournaments since Wimbledon. I reckon there is a fair chance she will just pack in.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Mar 7, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			It's a 4 year ban if they rule she took it deliberately to cheat, 2 year ban if accidental.
		
Click to expand...

So 30 if she gets an accidental ban and can't see why they'd throw the book at her with the evident medical history. Would she really be competitive with no games in that time, and more crucially would she really want to keep doing it? Not sure she'll be short of offers after she stops, whether thats as a result of this or not


----------



## Snelly (Mar 7, 2016)

Very dodgy and I would think the tip of the iceberg in tennis. 

Every cloud though, at least it is one less screaming banshee at Wimbledon.


----------



## ger147 (Mar 7, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			It's a 4 year ban if they rule she took it deliberately to cheat, 2 year ban if accidental.
		
Click to expand...

There is precedent for much shorter bans...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/te...d-for-six-months-after-drug-test-failure.html


----------



## Beezerk (Mar 8, 2016)

fundy said:



			not convinced i buy what appears a convenient story

interesting article on meldonium

https://jakegshelley.wordpress.com/2016/03/03/what-is-melodoniummildronate/

Click to expand...

This.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Mar 8, 2016)

I believe her because she's white and pretty.......


----------



## delc (Mar 8, 2016)

Russian athlete fails drug test! Why do I not find this surprising? Sharapova should be banned for her grunting if nothing else!  :mmm:


----------



## Robobum (Mar 8, 2016)

Don't like this. They (or at least the team around them) are all so switched on to what they can and cannot do.

Detection in urine or blood would be no more than a week I'd guess, without checking. So she carried on taking after it was banned for sure.

Drug and alcohol detection is what we do as a business and we have had some every interesting conversations recently with an athletics body for testing outside of wada.


----------



## Ethan (Mar 8, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			Just watched her press conference and she gave her reasons which relate to her family history and diabetes and heart issues, she freely admits she's responsible, it's beyond me why it's ok to take it on 31 Dec and not on 01 Jan, she also didn't recognise it's banned name as it's different to the prescibed name.
		
Click to expand...

It would be astonishingly unusual and almost incredible for a fit healthy 28 year old to take this because of a family history of diabetes or heart disease. That is patently not why she was taking it. The drug is not widely used in the US or western Europe for any medical indication, but is widely used in eastern Europe as a performance enhancer for athletes. She has, presumably, been taking it for the same reason for years, and slipped up after it was banned.


----------



## USER1999 (Mar 8, 2016)

what ever she is taking it doesn't work, as she gets gubbed by Serena every time they play.


----------



## pokerjoke (Mar 8, 2016)

Just saw the press conference and she says she "made a massive mistake" however how could it be a massive mistake if she was "taking it for medical reasons".
All sounds a bit dubious to me and that's unfortunate.

Wether she gets a ban or retires off the back of it or she carries on playing she will be tarnished and I see sponsers have already dropped some contracts.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

Haven't there been a good number of young athletes in the past die from heart issues  - so is it not very much possible that she is being genuine


----------



## Fyldewhite (Mar 8, 2016)

pokerjoke said:



			Just saw the press conference and she says she "made a massive mistake" however how could it be a massive mistake if she was "taking it for medical reasons".
All sounds a bit dubious to me and that's unfortunate.

Wether she gets a ban or retires off the back of it or she carries on playing she will be tarnished and I see sponsers have already dropped some contracts.
		
Click to expand...

The mistake was failing to realise it had been added to the banned list.

My gut feeling is that it is a genuine mistake and appears to be doing exactly the right thing in coming out and saying so and more importantly not really trying to mitigate the situation but recognising the seriousness and accepting any consequences. Not a great situation but I don't think history will judge her too harshly once the inevitable hullabaloo has blown over.


----------



## pokerjoke (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Haven't there been a good number of young athletes in the past die from heart issues  - so is it not very much possible that she is being genuine
		
Click to expand...

That's true but why would you say "I made a massive mistake " when it sounds like a mis-understanding not a massive mistake.


----------



## Ethan (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Haven't there been a good number of young athletes in the past die from heart issues  - so is it not very much possible that she is being genuine
		
Click to expand...

That would be HOCM, which is entirely different. 

Meldonium is a performance enhancing drug pretending to be a real medicine. It was developed in Latvia, and is used almost exclusively in Russia. It isn't available in the US or UK. If she has a genuine medical issue, there are many much much better medicines she would take, but none of them are performance enhancing.


----------



## pokerjoke (Mar 8, 2016)

Fyldewhite said:



			The mistake was failing to realise it had been added to the banned list.

My gut feeling is that it is a genuine mistake and appears to be doing exactly the right thing in coming out and saying so and more importantly not really trying to mitigate the situation but recognising the seriousness and accepting any consequences. Not a great situation but I don't think history will judge her too harshly once the inevitable hullabaloo has blown over.
		
Click to expand...

This is what I don't get though.

It sounds like a genuine mistake because it was not banned originally.

So why not come out and say it was genuine and not say she made a massive mistake.
She seems to be taking all the blame and not blaming any of her team,surely that's there job and just let her concentrate on the tennis.
To me its just not adding up[yet].


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

Fyldewhite said:



			The mistake was failing to realise it had been added to the banned list.

My gut feeling is that it is a genuine mistake and appears to be doing exactly the right thing in coming out and saying so and more importantly not really trying to mitigate the situation but recognising the seriousness and accepting any consequences. Not a great situation but I don't think history will judge her too harshly once the inevitable hullabaloo has blown over.
		
Click to expand...

I believe exactly this as well and can see a possible short ban or warning 

Unfortunately for her the country of her birth is having lots of issues and she will be lumped in with that


----------



## Kellfire (Mar 8, 2016)

pokerjoke said:



			This is what I don't get though.

It sounds like a genuine mistake because it was not banned originally.

So why not come out and say it was genuine and not say she made a massive mistake.
She seems to be taking all the blame and not blaming any of her team,surely that's there job and just let her concentrate on the tennis.
To me its just not adding up[yet].
		
Click to expand...

Because when a sportsperson blames the team around them, they get pelters for not taking responsibility for their own actions.

She took the substance, ultimately her mistake and fair play for her admitting that much.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Mar 8, 2016)

Just caught the end of a story on the news and it looks like Nike have withdrawn their sponsorship of Sharapova over this. Can't help but think there must be more to the story as Nike still sponsor Gatlin who has twice been banned for taking performance enhancing drugs. Can't see why they'd keep supporting a known drug cheat but drop Sharapova so quickly.


----------



## bluewolf (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I believe exactly this as well and can see a possible short ban or warning 

Unfortunately for her the country of her birth is having lots of issues and she will be lumped in with that
		
Click to expand...

Sorry Phil, but it's a performance enhancing drug that I'm 90% certain she was taking for its performance enhancing properties. Far better medication out there if she genuinely had an issue. Full ban and move on....


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

bluewolf said:



			Sorry Phil, but it's a performance enhancing drug that I'm 90% certain she was taking for its performance enhancing properties. Far better medication out there if she genuinely had an issue. Full ban and move on....
		
Click to expand...

If it's for PE then yes full ban 

But if it's for genuine health ( heart ) issues then not 

The issue is do people trust her


----------



## Matty (Mar 8, 2016)

The bigger issue that this raises for me is that there are a huge number of performance enhancing drugs that are not on the WADA banned list. Until such a time as WADA move a little faster than banning a substance after 10 years of 'legal' but perhaps unethical use by sports stars then they have to realise that sportsmen and women are going to leverage an legal advantage they can find.

WADA are too slow to react and not fit for purpose unless they can get a grip and speed up banning new substances.


----------



## jdpjamesp (Mar 8, 2016)

Very sad to read this story. Even sadder to see that some people are already calling for all her titles to be stripped. Considering it was only banned this year, that's a little harsh.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Mar 8, 2016)

You get an exemption for genuine medical treatments. She did not ask for one. This is a mickey mouse endurance drug pretending to be something else that is pretty much only used in Russia. It has been legal for years, now it is not. Probably should not have been legal back then either. Good old Dr Hillary on GMB this morning was not buying it as a genuine treatment.

As to who is responsible. Put it in to a golf context. If you have 15 clubs in your bag who is at fault. Partly your caddy but ultimately it is the golfer themselves. Yes she has a team around her who need a kick up the backside but ultimately it is down to her.


----------



## delc (Mar 8, 2016)

Lord Tyrion said:



			You get an exemption for genuine medical treatments. She did not ask for one. This is a mickey mouse endurance drug pretending to be something else that is pretty much only used in Russia. It has been legal for years, now it is not. Probably should not have been legal back then either. Good old Dr Hillary on GMB this morning was not buying it as a genuine treatment.

As to who is responsible. Put it in to a golf context. If you have 15 clubs in your bag who is at fault. Partly your caddy but ultimately it is the golfer themselves. Yes she has a team around her who need a kick up the backside but ultimately it is down to her.
		
Click to expand...

In a golf context, I hope they never drug test one of our seniors comps, because most of us are on drugs for some medical condition or another!


----------



## Del_Boy (Mar 8, 2016)

Good on her and taking the blame.  Seems a bit unfortunate she was caught out by not reading 1 email.  I think a lesson learnt for WADA as well.  From what I have briefly read the drug was on the WADA watchlist for 2015 surely they should have circulated that that particular drug was under review rather than give just over a weeks notice that the drug is banned.

Also thought Maria looked a bit ropey in the interview usually she is bang tidy.


----------



## Val (Mar 8, 2016)

Im not medically trained but i'll offer an opinion.

I believe she may have a condition that requires treatment of which this drug covers but they bye product of the drug is its performing enhancing properties which for her is a bonus.

I believe she has known all along about its performance enhancing properties and she was comfortable using it, I also believe she possibly has overlooked the fact that it's now banned and has been caught out, unfortunately only her and her team will know the real truth.

I don't buy into the fact she's come clean meaning it's a genuine mistake, her PR team will be working over time to ensure damage limitation on this but until further details emerge i'll give her the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## Crazyface (Mar 8, 2016)

Val said:



			Im not medically trained but i'll offer an opinion.

I believe she may have a condition that requires treatment of which this drug covers but they bye product of the drug is its performing enhancing properties which for her is a bonus.

I believe she has known all along about its performance enhancing properties and she was comfortable using it, I also believe she possibly has overlooked the fact that it's now banned and has been caught out, unfortunately only her and her team will know the real truth.

I don't buy into the fact she's come clean meaning it's a genuine mistake, her PR team will be working over time to ensure damage limitation on this but until further details emerge i'll give her the benefit of the doubt.
		
Click to expand...

....because she is as fit as ......eer..errrr well you know what. 

There....finished that for you.


----------



## richart (Mar 8, 2016)

I find it hard to believe she would have continued to take the drug, and think she could get away with it. I understand that top tennis players are tested more than any other sport. Always at Majors, and some have been tested up to twelve times in a year. She and her team surely didn't think they would get away with it ?

Yes she may have previously taken the drug knowing of its sporting advantages, but until this year it was not banned. To carry on taking it after the ban looks like a mistake to me.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Mar 8, 2016)

fundy said:



			(im assuming Sharapova doesnt have Angina!)
		
Click to expand...

I heard she has acute angina


----------



## fundy (Mar 8, 2016)

drive4show said:



			I heard she has acute angina  

Click to expand...

i think the acute bit is getting her a lot of benefit of the doubt on this forum!!!!


----------



## richart (Mar 8, 2016)

drive4show said:



			I heard she has acute angina  

Click to expand...

 You and tall blondes.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

Well my judgement of her is based surely on her as opposed to her looks - maybe it's being too trusting but I also wonder how much of the judgments are also based on the current problem with Russia and the clear drug issue they have in Athletics ?


----------



## Ethan (Mar 8, 2016)

Val said:



			Im not medically trained but i'll offer an opinion.

I believe she may have a condition that requires treatment of which this drug covers but they bye product of the drug is its performing enhancing properties which for her is a bonus.

I believe she has known all along about its performance enhancing properties and she was comfortable using it, I also believe she possibly has overlooked the fact that it's now banned and has been caught out, unfortunately only her and her team will know the real truth.

I don't buy into the fact she's come clean meaning it's a genuine mistake, her PR team will be working over time to ensure damage limitation on this but until further details emerge i'll give her the benefit of the doubt.
		
Click to expand...

I am medically trained and I think it is odd that 6 Bulgarian weight-lifters have the same condition. Obviously a nonsense. 

There are a few cardiac conditions for which young people might need medical treatment. Few of these people would be top class athletes though. 

She may well have got her prescription from her family doctor, but I imagine the idea came from one of her sports coaches. And one time, that was fine and dandy, but now its not. Oops.


----------



## londonlewis (Mar 8, 2016)

Seems there are a lot of people on here that are taking her press conference at face-value. I don't think I can, Lance Armstrong and others have made it more difficult for me to believe the things pro-athletes say on the drugs matter. 

If what she is saying is true, then it is harsh that a drug she has used for 10 years has suddenly resulted in a ban. 
But if it isn't true, then someone has advised her quite well in saying that the reason she failed was a drug that hadn't been banned previously. 

Not sure what to believe.


----------



## londonlewis (Mar 8, 2016)

drive4show said:



			I heard she has acute angina  

Click to expand...

Speechless. I'd say what is on my mind but the mods would ban me.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Mar 8, 2016)

londonlewis said:



			Speechless. I'd say what is on my mind but the mods would ban me.
		
Click to expand...

You Sir have a dirty mind


----------



## Val (Mar 8, 2016)

Ethan said:



			I am medically trained and I think it is odd that 6 Bulgarian weight-lifters have the same condition. Obviously a nonsense. 

There are a few cardiac conditions for which young people might need medical treatment. Few of these people would be top class athletes though. 

*She may well have got her prescription from her family doctor, but I imagine the idea came from one of her sports coaches. And one time, that was fine and dandy, but now its not. Oops*.
		
Click to expand...

Cant disagree with this at all.


----------



## londonlewis (Mar 8, 2016)

drive4show said:



			You Sir have a dirty mind  



Click to expand...

No. You are just a (Mod edit)


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Mar 8, 2016)

londonlewis said:



			No. You are just a (mod edit)
		
Click to expand...

Oh dear


----------



## User62651 (Mar 8, 2016)

All becoming a bit of a nonsense, caffeine reduces the time to muscle failure by up to 10%, they tried banning that but couldn't work it so caffeine is ok again, I doubt this stuff Sharapova was on would offer gains like that but it does seem like damage limitation time from her and her team, agree its odd Nike have dropped her quick when she's such a sellable asset yet they back Gatlin the drug cheat sprinter. The diabetes/heart condition thing sounds far fetched, she was looking for any legal edge she could get on the competition. Alain Baxter lost an olympic bronze skiing medal for UK for having taken a sniff on a Vicks inhaler which had some ephidrene in it in US version unbeknownst to him which we all sympathised with BUT ultimately its part of your job as a professional sportsperson to analyse carefully everything that you put into your body and keep up to speed with all updates on what you can and cant take and if ok in what measures. If you make an exception for one case it's a precedent for others, zero tolerance is the only way.


----------



## hovis (Mar 8, 2016)

It will all come out in the wash.  I happen to know that they have to disclose all medication and supplements that they use before any samples arw given.  So if she's been using this substance for 10 years then they'll be 10 years of records of her disclosing this medication. 

I personally dont buy it.  She has a team of personal trainers and nutritionist around her and no doubt people that are in the know enough to tell her on the new banned list


----------



## Rooter (Mar 8, 2016)

drive4show said:



			I heard she has acute angina  

Click to expand...

I think its all just a cunning stunt by her PR people.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Mar 8, 2016)

Rooter said:



			I think its all just a cunning stunt by her PR people.
		
Click to expand...

Careful mate, seems there are easily offended people online right now


----------



## Hacker Khan (Mar 8, 2016)

drive4show said:



			Careful mate, seems there are easily offended people online right now 

Click to expand...

I'm offended by the offense I have not yet taken offense to.  And I saw the acute angina joke on a card in Sainsburys today.  A card which could be seen by children!!!!  Oh the horror.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Mar 8, 2016)

Fyldewhite said:



			The mistake was failing to realise it had been added to the banned list.

My gut feeling is that it is a genuine mistake and appears to be doing exactly the right thing in coming out and saying so and more importantly not really trying to mitigate the situation but recognising the seriousness and accepting any consequences. Not a great situation but I don't think history will judge her too harshly once the inevitable hullabaloo has blown over.
		
Click to expand...

I'd like to believe that it was a genuine mistake.  I also believed Lance Armstrong.  And from what I'm seeing from some posts on here from people whose medical knowledge far exceeds mine, it looks like I might be disappointed again. 



ColchesterFC said:



			Just caught the end of a story on the news and it looks like Nike have withdrawn their sponsorship of Sharapova over this. Can't help but think there must be more to the story as Nike still sponsor Gatlin who has twice been banned for taking performance enhancing drugs. Can't see why they'd keep supporting a known drug cheat but drop Sharapova so quickly.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think Nike have a hard and fast line on this; did they not also stand by Tiger Woods?  I know it's not exactly the same circumstances, but it was cheating of a sort but they didn't have a problem then.  Be interesting to see the figures in this case and the others to see if that reveals a reason for the quick drop?


----------



## guest100718 (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



*Well my judgement of her is based surely on her as opposed to her looks* - maybe it's being too trusting but I also wonder how much of the judgments are also based on the current problem with Russia and the clear drug issue they have in Athletics ?
		
Click to expand...

Mine is based purely on her looks.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Mar 8, 2016)

So she's been caught using a product (for the last 10 yrs) that's now on the banned list..and didn't realise it's now on the list? She's just a cheat and has been abusing the system to get away with it.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Mar 8, 2016)

Bunkermagnet said:



			So she's been caught using a product (for the last 10 yrs) that's now on the banned list..and didn't realise it's now on the list? She's just a cheat and has been abusing the system to get away with it.
		
Click to expand...

I think the worst you can say about her is she is a cheat since Jan 2016 and she has come clean and admitted her mistake. If she was taking a PE drug then the authorities are at fault for not banning it sooner.


----------



## Rooter (Mar 8, 2016)

drive4show said:



			I think the worst you can say about her is she is a cheat since Jan 2016 and she has come clean and admitted her mistake. If she was taking a PE drug then the authorities are at fault for not banning it sooner.
		
Click to expand...

you would surely then have to question her ethics. using a performance enhancing drug (while it was legal) is that fairplay? 

To look at it from a completely different angle, would you let your kids take legal highs? they are legal, not banned or illegal, so whats the issue? (not aimed at you D4S! Rhetorical Q for all)


----------



## bluewolf (Mar 8, 2016)

Ok, so I take it that the drug in question is available over the counter? If not, then she's taking a prescription only drug. If it is available over the counter, then why isn't it available elsewhere in the world?

Genuine questions.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Mar 8, 2016)

drive4show said:



			I think the worst you can say about her is she is a cheat since Jan 2016 and she has come clean and admitted her mistake. If she was taking a PE drug then the authorities are at fault for not banning it sooner.
		
Click to expand...


Abusing the system is cheating. She is a cheat simples.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Mar 8, 2016)

Rooter said:



			you would surely then have to question her ethics. using a performance enhancing drug (while it was legal) is that fairplay? 

To look at it from a completely different angle, would you let your kids take legal highs? they are legal, not banned or illegal, so whats the issue? (not aimed at you D4S! Rhetorical Q for all)
		
Click to expand...

Good question but I would have to say yes. Surely everyone else would be doing it? I guess it's the golfing equivalent of using a long putter.....not illegal (obviously now is) but some say it created an advantage.



Bunkermagnet said:



			Abusing the system is cheating. She is a cheat simples.
		
Click to expand...

Prior to this year, which rule did she break?


----------



## bluewolf (Mar 8, 2016)

drive4show said:



			Good question but I would have to say yes. Surely everyone else would be doing it? I guess it's the golfing equivalent of using a long putter.....not illegal (obviously now is) but some say it created an advantage.



Prior to this year, which rule did she break?
		
Click to expand...

if she was prescribed it without a genuine reason then she's a cheat. If she has a genuine reason for the prescription then she's had plenty of opportunity to find a better medication.


----------



## Robobum (Mar 8, 2016)

You can ban whatever you like, but unless you have an approved method to test for it, what's the point?


----------



## Robobum (Mar 8, 2016)

Rooter said:



			you would surely then have to question her ethics. using a performance enhancing drug (while it was legal) is that fairplay? 

To look at it from a completely different angle, would you let your kids take legal highs? they are legal, not banned or illegal, so whats the issue? (not aimed at you D4S! Rhetorical Q for all)
		
Click to expand...

We are inundated with requests to test for legal highs (in hair). However, there are (or can be) an almost infinitesimal number of compounds which will need to be tested for. Once each one has a method for analysis, it is made illegal. That's the cue for a slight change in compound when it will become legal again.

Phishing in the wind


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Mar 8, 2016)

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/mar/08/meldonium-maria-sharapova-failed-drugs-test

There can be no defence, it's still cheating.


----------



## hovis (Mar 8, 2016)

Robobum said:



			We are inundated with requests to test for legal highs (in hair). However, there are (or can be) an almost infinitesimal number of compounds which will need to be tested for. Once each one has a method for analysis, it is made illegal. That's the cue for a slight change in compound when it will become legal again.

Phishing in the wind 

Click to expand...

There is a supplement that natural bodybuilders take that is just as good, if not better than banned steroids.  It was first called trembombs until that got banned.  They changed one compound and relabeled it testo power.  That also got banned.    Today its called sd matrix and available on ebay. 

My point is that the drug companies are always one step ahead.  It must be an uphill battle for official governing bodies


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Mar 8, 2016)

hovis said:



			There is a supplement that natural bodybuilders take that is just as good, if not better than banned steroids.  It was first called trembombs until that got banned.  They changed one compound and relabeled it testo power.  That also got banned.    Today its called sd matrix and available on ebay. 

My point is that the drug companies are always one step ahead.  It must be an uphill battle for official governing bodies
		
Click to expand...


Yes it is an uphill battle, but those taking the "supplement" know what they are doing and will carry on until they get caught or something else comes along.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

Bunkermagnet said:



http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/mar/08/meldonium-maria-sharapova-failed-drugs-test

There can be no defence, it's still cheating.
		
Click to expand...

So her being ill and needing the drug isn't a defence ?


----------



## bluewolf (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So her being ill and needing the drug isn't a defence ?
		
Click to expand...

Yes, and OJ Simpson's glove didn't fit either!!! 

If you genuinely think this was a drug prescribed by an ethical Doctor, purely to treat a medical condition then you must also believe in fairies and the Easter Bunny


----------



## hovis (Mar 8, 2016)

bluewolf said:



			Yes, and OJ Simpson's glove didn't fit either!!! 


Click to expand...

Hilarious.   Pmsl


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So her being ill and needing the drug isn't a defence ?
		
Click to expand...

Do you really think a young, physically fit person who partakes of a high cardiovascualr sport would have circulation problems? If you read the article it states WADA have been watching this drug for a year, but also that the Germans noted it with their drugs busting of the Russian athletes.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

bluewolf said:



			Yes, and OJ Simpson's glove didn't fit either!!! 

If you genuinely think this was a drug prescribed by an ethical Doctor, purely to treat a medical condition then you must also believe in fairies and the Easter Bunny 

Click to expand...

Is there any proof to suggest otherwise right now in her specific case ?

Lots of guilty calls coming out so far without a lot of information but what she has said - yes other people have lied but does that mean everyone must treated as lying and they are guilty until innocent ? 

She said she took the drug because of health issues - right now where is the proof to claim she is lying ?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

Bunkermagnet said:



			Do you really think a young, physically fit person who partakes of a high cardiovascualr sport would have circulation problems? If you read the article it states WADA have been watching this drug for a year, but also that the Germans noted it with their drugs busting of the Russian athletes.
		
Click to expand...

Have there been cases of young physical fit sportsmen or women having heart or circulation problems ? 

How many have died in their 20's from a heart issue ?


----------



## fundy (Mar 8, 2016)

usual treatment with this drug for heart problems is 4-6 weeks, shes been taking it for 10 years


----------



## bluewolf (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Is there any proof to suggest otherwise right now in her specific case ?

Lots of guilty calls coming out so far without a lot of information but what she has said - yes other people have lied but does that mean everyone must treated as lying and they are guilty until innocent ? 

She said she took the drug because of health issues - right now where is the proof to claim she is lying ?
		
Click to expand...

This isn't a court of law. It's a forum. On which we can post opinions. My opinion is that she's a cheat. I don't believe that she was prescribed it ethically. It's cheating.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Mar 8, 2016)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35754677

I don't know if anyone has posted this article yet but it is very strong. A journalist who has seen too many of these to be taken in by the excuses and demeanor. I suspect the more people ask her questions the less strength there is to her case.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Have there been cases of young physical fit sportsmen or women having heart or circulation problems ? 

How many have died in their 20's from a heart issue ?
		
Click to expand...


I don't know Phil, but then however many there have been I doubt many were professional tennis players.


----------



## Beezerk (Mar 8, 2016)

fundy said:



			usual treatment with this drug for heart problems is 4-6 weeks, shes been taking it for 10 years
		
Click to expand...

And she lives in the USA where this particular drug isn't available/sanctioned by the FDA.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

Bunkermagnet said:



			I don't know Phil, but then however many there have been I doubt many were professional tennis players.
		
Click to expand...

Is there a difference between a tennis player and a footballer ?

I'm not sure when it comes it heart issues the sport matters


----------



## hovis (Mar 8, 2016)

bluewolf said:



			This isn't a court of law. It's a forum. On which we can post opinions. My opinion is that she's a cheat. I don't believe that she was prescribed it ethically. It's cheating.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with this.  I worked at one of the country's most popular gyms and have been around top athletes,  footballers, boxers and even cricketers.   One thing i can say is ALL of them study with great care the "ingredient label'' on everything they buy from the supplement section.    they usually have the supplement in one hand and their I phone in the other studying a list of banned substances. 

She didn't know it was banned my arse


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Mar 8, 2016)

If it was genuinely for a heart condition then she would get an exemption for it. No board is going to put someones life in danger.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Mar 8, 2016)

hovis said:



			I agree with this.  I worked at one of the country's most popular gyms and have been around top athletes,  footballers, boxers and even cricketers.   One thing i can say is ALL of them study with great care the "ingredient label'' on everything they buy from the supplement section.    they usually have the supplement in one hand and their I phone in the other studying a list of banned substances. 

She didn't know it was banned my arse
		
Click to expand...


Now that is a quote :thup: Stop sitting on the fence. Ha ha.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Is there a difference between a tennis player and a footballer ?

I'm not sure when it comes it heart issues the sport matters
		
Click to expand...

 
Then I would be so bold as to suggest that you're either playing devils advocate or just plain blinkered.
 This is not about an undiscovered heart condition but about someone using a drug that has limited availability, isn't sanctioned elsewhere and has dubious effects on that persons endurance abilities.
She knew what she was doing, and has been caught out just as Armstrong was. She is a cheat end of.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Mar 8, 2016)

hovis said:



			She didn't know it was banned my arse
		
Click to expand...

To be fair, the part of her story that I believe is that she missed it being added to the banned list. Sadly, I'm with those who think she could only have been taking this for its performance enhancing properties; taking advantage of the fact it previously wasn't banned.


----------



## hovis (Mar 8, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			To be fair, the part of her story that I believe is that she missed it being added to the banned list. Sadly, I'm with those who think she could only have been taking this for its performance enhancing properties; taking advantage of the fact it previously wasn't banned.
		
Click to expand...

When a substance is being added to a banned list they first calculate the half life of that drug and its detection time.  Athletes under this body are given prior warning that the ban is going to happen thus warning them to stop the drug or disclose that they require it for medical reasons.    They cant just ban a substance on monday and expect clean urine on a Tuesday.   It has to be fair.
Maybe she did miss the multiple warnings but with a team around her that are invested in her success then i doubt something so trivial got through the net


----------



## FairwayDodger (Mar 8, 2016)

hovis said:



			When a substance is being added to a banned list they first calculate the half life of that drug and its detection time.  Athletes under this body are given prior warning that the ban is going to happen thus warning them to stop the drug or disclose that they require it for medical reasons.    They cant just ban a substance on monday and expect clean urine on a Tuesday.   It has to be fair.
Maybe she did miss the multiple warnings but with a team around her that are invented in her success then i doubt something so trivial got through the net
		
Click to expand...

I get that she had ample warning and should have known but if you accept she was taking advantage of its previously legal status she'd be stupid to keep taking it knowing it was being banned. It does beggar belief that a top sportsperson taking regular medicine doesn't check for that medicine on each update of the banned list.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			I get that she had ample warning and should have known but if you accept she was taking advantage of its previously legal status she'd be stupid to keep taking it knowing it was being banned. It does beggar belief that a top sportsperson taking regular medicine doesn't check for that medicine on each update of the banned list.
		
Click to expand...

My wife checked every single time she went to take a pill - a load of cold and flu remedies are banned ( Benlyin being one ) and the were updated nearly on a weekly basis and sometimes the naming on the list doesn't connect to a name on the shelf. It was a nightmare for her.


----------



## Fish (Mar 8, 2016)

hovis said:



			When a substance is being added to a banned list they first calculate the half life of that drug and its detection time.  Athletes under this body are given prior warning that the ban is going to happen thus warning them to stop the drug or disclose that they require it for medical reasons.    They cant just ban a substance on monday and expect clean urine on a Tuesday.   It has to be fair.
Maybe she did miss the multiple warnings but with a team around her that are invested in her success then i doubt something so trivial got through the net
		
Click to expand...

This is where I have it, she's a professional with a team built around her so I can't see how this was missed, if it was, then she should sack the lot of her management team and build a new one that looks after her interests better, however, if it wasn't missed and an air of ignorance was being adopted because she had been taking it for so long, then she's not only guilty but stupid..


----------



## FairwayDodger (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			My wife checked every single time she went to take a pill - a load of cold and flu remedies are banned ( Benlyin being one ) and the were updated nearly on a weekly basis and sometimes the naming on the list doesn't connect to a name on the shelf. It was a nightmare for her.
		
Click to expand...

Is there a decent website they can use? You'd imagine it'd be very helpful to be able to put a brand name into a search and quickly (and reliably) be informed if it contained anything illicit.


----------



## pokerjoke (Mar 8, 2016)

Its funny as I watch a lot of tennis and I have never heard anyone mention her heart problem.

I see she has taken all the blame but surely her physio or doctor would be advising her,however as it was not a banned substance surely for the 10 years she was taking it there was not a problem and only when it went on the banned list the problem occurred.

Also if she did have a heart problem the LTA surely would have been aware and may have asked what she was taking to control it.


----------



## Fish (Mar 8, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			Is there a decent website they can use? You'd imagine it'd be very helpful to be able to put a brand name into a search and quickly (and reliably) be informed if it contained anything illicit.
		
Click to expand...

I would think at the top level her team or herself get direct emails on a regular basis of banned and updated substances etc from the main governing bodies of her sport, I can't see it only being self policing for them as individuals for them to "look up".


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			Is there a decent website they can use? You'd imagine it'd be very helpful to be able to put a brand name into a search and quickly (and reliably) be informed if it contained anything illicit.
		
Click to expand...

It's normally on the governing bodies website and also WADA website.

Also register with WADA and you get regular updates 

There was a search engine but had to go through ingredients and search for them 

I know they were going to change to search for brand names


----------



## FairwayDodger (Mar 8, 2016)

Fish said:



			I would think at the top level her team or herself get direct emails on a regular basis of banned and updated substances etc from the main governing bodies of her sport, I can't see it only being self policing for them as individuals for them to "look up".
		
Click to expand...

Which is OK if you're a top player and have a "team" around you but what if you're not at that level and trying to navigate your way round what must be a very complicated list of requirements?


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Mar 8, 2016)

Piers Morgan went onto the WADA site this morning on breakfast tv. There is a search function on their site where you enter the product or substance and it shows if there is any information about it. It was remarkably simple to use and this substance came up straight away.


----------



## richart (Mar 8, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			To be fair, the part of her story that I believe is that she missed it being added to the banned list. Sadly, I'm with those who think she could only have been taking this for its performance enhancing properties; taking advantage of the fact it previously wasn't banned.
		
Click to expand...

 I agree, and don't believe she knowly took the drug after it was banned. Tennis players are reguarily tested, including the slams. Testing has been increased considerably in the last couple of years after it was shown to be poor. So she knew she would be caught, but still did it ?:mmm: Her earnings come mainly from endorsements, not winnings, and she would risk those to win a few matches ?

Personally I believe someone as rich as she is has a full time physician/doctor, as well as a fitness coach that would have responsibilty for what she takes. They would get the list of banned substances, and have cocked up. She is taking full blame as ultimately she is responsible for their actions.

I would love to know why the drug was not banned before. Been around at least ten years so why now. Doesn't say much for the authorities trying to kick out drugs in sport.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Mar 8, 2016)

Bunkermagnet said:



			I don't know Phil, but then however many there have been I doubt many were professional tennis players.
		
Click to expand...

Didn't Ethan already state there was a known medical condition (HOCM?) and that this drug isn't the best option out there? I know of footballers who've died of cardiac failure but not a tennis player. Seems very strange that with all the drugs she could get from the US and her team could easily obtain she's carried on using this particular one throughout. Maybe she was aware of the enhancing properties. Hopefully the truth will out at the enquiry. Certainly seems to be more and more questions to be answered


----------



## FairwayDodger (Mar 8, 2016)

I'd love to hear Andy Murray's take on it - he's been very outspoken about doping in tennis.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Mar 8, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			I'd love to hear Andy Murray's take on it - he's been very outspoken about doping in tennis.
		
Click to expand...

Will Player start going on about drugs being prevalent in golf again too?


----------



## richart (Mar 8, 2016)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Didn't Ethan already state there was a known medical condition (HOCM?) and that this drug isn't the best option out there? I know of footballers who've died of cardiac failure but not a tennis player. Seems very strange that with all the drugs she could get from the US and her team could easily obtain she's carried on using this particular one throughout. Maybe she was aware of the enhancing properties. Hopefully the truth will out at the enquiry. Certainly seems to be more and more questions to be answered
		
Click to expand...

 I am sure her Russian doctor did. but until this year it was not a banned drug, so she could take it. Why it was not banned years ago is another matter.


----------



## hovis (Mar 8, 2016)

richart said:



			I agree, and don't believe she knowly took the drug after it was banned. Tennis players are reguarily tested, including the slams. Testing has been increased considerably in the last couple of years after it was shown to be poor. So she knew she would be caught, but still did it ?:mmm: Her earnings come mainly from endorsements, not winnings, and she would risk those to win a few matches ?

Personally I believe someone as rich as she is has a full time physician/doctor, as well as a fitness coach that would have responsibilty for what she takes. They would get the list of banned substances, and have cocked up. She is taking full blame as ultimately she is responsible for their actions.

I would love to know why the drug was not banned before. Been around at least ten years so why now. Doesn't say much for the authorities trying to kick out drugs in sport.
		
Click to expand...

Why did she do it?  What if i Said you can buy things in a supermarket that can mask amphetamines in your urine.     i would say she thought she'd get away with it.

These people always get caught in the end as their urine is kept on ice.   As technology is advancing athletes are getting caught out from old urine tests.  My good friend Daniel caines come 10th in the 2000 Olympics at Sydney.  He was told in December that he is now fith and expects to be bumped up to 4th


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Mar 8, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			To be fair, the part of her story that I believe is that she missed it being added to the banned list. Sadly, I'm with those who think she could only have been taking this for its performance enhancing properties; *taking advantage of the fact it previously wasn't banned*.
		
Click to expand...


I agree and the fact it wasn't banned means she wasn't cheating. Ethics are different things to rules.


----------



## larmen (Mar 8, 2016)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Didn't Ethan already state there was a known medical condition (HOCM?) and that this drug isn't the best option out there?
		
Click to expand...

There is no treatment for HOCM and the best advise is to retire endurance or high burst impact sport and start playing golf.


----------



## richart (Mar 8, 2016)

hovis said:



			Why did she do it?  What if i Said you can buy things in a supermarket that can mask amphetamines in your urine.     i would say she thought she'd get away with it.

These people always get caught in the end as their urine is kept on ice.   As technology is advancing athletes are getting caught out from old urine tests.  My good friend Daniel caines come 10th in the 2000 Olympics at Sydney.  He was told in December that he is now fith and expects to be bumped up to 4th
		
Click to expand...

 So at the age of 28, earning Â£15 million from endorsements, and less than Â£4 million from competitions, she is going to risk taking a banned drug. Wow she must be mighty stupid, or perhaps she didn't go the right supermarket ? It can't have been an old urine test as the drug was banned before the beginning of this year. Perhaps it is not so easy today as opposed to 15 years ago to beat the system, or to expect to beat it.

Perhaps she just took it by mistake as it had been banned for less than a month before the Australian Open.:mmm:


----------



## bluewolf (Mar 8, 2016)

drive4show said:



			I agree and the fact it wasn't banned means she wasn't cheating. Ethics are different things to rules.
		
Click to expand...

It's cheating if she's taking prescription medication for something other than the condition it should be prescribed for.


----------



## hovis (Mar 8, 2016)

richart said:



			So at the age of 28, earning Â£15 million from endorsements, and less than Â£4 million from competitions, she is going to risk taking a banned drug. Wow she must be mighty stupid, or perhaps she didn't go the right supermarket ? It can't have been an old urine test as the drug was banned before the beginning of this year. Perhaps it is not so easy today as opposed to 15 years ago to beat the system, or to expect to beat it.

Perhaps she just took it by mistake as it had been banned for less than a month before the Australian Open.:mmm:
		
Click to expand...

How do you know she didn't win all this money because she was taking banned substances.   I wasn't saying it was an old urine test i was just saying what happens.    

It isn't a case of not taking a drug because they will test for it.  It's a case of chemists working with athletes to find way's to cheat the tests.  Its called "designer dopping" or "designer steroids".   But evidently these chemists get it wrong now and then.  Why did lance Armstrong risk it?  Because he believed he could manipulate the tests 
Unfortunately theres more money invested in cheating tests then the testing itself


----------



## Ethan (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So her being ill and needing the drug isn't a defence ?
		
Click to expand...

But she wasn't and she didn't. That excuse is laughable. 

She sailed on the legal side of the line for a long time and missed the part where the line moved, and was caught. Simple as that.


----------



## Ethan (Mar 8, 2016)

larmen said:



			There is no treatment for HOCM and the best advise is to retire endurance or high burst impact sport and start playing golf.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed, I was posting out she did not have the heart condition (HOCM) often associated with young athletes, and this would not be a treatment even if she did.


----------



## Ethan (Mar 8, 2016)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Will Player start going on about drugs being prevalent in golf again too?
		
Click to expand...

Probably. If they ban prostate meds, anti-inflammatories and Viagra, the Champions Tour is done.


----------



## bluewolf (Mar 8, 2016)

Ethan said:



			But she wasn't and she didn't. That excuse is laughable. 

She sailed on the legal side of the line for a long time and missed the part where the line moved, and was caught. Simple as that.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed. The only thing we're about to find out is just how serious the LTA really takes drugs in sport. Probably not as seriously as they'd like you to think.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

Ethan said:



			But she wasn't and she didn't. That excuse is laughable. 

She sailed on the legal side of the line for a long time and missed the part where the line moved, and was caught. Simple as that.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry but she said she took the drug for her health issues - have you checked her medical records to say she isn't ill ?


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Mar 8, 2016)

bluewolf said:



			Agreed. The only thing we're about to find out is just how serious the LTA really takes drugs in sport. Probably not as seriously as they'd like you to think.
		
Click to expand...

Pretty sure they'll find a reason for mitigation


----------



## larmen (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Sorry but she said she took the drug for her health issues - have you checked her medical records to say she isn't ill ?
		
Click to expand...

If she could produce her health record she wouldn't even be banned, the whole thing wouldn't be in the media, and we would never have heard about it.


----------



## Beezerk (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Sorry but she said she took the drug for her health issues - have you checked her medical records to say she isn't ill ?
		
Click to expand...

She can say what she wanted in her press conference, as Rooter said, it was just a PR stunt designed purely for damage limitation. Every medical expert I've heard on the TV and radio today have all shot her story down in flames, so based on that I'm tending to side with those.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

larmen said:



			If she could produce her health record she wouldn't even be banned, the whole thing wouldn't be in the media, and we would never have heard about it.
		
Click to expand...

This is from the report*

Haggerty said she started to take meldonium after her doctor did "an extensive battery of tests to determine what medical conditions were causing her to be sick on a frequent basis".

She had "abnormal electrocardiogram readings" and "some diabetes indicators", which prompted the doctor to recommend medication, including meldonium.

He added: "She took it on a regular basis as recommended by her doctor. He told her what to take and when to take it, then continued to test her and confirm that it was giving her the desired improved medical condition."*

He also says that there is mitigating circumstances that he believes will reduce any ban to a bare minimum. 

Is it not possible that she and he are telling the truth


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Mar 8, 2016)

bluewolf said:



			It's cheating if she's taking prescription medication for something other than the condition it should be prescribed for.
		
Click to expand...

No it isn't. It might be unethical but it isn't cheating.


----------



## larmen (Mar 8, 2016)

The way I understand drug testing, and I have to admit it looks like hovis knows how ti really works is, that if you have a condition and you take something, then you declare that at every test. So when that test is positive they know it is there, it is there for a reason, and they don't publish your positive test. It is called a therapeutic use exception.
If you don't declare it and they find your positiv they contact you, you can come back and say, wait a minute, I forgot to declare but I have to take it, and then see above. Maybe you get a slap on the wrist for not declaring.

The fact that she is accepting a ban says something different. If she is in the right she doesn't need to be banned.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Mar 8, 2016)

larmen said:



			The fact that she is accepting a ban says something different. If she is in the right she doesn't need to be banned.
		
Click to expand...

But she isn't in the right and she has openly admitted that. She took a legal substance for 10 years then continued (inadvertantly) taking it AFTER it was banned. She is wrong and seems to accept that but is hoping for a bit of leniency.


----------



## larmen (Mar 8, 2016)

drive4show said:



			But she isn't in the right and she has openly admitted that. She took a legal substance for 10 years then continued (inadvertantly) taking it AFTER it was banned. She is wrong and seems to accept that but is hoping for a bit of leniency.
		
Click to expand...

My point is, that even if the drug is illegal now, if she medically needs it she gets an exception and it isn't illegal for her. No cause to ban her and nothing to accept.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Mar 8, 2016)

drive4show said:



			But she isn't in the right and she has openly admitted that. She took a legal substance for 10 years then continued (inadvertantly) taking it AFTER it was banned. She is wrong and seems to accept that but is hoping for a bit of leniency.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed and I can see while she'd think she'd have a case. However if as others have suggested the drug has performance enhancing capabilities, which she or her team may or may not have known about it dies raise questions I'm sure the enquiry will want answers to and not sure it's as clear cut as it seems


----------



## Ethan (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Sorry but she said she took the drug for her health issues - have you checked her medical records to say she isn't ill ?
		
Click to expand...

Look, Phil, if you believe that, I have a bridge for sale. She does not have angina or heart failure. Angina at 28 is extremely rare, and occurs only in people with hideous hereditary vascular problems (which she doesn't have) and heart failure, even well controlled, is incompatible with being an athlete. Even if she had one of those conditions, taking a crappy Russian medicine that the west wouldn't touch with a bargepole is unconvincing evidence. She lives in Florida and some of the first cardiologists in the world practice there, and she can probably afford to see them and receive cutting edge medicines and treatments. 

What she should have said was:

"Like every athlete I have a carefully controlled diet, with vitamins, essential nutrients and other supplements to maximise performance and prevent injury. I have always made sure that everything I took was legal and within the spirit of the rules. EITHER I failed to realise that meldonium had been put on the banned list OR my team failed to remove it from my diet and supplements, and I therefore tested positive. I accept responsibility for that, and will accept the judgement of the panel."

The medical explanation is making it worse. Ask any crisis manager, the cover up is always worse than the crime. She needs to fess up, suck it up and move on.


----------



## hovis (Mar 8, 2016)

Ethan said:



			Look, Phil, if you believe that, I have a bridge for sale. She does not have angina or heart failure. Angina at 28 is extremely rare, and occurs only in people with hideous hereditary vascular problems (which she doesn't have) and heart failure, even well controlled, is incompatible with being an athlete. Even if she had one of those conditions, taking a crappy Russian medicine that the west wouldn't touch with a bargepole is unconvincing evidence. She lives in Florida and some of the first cardiologists in the world practice there, and she can probably afford to see them and receive cutting edge medicines and treatments. 

What she should have said was:

"Like every athlete I have a carefully controlled diet, with vitamins, essential nutrients and other supplements to maximise performance and prevent injury. I have always made sure that everything I took was legal and within the spirit of the rules. EITHER I failed to realise that meldonium had been put on the banned list OR my team failed to remove it from my diet and supplements, and I therefore tested positive. I accept responsibility for that, and will accept the judgement of the panel."

The medical explanation is making it worse. Ask any crisis manager, the cover up is always worse than the crime. She needs to fess up, suck it up and move on.
		
Click to expand...

Yeh, I'll go with this too


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

Ethan said:



			Look, Phil, if you believe that, I have a bridge for sale. She does not have angina or heart failure. Angina at 28 is extremely rare, and occurs only in people with hideous hereditary vascular problems (which she doesn't have) and heart failure, even well controlled, is incompatible with being an athlete. Even if she had one of those conditions, taking a crappy Russian medicine that the west wouldn't touch with a bargepole is unconvincing evidence. She lives in Florida and some of the first cardiologists in the world practice there, and she can probably afford to see them and receive cutting edge medicines and treatments. 

What she should have said was:

"Like every athlete I have a carefully controlled diet, with vitamins, essential nutrients and other supplements to maximise performance and prevent injury. I have always made sure that everything I took was legal and within the spirit of the rules. EITHER I failed to realise that meldonium had been put on the banned list OR my team failed to remove it from my diet and supplements, and I therefore tested positive. I accept responsibility for that, and will accept the judgement of the panel."

The medical explanation is making it worse. Ask any crisis manager, the cover up is always worse than the crime. She needs to fess up, suck it up and move on.
		
Click to expand...

Until proven otherwise I'll believe what she is saying - part of my fabric to have trust in others until that trust is broken.


----------



## Ethan (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Until proven otherwise I'll believe what she is saying - part of my fabric to have trust in others until that trust is broken.
		
Click to expand...

Your call. I didn't take you for the gullible type. Usually when someone like her has a medical issue at the centre of something like this, their doctor appears or issues a statement and there are X rays, MRIs or lab tests al over the place. I must have missed those.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Mar 8, 2016)

Ethan said:



			Your call. I didn't take you for the gullible type. Usually when someone like her has a medical issue at the centre of something like this, their doctor appears or issues a statement and there are X rays, MRIs or lab tests al over the place. I must have missed those.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with you and thought as soon as there was a shred of doubt on the nature of the problem she'd have provided something concrete. Not sure I'd trust too many sportsmen/celebs trying to hold their empire together.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

Ethan said:



			Your call. I didn't take you for the gullible type. Usually when someone like her has a medical issue at the centre of something like this, their doctor appears or issues a statement and there are X rays, MRIs or lab tests al over the place. I must have missed those.
		
Click to expand...

It is my call but there is no need to be derogatory towards me because I trust people. 

I'll wait until the proof comes along before making judgements.

Do you have the proof that she is lying ?


----------



## Ethan (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			It is my call but there is no need to be derogatory towards me because I trust people. 

I'll wait until the proof comes along before making judgements.

Do you have the proof that she is lying ?
		
Click to expand...

The proof is common sense and being able to see what is on the screen in front of you. Do you think a 28 year old with a wildly unusually young case of anything, who lives in the US and earns a fortune, would take a crappy old Russian medicine rather than a modern highly developed one? You would need to have come down the river in a bubble to but that. You believe what you want to believe.

Oh and don't give me the 'I rust people' line. You demonstrate quite the contrary routinely here.


----------



## Pin-seeker (Mar 8, 2016)

Ethan said:



			Look, Phil, if you believe that, I have a bridge for sale. She does not have angina or heart failure. Angina at 28 is extremely rare, and occurs only in people with hideous hereditary vascular problems (which she doesn't have) and heart failure, even well controlled, is incompatible with being an athlete. Even if she had one of those conditions, taking a crappy Russian medicine that the west wouldn't touch with a bargepole is unconvincing evidence. She lives in Florida and some of the first cardiologists in the world practice there, and she can probably afford to see them and receive cutting edge medicines and treatments. 

What she should have said was:

"Like every athlete I have a carefully controlled diet, with vitamins, essential nutrients and other supplements to maximise performance and prevent injury. I have always made sure that everything I took was legal and within the spirit of the rules. EITHER I failed to realise that meldonium had been put on the banned list OR my team failed to remove it from my diet and supplements, and I therefore tested positive. I accept responsibility for that, and will accept the judgement of the panel."

The medical explanation is making it worse. Ask any crisis manager, the cover up is always worse than the crime. She needs to fess up, suck it up and move on.
		
Click to expand...

Hit the nail on the head here Ethan.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

Ethan said:



			The proof is common sense and being able to see what is on the screen in front of you. Do you think a 28 year old with a wildly unusually young case of anything, who lives in the US and earns a fortune, would take a crappy old Russian medicine rather than a modern highly developed one? You would need to have come down the river in a bubble to but that. You believe what you want to believe.

Oh and don't give me the 'I rust people' line. You demonstrate quite the contrary routinely here.
		
Click to expand...

So you don't have proof that she didn't need it for medical reasons then. That's good enough for me right now.


----------



## pokerjoke (Mar 8, 2016)

Ethan said:



			Look, Phil, if you believe that, I have a bridge for sale. She does not have angina or heart failure. Angina at 28 is extremely rare, and occurs only in people with hideous hereditary vascular problems (which she doesn't have) and heart failure, even well controlled, is incompatible with being an athlete. Even if she had one of those conditions, taking a crappy Russian medicine that the west wouldn't touch with a bargepole is unconvincing evidence. She lives in Florida and some of the first cardiologists in the world practice there, and she can probably afford to see them and receive cutting edge medicines and treatments. 

What she should have said was:

"Like every athlete I have a carefully controlled diet, with vitamins, essential nutrients and other supplements to maximise performance and prevent injury. I have always made sure that everything I took was legal and within the spirit of the rules. EITHER I failed to realise that meldonium had been put on the banned list OR my team failed to remove it from my diet and supplements, and I therefore tested positive. I accept responsibility for that, and will accept the judgement of the panel."

The medical explanation is making it worse. Ask any crisis manager, the cover up is always worse than the crime. She needs to fess up, suck it up and move on.
		
Click to expand...


Absolutely spot on.
She could have done this and I believe all would have been sorted.

However it looks like she has something to hide and it doesn't look good especially when she has already said she made a massive mistake.


----------



## Fish (Mar 8, 2016)

Ethan said:



			Look, Phil, if you believe that, I have a bridge for sale. She does not have angina or heart failure. Angina at 28 is extremely rare, and occurs only in people with hideous hereditary vascular problems (which she doesn't have) and heart failure, even well controlled, is incompatible with being an athlete. Even if she had one of those conditions, taking a crappy Russian medicine that the west wouldn't touch with a bargepole is unconvincing evidence. She lives in Florida and some of the first cardiologists in the world practice there, and she can probably afford to see them and receive cutting edge medicines and treatments. 

What she should have said was:

"Like every athlete I have a carefully controlled diet, with vitamins, essential nutrients and other supplements to maximise performance and prevent injury. I have always made sure that everything I took was legal and within the spirit of the rules. EITHER I failed to realise that meldonium had been put on the banned list OR my team failed to remove it from my diet and supplements, and I therefore tested positive. I accept responsibility for that, and will accept the judgement of the panel."

The medical explanation is making it worse. Ask any crisis manager, the cover up is always worse than the crime. She needs to fess up, suck it up and move on.
		
Click to expand...




Ethan said:



			Your call. I didn't take you for the gullible type. Usually when someone like her has a medical issue at the centre of something like this, their doctor appears or issues a statement and there are X rays, MRIs or lab tests al over the place. I must have missed those.
		
Click to expand...




Ethan said:



			The proof is common sense and being able to see what is on the screen in front of you. Do you think a 28 year old with a wildly unusually young case of anything, who lives in the US and earns a fortune, would take a crappy old Russian medicine rather than a modern highly developed one? You would need to have come down the river in a bubble to but that. You believe what you want to believe.

Oh and don't give me the 'I rust people' line. You demonstrate quite the contrary routinely here.
		
Click to expand...

Spit on &#128077;



Liverpoolphil said:



			So you don't have proof that she didn't need it for medical reasons then. That's good enough for me right now.
		
Click to expand...

What is it they say about a leopard and it's spots &#129300;


----------



## Ethan (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So you don't have proof that she didn't need it for medical reasons then. That's good enough for me right now.
		
Click to expand...

Glad you are happy. I look forward to the continuation of your new trusting personality. I bet it doesn't last long.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So you don't have proof that she didn't need it for medical reasons then. That's good enough for me right now.
		
Click to expand...

That'll be the same proof that you don't have that she did need it then?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

Ethan said:



			Glad you are happy. I look forward to the continuation of your new trusting personality. I bet it doesn't last long.
		
Click to expand...

Pardon me ?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

Fish said:



			Spit on &#128077;



What is it they say about a leopard and it's spots &#129300;
		
Click to expand...

Im sorry I'm unsure what you are getting at here ?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

Blue in Munich said:



			That'll be the same proof that you don't have that she did need it then? 

Click to expand...

Apart from her own words


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Mar 8, 2016)

Ethan said:



			The proof is common sense and being able to see what is on the screen in front of you. Do you think a 28 year old with a wildly unusually young case of anything, who lives in the US and earns a fortune, would take a crappy old Russian medicine rather than a modern highly developed one? You would need to have come down the river in a bubble to but that. You believe what you want to believe.

Oh and don't give me the 'I rust people' line. You demonstrate quite the contrary routinely here.
		
Click to expand...

That's how I see it. How many approved drugs are there available in the US that she could have switched to at any time but she kept taken the one direct from Russia/Latvia (or wherever). Why would you go to that trouble


----------



## Blue in Munich (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Apart from her own words 

Click to expand...

Lance Armstrong; remember him?  Clean as the driven snow for 7 magnificent Tour de France victories.  In his own words.  

He said that it was all a conspiracy by the French authorities.  Remind us how that one turned out could you?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

Blue in Munich said:



			Lance Armstrong; remember him?  Clean as the driven snow for 7 magnificent Tour de France victories.  In his own words.  

He said that it was all a conspiracy by the French authorities.  Remind us how that one turned out could you?
		
Click to expand...

Did Armstrong come out in the Press and state he failed a drugs test ? 


And sorry I'm sure when I last looked Sharapova wasn't Armstrong and each person should be taken on their own individual merits and not judged by the actions of others


----------



## chrisd (Mar 8, 2016)

Blue in Munich said:



			Lance Armstrong; remember him?  Clean as the driven snow for 7 magnificent Tour de France victories.  In his own words.  

He said that it was all a conspiracy by the French authorities.  Remind us how that one turned out could you?
		
Click to expand...

Add to that the " Benteke didn't dive" and I reckon Phils on a big wind up mission!


----------



## Pin-seeker (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Did Armstrong come out in the Press and state he failed a drugs test ? 


And sorry I'm sure when I last looked Sharapova wasn't Armstrong and each person should be taken on their own individual merits and not judged by the actions of others
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Beezerk (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverproofphil strikes again &#128514;


----------



## HankMarvin (Mar 8, 2016)

My take is that there is more to it than she is letting on.But to be honest after reading Phil's post I could be wrong because he is Always right.........


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

chrisd said:



			Add to that the " Benteke didn't dive" and I reckon Phils on a big wind up mission!
		
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but what is the relevant to that post apart from to antagonise someone 

I say I trust what the girl is saying and it appears now I'm on the wind up ?


----------



## ColchesterFC (Mar 8, 2016)

I think the most important thing here is that she is very, very attractive and women's tennis will be less pretty if she gets a ban.

Having said that she is as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a big pile of poo on the kitchen floor.


----------



## chrisd (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I'm sorry but what is the relevant to that post apart from to antagonise someone 

I say I trust what the girl is saying and it appears now I'm on the wind up ?
		
Click to expand...


I'm entitled to my opinion too


----------



## Blue in Munich (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Did Armstrong come out in the Press and state he failed a drugs test ? 


And sorry I'm sure when I last looked Sharapova wasn't Armstrong and each person should be taken on their own individual merits and not judged by the actions of others
		
Click to expand...

Your argument was that because she said it, that was proof enough.  Lance Armstrong said it too, therefore on that basis that should be proof enough.  Except it wasn't, was it.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

chrisd said:



			I'm entitled to my opinion too
		
Click to expand...

Your opinion is not about the subject it's about me and has no relevance - hence bringing up an issue from a football thread. For a man in his 60's its teenager behaviour


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

Blue in Munich said:



			Your argument was that because she said it, that was proof enough.  Lance Armstrong said it too, therefore on that basis that should be proof enough.  Except it wasn't, was it.
		
Click to expand...

Sharapova isn't Lance Armstrong - just because one person was a liar doesn't mean another one is.


----------



## HankMarvin (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Your opinion is not about the subject it's about me and has no relevance - hence bringing up an issue from a football thread. For a man in his 60's its teenager behaviour
		
Click to expand...

Pot kettle black, grow up.


----------



## chrisd (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Your opinion is not about the subject it's about me and has no relevance - hence bringing up an issue from a football thread. For a man in his 60's its teenager behaviour
		
Click to expand...

I'm young at heart!


----------



## HankMarvin (Mar 8, 2016)

ColchesterFC said:



			I think the most important thing here is that she is very, very attractive and women's tennis will be less pretty if she gets a ban.Having said that she is as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a big pile of poo on the kitchen floor.
		
Click to expand...

(Like)


----------



## Fish (Mar 8, 2016)

Beezerk said:



			Liverproofphil strikes again &#128514;
		
Click to expand...

&#128514;&#128514;&#128514;


----------



## Pin-seeker (Mar 8, 2016)

Beezerk said:



			Liverproofphil strikes again &#128514;
		
Click to expand...

The gift that keeps on giving :whoo::rofl:

Impressive post count tho


----------



## pokerjoke (Mar 8, 2016)

chrisd said:



			I'm young at heart!
		
Click to expand...

That's come as quite a shock I thought you were in your 70s Chris


----------



## chrisd (Mar 8, 2016)

pokerjoke said:



			That's come as quite a shock I thought you were in your 70s Chris

Click to expand...

It did to me too!


----------



## Blue in Munich (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Sharapova isn't Lance Armstrong - just because one person was a liar doesn't mean another one is.
		
Click to expand...

So basically the rule you use to prove her innocence (because she said so) goes out of the window when it doesn't suit your argument and then you suggest someone else's behaviour is like that of a teenager?  You really couldn't make it up.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

Blue in Munich said:



			So basically the rule you use to prove her innocence (because she said so) goes out of the window when it doesn't suit your argument and then you suggest someone else's behaviour is like that of a teenager?  You really couldn't make it up.
		
Click to expand...

I'm sorry ? That has confused me ?


----------



## chrisd (Mar 8, 2016)

Blue in Munich said:



			So basically the rule you use to prove her innocence (because she said so) goes out of the window when it doesn't suit your argument and then you suggest someone else's behaviour is like that of a teenager?  You really couldn't make it up.
		
Click to expand...

More succinct than I'd have put it


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

chrisd said:



			More succinct than I'd have put it
		
Click to expand...

I put it simply for 

Your post had nothing to do with the subject and more to do with having a dig at me - that to me is childish behaviour. Unless you can highlight to me exactly what Benteke has to do with Sharapova.


----------



## bluewolf (Mar 8, 2016)

So, Phil.... Just where exactly is your trust threshold? At what point do you not believe exactly what someone is telling you?

Dont want to jump on the anti-Phil bandwagon, but this is genuinely interesting.


----------



## HankMarvin (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I'm sorry ? That has confused me ?
		
Click to expand...

Now there is a surprise Seems rather clear to me.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

bluewolf said:



			So, Phil.... Just where exactly is your trust threshold? At what point do you not believe exactly what someone is telling you?

Dont want to jump on the anti-Phil bandwagon, but this is genuinely interesting.
		
Click to expand...

I don't honestly know - instinct maybe , get a feeling perhaps , maybe look at history. I'm not sure if there is a set standard 

For example if this was a runner for example then I would struggle to trust because of the recent history in the sport - same as if it was in cycling. 

But just doesn't seem right for her and the sport which doesn't seem rife with drugs. Serena Williams and a few others coming out in support of her make me feel my instincts might be right.


----------



## chrisd (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I put it simply for 

Your post had nothing to do with the subject and more to do with having a dig at me - that to me is childish behaviour. Unless you can highlight to me exactly what Benteke has to do with Sharapova.
		
Click to expand...

Your very touchy Phil, always the victim? but BIM summed it up perfectly in the post you are confused by!


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Mar 8, 2016)

Paragraph takane form the Guardian artcile...
"The drug was name-checked in the latest investigative documentary on Russian doping reforms by the German Hajo Seppelt on Sunday.  The documentary referred to a 2015 study in which 17% of Russian  athletes (724 of 4,316) tested were found to have meldonium in their  system. A global study found 2.2% of athletes had it in their system."

So Sharapova is Russian (or there abouts)...they must have a real problem with heart conditions with  their  athletes in that part of the World if that many need to take it.


----------



## Val (Mar 8, 2016)

Ethan, I think many of your posts on this are bang on the money especially the one where you suggested what she should have said.

I believe she was advised this drug would help her performance but I'm unsure if she has any sort of condition mild or otherwise where this drug may have been useful. One way or another I do believe she used it to seek to gain an advantage when it was legal BUT now has made a fatal error in timing. 

Lots to run on this, it appears her sponsors are sceptical on her response given their reactions today


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Mar 8, 2016)

Lets keep it nice Chaps Please

Thank you


----------



## larmen (Mar 8, 2016)

Bunkermagnet said:



			...they must have a real problem with heart conditions with  their  athletes in that part of the World if that many need to take it.
		
Click to expand...

Well, they aren't exactly all vegetarians and fruit juice lovers.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I'm sorry but what is the relevant to that post apart from to antagonise someone
		
Click to expand...

Terrible when it happens. You'd never stoop so low of course :thup::ears::cheers::rofl:


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Mar 8, 2016)

larmen said:



			Well, they aren't exactly all vegetarians and fruit juice lovers. 

Click to expand...


No they aren't. they do however have a huge number of test failed athletes and a complicit drugs testing system. So many of their athletes taking this drug, so many failed tests it's not that hard to figure out.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Mar 8, 2016)

Val said:



			Ethan, I think many of your posts on this are bang on the money especially the one where you suggested what she should have said.

I believe she was advised this drug would help her performance but I'm unsure if she has any sort of condition mild or otherwise where this drug may have been useful. One way or another I do believe she used it to seek to gain an advantage when it was legal BUT now has made a fatal error in timing. 

Lots to run on this, it appears her sponsors are sceptical on her response given their reactions today
		
Click to expand...

To be fair didn't the sponsors dump Woods sharpish too. Common thing to do and while it doesn't prove any sort of guilt at all they clearly feel there's more to this than has been revealed so far


----------



## bluewolf (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I don't honestly know - instinct maybe , get a feeling perhaps , maybe look at history. I'm not sure if there is a set standard 

For example if this was a runner for example then I would struggle to trust because of the recent history in the sport - same as if it was in cycling. 

But just doesn't seem right for her and the sport which doesn't seem rife with drugs. Serena Williams and a few others coming out in support of her make me feel my instincts might be right.
		
Click to expand...

But to base that trust on the particular sport she plays, rather than the country she originated from, or the level at which she plays. Or even the stage of her career is a touch selective. 

In fact, if you ignore all of these factors, and concentrate solely on the situation as presented, you can surely see tha absurdity of her defence?


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Mar 8, 2016)

I think the sponsors slowly dropped Woods more out of public moral outrage than anything else. Sponsors drop drug cheats quicker than anything now, as they know it only tarnishes their reputation to stick with the cheat.


----------



## bluewolf (Mar 8, 2016)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Terrible when it happens. You'd never stoop so low of course :thup::ears::cheers::rofl:
		
Click to expand...

This petty little revenge mission from Ref-gate isn't exactly covering yourself in glory either Homeslice.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I don't honestly know - instinct maybe , get a feeling perhaps , maybe look at history. I'm not sure if there is a set standard 

For example if this was a runner for example then I would struggle to trust because of the recent history in the sport - same as if it was in cycling. 

But just doesn't seem right for her and the sport which doesn't seem rife with drugs. Serena Williams and a few others coming out in support of her make me feel my instincts might be right.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry Phil but to assume there is no drugs cheating in a sport like tennis, just because it's not running or cycling is just plain naive. People will do whatever they can to win both prizes and money, and to think otherwise is as I said just naive.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Mar 8, 2016)

bluewolf said:



			This petty little revenge mission from Ref-gate isn't exactly covering yourself in glory either Homeslice.
		
Click to expand...

Possibly not but to be honest I simply couldn't resist. Like an open goal it was there to be tucked away. Me bad


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

bluewolf said:



			But to base that trust on the particular sport she plays, rather than the country she originated from, or the level at which she plays. Or even the stage of her career is a touch selective. 

In fact, if you ignore all of these factors, and concentrate solely on the situation as presented, you can surely see tha absurdity of her defence?
		
Click to expand...

If she was part of that countries sports program then no doubt there will be suspicion 

But right now I'm choosing to believe her side of the story until as such evidence finds her story to be fabricated etc 

Lying about health issues and family health issues is quite a low and calculated thing to do - she doesn't seem to type to do it and has over the years plenty of times has left comps and be out through both illness and injury. A level of trust is being placed on her right now that she was taking the medicine for health reasons and she made an admin error in not realising it was banned now.


----------



## Tiger man (Mar 8, 2016)

She is not a scientist, just exceptional at tennis and if her team tell her to take a number of supplements to improve her performance and it's all legal I am sure she would not look up each individual ingredient she will just take it and trust their judgement as that is what they will be payed to do. 
I believe she will have done this innocently and it's more her team that have badly let her down not realising the error.


----------



## Ethan (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I'm sorry ? That has confused me ?
		
Click to expand...

You do seem quite confused. Perhaps a lie down in a quiet dark room with no internet access?


----------



## chrisd (Mar 8, 2016)

So, you're a sportsperson who has a list of banned substances at hand and know full well that the use of a substance on that list is going to get you in to the deepest poo if you take it. You go to a doctor and he suggests using it for a true medical condition and you, a world level athlete either don't check it against the list of banned substances, or, decide your illness is such that you'll take it and hope no one pulls you for doing so - naive, stupid or a drug cheat ?


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Mar 8, 2016)

chrisd said:



			So, you're a sportsperson who has a list of banned substances at hand and know full well that the use of a substance on that list is going to get you in to the deepest poo if you take it. You go to a doctor and he suggests using it for a true medical condition and you, a world level athlete either don't check it against the list of banned substances, or, decide your illness is such that you'll take it and hope no one pulls you for doing so - naive, stupid or a drug cheat ?
		
Click to expand...

One of the better summary's on here


----------



## ColchesterFC (Mar 8, 2016)

HomerJSimpson said:



			To be fair didn't the sponsors dump Woods sharpish too. Common thing to do and while it doesn't prove any sort of guilt at all they clearly feel there's more to this than has been revealed so far
		
Click to expand...




Bunkermagnet said:



			I think the sponsors slowly dropped Woods more out of public moral outrage than anything else. Sponsors drop drug cheats quicker than anything now, as they know it only tarnishes their reputation to stick with the cheat.
		
Click to expand...

And yet Nike still sponsor Gatlin. A man that has twice been found guilty of taking performance enhancing drugs.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

Bunkermagnet said:



			Sorry Phil but to assume there is no drugs cheating in a sport like tennis, just because it's not running or cycling is just plain naive. People will do whatever they can to win both prizes and money, and to think otherwise is as I said just naive.
		
Click to expand...

It's always easy to assume but tennis players I understand get tested very regulary and evidence seems to show that it's not rife in tennis ?


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Mar 8, 2016)

ColchesterFC said:



			And yet Nike still sponsor Gatlin. A man that has twice been found guilty of taking performance enhancing drugs.
		
Click to expand...


Agreed, but they did drop him during his banned times. Personaly I would ban for life every drug cheat. Sponsor that


----------



## Stuart_C (Mar 8, 2016)

Ethan, do you know  how long does this  banned substance stays in the system for?


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Mar 8, 2016)

ColchesterFC said:



			And yet Nike still sponsor Gatlin. A man that has twice been found guilty of taking performance enhancing drugs.
		
Click to expand...

Think the difference is Gatlin is now permitted to run and so it makes sense for Nike to be associated while he's back in the public profile and competing


----------



## Ethan (Mar 8, 2016)

Val said:



			Ethan, I think many of your posts on this are bang on the money especially the one where you suggested what she should have said.

I believe she was advised this drug would help her performance but I'm unsure if she has any sort of condition mild or otherwise where this drug may have been useful. One way or another I do believe she used it to seek to gain an advantage when it was legal BUT now has made a fatal error in timing. 

Lots to run on this, it appears her sponsors are sceptical on her response given their reactions today
		
Click to expand...

Even if she has a magnesium deficiency, there is quite an effective treatment. Magnesium. 

As for a family history of diabetes, if this drug prevents diabetes, the inventor should apply for his Nobel Prize in Medicine. The mainstay of prevention of type 2 diabetes is dietary and exercise. I think she has that covered already.

The medical cover story is ill advised and obviously bogus. And I believe that despite LP's touching tribute to trust.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

chrisd said:



			So, you're a sportsperson who has a list of banned substances at hand and know full well that the use of a substance on that list is going to get you in to the deepest poo if you take it. You go to a doctor and he suggests using it for a true medical condition and you, a world level athlete either don't check it against the list of banned substances, or, decide your illness is such that you'll take it and hope no one pulls you for doing so - naive, stupid or a drug cheat ?
		
Click to expand...

She has been using it for ten years - it only appeared on the ban list at the beginning of the year. For ten years it wasn't banned.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			It's always easy to assume but tennis players I understand get tested very regulary and evidence seems to show that it's not rife in tennis ?
		
Click to expand...


Just because you don't see a giant squid every day or week doesn't mean they aren't in the ocean.


----------



## Imurg (Mar 8, 2016)

I'm sitting firmly on the fence at the moment but...

I've just heard  on SSNHQ say that some German researchers published research last year showing the potential for performance enhancing properties of this stuff....if she's been taking it for 10 years "knowing" it is a performance enhancer, why did it take 9 years for anyone else to work it out...??


----------



## HankMarvin (Mar 8, 2016)

Ethan said:



			You do seem quite confused. Perhaps a lie down in a quiet dark room with no internet access?
		
Click to expand...

Post of the day


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

Bunkermagnet said:



			Just because you don't see a giant squid every day or week doesn't mean they aren't in the ocean.
		
Click to expand...

And just because they play for big money doesn't mean they are using PED to gain an advantage because other sports have a high number of people doing it.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			She has been using it for ten years - it only appeared on the ban list at the beginning of the year. For ten years it wasn't banned.
		
Click to expand...

And for ten years there's a good chance the side effect was to improve performance. Why else take it when better, more advanced and up to date medicines are potentially available to use and obtain in the US


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			And just because they play for big money doesn't mean they are using PED to gain an advantage because other sports have a high number of people doing it.
		
Click to expand...


No it doesn't, but likewise when you fail a drugs test.......


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

Ethan said:



			You do seem quite confused. Perhaps a lie down in a quiet dark room with no internet access?
		
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you feel the need to have to talk down to people whenever people say things you don't agree with ?


----------



## Imurg (Mar 8, 2016)

Stuart_C said:



			Ethan, do you know  how long does this  banned substance stays in the system for?
		
Click to expand...

I did some digging last night and found the half-life is about 5-6 hours meaning a normal dose would be gone within a day or two
How taking it for 10 years affects that, I can't answer..


----------



## chrisd (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			She has been using it for ten years - it only appeared on the ban list at the beginning of the year. For ten years it wasn't banned.
		
Click to expand...

And the former head of Wada has said just minutes ago on the news that NO ONE would take that drug over that period of time for that condition


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

Bunkermagnet said:



			No it doesn't, but likewise when you fail a drugs test.......
		
Click to expand...

And right now that's what it is - one failed drugs test so far based on poor judgement from what has been said.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Mar 8, 2016)

Nice to see different members taking the Forum JCB out for a spin


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Mar 8, 2016)

Bunkermagnet said:



			No it doesn't, but likewise when you fail a drugs test.......
		
Click to expand...

Isn't the phrase no smoke without fire? While Sharapova is obviously a big fish, I also wonder how many on the periphery of the main tour and on feeder tours have also used PED's in the form of medication. It could be the start of a big can of worms opening?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

chrisd said:



			And the former head of Wada has said just minutes ago on the news that NO ONE would take that drug over that period of time for that condition
		
Click to expand...

That's the thing about doctors - there is always someone who has a different opinion 

If the drug was PED why didn't WADA ban it previously


----------



## chrisd (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			That's the thing about doctors - there is always someone who has a different opinion 

If the drug was PED why didn't WADA ban it previously
		
Click to expand...

Ah! So it's WADA's fault for not banning it sooner?


----------



## Stuart_C (Mar 8, 2016)

Imurg said:



			I did some digging last night and found the half-life is about 5-6 hours meaning a normal dose would be gone within a day or two
How taking it for 10 years affects that, I can't answer..
		
Click to expand...

Thanks, I've not followed it that closely but it's always good to get an experts opinion.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

chrisd said:



			Ah! So it's WADA's fault for not banning it sooner?
		
Click to expand...

When did anyone suggest that ?

If the "former head" of WADA is such an expert on it and it's PED why wasn't it banned ?


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			And right now that's what it is - one failed drugs test so far based on poor judgement from what has been said.
		
Click to expand...


Well it's good to know then that she wasn't taking this drug for a performance increase and that she is the only one to have failed a drugs test not to have done.
 I also don't know of an athlete who has failed the first test but not the second....


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Mar 8, 2016)

Bunkermagnet said:



			Well it's good to know then that she wasn't taking this drug for a performance increase and that she is the only one to have failed a drugs test not to have done.
 I also don't know of an athlete who has failed the first test but not the second....
		
Click to expand...

It'll be a label mix up next and not her sample


----------



## chrisd (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			When did anyone suggest that ?

If the "former head" of WADA is such an expert on it and it's PED why wasn't it banned ?
		
Click to expand...

That's what I inferred from your post

I don't know the inner workings of WADA but when went on the list she still took it, she's a world class sportsperson and anyone at her level who doesn't pay the greatest attention to the changes on the ban list deserves all that she gets


----------



## Fish (Mar 8, 2016)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Nice to see different members taking the Forum JCB out for a spin



Click to expand...

and neither have licences so some crashes and damage is inevitable  :smirk:


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Mar 8, 2016)

HomerJSimpson said:



			It'll be a label mix up next and not her sample
		
Click to expand...

Of course, she's totally innocent and wouldn't dream of doing anything underhand......


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

chrisd said:



			That's what I inferred from your post

I don't know the inner workings of WADA but when went on the list she still took it, she's a world class sportsperson and anyone at her level who doesn't pay the greatest attention to the changes on the ban list deserves all that she gets
		
Click to expand...

She wouldn't be the first athlete it's happened to - plenty of others have been the victim of genuine mistakes as opposed to looking to gain an advantage.


----------



## larmen (Mar 8, 2016)

HomerJSimpson said:



			It'll be a label mix up next and not her sample
		
Click to expand...

she hasn't disputed the results of the A sample and did not request the B sample to be tested therefore accepting guilt.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

Bunkermagnet said:



			Well it's good to know then that she wasn't taking this drug for a performance increase and that she is the only one to have failed a drugs test not to have done.
 I also don't know of an athlete who has failed the first test but not the second....
		
Click to expand...

? She has only had one failed test


----------



## Fish (Mar 8, 2016)

Bunkermagnet said:



			Of course, she's totally innocent and wouldn't dream of doing anything underhand......
		
Click to expand...

Well it wasn't underhand in the eyes of the law for 10 years whilst she used it, it was no doubt under the radar, but I think she knew it was a PED and you'd think that with 17% of Russian athletes with it in their system, some red flags would have gone up before now, but now they've caught up with it and she's probably addicted to it now after that amount of time, so couldn't stop, and now she's banged to rights.


----------



## richart (Mar 8, 2016)

chrisd said:



			And the former head of Wada has said just minutes ago on the news that NO ONE would take that drug over that period of time for that condition
		
Click to expand...

 I think we all know she was prescribed the drug by a Russian doctor to enhance performance. The drug was not banned though, so she was not breaking any drug rules relating to tennis. When it was banned at the beginning of this year everything changes. 

Did she carry on taking the drug hoping to not be caught ? Did she take the drug by mistake not realising it was now banned. The previous ten years are not relevant, as the banning can not be back dated.

If she took it knowing it was banned, hoping she would not be caught she is a cheat.

If she took it not realising it was banned, she has made a huge mistake which she admits.

It would be nice if forumers could respect those with different opinions, rather than using it as an excuse to make cheap personal attacks.:rant:


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Mar 8, 2016)

larmen said:



			she has't disputed the results of the A sample and did not request the B sample to be tested therefore accepting guilt.
		
Click to expand...

So she has failed, with no opportunity to have a re-test/secondary sample. Therefore by default she's a drugs cheat by default. Is that what you're saying (and if so I agree). Whatever the circumstances, there are a lot of difficult questions to be answered and I can see the PED issue being at the forefront of the enquiry


----------



## Stuart_C (Mar 8, 2016)

chrisd said:



			That's what I inferred from your post

I don't know the inner workings of WADA but when went on the list she still took it, *she's a world class sportsperson and anyone at her level who doesn't pay the greatest attention to the changes on the ban list deserves all that she gets*

Click to expand...

Most of these top sports people it seems are unable to do anything for themselves and they rely on a team of people running their lives for them. They are mollycoddled.

I know a fella whose nephew is a footballer for a decent club, he told me he literally has people doing everything for him, booking his flights for holidays, booking restaurants etc, I assume she'd be no different. Still no excuse though.


----------



## Ethan (Mar 8, 2016)

Stuart_C said:



			Ethan, do you know  how long does this  banned substance stays in the system for?
		
Click to expand...

It has a shortish half life of about 5 hours, so would be pretty much eliminated from the body in about 25-30 hours, but there may be some metabolites which are detectable for la bit longer.


----------



## Stuart_C (Mar 8, 2016)

Ethan said:



			It has a shortish half life of about 5 hours, so would be pretty much eliminated from the body in about 25-30 hours, but there may be some metabolites which are detectable for la bit longer.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks Ethan.


----------



## Fish (Mar 8, 2016)

richart said:



*I think we all know she was prescribed the drug by a Russian doctor to enhance performance. The drug was not banned though, so she was not breaking any drug rules relating to tennis.* When it was banned at the beginning of this year everything changes. 

Did she carry on taking the drug hoping to not be caught ? Did she take the drug by mistake not realising it was now banned. The previous ten years are not relevant, as the banning can not be back dated.

If she took it knowing it was banned, hoping she would not be caught she is a cheat.

If she took it not realising it was banned, she has made a huge mistake which she admits.

It would be nice if forumers could respect those with different opinions, rather than using it as an excuse to make cheap personal attacks.:rant:
		
Click to expand...

So you're saying she knowingly took a PED but that was OK because it was not banned at the time, seriously, just because the authorities haven't caught up with that substance it's acceptable to take it knowingly even though it has known performance enhancing properties, which i'm confident was the reason why so many Russian athletes had it in their systems!

Just because it wasn't banned at the time, if she was aware it had performance enhancing properties, she's a cheat, period me me!


----------



## Blue in Munich (Mar 8, 2016)

From this thread, it would appear that;

The athlete involved in this is Russian.

17% of Russian athletes take this drug, as opposed to 2.2% overall

The drug involved is normally only used for 4 - 6 weeks, not 10 years.

There are better drugs available that will treat the condition this drug does more effectively.

None of these better drugs have a performance enhancing side effect.


If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, then it's a duck.


----------



## Fish (Mar 8, 2016)

larmen said:



			she hasn't disputed the results of the A sample and did not request the B sample to be tested therefore accepting guilt.
		
Click to expand...

That's like refusing to blow in the police station, it's an immediate admission of guilt and you're banned.


----------



## palindromicbob (Mar 8, 2016)

Fish said:



			So you're saying she knowingly took a PED but that was OK because it was not banned at the time, seriously, just because the authorities haven't caught up with that substance it's acceptable to take it knowingly even though it has known performance enhancing properties, which i'm confident was the reason why so many Russian athletes had it in their systems!

Just because it wasn't banned at the time, if she was aware it had performance enhancing properties, she's a cheat, period me me!
		
Click to expand...

Is that not like saying people using anchored putting strokes last year were cheaters?


----------



## richart (Mar 8, 2016)

Fish said:



			So you're saying she knowingly took a PED but that was OK because it was not banned at the time, seriously, just because the authorities haven't caught up with that substance it's acceptable to take it knowingly even though it has known performance enhancing properties, which i'm confident was the reason why so many Russian athletes had it in their systems!

Just because it wasn't banned at the time, if she was aware it had performance enhancing properties, she's a cheat, period me me!
		
Click to expand...

 Where do I say that I think it is ok.  I said it was not a banned drug, so she was not breaking tennis drug rules. I said she took it to enhance performance, and not for health problems. Nice try though.


----------



## chrisd (Mar 8, 2016)

richart said:



			It would be nice if forumers could respect those with different opinions, rather than using it as an excuse to make cheap personal attacks.:rant:
		
Click to expand...

Yes, from both sides of the argument


----------



## Val (Mar 8, 2016)

Fish said:



			So you're saying she knowingly took a PED but that was OK because it was not banned at the time, seriously, just because the authorities haven't caught up with that substance it's acceptable to take it knowingly even though it has known performance enhancing properties, which i'm confident was the reason why so many Russian athletes had it in their systems!

Just because it wasn't banned at the time, if she was aware it had performance enhancing properties, she's a cheat, period me me!
		
Click to expand...

Nonsense. If it's not banned then it's fair game.


----------



## Fish (Mar 8, 2016)

Blue in Munich said:



			From this thread, it would appear that;

The athlete involved in this is Russian.

17% of Russian athletes take this drug, as opposed to 2.2% overall

The drug involved is normally only used for 4 - 6 weeks, not 10 years.

There are better drugs available that will treat the condition this drug does more effectively.

None of these better drugs have a performance enhancing side effect.


If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, then it's a duck.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## chrisd (Mar 8, 2016)

Blue in Munich said:



			If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, then it's a duck.
		
Click to expand...

Except on here it's only a duck if you can produce its pedigree certificate


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

Val said:



			Nonsense. If it's not banned then it's fair game.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly - can't be a cheat if using something that isn't banned


----------



## Val (Mar 8, 2016)

Fish said:



			That's like refusing to blow in the police station, it's an immediate admission of guilt and you're banned.
		
Click to expand...

Almost, its like failing a breath test and then saying blood test is not required as I've failed anyway.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Mar 8, 2016)

chrisd said:



			Except on here it's only a duck if you can produce its pedigree certificate
		
Click to expand...

Or the appropriate entry from the Chinese takeaway menu.


----------



## Fish (Mar 8, 2016)

palindromicbob said:



			Is that not like saying people using anchored putting strokes last year were cheaters?
		
Click to expand...

No, that's a daft example, they were made specifically for the sport, show me a known performance enhancing drug made for sport that's accepted if known to be being taken?


----------



## Blue in Munich (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Exactly - can't be a cheat if using something that isn't banned
		
Click to expand...

But it is banned, so she is a cheat then?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

Blue in Munich said:



			But it is banned, so she is a cheat then?
		
Click to expand...

Right now yes because she has failed a drugs for a drug on the banned list.


----------



## Fish (Mar 8, 2016)

richart said:



			Where do I say that I think it is ok.  I said it was not a banned drug, so she was not breaking tennis drug rules. I said she took it to enhance performance, and not for health problems. Nice try though.

Click to expand...

You said "If she took it not realising it was banned, she has made a huge mistake which she admits". That to me was saying that just because it was not banned before although it was prescribed as a PED, it was somehow acceptable!


----------



## Val (Mar 8, 2016)

Fish said:



			No, that's a daft example, they were made specifically for the sport, show me a known performance enhancing drug made for sport that's accepted if known to be being taken?
		
Click to expand...

Many performance enhancing drugs were made for atheletes then got subsequently banned at a later date.


----------



## chrisd (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Exactly - can't be a cheat if using something that isn't banned
		
Click to expand...

almost every drug on the list will have been used by a sportsperson prior to it being found in someone's system, tested and banned but you're saying that they aren't cheating by taking it simply because they haven't banned it, although the user will know it's performance enhancing?


----------



## Val (Mar 8, 2016)

Blue in Munich said:



			But it is banned, so she is a cheat then?
		
Click to expand...

She is a cheat if she's been using from Jan 1st 2016, prior to this then no.


----------



## Val (Mar 8, 2016)

chrisd said:



			almost every drug on the list will have been used by a sportsperson prior to it being found in someone's system, tested and banned but you're saying that they aren't cheating by taking it simply because they haven't banned it, although the user will know it's performance enhancing?
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely, if its not banned then why wouldn't you use it?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

chrisd said:



			almost every drug on the list will have been used by a sportsperson prior to it being found in someone's system, tested and banned but you're saying that they aren't cheating by taking it simply because they haven't banned it, although the user will know it's performance enhancing?
		
Click to expand...

If a supplement is not on the banned list then the athlete is free to use it - how can they be cheating when they are not breaking the rules ?


----------



## chrisd (Mar 8, 2016)

Val said:



			Absolutely, if its not banned then why wouldn't you use it?
		
Click to expand...

I suppose the answer is whether you consider yourself a clean sportsperson or a drug cheat


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

chrisd said:



			I suppose the answer is whether you consider yourself a clean sportsperson or a drug cheat
		
Click to expand...

If it's not banned then how can it be classed as a drug cheat ?


----------



## Fish (Mar 8, 2016)

Val said:



			Nonsense. If it's not banned then it's fair game.
		
Click to expand...

I disagree, it's still cheating in my book, just because it was under the radar it's a PED which is not allowed and the excuse for taking it for so long was not for medical reasons but obviously only to enhance her performance. 

I'm just amazed by some of the figures that have come out of how many Russian athletes were using this stuff and no red flags came up to act on it before, but like I've said, after 10 years taking it there must be some kind of depency now I'd think which is what has got her caught, IMO.


----------



## Val (Mar 8, 2016)

chrisd said:



			I suppose the answer is whether you consider yourself a clean sportsperson or a drug cheat
		
Click to expand...

You cannot be a drugs cheat if you are using performance enhancing drugs that aren't banned. Thats not cheating, it's using all the tools available to make you better.


----------



## Fish (Mar 8, 2016)

Val said:



			Many performance enhancing drugs were made for atheletes then got subsequently banned at a later date.
		
Click to expand...

Surely that means by definition that no PED's are acceptable.


----------



## chrisd (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			If a supplement is not on the banned list then the athlete is free to use it - how can they be cheating when they are not breaking the rules ?
		
Click to expand...

The key issue to me is the reason for its use. If it's purely a genuine medical use then no problem. If it's to enhance performance then you are a drug cheat


----------



## richart (Mar 8, 2016)

Fish said:



			You said "If she took it not realising it was banned, she has made a huge mistake which she admits". That to me was saying that just because it was not banned before although it was prescribed as a PED, it was somehow acceptable!



Click to expand...

 It was acceptable to her and her team as it was not banned. It was also acceptable to the tennis authorities up to the beginning of this year. I repeat I have not said if that is acceptable or not to me, so don't put words into my mouth.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Mar 8, 2016)

Several fruits have performance enhancing benefits. Does this make me a golf and cycling cheat?


----------



## Val (Mar 8, 2016)

Fish said:



			I disagree, it's still cheating in my book, just because it was under the radar it's a PED which is not allowed and the excuse for taking it for so long was not for medical reasons but obviously only to enhance her performance. 

I'm just amazed by some of the figures that have come out of how many Russian athletes were using this stuff and no red flags came up to act on it before, but like I've said, after 10 years taking it there must be some kind of depency now I'd think which is what has got her caught, IMO.
		
Click to expand...

Robin, there are too many taking the moral high ground on this one.

Rewind 5 years ago, would this drug which wasn't being close to be banned be any different to rugby players taking protein shakes and the likes to aid muscle recovery and muscle growth?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

chrisd said:



			The key issue to me is the reason for its use. If it's purely a genuine medical use then no problem. If it's to enhance performance then you are a drug cheat
		
Click to expand...

Some people say bananas give off slow release energy properties and help enhance endurance athletes performance- are they drug cheats for using them ?

Isotonic drinks , energy tablets even water boosts performance


----------



## Val (Mar 8, 2016)

Fish said:



			Surely that means by definition that no PED's are acceptable.
		
Click to expand...

That would be up to the WADA i guess


----------



## Fish (Mar 8, 2016)

Val said:



			You cannot be a drugs cheat if you are using performance enhancing drugs that aren't banned. Thats not cheating, it's using all the tools available to make you better.
		
Click to expand...

Well I think that's ethically wrong Martin and takes away all the work and commitment from _natural_ raw talent.

Liverproofphil has constantly gone on about _winning at all costs_ in football has ruined it and it being wrong, so what makes this any different?


----------



## Fish (Mar 8, 2016)

richart said:



			It was acceptable to her and her team as it was not banned. It was also acceptable to the tennis authorities up to the beginning of this year. I repeat I have not said if that is acceptable or not to me, so don't put words into my mouth.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not, it's how it read to me


----------



## Robobum (Mar 8, 2016)

Every top level professional athlete rattles when they walk due to the cocktail of supplements they take, designed to enhance and maximise their physical performance. They aren't cheating


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

Fish said:



			Well I think that's ethically wrong Martin and takes away all the work and commitment from _natural_ raw talent.

*Liverproofphil *has constantly gone on about _winning at all costs_ in football has ruined it and it being wrong, so what makes this any different?
		
Click to expand...

Shall we keep the petty name calling out of thread.


----------



## chrisd (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Some people say bananas give off slow release energy properties and help enhance endurance athletes performance- are they drug cheats for using them ?

Isotonic drinks , energy tablets even water boosts performance
		
Click to expand...

I don't recall bananas being on the banned drugs list and it probably wouldn't be good sports preparation to avoid ever eating the best food prior to an event., shooting a needle full of a so far, undiscovered, cocktails of drugs prior is just possibly against the ideology of sport.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

drive4show said:



			Several fruits have performance enhancing benefits. Does this make me a golf and cycling cheat?
		
Click to expand...

Plus shakes and protein supplements - whole shops full of items that can used to enhance someone's performance


----------



## Fish (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Shall we keep the petty name calling out of thread.
		
Click to expand...

I don't see it any different to you saying Maureen for Jose or Brenda etc, its a username not a real name so.....NO!


----------



## Val (Mar 8, 2016)

Fish said:



			Well I think that's ethically wrong Martin and takes away all the work and commitment from _natural_ raw talent.

Liverproofphil has constantly gone on about _winning at all costs_ in football has ruined it and it being wrong, so what makes this any different?
		
Click to expand...

All about opinions bud. Ethics and rules are 2 different things in many instances and can be totally contradictory. Im sure we've all seen or heard of instances on the golf course.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

chrisd said:



			I don't recall bananas being on the banned drugs list and it probably wouldn't be good sports preparation to avoid ever eating the best food prior to an event., shooting a needle full of a so far, undiscovered, cocktails of drugs prior is just possibly against the ideology of sport.
		
Click to expand...

There are plenty of supplements available for athletes to purchase that help their performance - including cocktails of proteins and drugs but are not banned - it's not cheating to use them


----------



## Fish (Mar 8, 2016)

Val said:



			All about opinions bud. Ethics and rules are 2 different things in many instances and can be totally contradictory. *Im sure we've all seen or heard of instances on the golf course.*

Click to expand...

I've not, I've led a sheltered life :smirk:


----------



## Val (Mar 8, 2016)

Fish said:



			I've not, I've led a sheltered life :smirk:
		
Click to expand...

Liar :rofl:


----------



## chrisd (Mar 8, 2016)

Robobum said:



			Every top level professional athlete rattles when they walk due to the cocktail of supplements they take, designed to enhance and maximise their physical performance. They aren't cheating
		
Click to expand...

If everyone is taking legal supplements that are approved I don't think anyone has a problem. The argument is against those taking substances that, if it were known that they were performance enhancing to the extent they would be placed in the banned list then, that for me, would constitute cheating. New drugs are produced every year that are undetectable until the authorities find ways to do so, takings them because the user won't get caught is cheating in my book


----------



## larmen (Mar 8, 2016)

chrisd said:



			If everyone is taking legal supplements that are approved I don't think anyone has a problem. The argument is against those taking substances that, if it were known that they were performance enhancing to the extent they would be placed in the banned list then, that for me, would constitute cheating. New drugs are produced every year that are undetectable until the authorities find ways to do so, takings them because the user won't get caught is cheating in my book
		
Click to expand...

How does that actually work? Before people were busted with EPO, was it on the list? It quickly got replaced with CERA. How to ban people using something which WADA doesn't know exist?


----------



## chrisd (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			There are plenty of supplements available for athletes to purchase that help their performance - including cocktails of proteins and drugs but are not banned - it's not cheating to use them
		
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, if the authorities know of them and don't ban them then it no problem. But let's say a chemist produced a drug that could make Ussain Bolt trun 3 seconds faster over 100m, are you saying it's alright for him to use it because it's not banned?


----------



## richart (Mar 8, 2016)

chrisd said:



			If everyone is taking legal supplements that are approved I don't think anyone has a problem. The argument is against those taking substances that, if it were known that they were performance enhancing to the extent they would be placed in the banned list then, that for me, would constitute cheating. New drugs are produced every year that are undetectable until the authorities find ways to do so, takings them because the user won't get caught is cheating in my book
		
Click to expand...

 This drug has been around for at least ten years. Plenty of time for it to be picked up as performance enhancing. Is it banned in other sports, or was it just tennis that allowed it ? Perhaps it is to do with the problems with doping in Russian atheletics, and it was only picked up last year ?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

chrisd said:



			If everyone is taking legal supplements that are approved I don't think anyone has a problem. The argument is against those taking substances that, if it were known that they were performance enhancing to the extent they would be placed in the banned list then, that for me, would constitute cheating. New drugs are produced every year that are undetectable until the authorities find ways to do so, takings them because the user won't get caught is cheating in my book
		
Click to expand...

If they are using something that is not illegal or banned it's not cheating - it's using methods available to everyone to enhance your performance. If after investigation WADA decide to ban something then someone would be cheating


----------



## chrisd (Mar 8, 2016)

larmen said:



			How does that actually work? Before people were busted with EPO, was it on the list? It quickly got replaced with CERA. How to ban people using something which WADA doesn't know exist?
		
Click to expand...

You can't ban them if you don't know but I'm just of the opinion it doesn't make it right to use it until it's banned. Don't the authorities also recheck old samples for new banned drugs and take away records and medals retrospectively?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

chrisd said:



			I don't disagree, if the authorities know of them and don't ban them then it no problem. But let's say a chemist produced a drug that could make Ussain Bolt trun 3 seconds faster over 100m, are you saying it's alright for him to use it because it's not banned?
		
Click to expand...

Yes it's ok to use it until it's banned.


----------



## Fish (Mar 8, 2016)

chrisd said:



			If everyone is taking legal supplements that are approved I don't think anyone has a problem. The argument is against those taking substances that, if it were known that they were performance enhancing to the extent they would be placed in the banned list then, that for me, would constitute cheating. New drugs are produced every year that are undetectable until the authorities find ways to do so, takings them because the user won't get caught is cheating in my book
		
Click to expand...

I agree and this was the point I was no doubt badly trying to make, I accept that there are harmless PED's from natural produce and mixed with other natural products that will never end up on a banned list, but taking substances that haven't been detected yet and have been specifically designed to enhance performance and are being taken only for that goal, and as soon as they eventually get detected and tested will 100% fall into the banned list is just plain wrong and cheating IMO.


----------



## bluewolf (Mar 8, 2016)

To those who think she wasn't cheating.... 

If if it was found that a leading prescription medication for Hypothyroidism provided a 10% increase in performance, then shortly after, several hundred leading athletes all were diagnosed with Hypothyroidism, would you suspect them of cheating? Or merely playing the system?


----------



## chrisd (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Yes it's ok to use it until it's banned.
		
Click to expand...

It would appear not

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/athletics/article4524183.ece


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

bluewolf said:



			To those who think she wasn't cheating.... 

If if it was found that a leading prescription medication for Hypothyroidism provided a 10% increase in performance, then shortly after, several hundred leading athletes all were diagnosed with Hypothyroidism, would you suspect them of cheating? Or merely playing the system?
		
Click to expand...

Would suspect they would be attempting to play the system but ultimatly having a false illness and using it to gain PED is cheating


----------



## Fish (Mar 8, 2016)

Am I cheating if I take a Viagra before visiting a brass, am I enhancing my performance for an unfair gain if I'm not on the clock by delaying my end game, am I cheating the brass out of time and motion


----------



## bluewolf (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Would suspect they would be attempting to play the system but ultimatly having a false illness and using it to gain PED is cheating
		
Click to expand...

Exactly. Columbo has his man. Case closed. Wolfie walks off into the distance, smoking a stogie and muttering about what Mrs Columbo wants for dinner.... &#128514;


----------



## richart (Mar 8, 2016)

Fish said:



			I agree and this was the point I was no doubt badly trying to make, I accept that there are harmless PED's from natural produce and mixed with other natural products that will never end up on a banned list, but taking substances that haven't been detected yet and have been specifically designed to enhance performance and are being taken only for that goal, and as soon as they eventually get detected and tested will 100% fall into the banned list is just plain wrong and cheating IMO.
		
Click to expand...

How has a drug that has been around over 10 years not been banned before ? I can understand new drugs not being picked up immediately, but ten years. It was also not available in the US which might have been a clue to a problem with it.


----------



## larmen (Mar 8, 2016)

chrisd said:



			It would appear not

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/athletics/article4524183.ece

Click to expand...

I can't read the article without subscription.
Did they ban the substances and then ban the athletes, or were the substances already banned but only later be able to be detected?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

chrisd said:



			It would appear not

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/athletics/article4524183.ece

Click to expand...

What if they don't ban it ? How does an athlete know if something is to be banned or not ? 

Article is about banned substances that were undetected until recently 

Sharapova was taking a drug for ten years - it wasn't a drug designed to improve her performance so until Jan 1st her use of it was above board and not cheating


----------



## Robobum (Mar 8, 2016)

chrisd said:



			It would appear not

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/athletics/article4524183.ece

Click to expand...

I can't read the full article Chris, but the opening paragraph seems to suggest that they had taken substances that were banned at the time but testing methods of the day were unable to detect them?


----------



## richart (Mar 8, 2016)

chrisd said:



			It would appear not

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/athletics/article4524183.ece

Click to expand...

 Surely that is testing for drugs that were banned at the time, and not drugs subsequently banned ?

Were the drugs East German athletes taking banned at the time, or subsequently ?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

bluewolf said:



			Exactly. Columbo has his man. Case closed. Wolfie walks off into the distance, smoking a stogie and muttering about what Mrs Columbo wants for dinner.... &#128514;
		
Click to expand...

So will come down to whether her illness is genuine or not


----------



## Fish (Mar 8, 2016)

larmen said:



			I can't read the article without subscription.
Did they ban the substances and then ban the athletes, or were the substances already banned but only later be able to be detected?
		
Click to expand...

They didn't have the technology to test them to that degree at that time and have subsequently tested old stored urine and now found banned substances in them, although there all now too old to compete but there should be some kind of penalty for them, they may have lived and enjoyed a good life off the back of those successes whilst cheating, so simply banning them retrospectively isn't enough for me.


----------



## Fish (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			What if they don't ban it ? How does an athlete know if something is to be banned or not ? 

Article is about banned substances that were undetected until recently 

Sharapova was taking a drug for ten years - it wasn't a drug designed to improve her performance so until Jan 1st her use of it was above board and not cheating
		
Click to expand...

The Russians obviously knew it enhanced performance or they wouldn't have had so many taking it!


----------



## chrisd (Mar 8, 2016)

larmen said:



			I can't read the article without subscription.
Did they ban the substances and then ban the athletes, or were the substances already banned but only later be able to be detected?
		
Click to expand...

I don't have a subscription. It confirms what I said a while back. If new methods of testing for drugs, previously undetectable by the method of the day, then retrospective bans a etc are given on some caught. 32 tests on 28 athletes were tested and they were dealt with accordingly


----------



## bluewolf (Mar 8, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So will come down to whether her illness is genuine or not
		
Click to expand...

It isn't. 

But im sure that the LTA will hide this behind a smokescreen of circumstantial trickery. It's never good publicity to have one of your leading lights integrity questioned.


----------



## richart (Mar 8, 2016)

bluewolf said:



			Exactly. Columbo has his man. Case closed. Wolfie walks off into the distance, smoking a stogie and muttering about what Mrs Columbo wants for dinner.... &#128514;
		
Click to expand...

 Just one more question.


----------



## Robobum (Mar 8, 2016)

Fish said:



			They didn't have the technology to test them to that degree at that time and have subsequently tested old stored urine and now found banned substances in them, although there all now too old to compete but there should be some kind of penalty for them, they may have lived and enjoyed a good life off the back of those successes whilst cheating, so simply banning them retrospectively isn't enough for me.
		
Click to expand...

You're not alone with that thought Hence the multi million dollar law suits against Lance Armstrong by his sponsors


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 8, 2016)

chrisd said:



			I don't have a subscription. It confirms what I said a while back. If new methods of testing for drugs, previously undetectable by the method of the day, then retrospective bans a etc are given on some caught. 32 tests on 28 athletes were tested and they were dealt with accordingly
		
Click to expand...


But it's about substances that were already banned 

Not ones that could be banned in the future


----------



## chrisd (Mar 8, 2016)

Robobum said:



			I can't read the full article Chris, but the opening paragraph seems to suggest that they had taken substances that were banned at the time but testing methods of the day were unable to detect them?
		
Click to expand...

I can't see how they are banned if they can't be detected but you could be right. I suspect contracts within top level sport cover the use of known and unknown drugs and the penalties that could follow if caught


----------



## palindromicbob (Mar 9, 2016)

http://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/Of...mmage_on_Sharapovas_failed_drugs_test__her_PR


----------



## Fish (Mar 9, 2016)

palindromicbob said:



http://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/Of...mmage_on_Sharapovas_failed_drugs_test__her_PR

Click to expand...


Very good convo about it and I like the wine reference and I think they're right, in saying that the tennis bubble has burst and its now caught up with the rest of the sports being tested more and more for drugs.

It would seem the Russians are bang at it and have been at it for decades and are always just 1 step ahead of WADA as this drug was on the watch list last year, so it was just a matter of time.

Very interesting debate, and I love their view that "only the idiots will believe it and there's plenty of them out there" 

thanks for that, I agree with them that she has totally exposed herself and set herself up for a huge fall.

Great link :thup:


----------



## Blue in Munich (Mar 9, 2016)

palindromicbob said:



http://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/Of...mmage_on_Sharapovas_failed_drugs_test__her_PR

Click to expand...




Fish said:



			Very good convo about it and I like the wine reference and I think they're right, in saying that the tennis bubble has burst and its now caught up with the rest of the sports being tested more and more for drugs.

It would seem the Russians are bang at it and have been at it for decades and are always just 1 step ahead of WADA as this drug was on the watch list last year, so it was just a matter of time.

Very interesting debate, and I love their view that "only the idiots will believe it and there's plenty of them out there" 

thanks for that, I agree with them that she has totally exposed herself and set herself up for a huge fall.

*Great link* :thup:
		
Click to expand...

Indeed.  I liked the bit that suggests the entire Soviet army in Afghanistan was on this stuff to help them run up hillsâ€¦â€¦   He doesn't mince his words in his opinion of her.  Not good listening for the faint hearted or anyone who thinks she is innocent.


----------



## Fish (Mar 9, 2016)

Blue in Munich said:



			Indeed.  I liked the bit that suggests the entire Soviet army in Afghanistan was on this stuff to help them run up hillsâ€¦â€¦   He doesn't mince his words in his opinion of her.  Not good listening for the faint hearted or anyone who thinks she is innocent.
		
Click to expand...

Plenty of back & front pages obviously reporting on it and digging new angles out of which I haven't seen any in support of her or feeling sorry for her [error] in judgement and 1 paper is reporting she was warned 5 times about the drug the month prior informing her that it was now on the banned list!

Coming more and more across to me she thought she was the bigger person and believed she had a story always ready to justify taking it, sounds like something an addict would try to spin out not a professional tennis player, or are both the same in this instance ðŸ¤”

Lots more meat on the bone in this to come ðŸ˜œ


----------



## chrisd (Mar 9, 2016)

Great conversation which pretty much sums up my views on the matter.


----------



## Del_Boy (Mar 9, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			I get that she had ample warning and should have known but if you accept she was taking advantage of its previously legal status she'd be stupid to keep taking it knowing it was being banned. It does beggar belief that a top sportsperson taking regular medicine doesn't check for that medicine on each update of the banned list.
		
Click to expand...

Did she have ample warning?  I thought she had an email in 22 Dec advising that the following list of drugs are banned from 1 Jan which she failed to read.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Mar 9, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Sharapova was taking a drug for ten years - it wasn't a drug designed to improve her performance
		
Click to expand...

LP I honestly don't understand how you can say this, all the evidence I have seen suggests that this drug is normally prescribed for very specific medical issues and only for a very short length of time. The drug is not available in the US and indeed other drugs have superceeded this one.

So why would she possibly take this drug for so long?  If she had a medical condition then I am sure the LTA would be aware and enough time has passed since the test result for Sharapova to show the LTA her medical records and they would have been quick to give a medical exemption, given her status in the game.

Why are so many other Russian/ ex soviet block athletes taking the same drug compared to the rest of the world?

The only explanation is that it's performance enhancing properties were picked up and cynically exploited over a number of years, to suggest that she wasn't taking it for its performance enhancing properties is bonkers.

The fact that WADA have only just got their backsides in gear is deplorable, this should have been on the banned list years ago.


Judge Judy would say that you have lost the argument so maybe it's time to park the JCB and stop digging


----------



## Slab (Mar 9, 2016)

Del_Boy said:



			Did she have ample warning?  I thought she had an email in 22 Dec advising that the following list of drugs are banned from 1 Jan which she failed to read.
		
Click to expand...

I read on BBC that the new list was first issued to all players on 22nd of September last year


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 9, 2016)

PhilTheFragger said:



			LP I honestly don't understand how you can say this, all the evidence I have seen suggests that this drug is normally prescribed for very specific medical issues and only for a very short length of time. The drug is not available in the US and indeed other drugs have superceeded this one.

So why would she possibly take this drug for so long?  If she had a medical condition then I am sure the LTA would be aware and enough time has passed since the test result for Sharapova to show the LTA her medical records and they would have been quick to give a medical exemption, given her status in the game.

Why are so many other Russian/ ex soviet block athletes taking the same drug compared to the rest of the world?

The only explanation is that it's performance enhancing properties were picked up and cynically exploited over a number of years, to suggest that she wasn't taking it for its performance enhancing properties is bonkers.

The fact that WADA have only just got their backsides in gear is deplorable, this should have been on the banned list years ago.


Judge Judy would say that you have lost the argument so maybe it's time to park the JCB and stop digging
		
Click to expand...

JCB ? Ah so that's what that comment was about earlier in the thread - I see 

I didn't release it was a win/lose situation and it was people offering an opinion and as Rich said people being able to respect that people can have a different opinion. 

I currently choose to believe her - that's my right - at the moment it doesn't make me wrong it's just my opinion. 

She says it was prescribed by her doctor for health issues - some may not believe that some may do - right now I believe her 

Currently the drug is also not banned in golf 

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/gol...sharapova-case-not-yet-banned-pga-tour-030816


----------



## freddielong (Mar 9, 2016)

It may not have been designed to enhance athletic performance, but that is what it does. She doesn't have a condition that requires the prescription of this drug so there is only one reason she has been taking it.

It may not have been illegal until this year but she has effectively been cheating for the last 10 years and done rather well out of it, I have no sympathy for her what so ever and hope they ban her long enough to effectively end her career.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 9, 2016)

freddielong said:



			It may not have been designed to enhance athletic performance, but that is what it does. She doesn't have a condition that requires the prescription of this drug so there is only one reason she has been taking it.

It may not have been illegal until this year but she has effectively been cheating for the last 10 years and done rather well out of it, I have no sympathy for her what so ever and hope they ban her long enough to effectively end her career.
		
Click to expand...

She has not been cheating for ten years.


----------



## Fish (Mar 9, 2016)

PhilTheFragger said:



			LP I honestly don't understand how you can say this, all the evidence I have seen suggests that this drug is normally prescribed for very specific medical issues and only for a very short length of time. The drug is not available in the US and indeed other drugs have superceeded this one.

So why would she possibly take this drug for so long?  If she had a medical condition then I am sure the LTA would be aware and enough time has passed since the test result for Sharapova to show the LTA her medical records and they would have been quick to give a medical exemption, given her status in the game.

Why are so many other Russian/ ex soviet block athletes taking the same drug compared to the rest of the world?

The only explanation is that it's performance enhancing properties were picked up and cynically exploited over a number of years, to suggest that she wasn't taking it for its performance enhancing properties is bonkers.

The fact that WADA have only just got their backsides in gear is deplorable, this should have been on the banned list years ago.


Judge Judy would say that you have lost the argument so maybe it's time to park the JCB and stop digging
		
Click to expand...

Good post &#128077;

It's obvious to nearly everyone she only kept taking this due to its performance enhancing properties, which were wildly used in the Russian forces and there athletes, and it's becoming obvious and known it was publicly being looked into and was on the watch list for a couple of years which everyone is also informed about, but hey, she always had a story lined up that she believed would be ok, but personally I think it's going to bury her. A bit like an addict justifying their need&#129300;

I have a dumper truck to hire if the JCB's are all out to carry around the BS being piled up. 



Liverpoolphil said:



			JCB ? Ah so that's what that comment was about earlier in the thread - I see 

I didn't release it was a win/lose situation and it was people offering an opinion and as Rich said people being able to respect that people can have a different opinion. 

I currently choose to believe her - that's my right - at the moment it doesn't make me wrong it's just my opinion. 

She says it was prescribed by her doctor for health issues - some may not believe that some may do - right now I believe her 

Currently the drug is also not banned in golf 

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/gol...sharapova-case-not-yet-banned-pga-tour-030816

Click to expand...

Typical stubborn blinkered post when everything is stacking up against her &#128514;


----------



## Imurg (Mar 9, 2016)

What happened before Jan 1st is largely irrelevant as the drug wasn't banned.
Ethically, itmmay be suspect that she's used this drug for longer than usual but, if it's not banned, if she can live with what she's done thennthats the end of it until such a time as the drug is banned.
Just say that Tiger used a substance for years that, potentially, enhanced his performance but it was not banned. He wouldn't have been cheating, playing the system - absolutely, but not cheating.
Once that drug becomes banned, that's when it all kicks off.
Cheating is deliberately breaking the rules.
Is everyone who breaks a rule in Golf cheating..? If they're doing it deliberately then yes they are..if it's an unintentional break then No
Sharapova can only be accused of cheating since 1st Jan this year. Has she broken the rules? Yes. Deliberately..? Time will tell.
She cannot have been cheating up until 31st December...
As per usual with high profile people there is an air of Guilty till proven Innocent.
We don't know all the facts, we may never know them.
But "Cheat" is a strong word. Hey, if it's proven that she knew what the score was and deliberately took this stuff to break the rules then I'll be in the line calling her a Cheat. Until then, she's innocent until proven guilty.
We should know by mid May.

And WADA need to keep an eye on what's going on...if this drug has been known for 10 years that it enhances performance then WADA should be on trial too.


----------



## chrisd (Mar 9, 2016)

She lives in the USA and the drug is NOT approved there, why did her doctor give her a drug that was not licensed?


----------



## Kellfire (Mar 9, 2016)

If I take a multi-vitamin to enhance my dietary intake, am I taking a performance enhancing drug worthy of a ban from sport simply because I am giving my body a boost artificially rather than _naturally_ aka eating the food that would provide the same amount of vitamins?

Course I'm not.

Fair enough if you don't believe Sharapova's reasoning for taking the drug, it's incredibly suspect, but she has not been cheating for ten years by any extreme stretch of the definition for taking meldonium. That is beyond any argument. The reason it's beyond argument is because there are clearly defined rules and a list of banned substances. 

That is what defines a cheat in this instance, not the morals of some amateur golfers.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Mar 9, 2016)

Reckless beyond description is how Dick Pound the former WADA president which sums Sharapova's actions in a nutshell. Still feel she must have known or her team known of the PED benefits of taking it or she would have switched to a more modern and better acting alternative for her "condition"

From BBC Sport website
Pound, who was head of Wada from 1999 to 2007, said Sharapova had made a "big mistake" and "should have known" the consequences of continuing to take it.

"Anytime there is a change to the list, notice is given on 30 September prior to the change," he said.

"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."

This possibly emerged as early as September and yet she kept taking it so the initial story of not opening mails in December would seem bogus.

It also says
Pound said it was eventually added to the banned list because a lot of people began taking it for performance-enhancing reasons.

He added that most of the drugs of choice for dopers were "built for therapeutic reasons", like EPO, but that they all had side-effects that could be put to use by those seeking to gain an advantage over their rivals.

Grindeks, the Latvian company that manufactures meldonium, said a typical course of treatment should only run to a few weeks.

"Depending on the patient's health condition, treatment course of meldonium preparations may vary from four to six weeks," its statement read.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 9, 2016)

Kellfire said:



			If I take a multi-vitamin to enhance my dietary intake, am I taking a performance enhancing drug worthy of a ban from sport simply because I am giving my body a boost artificially rather than _naturally_ aka eating the food that would provide the same amount of vitamins?

Course I'm not.

Fair enough if you don't believe Sharapova's reasoning for taking the drug, it's incredibly suspect, but she has not been cheating for ten years by any extreme stretch of the definition for taking meldonium. That is beyond any argument. The reason it's beyond argument is because there are clearly defined rules and a list of banned substances. 

That is what defines a cheat in this instance, not the morals of some amateur golfers.
		
Click to expand...

Very good post :thup:


----------



## delc (Mar 9, 2016)

Just to clarify a couple of points. Maria knew her medication by another name, which is why she may not have realised that it had added to the banned substances list. Nike have only suspended their contract with her pending an investigation, but haven't completely terminated it as yet.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 9, 2016)

Imurg said:



			What happened before Jan 1st is largely irrelevant as the drug wasn't banned.
Ethically, itmmay be suspect that she's used this drug for longer than usual but, if it's not banned, if she can live with what she's done thennthats the end of it until such a time as the drug is banned.
Just say that Tiger used a substance for years that, potentially, enhanced his performance but it was not banned. He wouldn't have been cheating, playing the system - absolutely, but not cheating.
Once that drug becomes banned, that's when it all kicks off.
Cheating is deliberately breaking the rules.
Is everyone who breaks a rule in Golf cheating..? If they're doing it deliberately then yes they are..if it's an unintentional break then No
Sharapova can only be accused of cheating since 1st Jan this year. Has she broken the rules? Yes. Deliberately..? Time will tell.
She cannot have been cheating up until 31st December...
As per usual with high profile people there is an air of Guilty till proven Innocent.
We don't know all the facts, we may never know them.
But "Cheat" is a strong word. Hey, if it's proven that she knew what the score was and deliberately took this stuff to break the rules then I'll be in the line calling her a Cheat. Until then, she's innocent until proven guilty.
We should know by mid May.

And WADA need to keep an eye on what's going on...if this drug has been known for 10 years that it enhances performance then WADA should be on trial too.
		
Click to expand...

Another good post - especially in regards WADA 

Would also question why it isn't banned in all sports?


----------



## chrisd (Mar 9, 2016)

I posted a very hypothetical question yesterday which went unanswered

If Usain Bolt was offered a drug cocktail that was undetectable and not on the current banned list and could be guaranteed to knock 3 seconds off his best time for the 100m - would you say that it was perfectly OK to take it?


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Mar 9, 2016)

delc said:



			Just to clarify a couple of points. Maria knew her medication by another name, which is why she may not have realised that it had added to the banned substances list. Nike have only suspended their contract with her pending an investigation, but haven't completely terminated it as yet.
		
Click to expand...

I think given the posse of medical experts she has someone there should have known what it was under whatever name was used. Don't think that's a valid excuse


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 9, 2016)

chrisd said:



			I posted a very hypothetical question yesterday which went unanswered

If Usain Bolt was offered a drug cocktail that was undetectable and not on the current banned list and could be guaranteed to knock 3 seconds off his best time for the 100m - would you say that it was perfectly OK to take it?
		
Click to expand...

I answered it 

Ethically it maybe wrong but it's not cheating if the substance or ingredients weren't banned.


----------



## Del_Boy (Mar 9, 2016)

Blue in Munich said:



			But it is banned, so she is a cheat then?
		
Click to expand...

She is a cheat from 1 Jan 2016 which she has admitted.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Mar 9, 2016)

Del_Boy said:



			Did she have ample warning?  I thought she had an email in 22 Dec advising that the following list of drugs are banned from 1 Jan which she failed to read.
		
Click to expand...

It was on the watch list for all of 2015 then announced in September that it would be banned so, yes, plenty of warning.


----------



## chrisd (Mar 9, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I answered it 

Ethically it maybe wrong but it's not cheating if the substance or ingredients weren't banned.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks, I must have missed it. 

But you're answer sums up all that is wrong with sport, the drug detectors are always going to lag behind the drug cheats, you can't detect the drug and its effects until you can identify the drug and analyse it's beneficial effects so the drug enforcers have to play catch up. Also, most sports do not want to out too many cheats as it harms the reputation of the sport, so many sports lag behind in the rigorous enforcement of their systems preferring to assume that it isn't widespread - tennis, I believe being one such sport. 

I believe that the policy should be that you only take drugs that are for your health preservation if you are partaking in sport and at professional level ANY drugs being taken should be listed and submitted to the sports governing body with the medical reasons for the drug prescription.


----------



## Del_Boy (Mar 9, 2016)

chrisd said:



			The key issue to me is the reason for its use. If it's purely a genuine medical use then no problem. If it's to enhance performance then you are a drug cheat
		
Click to expand...

To me the issue is when the drug was banned.  Before that she didn't cheat no matter the reason why she used it.  After that date she is a drug cheat.  Albeit a fit one.


----------



## Del_Boy (Mar 9, 2016)

you could argue that eating anything is performance enhancing.  Mind you they do say eating's cheating


----------



## Kellfire (Mar 9, 2016)

chrisd said:



			Thanks, I must have missed it. 

But you're answer sums up all that is wrong with sport, the drug detectors are always going to lag behind the drug cheats, you can't detect the drug and its effects until you can identify the drug and analyse it's beneficial effects so the drug enforcers have to play catch up. Also, most sports do not want to out too many cheats as it harms the reputation of the sport, so many sports lag behind in the rigorous enforcement of their systems preferring to assume that it isn't widespread - tennis, I believe being one such sport. 

I believe that the policy should be that you only take drugs that are for your health preservation if you are partaking in sport and at professional level ANY drugs being taken should be listed and submitted to the sports governing body with the medical reasons for the drug prescription.
		
Click to expand...


Take it to an extreme like in my example of multi-vitamins - a multi-vitamin is a drug - a performance enhancing drug isn't a negative thing in strict terms unless it is illegal. Where do you draw the line at performance enhancing? Vitamins tablets? Vitamin injections? Specially formulated vitamins designed to be absorbed more quickly? Vitamins laced with steroids to help them be absorbed more quickly?

That cut off will be different for everyone's moral compass, so to get around that we have rules and lists of banned substances. Those rules and lists set the definition for cheat here, not some historical revisionism which decides after the event that a drug _should_ have been banned earlier.


----------



## hovis (Mar 9, 2016)

chrisd said:



			She lives in the USA and the drug is NOT approved there, why did her doctor give her a drug that was not licensed?
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps her doctor used to treat Michael Jackson


----------



## chrisd (Mar 9, 2016)

Kellfire said:



			Take it to an extreme like in my example of multi-vitamins - a multi-vitamin is a drug - a performance enhancing drug isn't a negative thing in strict terms unless it is illegal. Where do you draw the line at performance enhancing? Vitamins tablets? Vitamin injections? Specially formulated vitamins designed to be absorbed more quickly? Vitamins laced with steroids to help them be absorbed more quickly?

That cut off will be different for everyone's moral compass, so to get around that we have rules and lists of banned substances. Those rules and lists set the definition for cheat here, not some historical revisionism which decides after the event that a drug _should_ have been banned earlier.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with what you say, what's wrong is that the cheats only become cheats when, like Sharapova when they are caught and then they concoct a story in an attempt to mitigate their culpability. 

All sports should be clean and "just staying one step ahead of WADA" isn't the way sport should be played. But there's a wealth of difference in having vitamins available to all, to boost your system, and (I believe) having blood transfusions like Armstrong to cheat.


----------



## Imurg (Mar 9, 2016)

Del_Boy said:



			.  After that date she is a drug cheat. .
		
Click to expand...

Only if she's found to have deliberately broken the rules.
I'm not saying she hasn't butnuntil it's proven you cant say she has.


----------



## chrisd (Mar 9, 2016)

Imurg said:



			Only if she's found to have deliberately broken the rules.
I'm not saying she hasn't butnuntil it's proven you cant say she has.
		
Click to expand...

She has admitted failing a drug test after the date, so it is proven I understand. It's just the rubbish story that she trots out to "explain" her "mistake" that brasses me off


----------



## Del_Boy (Mar 9, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			It was on the watch list for all of 2015 then announced in September that it would be banned so, yes, plenty of warning.
		
Click to expand...

Have WADA said that info was advised to the athletes or in the public domain at that time?

I thought it was in WADA's watch list for 2015 (not sure if the athletes were advised).

16 Sept 15 it was agreed to ban the drug from 1 Jan 2016 again not sure if athletes were advised at this time or the info was in the public domain.

Sharapova says she was first made aware via email in 22 Dec that she failed to read.

Have WADA confirmed she was advised prior to 22 Dec?


----------



## Del_Boy (Mar 9, 2016)

Imurg said:



			Only if she's found to have deliberately broken the rules.
I'm not saying she hasn't butnuntil it's proven you cant say she has.
		
Click to expand...

To me she is a cheat after that date.  Whether she deliberately broke the rules or not doesn't come into it.

On my tax return after a new rule comes into affect I continue under an old rule in my eyes I am a tax cheat.

Ignorance is not an excuse.


----------



## Stuey01 (Mar 9, 2016)

It's an arms race between the dopers and the authorities.  The authorities are always going to be behind.
When Balco Labs invented a new steroid and juiced up half of Major League Baseball, was it cheating because no-one had heard of it yet?  Of course it was.
This idea that just because something isn't banned yet it's fair game is crazy.
They should do away with the banned list and instead have an allowed list.  
Not on it? Tough.
You want to take anything not on the allow list, then apply for it to be added to the list or for a therapeutic use exemption.


----------



## Del_Boy (Mar 9, 2016)

Stuey01 said:



			It's an arms race between the dopers and the authorities.  The authorities are always going to be behind.
When Balco Labs invented a new steroid and juiced up half of Major League Baseball, was it cheating because no-one had heard of it yet?  Of course it was.
This idea that just because something isn't banned yet it's fair game is crazy.
They should do away with the banned list and instead have an allowed list.  
Not on it? Tough.
You want to take anything not on the allow list, then apply for it to be added to the list or for a therapeutic use exemption.
		
Click to expand...

Good idea


----------



## pokerjoke (Mar 9, 2016)

Listening to Dick Pound this morning he said "Wada were told about the drug and its performance enhancing abilities and needed investigating as there were lots taking it".

It may seem that Sharapova was the only one caught.

He also said which I suppose is pretty obvious "there are loads of PED out there they don't know about yet".

Interesting also that he said that the athletes of today compared to the athletes of yesteryear are much bigger faster and stronger and have much more stamina than previous.

Is he suggesting they are all on something to be able to compete at that level day after day.

Look at what tennis players like Murray and Djorkovic actually do over a 2 week tournament I mean the fitness is incredible.
Im not saying they are on banned substances but I bet they are taking things to aid recovery.

When stories like this emerge one good thing that does come out of it is the authorities become stricter and seem to test even more the same as in cycling.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Mar 9, 2016)

Del_Boy said:



			Have WADA said that info was advised to the athletes or in the public domain at that time?

I thought it was in WADA's watch list for 2015 (not sure if the athletes were advised).

16 Sept 15 it was agreed to ban the drug from 1 Jan 2016 again not sure if athletes were advised at this time or the info was in the public domain.

Sharapova says she was first made aware via email in 22 Dec that she failed to read.

Have WADA confirmed she was advised prior to 22 Dec?
		
Click to expand...

According to this it was released in September so her team should have been aware
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35757814


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Mar 9, 2016)

Even the Russian drug doping agency sent out a memo to it's athletes advising of it banning in September.


----------



## Del_Boy (Mar 9, 2016)

HomerJSimpson said:



			According to this it was released in September so her team should have been aware
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35757814

Click to expand...

 Pound is going from what used to happen under his watch.  I think WADA need to advise the timelines to confirm or deny the fit one's version of events


----------



## Hacker Khan (Mar 9, 2016)

Bunkermagnet said:



			Even the Russian drug doping agency sent out a memo to it's athletes advising of it banning in September.
		
Click to expand...

Jeez, if the Russians who practically (or allegedly if the lawyers are watching) run a state sponsored doping regime in sport are advising its athletes to stop taking it then it must be bad.


----------



## Fish (Mar 9, 2016)

Stuey01 said:



			It's an arms race between the dopers and the authorities.  The authorities are always going to be behind.
When Balco Labs invented a new steroid and juiced up half of Major League Baseball, was it cheating because no-one had heard of it yet?  Of course it was.
This idea that just because something isn't banned yet it's fair game is crazy.
They should do away with the banned list and instead have an allowed list.  
Not on it? Tough.
You want to take anything not on the allow list, then apply for it to be added to the list or for a therapeutic use exemption.
		
Click to expand...

Good sensible post and idea, like many things, I'd like minimum fines and minimum sentences for things, not maximums as maximums are rarely given out and put proper deterrents in place, this attitude of attempting to stay 1 ahead of the governing bodies and winning by knowingly taking PED's designed specifically to enhance performance is just wrong and IS cheating IMO. 

I like the idea of doing away with a banned list and they having to declare anything they are using so it can be checked and granted, not the other way around in using something then being warned to stop using it with notice although it has already helped them win many competitions for years and enjoying the fruits of that success.


----------



## Snelly (Mar 9, 2016)

I agree with Chrisd wholeheartedly on this topic.   The whole press conference and ensuing reaction has a feel of stage managed PR about it.   Odious.

She is a drug cheat in that she has been taking a substance without sensible medical justification that has enhanced her performance since she was 18 with a concocted story created around it to give it some plausibility.  Very poor form indeed. 




Great idea about an allowed list rather than a banned list too.


----------



## Val (Mar 9, 2016)

Kellfire said:



			If I take a multi-vitamin to enhance my dietary intake, am I taking a performance enhancing drug worthy of a ban from sport simply because I am giving my body a boost artificially rather than _naturally_ aka eating the food that would provide the same amount of vitamins?

Course I'm not.

Fair enough if you don't believe Sharapova's reasoning for taking the drug, it's incredibly suspect, but she has not been cheating for ten years by any extreme stretch of the definition for taking meldonium. That is beyond any argument. The reason it's beyond argument is because there are clearly defined rules and a list of banned substances. 

That is what defines a cheat in this instance, not the morals of some amateur golfers.
		
Click to expand...

This post has far too much sense to have any credibilty :rofl:

Good post :thup:


----------



## Norrin Radd (Mar 9, 2016)

i caught a small bit of sky sports news this morning and it was said she [Sharapova ]had been warned FIVE times about taking the drug .
  if that is correct then there really cant be any comeback for her in any shape or form ,in my eyes she is a cheat and all cheats should receive a lifetime ban from whatever sport they are involved in .
           im also liking the if its not on the allowed list then its a banned substance ,will the powers that be ever do it that way round ,i doubt it .


----------



## drdel (Mar 9, 2016)

Its a never ending game in pretty much any area where large sums of money are involved.

The BBC makes nature documentaries with staged studio animals; reality shows are made with actors etc
FI designers try to sneak around the regs. and I wonder if the drinks the drivers take for fluid replacement are only 'tap' water.
Politicians have difficulties with truthful answers to questions.

Sporting competition will always work at the limits and regretfully few athletes or competitors will reach the top without operating at those limits.

There does seem to be an element of doubt in this case as she has never denied taking the medication over a very long period of time and to be caught out immediately the regulation change is very harsh in my view. 

Perhaps the authority could have introduced the checks with warning given for the first 6 months the substance is included in the test schedule.  At least anyone caught taking the specific substance would have been warned and the substance would have definitely worked through their system meaning any detection was of an obvious 'offence'.

SWMBO has one of these NutriBullet machines which claims to get more goodness from food and make her energised - I best get her banned.


----------



## delc (Mar 9, 2016)

I find it highly unlikely that Maria would have deliberately continued to take a medicine that had been recently added to the banned list. It was more likely to have been an oversight by herself or her doctor, and in this case she should be given the benefit of the doubt. She didn't win the tournament, so it couldn't have been all that performance enhancing!


----------



## freddielong (Mar 9, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			She has not been cheating for ten years.
		
Click to expand...

No not by law but in spirit.

What you have to accept is no normal sane Doctor would have prescribed this medication for her, she has bee prescribed this purely to enhance her physicality and improve her tennis.


----------



## Kellfire (Mar 9, 2016)

freddielong said:



			No not by law but in spirit.
		
Click to expand...

AKA not cheating at all by any true definition of the word.

phew.


----------



## Imurg (Mar 9, 2016)

Del_Boy said:



			To me she is a cheat after that date.  Whether she deliberately broke the rules or not doesn't come into it.

On my tax return after a new rule comes into affect I continue under an old rule in my eyes I am a tax cheat.

Ignorance is not an excuse.
		
Click to expand...

So next time a Golfer gets a penalty for an incorrect drop don't forget to call him a Cheat...


----------



## freddielong (Mar 9, 2016)

Kellfire said:



			AKA not cheating at all by any true definition of the word.

phew.
		
Click to expand...

Is it illegal to pay a Dr to prescribe a drug you do not need?


----------



## Fish (Mar 9, 2016)

freddielong said:



			Is it illegal to pay a Dr to prescribe a drug you do not need?
		
Click to expand...

and more so getting repeat prescriptions for something that should only have a 4-5 week course of treatment but providing them for over 10 years!!  That in it's own right is malpractice IMO!

The only reason she has took this drug for so long, like the many other Russian athletes, armed forces and more, is because it had known performancing enhancing properties, nothing to do with her personal health, that's just  a smoke screen!


----------



## Piece (Mar 9, 2016)

Us British, we love a good witch-hunt don't we? Nothing better than this 'sport' of jumping on a bandwagon because it's fashionable to knock someone down a peg or two. Just like 'genius', the word 'cheat' gets thrown around and liberally used, when in fact, it is not required in almost all cases. Further, there always has to be a web of conspiracy behind every story. It's not good enough for most people that it could quite conceivably be a honest, but critically stupid, mistake. No, let's embellish it like some Hollywood mystery action thriller, involving the dark web, aliens and nanotechnology.

I'm no fan of tennis or Sharapova at all, but this reaction is OTT. I agree that since notification of the new banned list, her and her team have been incredibly stupid, naive or potentially manipulating. However, you can't possibly call someone a "cheat" for the previous 10 years. The substance was legal, not on the banned list, despite whatever evidence forum experts find lurking on the web. I presume that the same experts also have knowledge of other substances, like the one in question, that also have future banning potential or are currently known to be dodgy? And a list of who is currently taking them, so that we can all call them a 'future cheat'?


----------



## Val (Mar 9, 2016)

freddielong said:



			Is it illegal to pay a Dr to prescribe a drug you do not need?
		
Click to expand...

Where does it say anywhere she's got this drug illegally?


----------



## freddielong (Mar 9, 2016)

Val said:



			Where does it say anywhere she's got this drug illegally?
		
Click to expand...

She doesn't have angina and the drug is not authorised for use in the us or most of Europe how else can she have gotten it.


----------



## Val (Mar 9, 2016)

freddielong said:



			She doesn't have angina and the drug is not authorised for use in the us or most of Europe how else can she have gotten it.
		
Click to expand...

Not really the answer is it so i'll re-word the question to show where im going.

Who said she got it illegally?

I'll add to it, if she got it illegally then isn't anyone questioning her "dealer"?


----------



## Scott W (Mar 9, 2016)

My view (probably stated already as have not read all 36 pages....typically a 36 page thread on Sharapova I would have expected leaked pics!)

She was legal for 10 years, whether she needed it for health reasons or not it was not banned so she was legit...maximising within the rules

She was a muppet for not noticing th change (well her team too)

Is Froome a cheat becuase he has an oxygen tent in his house and they are not banned (yet)


----------



## delc (Mar 9, 2016)

Many of the performance enhancing drugs that athletes take are in fact just normal prescription medicines that the rest of would take without a thought.


----------



## MegaSteve (Mar 9, 2016)

Piece said:



			Us British, we love a good witch-hunt don't we? Nothing better than this 'sport' of jumping on a bandwagon because it's fashionable to knock someone down a peg or two. Just like 'genius', the word 'cheat' gets thrown around and liberally used, when in fact, it is not required in almost all cases. Further, there always has to be a web of conspiracy behind every story. It's not good enough for most people that it could quite conceivably be a honest, but critically stupid, mistake. No, let's embellish it like some Hollywood mystery action thriller, involving the dark web, aliens and nanotechnology.

I'm no fan of tennis or Sharapova at all, but this reaction is OTT. I agree that since notification <script id="gpt-impl-0.6353611705901982" src="http://partner.googleadservices.com/gpt/pubads_impl_81.js"></script>of the new banned list, her and her team have been incredibly stupid, naive or potentially manipulating. However, you can't possibly call someone a "cheat" for the previous 10 years. The substance was legal, not on the banned list, despite whatever evidence forum experts find lurking on the web. I presume that the same experts also have knowledge of other substances, like the one in question, that also have future banning potential or are currently known to be dodgy? And a list of who is currently taking them, so that we can all call them a 'future cheat'?
		
Click to expand...


Best post in this thread :thup:...


----------



## freddielong (Mar 9, 2016)

Val said:



			Not really the answer is it so i'll re-word the question to show where im going.

Who said she got it illegally?

I'll add to it, if she got it illegally then isn't anyone questioning her "dealer"?
		
Click to expand...

They should but don't for some reason they only went after Michael Jackson doctor because of the uproar at his death but he was no different than a drug dealer


----------



## tsped83 (Mar 9, 2016)

Slow day at work so I've just spent a while reading this entire thread. Genuinely amusing.

Some very good points raised (Ethan) and some clear evidence that certain individuals LIVE ON THE MOON.

She got caught and is rightly busted for it. The "medical condition" crap is exactly that. Crap. Can I say crap? Oh well...


----------



## Del_Boy (Mar 9, 2016)

Imurg said:



			So next time a Golfer gets a penalty for an incorrect drop don't forget to call him a Cheat...
		
Click to expand...

Why would I need to call him a cheat?


----------



## Imurg (Mar 9, 2016)

Del_Boy said:



			Why would I need to call him a cheat?
		
Click to expand...

Because he's broken the rules, ergo, by your logic, he's cheating.....


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Mar 9, 2016)

tsped83 - A round of applause for reading all 37 pages, although your boss may not agree. I posted yesterday but gave up last night when there were 15 pages. I can't believe there are now 37. Incidentally, I am in your camp. I was wavering at the beginning but the more I read yesterday, not just on here, and heard other sportsmen and doctors speak the less I felt sympathy.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 9, 2016)

Piece said:



			Us British, we love a good witch-hunt don't we? Nothing better than this 'sport' of jumping on a bandwagon because it's fashionable to knock someone down a peg or two. Just like 'genius', the word 'cheat' gets thrown around and liberally used, when in fact, it is not required in almost all cases. Further, there always has to be a web of conspiracy behind every story. It's not good enough for most people that it could quite conceivably be a honest, but critically stupid, mistake. No, let's embellish it like some Hollywood mystery action thriller, involving the dark web, aliens and nanotechnology.

I'm no fan of tennis or Sharapova at all, but this reaction is OTT. I agree that since notification of the new banned list, her and her team have been incredibly stupid, naive or potentially manipulating. However, you can't possibly call someone a "cheat" for the previous 10 years. The substance was legal, not on the banned list, despite whatever evidence forum experts find lurking on the web. I presume that the same experts also have knowledge of other substances, like the one in question, that also have future banning potential or are currently known to be dodgy? And a list of who is currently taking them, so that we can all call them a 'future cheat'?
		
Click to expand...

:thup:

Good post


----------



## Del_Boy (Mar 9, 2016)

Imurg said:



			Because he's broken the rules, ergo, by your logic, he's cheating.....
		
Click to expand...

By my logic he/she cheated and accepted the penalty


----------



## Imurg (Mar 9, 2016)

Del_Boy said:



			By my logic he/she cheated and accepted the penalty
		
Click to expand...

But getting it wrong isn't always cheating..


----------



## Ethan (Mar 9, 2016)

tsped83 said:



			Slow day at work so I've just spent a while reading this entire thread. Genuinely amusing.

Some very good points raised (Ethan) and some clear evidence that certain individuals LIVE ON THE MOON.

She got caught and is rightly busted for it. The "medical condition" crap is exactly that. Crap. Can I say crap? Oh well...
		
Click to expand...

Wow, you read it all? I think you must have a medical condition, if not before then certainly now. 

On the subject of bananas being performance enhancing, I am pretty sure I saw Usain Bolt trying to hide one away in his running gear at the start of a race.


----------



## chrisd (Mar 9, 2016)

Ethan said:



			Wow, you read it all? I think you must have a medical condition, if not before then certainly now. 

On the subject of bananas being performance enhancing, I am pretty sure I saw Usain Bolt trying to hide one away in his running gear at the start of a race.
		
Click to expand...

Not one, more a bunch!


----------



## Ethan (Mar 9, 2016)

The guy from WADA was on the tellybox yesterday and said that if it isn't on the list, athletes will use it.

I think the distinction should only be between allowed or not allowed and it must be black and white. If it is not not allowed, as it were, then you should be able to use it without criticism or accusation.


----------



## Spear-Chucker (Mar 9, 2016)

What a surprise. The greedy, arrogant and occasionally complacent upper echelons of professional sport made a boo boo. As long as the indecent cash sums are available, these people (and more importantly, their teams) will take risks with their health and occasionally get caught. 

She got away with it for years under the guise of taking something without proven safety (not sure about efficacy) that was legal and at the time undetectable by established and approved analytical methods. I imagine she took it under advice and who was she to argue? All she's known since she could walk is tennis. They made their millions, she got her titles and will now batter her eyelashes to secure a 'media career'. Next.


----------



## Slab (Mar 9, 2016)

Does anyone think WADA staff were in the office a quarter to midnight on new years eve knocking out emails of the new banned list?

It was a PED the day before and still a PED the day after, its semantics when the list was published and the only concern in publishing is to formally recognise it as a PED in order to apply appropriate penalties for taking it

The drug had the same effect before & after new years day, if a player took the drug for the benefit of those effects then they have to live with what they did and the moral question of their earnings and victories (but if you take drugs for a sporting advantage your morals are already questionable)


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 9, 2016)

Slab said:



			Does anyone think WADA staff were in the office a quarter to midnight on new years eve knocking out emails of the new banned list?

It was a PED the day before and still a PED the day after, its semantics when the list was published and the only concern in publishing is to formally recognise it as a PED in order to apply appropriate penalties for taking it

The drug had the same effect before & after new years day, if a player took the drug for the benefit of those effects then they have to live with what they did and the moral question of their earnings and victories (but if you take drugs for a sporting advantage your morals are already questionable)
		
Click to expand...

So what about all the proteins shakes and supplements that they all take to improve their performance and look for a sporting advantage ? 

Players , teams etc will always look for a sporting advantage to beat their opponents 

Both naturally and unnaturally. 

What's the difference with them and a drug that isn't banned ?


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Mar 9, 2016)

but those taking the drug had 3 months to stop taking it and show themselves clean. She didn't.


----------



## Slab (Mar 9, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So what about all the proteins shakes and supplements that they all take to improve their performance and look for a sporting advantage ? 

Players , teams etc will always look for a sporting advantage to beat their opponents 

Both naturally and unnaturally. 

What's the difference with them and a drug that isn't banned ?
		
Click to expand...

The prescription


----------



## Val (Mar 9, 2016)

Slab said:



			Does anyone think WADA staff were in the office a quarter to midnight on new years eve knocking out emails of the new banned list?

It was a PED the day before and still a PED the day after, its semantics when the list was published and the only concern in publishing is to formally recognise it as a PED in order to apply appropriate penalties for taking it

The drug had the same effect before & after new years day, if a player took the drug for the benefit of those effects then they have to live with what they did and the moral question of their earnings and victories *(but if you take drugs for a sporting advantage your morals are already questionable*)
		
Click to expand...

That pretty much covers that majority of sports people in the world or have you missed words out there before the word drugs?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 9, 2016)

Slab said:



			The prescription
		
Click to expand...

You don't need a prescription to get many supplements


----------



## Beezerk (Mar 9, 2016)

Bunkermagnet said:



			but those taking the drug had 3 months to stop taking it and show themselves clean. She didn't.
		
Click to expand...

It was longer wasn't it? iirc from the radio yesterday players were told about the drug being investigated/banned early last year. It only initially came to light after it was found a boat load of Russian athletes were disclosing it as an extra supllement they were taking for, yes you've guessed it, heart complaints and diabetes.


----------



## Ethan (Mar 9, 2016)

Slab said:



			Does anyone think WADA staff were in the office a quarter to midnight on new years eve knocking out emails of the new banned list?

It was a PED the day before and still a PED the day after, its semantics when the list was published and the only concern in publishing is to formally recognise it as a PED in order to apply appropriate penalties for taking it

The drug had the same effect before & after new years day, if a player took the drug for the benefit of those effects then they have to live with what they did and the moral question of their earnings and victories (but if you take drugs for a sporting advantage your morals are already questionable)
		
Click to expand...

A lot of these drugs are on a spectrum. At one end, some are only performance enhancing, at the other not at all. The regulatory bodies have to draw a line somewhere and it has to be binary; legal/not legal. There are almost certainly some drugs which are legal which have some PE effect, and others which are not legal which are not notably different. I have no problem with regulatory authorities declaring which are legal and which aren't and athletes filling their boots with anything not illegal. 

So in the legal sense, it was not a PED one day, but a PED the next, since PED is defined as a substance which is on the list of those banned for use.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 9, 2016)

Right now the drug is not banned by the PGA 

So would a golfer be a cheat if they took it


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Mar 9, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Right now the drug is not banned by the PGA 

So would a golfer be a cheat if they took it
		
Click to expand...

Golfers are subject to WADA just like any other sport. Pretty stupid question really:angry:


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 9, 2016)

Bunkermagnet said:



			Golfers are subject to WADA just like any other sport. Pretty stupid question really:angry:
		
Click to expand...

Why is it stupid - it's a very valid question 

The drug is not banned by the PGA - so a golfer could take it and face no sanctions at all by the PGA

So if a golfer takes it are they a cheat ?


----------



## hovis (Mar 9, 2016)

Slab said:



			The prescription
		
Click to expand...

Not just the prescription.   Protein shakes are purely a convenient way to get protein.   Why eat two chicken breasts when you can drink the equivalent in 5 seconds?  The benefit  performance wise with shakes and vitamins is identical to that of food.    its purely a convenience.


----------



## Rooter (Mar 9, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Why is it stupid - it's a very valid question 

The drug is not banned by the PGA - so a golfer could take it and face no sanctions at all by the PGA

So if a golfer takes it are they a cheat ?
		
Click to expand...

Don't think it has anything to do with the PGA per say Phil, http://www.igfgolf.org/medical-anti-doping/


----------



## Val (Mar 9, 2016)

Bunkermagnet said:



			Golfers are subject to WADA just like any other sport. Pretty stupid question really:angry:
		
Click to expand...

It's not really, the PGA tour has it's own policy which is not a strict as the WADA.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Mar 9, 2016)

Has golf not had to tighten up following entrance to the Olympics? I would assume, perhaps wrongly, that everyone under the Olympic banner would be under the same drugs rules and testing regime. The more I think about that the more I think I am wrong but it would have been a reasonable assumption and expectation.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 9, 2016)

Rooter said:



			Don't think it has anything to do with the PGA per say Phil, http://www.igfgolf.org/medical-anti-doping/

Click to expand...

Because of the timings of season it's not currently on the banned list until the end of the season 

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/gol...sharapova-case-not-yet-banned-pga-tour-030816


----------



## Val (Mar 9, 2016)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Has golf not had to tighten up following entrance to the Olympics? I would assume, perhaps wrongly, that everyone under the Olympic banner would be under the same drugs rules and testing regime. The more I think about that the more I think I am wrong but it would have been a reasonable assumption and expectation.
		
Click to expand...

It has been told to according to various articles and the European Tour has since began using WADA's guidelines but I've not found anything to suggest the PGA tour has as yet.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Mar 9, 2016)

Piece said:



			Us British, we love a good witch-hunt don't we? Nothing better than this 'sport' of jumping on a bandwagon because it's fashionable to knock someone down a peg or two. Just like 'genius', the word 'cheat' gets thrown around and liberally used, when in fact, it is not required in almost all cases. Further, there always has to be a web of conspiracy behind every story. It's not good enough for most people that it could quite conceivably be a honest, but critically stupid, mistake. No, let's embellish it like some Hollywood mystery action thriller, involving the dark web, aliens and nanotechnology.

I'm no fan of tennis or Sharapova at all, but this reaction is OTT. I agree that since notification of the new banned list, her and her team have been incredibly stupid, naive or potentially manipulating. However, you can't possibly call someone a "cheat" for the previous 10 years. The substance was legal, not on the banned list, despite whatever evidence forum experts find lurking on the web. I presume that the same experts also have knowledge of other substances, like the one in question, that also have future banning potential or are currently known to be dodgy? And a list of who is currently taking them, so that we can all call them a 'future cheat'?
		
Click to expand...

Having read the dictionary definition then I would say that if the facts are as they appear to be, she is a cheat and has been for some time.



Liverpoolphil said:



			So what about all the proteins shakes and supplements that they all take to improve their performance and look for a sporting advantage ? 

Players , teams etc will always look for a sporting advantage to beat their opponents 

Both naturally and unnaturally. 

What's the difference with them and a drug that isn't banned ?
		
Click to expand...

To even try and compare vitamin supplements with performance enhancing drugs simply beggars belief.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 9, 2016)

Blue in Munich said:



			Having read the dictionary definition then I would say that if the facts are as they appear to be, she is a cheat and has been for some time.



To even try and compare vitamin supplements with performance enhancing drugs simply beggars belief.
		
Click to expand...

Why does it ?

It's all about trying to enhance someone's performance isn't it - trying to find an edge. 

Before Jan 1st the drug wasn't a banned PED by the governing body - so it was freely available to be used by anyone - the same with supplements and protein shakes or indeed anything an athlete puts into their body to try and find an edge. 

If the use of the drug was cheating before the Jan 1st then so is the use of anything to attempt to improve performance 

Cheat - act dishonestly and unfairly to gain an advantage. 

Until 1st Jan she didn't do that


----------



## Hacker Khan (Mar 9, 2016)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Has golf not had to tighten up following entrance to the Olympics? I would assume, perhaps wrongly, that everyone under the Olympic banner would be under the same drugs rules and testing regime. The more I think about that the more I think I am wrong but it would have been a reasonable assumption and expectation.
		
Click to expand...

Olympic golfers will soon be under a stricter testing regime.  Or put it another way they are finally under a regime that many other sports have been under for a long time.  And the PGA will not be able to sweep it under the carpet like they tried to do with Dustin Johnson, as they will have to reveal who took what if someone is caught. http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golf-central-blog/timeline-professional-golf-and-drug-testing/


----------



## hovis (Mar 9, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Why does it ?

It's all about trying to enhance someone's performance isn't it - trying to find an edge. 

Before Jan 1st the drug wasn't a banned PED by the governing body - so it was freely available to be used by anyone - the same with supplements and protein shakes or indeed anything an athlete puts into their body to try and find an edge. 

If the use of the drug was cheating before the Jan 1st then so is the use of anything to attempt to improve performance 

Cheat - act dishonestly and unfairly to gain an advantage. 

Until 1st Jan she didn't do that
		
Click to expand...

A protein shake is not performance enhancing.   It doesn't give any edge over a person eating the correct food.  Neither do vitamins.     
A pre workout powder (available in every gym and supermarket)   does give performance enhancing qualities in the way of making red blood cells bigger.   This product (although accessible to all)  is on many banned substance list because of this.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Mar 9, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Why does it ?

It's all about trying to enhance someone's performance isn't it - trying to find an edge. 

Before Jan 1st the drug wasn't a banned PED by the governing body - so it was freely available to be used by anyone - the same with supplements and protein shakes or indeed anything an athlete puts into their body to try and find an edge. 

If the use of the drug was cheating before the Jan 1st then so is the use of anything to attempt to improve performance 

Cheat - act dishonestly and unfairly to gain an advantage. 

Until 1st Jan she didn't do that
		
Click to expand...

The human body requires proteins, vitamins, amino acids, all sorts of different stuff to work properly; it does not require performance enhancing drugs, so there is no comparison.

Your reply implies that you don't consider it unfair or dishonest to take a drug for an alleged medical condition for far longer than the manufacturers recommend, that is less efficient than others readily available, indeed a drug not approved in the part of the world where she now lives, but does have performance enhancing qualities which the more efficient ones don't.  Really?  

There are none so blind as those who will not see.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 9, 2016)

Hacker Khan said:



			Olympic golfers will soon be under a stricter testing regime.  Or put it another way they are finally under a regime that many other sports have been under for a long time.  And the PGA will not be able to sweep it under the carpet like they tried to do with Dustin Johnson, as they will have to reveal who took what if someone is caught. http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golf-central-blog/timeline-professional-golf-and-drug-testing/

Click to expand...

Only when competing in the Olympics 

If the golfer has no intention of being the Olympics then they will be subject to the rules of PGA


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 9, 2016)

Blue in Munich said:



			The human body requires proteins, vitamins, amino acids, all sorts of different stuff to work properly; it does not require performance enhancing drugs, so there is no comparison.

Your reply implies that you don't consider it unfair or dishonest to take a drug for an alleged medical condition for far longer than the manufacturers recommend, that is less efficient than others readily available, indeed a drug not approved in the part of the world where she now lives, but does have performance enhancing qualities which the more efficient ones don't.  Really?  

There are none so blind as those who will not see.
		
Click to expand...

Was that drug freely able for anyone to use - yes 

Was it banned - no 

So no I don't consider her to be cheating up until 1st Jan 2016 - she was breaking no rule and taking no banned substance and competing within the sports governing bodies guidelines and rules. Not cheating


----------



## freddielong (Mar 9, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Cheat - act dishonestly and unfairly to gain an advantage.
		
Click to expand...

Does obtaining a prescription drug you are not entitled to class as acting dishonestly?

For me it's a big YES


----------



## Fish (Mar 9, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Was that drug freely able for anyone to use - yes 

Was it banned - no 

So no I don't consider her to be cheating up until 1st Jan 2016 - she was breaking no rule and taking no banned substance and competing within the sports governing bodies guidelines and rules. Not cheating
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 9, 2016)

freddielong said:



			Is obtaining a prescription drug you are not entitled to, class as acting dishonestly?

For me it's a big YES
		
Click to expand...

When did you discover she wasn't entitled to it ?

You have obviously got the factual evidence to back it up and I'm sure you will be informing the Tennis Authorities about your discovery


----------



## Rooter (Mar 9, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Was that drug freely able for anyone to use - yes 

Was it banned - no 

So no I don't consider her to be cheating up until 1st Jan 2016 - she was breaking no rule and taking no banned substance and competing within the sports governing bodies guidelines and rules. Not cheating
		
Click to expand...

OK, Phil, you played hockey to a decent level. lets pose a hypothetical question.

You had a chance to make it to the GB team, your family had a history of a medical problem, for which there was a medicine widely used in eastern europe, but not here in the UK. It was put to you that this med, also acted as a PED and you would get an edge over your competitors, you can train harder, grow stronger. This is not a protein shake or a vitamin suppliment, this is a manufactured drug. The common process for this drug is to be on it for a short time, but I know a doctor who will sign it off for as long as you like. It is not a banned drug, so you can use as much as you like, but as i said, its not 'natural', its manufactured.

Do you want it?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 9, 2016)

Rooter said:



			OK, Phil, you played hockey to a decent level. lets pose a hypothetical question.

You had a chance to make it to the GB team, your family had a history of a medical problem, for which there was a medicine widely used in eastern europe, but not here in the UK. It was put to you that this med, also acted as a PED and you would get an edge over your competitors, you can train harder, grow stronger. This is not a protein shake or a vitamin suppliment, this is a manufactured drug. The common process for this drug is to be on it for a short time, but I know a doctor who will sign it off for as long as you like. It is not a banned drug, so you can use as much as you like, but as i said, its not 'natural', its manufactured.

Do you want it?
		
Click to expand...

Me personally - actually thinking about it , why wouldn't anyone take it ? So if it's not banned and not going to be banned then yes would take it and i would expect everyone would take itn

Someone else doing it - their choice as long as it not breaking any rules of the governing body.


----------



## hovis (Mar 9, 2016)

Fish said:



View attachment 18687

Click to expand...

Like it


----------



## Val (Mar 9, 2016)

Rooter said:



			OK, Phil, you played hockey to a decent level. lets pose a hypothetical question.

You had a chance to make it to the GB team, your family had a history of a medical problem, for which there was a medicine widely used in eastern europe, but not here in the UK. It was put to you that this med, also acted as a PED and you would get an edge over your competitors, you can train harder, grow stronger. This is not a protein shake or a vitamin suppliment, this is a manufactured drug. The common process for this drug is to be on it for a short time, but I know a doctor who will sign it off for as long as you like. It is not a banned drug, so you can use as much as you like, but as i said, its not 'natural', its manufactured.

Do you want it?
		
Click to expand...


Not banned and has no signs of being banned and has the ability to give me an edge over my competition?

Absolutely give me it and anyone who says differently must be whiter than white. 

You know that whiter than white lot............

Never speeded in a car
Never take a call on a mobile in a car
Never set a sat nav whilst moving

These 3 examples would have been done at some point by most on here, all 3 might even be done on a daily basis.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Mar 9, 2016)

Val said:



			Not banned and has no signs of being banned and has the ability to give me an edge over my competition?

Absolutely give me it and anyone who says differently must be whiter than white. 

You know that whiter than white lot............

Never speeded in a car
Never take a call on a mobile in a car
Never set a sat nav whilst moving

These 3 examples would have been done at some point by most on here, all 3 might even be done on a daily basis.
		
Click to expand...

Not me guv! 

.... I don't have a sat nav.


----------



## Fish (Mar 9, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Me personally - actually thinking about it , why wouldn't anyone take it ? So if it's not banned and not going to be banned then yes would take it and i would expect everyone would take itn

Someone else doing it - their choice as long as it not breaking any rules of the governing body.
		
Click to expand...

So why did you initially say no and some minutes later edit your response?

Your arguing for the sakes of arguing, as you do many times in many threads, IMO.


----------



## Rooter (Mar 9, 2016)

Val said:



			Not banned and has no signs of being banned and has the ability to give me an edge over my competition?

Absolutely give me it and anyone who says differently must be whiter than white. 

You know that whiter than white lot............

Never speeded in a car
Never take a call on a mobile in a car
Never set a sat nav whilst moving

These 3 examples would have been done at some point by most on here, all 3 might even be done on a daily basis.
		
Click to expand...

Hardly the same dude..


----------



## Fish (Mar 9, 2016)

Val said:



			Not banned and has no signs of being banned and has the ability to give me an edge over my competition?

Absolutely give me it and anyone who says differently must be whiter than white. 

You know that whiter than white lot............

Never speeded in a car
Never take a call on a mobile in a car
Never set a sat nav whilst moving

These 3 examples would have been done at some point by most on here, all 3 might even be done on a daily basis.
		
Click to expand...

I've done all 3 at once, but I would be a bit concerned taking a prescription drug that's designed only to be taken for a matter of weeks for a specific illness for 10 years!!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 9, 2016)

Fish said:



			So why did you initially say no and some minutes later edit your response?

Your arguing for the sakes of arguing, as you do many times in many threads, IMO.
		
Click to expand...

Because I changed my mind after having a think - is that allowed ?


----------



## Fish (Mar 9, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Because I changed my mind after having a think - is that allowed ?
		
Click to expand...

I think your initial gut reaction to immediately say No speaks volumes personally.


----------



## Piece (Mar 9, 2016)

Blue in Munich said:



			Having read the dictionary definition then I would say that if the facts are as they appear to be, she is a cheat and has been for some time.
		
Click to expand...

 I find it surprising that 48 hrs ago, no-one gave a flying about Sharapova, certainly no-one heard or knew about Meldonium, let alone what it is supposed to do, and yet, now this thread has become a place for  expert opinion on the subject based on some articles and journalist opinion, not forgetting that we seem to know all about Sharapova's medical history, also within this short timeframe. 

For the absence of any doubt, I'm not defending her or accusing her.


----------



## richart (Mar 9, 2016)

Up to 490 athletes tested positive for this drug at the European Champs in Baku, though obviously it was not banned at the time.

I am interested how taking this drug 10 years ago for 4-6 weeks would cure erratic electrocardiogram results, magnesium deficiency and a family history of diabetes. (these are reasons Sharapova gave for taking the drug for 10 years) Surely for those ongoing problems you would need to take the drug on a regular basis ? No doubt a medical expert can put me right.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Mar 9, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			It's all about trying to enhance someone's performance isn't it - trying to find an edge. 

Before Jan 1st the drug wasn't a banned PED by the governing body - so it was freely available to be used by anyone - the same with supplements and protein shakes or indeed anything an athlete puts into their body to try and find an edge. 

If the use of the drug was cheating before the Jan 1st then so is the use of anything to attempt to improve performance 

Cheat - act dishonestly and unfairly to gain an advantage. 

Until 1st Jan she didn't do that
		
Click to expand...

The key words here are "Freely Available" Supplements and protein shakes are freely available, but this stuff is prescription only, so it isn't "Freely Available"
as it isnt available in the states, her people have gone to huge efforts to ensure that she gets a regular supply for far longer than the normal length of treatment.
Therefore this drug has been dishonestly obtained, whether or not it was on the banned list or not.

Laws have been broken, medical ethics trashed and also nobody knows what the long term effects of this drug are,  Russian Roulette springs to mind

I accept that as it wasnt on the banned list until 1 Jan then "technically" she wasnt cheating, But my moral compass is pointing due south on this one


----------



## Val (Mar 9, 2016)

Rooter said:



			Hardly the same dude..
		
Click to expand...

I know, the driving stuff is illegal and definitely shouldn't be condoned.



Fish said:



			I've done all 3 at once, but I would be a bit concerned taking a prescription drug that's designed only to be taken for a matter of weeks for a specific illness for 10 years!!
		
Click to expand...

I love your morals bud, you do the illegal and wouldn't entertain something that wasn't illegal.

Rooter, think on your question.

You're an up coming talent at 18 and just won your first major title, a doctor tells you they can give you a drug that will allow oxygen to your muscles quicker and help increase stamina, you don't need to take it all the time and it isn't banned for use and chances are it won't for a long time. It will increase your chances of winning multiple major titles and millions of pounds/dollars/euros. Do you want it?

No one in their right mind would refuse it.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 9, 2016)

PhilTheFragger said:



			The key words here are "Freely Available" Supplements and protein shakes are freely available, but this stuff is prescription only, so it isn't "Freely Available"
as it isnt available in the states, her people have gone to huge efforts to ensure that she gets a regular supply for far longer than the normal length of treatment.
Therefore this drug has been dishonestly obtained, whether or not it was on the banned list or not.

Laws have been broken, medical ethics trashed and also nobody knows what the long term effects of this drug are,  Russian Roulette springs to mind

I accept that as it wasnt on the banned list until 1 Jan then "technically" she wasnt cheating, But my moral compass is pointing due south on this one
		
Click to expand...

Laws broken ? Medical ethics trashed ? 

Drug dishonestly obtained 

So you know all about her medical history? 

How come everyone seems to know Sharapovas exact medical history to determine the drugs were gained dishonestly ? 

Have her medical records been published so everyone can see ?


----------



## Norrin Radd (Mar 9, 2016)

its not on the PGA banned substance list ,,,,,yet ,,although they are looking at it being so when they do their yearly list.


----------



## Rooter (Mar 9, 2016)

Val said:



			Rooter, think on your question.

You're an up coming talent at 18 and just won your first major title, a doctor tells you they can give you a drug that will allow oxygen to your muscles quicker and help increase stamina, you don't need to take it all the time and it isn't banned for use and chances are it won't for a long time. It will increase your chances of winning multiple major titles and millions of pounds/dollars/euros. Do you want it?

No one in their right mind would refuse it.
		
Click to expand...

You are probably right, i would deffo consider it, research it etc. Would i 100% take it? i don't honestly know, but i doubt it. When i was playing a decent level of rugby, i was offered all sorts as i was always told i need to bulk up. I always refused and tried my hardest through diet and training. Could i have got further than the South West league? probably yes, but I am happy with what i did and how i did it.


----------



## Del_Boy (Mar 9, 2016)

Imurg said:



			But getting it wrong isn't always cheating..
		
Click to expand...

I guess that depends how you interrupt cheating my interpretation is doing something dishonest or unfairly to gain an advantage.

In this case what I am saying is that old Sharapova unfairly to a banned drug.

She has now admitted to her cheating she will accept her penalty move on.

I guess you are saying she is not a cheat until it can be proven that she knowingly took the drug to gain an unfair advantage from 1 Jan 2016


----------



## chrisd (Mar 9, 2016)

I think it's also important to understand why they have drugs banned. Of course it's because that it's unfair to those who don't have access to, or want not to, take drugs to enhance performance thus preferring to be clean.  But, just as important, it's to protect the future health of the people from the damage that less rigorously controlled drug use the user, especially later in life


----------



## Del_Boy (Mar 9, 2016)

Beezerk said:



			It was longer wasn't it? iirc from the radio yesterday players were told about the drug being investigated/banned early last year. It only initially came to light after it was found a boat load of Russian athletes were disclosing it as an extra supllement they were taking for, yes you've guessed it, heart complaints and diabetes.
		
Click to expand...

I haven't heard WADA advise the timelines of when the information about the drugs being on a watch list or when the drug was banned was advised to athletes, their reps or the info was in the public domain.

Until that time I accept Sharapova's version of events  that she was advised via email about the drug being banned on 22 Dec.  At that time she failed to read the email and continued to pop the pills.  Then when she was tested in mid Jan she accepts that she failed a drugs test for a substance that was banned from 1 Jan.

She is now waiting for her punishment.


----------



## Del_Boy (Mar 9, 2016)

Val said:



			Not banned and has no signs of being banned and has the ability to give me an edge over my competition?

Absolutely give me it and anyone who says differently must be whiter than white. 

You know that whiter than white lot............

Never speeded in a car
Never take a call on a mobile in a car
Never set a sat nav whilst moving

These 3 examples would have been done at some point by most on here, all 3 might even be done on a daily basis.
		
Click to expand...

Or never looked at porn before the age of 18


----------



## chrisd (Mar 9, 2016)

Val said:



			I know, the driving stuff is illegal and definitely shouldn't be condoned.



I love your morals bud, you do the illegal and wouldn't entertain something that wasn't illegal.

Rooter, think on your question.

You're an up coming talent at 18 and just won your first major title, a doctor tells you they can give you a drug that will allow oxygen to your muscles quicker and help increase stamina, you don't need to take it all the time and it isn't banned for use and chances are it won't for a long time. It will increase your chances of winning multiple major titles and millions of pounds/dollars/euros. Do you want it?

No one in their right mind would refuse it.
		
Click to expand...

That would suggest that no sports people are completely clean


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 9, 2016)

Depends on what your definition of a clean sports person is


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Mar 9, 2016)

PhilTheFragger said:



			The key words here are "Freely Available" Supplements and protein shakes are freely available, but this stuff is prescription only, so it isn't "Freely Available"
as it isnt available in the states, her people have gone to huge efforts to ensure that she gets a regular supply for far longer than the normal length of treatment.
Therefore this drug has been dishonestly obtained, whether or not it was on the banned list or not.

Laws have been broken, medical ethics trashed and also nobody knows what the long term effects of this drug are,  Russian Roulette springs to mind

I accept that as it wasnt on the banned list until 1 Jan then "technically" she wasnt cheating, But my moral compass is pointing due south on this one
		
Click to expand...

Actually, one of the first reports I read on this story on the BBC website said the substance is freely available over the counter in certain countries so I guess some could argue it's no different from buying or taking regular supplements?


----------



## richart (Mar 9, 2016)

drive4show said:



			Actually, one of the first reports I read on this story on the BBC website said the substance is freely available over the counter in certain countries so I guess some could argue it's no different from buying or taking regular supplements?
		
Click to expand...

 You could have said that a bit earlier, would have saved a lot of pointless posts.


----------



## hovis (Mar 9, 2016)

drive4show said:



			Actually, one of the first reports I read on this story on the BBC website said the substance is freely available over the counter in certain countries so I guess some could argue it's no different from buying or taking regular supplements?
		
Click to expand...

Anabolic steroids are available over the counter in quite a few countries too.  Cant use them though


----------



## Hacker Khan (Mar 9, 2016)

Del_Boy said:



			I haven't heard WADA advise the timelines of when the information about the drugs being on a watch list or when the drug was banned was advised to athletes, their reps or the info was in the public domain.

Until that time I accept Sharapova's version of events  that she was advised via email about the drug being banned on 22 Dec.  *At that time she failed to read the email and continued to pop the pills. * Then when she was tested in mid Jan she accepts that she failed a drugs test for a substance that was banned from 1 Jan.

She is now waiting for her punishment.
		
Click to expand...

But assuming that a person knows the drug they are taking is 'borderline' to put it politely, then do you not think that someone who is apparently scrupulous in their  business dealings and obsessive on every detail, would take 10 seconds to read an email that may well make what they are knowingly taking illegal?

I'd buy that argument more if they were taking that drug for the first time and the last time they looked it was OK, but am struggling to see that scenario if someone has been taking it for 10 years.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Mar 9, 2016)

hovis said:



			Anabolic steroids are available over the counter in quite a few countries too.  Cant use them though
		
Click to expand...

No doubt they are but as far as I know they are on the banned list?


----------



## Ethan (Mar 9, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Laws broken ? Medical ethics trashed ? 

Drug dishonestly obtained 

So you know all about her medical history? 

How come everyone seems to know Sharapovas exact medical history to determine the drugs were gained dishonestly ? 

Have her medical records been published so everyone can see ?
		
Click to expand...

Phil

I agree with you on one thing. On Dec31st, taking this stuff was fine, on Jan 1st it wasn't. Whether she is a cheat or not depends on whether she knew that rule or not.

As for the medical explanation, I don't have her medical records. But I have experience of the use of medicines to treat diabetes (or treat a family history, whatever that means), I also know about hypomagnesaemia, ECGs and how medicine is practised in Russia. 

Low magnesium is pretty common and mostly asymptomatic and unimportant. There is an effective treatment - magnesium. 

It would be insane beyond belief to start trying to prevent Type 2 DM with medicines at age 18. Partly because T2DM doesn't usually occur until the 40s or 50s but also because you simply can't prevent it with medicines, but you would expose someone to 30 years of side effects, and also because the best treatment is to stay fit and slim, like wot Grand Slam tennis players do. Anyway, T2DM does not have a strong inherited element. It is common, though, so most people have some relatives with it, but doesn't mean your risk is elevated. 

Medicine in Russia comes in 2 flavours - public hospitals which make the NHS look like the Four Seasons, and private, in which you can get what you want when you want it, no questions asked. I suspect she uses the latter route.

But the most incredible aspect of all is that she is a rich Florida resident. If she needed any medicines, she would get the most modern, best proven and safest right at home instead of a dodgy unproven medicine which can't get approved in any westward country. However funny enough, it has the advantage of being a PED. 

You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to work it out.


----------



## drdel (Mar 9, 2016)

I recall a golfer taking an antler based product - there was no ban or claims of cheating. I guess he must have just liked the taste even though it was sprayed into the mouth.

Its so nice to see equitable commentary/treatment across sports and nations.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Mar 9, 2016)

PhilTheFragger said:



			The key words here are "Freely Available" Supplements and protein shakes are freely available, but this stuff is prescription only, so it isn't "Freely Available"
as it isnt available in the states, her people have gone to huge efforts to ensure that she gets a regular supply for far longer than the normal length of treatment.
Therefore this drug has been dishonestly obtained, whether or not it was on the banned list or not.

Laws have been broken, medical ethics trashed and also nobody knows what the long term effects of this drug are,  Russian Roulette springs to mind

I accept that as it wasnt on the banned list until 1 Jan then "technically" she wasnt cheating, But my moral compass is pointing due south on this one
		
Click to expand...




Liverpoolphil said:



			Laws broken ? Medical ethics trashed ? 

Drug dishonestly obtained 

So you know all about her medical history? 

How come everyone seems to know Sharapovas exact medical history to determine the drugs were gained dishonestly ? 

Have her medical records been published so everyone can see ?
		
Click to expand...


If she has a medical condition that requires this drug, then she has had a number of weeks to show her medical records to the LTA / WADA and if such a condition exists then the press conference she initiated would have been to announce a failed test but with a medical exemption. so its all OK.    She Didnt

You can google the drug name all you like, there is no long term condition that this drug is appropriate for, Its normal use is for Heart & circulation issues often associated with diabetes, for a few weeks, not 10 years. The drug has been superseded by others for normal dispensing.

If a medical condition does not exist ,then the drugs have been prescribed illegally , this also goes against medical ethics and so does the lack of knowledge of its long term effects.

If she had a heart condition, she would be constantly monitored and no doubt the governing body would have been aware of it, she may even have been the face of the Russian Heart Foundation advertising campaign,  I have a heart condition, there are things I cannot do, If she has a heart condition, it is highly unlikely that she got to where she is in the first place, and if she did, so many people would be aware.

But it is clear that she doesnt have a heart condition, therefore the drug was obtained illegally, purely for its performance benefits.
 as she tested positive after 1 Jan and is offering no credible defence she will get whatever ban the authorities decide

she has been badly advised about using the medical excuse as it simply doesnt stand up to even the most cursory examination.

Im a great believer in the British Sense of Fair Play, but you have to admit it stinks


----------



## Ethan (Mar 9, 2016)

drdel said:



			I recall a golfer taking an antler based product - there was no ban or claims of cheating. I guess he must have just liked the taste even though it was sprayed into the mouth.

Its so nice to see equitable commentary/treatment across sports and nations.
		
Click to expand...

Vijay Singh. Deer Antler spray has a growth factor, sort of like an anabolic steroid, in it.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 9, 2016)

Ethan said:



			Phil

I agree with you on one thing. On Dec31st, taking this stuff was fine, on Jan 1st it wasn't. Whether she is a cheat or not depends on whether she knew that rule or not.

As for the medical explanation, I don't have her medical records. But I have experience of the use of medicines to treat diabetes (or treat a family history, whatever that means), I also know about hypomagnesaemia, ECGs and how medicine is practised in Russia. 

Low magnesium is pretty common and mostly asymptomatic and unimportant. There is an effective treatment - magnesium. 

It would be insane beyond belief to start trying to prevent Type 2 DM with medicines at age 18. Partly because T2DM doesn't usually occur until the 40s or 50s but also because you simply can't prevent it with medicines, but you would expose someone to 30 years of side effects, and also because the best treatment is to stay fit and slim, like wot Grand Slam tennis players do. Anyway, T2DM does not have a strong inherited element. It is common, though, so most people have some relatives with it, but doesn't mean your risk is elevated. 

Medicine in Russia comes in 2 flavours - public hospitals which make the NHS look like the Four Seasons, and private, in which you can get what you want when you want it, no questions asked. I suspect she uses the latter route.

But the most incredible aspect of all is that she is a rich Florida resident. If she needed any medicines, she would get the most modern, best proven and safest right at home instead of a dodgy unproven medicine which can't get approved in any westward country. However funny enough, it has the advantage of being a PED. 

You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to work it out.
		
Click to expand...

The main part of that - you don't have her medical records. Yep you have exorience of medicine which is a step more than others who have made medical judgements on here 

But again - you don't have her medical records. Anything else is guesswork


----------



## larmen (Mar 9, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			The main part of that - you don't have her medical records. Yep you have exorience of medicine which is a step more than others who have made medical judgements on here 

But again - you don't have her medical records. Anything else is guesswork
		
Click to expand...

I think his point, and all of our point is, there are no medical records. Otherwise she wouldn't have been banned.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 9, 2016)

PhilTheFragger said:



			If she has a medical condition that requires this drug, then she has had a number of weeks to show her medical records to the LTA / WADA and if such a condition exists then the press conference she initiated would have been to announce a failed test but with a medical exemption. so its all OK.    She Didnt

You can google the drug name all you like, there is no long term condition that this drug is appropriate for, Its normal use is for Heart & circulation issues often associated with diabetes, for a few weeks, not 10 years. The drug has been superseded by others for normal dispensing.

If a medical condition does not exist ,then the drugs have been prescribed illegally , this also goes against medical ethics and so does the lack of knowledge of its long term effects.

If she had a heart condition, she would be constantly monitored and no doubt the governing body would have been aware of it, she may even have been the face of the Russian Heart Foundation advertising campaign,  I have a heart condition, there are things I cannot do, If she has a heart condition, it is highly unlikely that she got to where she is in the first place, and if she did, so many people would be aware.

But it is clear that she doesnt have a heart condition, therefore the drug was obtained illegally, purely for its performance benefits.
 as she tested positive after 1 Jan and is offering no credible defence she will get whatever ban the authorities decide

she has been badly advised about using the medical excuse as it simply doesnt stand up to even the most cursory examination.

Im a great believer in the British Sense of Fair Play, but you have to admit it stinks
		
Click to expand...

Again lots of "IF's" in there and sorry when did you medically exam her to find out "it's clear she doesn't have a heart condition" 

Again I'm unsure when you become an expert on medical conditions or indeed anyone who is judging her medical - are you a doctor ? 

Certainly to make statements of fact about her medically ? 

When did anyone on here become her doctor to throw the accusations about and make the statements portraying them as fact 

Simple question - do you know factually her medical history and the history of her family ? As the answer is no you and anyone cannot make statements of accusations and fact about her medical condition .


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 9, 2016)

larmen said:



			I think his point, and all of our point is, there are no medical records. Otherwise she wouldn't have been banned.
		
Click to expand...

So her doctor doesn't have medical records about her ?

She is suspended right now pending investigation and the press conference gave her reasons for using the drug - those reasons will be in her doctors medical records if true. 

Piece said it spot on - it's amazing how everyone has become such an expert on Sharapovas medical history in the space of 24 hours

But what happened before 1st Jan doesn't matter - she was breaking no rules and taking no banned substance.


----------



## Fish (Mar 9, 2016)

&#128514;&#128514;

And today is Thursday and it's mid summer, why, because I said so &#128540;


----------



## larmen (Mar 9, 2016)

Fish said:



			&#62978;&#62978;

And today is Thursday and it's mid summer, why, because I said so &#63004;
		
Click to expand...

The difference here is that if you wait bit, this will actually come true. Then you can be the one telling us al that you told us so


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Mar 9, 2016)

Sorry LP, but you are defending an untenable position, its not nice when an important sports person falls from grace.

I accept your right to your opinion, no matter how ludicrous it is, but I now feel that you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

the problem is now that soon someone is going to get cheesed off with your intransigence and have a pop at you, this will then result in me putting my Mod hat on to deal with it, and that is something that I would like to avoid

we have all had our say, we know where we all stand, and at this point in time there is little more to be added,  so suggest we let this thread simmer for a while and see where the story goes


----------



## Ethan (Mar 9, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			The main part of that - you don't have her medical records. Yep you have exorience of medicine which is a step more than others who have made medical judgements on here 

But again - you don't have her medical records. Anything else is guesswork
		
Click to expand...

[Sigh] 

Yes, I said that, but let me spell it out for you. I don't need her medical records or family history to know with certainty the following:

1. This drug does NOT prevent diabetes, it doesn't even treat it very well and is not approved to do so even in Russia. Metformin would be the medicine of choice, but it is not a PED. 
2. Even if it did (which it doesn't), there is no country in the world, even Russia where staring treating someone at 18 for it would be considered acceptable practice,
3. There are many better safer medicines available in the US than this dodgy Russian medicine.
4. But the US medicines are not PEDs. 

If you can't get that, then I think you need some treatment. Probably counselling, but I wouldn't rule out ECT.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 9, 2016)

drdel said:



			I recall a golfer taking an antler based product - there was no ban or claims of cheating. I guess he must have just liked the taste even though it was sprayed into the mouth.

Its so nice to see equitable commentary/treatment across sports and nations.
		
Click to expand...

Vijay Singh

And think the stuff was banned 

http://www.pga.com/news/pga-tour/vi...g-deer-antler-spray-says-he-unaware-it-banned


----------



## Imurg (Mar 9, 2016)

larmen said:



			I think his point, and all of our point is, there are no medical records. Otherwise she wouldn't have been banned.
		
Click to expand...

Just a point of Order - she hasn't been banned
She's been suspended pending the outcome of the enquiry.
Subtle but definite difference..


----------



## Fish (Mar 9, 2016)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Sorry LP, but you are defending an untenable position, its not nice when an important sports person falls from grace.

I accept your right to your opinion, no matter how ludicrous it is, but I now feel that you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

the problem is now that soon someone is going to get cheesed off with your intransigence and have a pop at you, this will then result in me putting my Mod hat on to deal with it, and that is something that I would like to avoid

we have all had our say, we know where we all stand, and at this point in time there is little more to be added,  so suggest we let this thread simmer for a while and see where the story goes
		
Click to expand...

What's that expression about doing something in the wind, you'll just end up with wet shoes trying to talk sense to him.


----------



## Fish (Mar 9, 2016)

Ethan said:



			[Sigh] 

Yes, I said that, but let me spell it out for you. I don't need her medical records or family history to know with certainty the following:

1. This drug does NOT prevent diabetes, it doesn't even treat it very well and is not approved to do so even in Russia. Metformin would be the medicine of choice, but it is not a PED. 
2. Even if it did (which it doesn't), there is no country in the world, even Russia where staring treating someone at 18 for it would be considered acceptable practice,
3. There are many better safer medicines available in the US than this dodgy Russian medicine.
4. But the US medicines are not PEDs. 

If you can't get that, then I think you need some treatment. Probably counselling, but I wouldn't rule out ECT.
		
Click to expand...

Don't let facts get in the way of anything, if it's not in black & white in front of him your shoes will just get wet also &#128514;


----------



## hovis (Mar 9, 2016)

Fish said:



			Don't let facts get in the way of anything, if it's not in black & white in front of him your shoes will just get wet also &#128514;
		
Click to expand...

Liverproofphil is still the funniest thing I've heard in a while


----------



## guest100718 (Mar 9, 2016)

I've only skimmed the thread but is it true bananas are banned?


----------



## Stuart_C (Mar 9, 2016)

guest100718 said:



			I've only skimmed the thread but is it true bananas are banned?
		
Click to expand...

Not yet but when they're banned if you've eaten any and played sport you're a cheat.


----------



## palindromicbob (Mar 9, 2016)

Stuart_C said:



			Not yet but when they're banned if you've eaten any and played sport you're a cheat.
		
Click to expand...

They are ok if used as a suppository though.


----------



## chellie (Mar 9, 2016)

palindromicbob said:



			They are ok if used as a suppository though.
		
Click to expand...

Tea over monitor:rofl:


----------



## ger147 (Mar 9, 2016)

Stuart_C said:



			Not yet but when they're banned if you've eaten any and played sport you're a cheat.
		
Click to expand...

So if cucumbers get banned I'll have to hand back all my dominoes trophies???


----------



## palindromicbob (Mar 9, 2016)

ger147 said:



			So if cucumbers get banned I'll have to hand back all my dominoes trophies???
		
Click to expand...

See post 446.

Only thing is you have to demonstrate administration in front of the WDA (World Domino Association).  Similarity of acronym to WADA can cause some confusion.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 9, 2016)

palindromicbob said:



			See post 446.

Only thing is you have to demonstrate administration in front of the WDA (World Domino Association).  Similarity of acronym to WADA can cause some confusion.
		
Click to expand...

Suppository again ?


----------



## Stuart_C (Mar 9, 2016)

palindromicbob said:



			They are ok if used as a suppository though.
		
Click to expand...

What ever floats your boat sir


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Mar 9, 2016)

Bananas are fine but they must be straight, same as cucumbers.

#EUregulations


----------



## Stuart_C (Mar 9, 2016)

drive4show said:



			Bananas are fine but they must be straight, same as cucumbers.

#EUregulations
		
Click to expand...

After June the 23rd it won't matter.


----------



## JohnnyDee (Mar 9, 2016)

Fancied making a comment on this thread, but with 46 pages and counting already, and having read none of them, then I suspect giving it a miss is probably the best policy.


----------



## Imurg (Mar 9, 2016)

JohnnyDee said:



			Fancied making a comment on this thread, but with 46 pages and counting already, and having read none of them, then I suspect giving it a miss is probably the best policy.
		
Click to expand...

Some people need to check their Settings - I'm only on page 16..&#128077;


----------



## FairwayDodger (Mar 9, 2016)

JohnnyDee said:



			Fancied making a comment on this thread, but with 46 pages and counting already, and having read none of them, then I suspect giving it a miss is probably the best policy.
		
Click to expand...

Probably for the best, you wouldn't want to tarnish a thread full of well-informed and insightful adult discussion with any old rubbish.....


----------



## chellie (Mar 9, 2016)

Imurg said:



			Some people need to check their Settings - I'm only on page 16..&#62541;
		
Click to expand...

I've only got 12 pages.


----------



## Fish (Mar 9, 2016)

chellie said:



			I've only got 12 pages.
		
Click to expand...

Me too &#128077;


----------



## Hacker Khan (Mar 9, 2016)

I'm only on page 2. But that may be due to the numbet number of people I have blocked. Surprised LP hasn't had anything to say on this subject yet though....


----------



## chrisd (Mar 9, 2016)

I've got 16 pages too. Wouldn't a poll have been a better way of deciding whether she's a cheat or not - democracy at work!


----------



## delc (Mar 10, 2016)

Imurg said:



			Some people need to check their Settings - I'm only on page 16..&#128077;
		
Click to expand...

At the time of writing, I am also on page 46.  Probably depends on your settings and which browser you use.

Sorry - page 47 now!


----------



## Kellfire (Mar 10, 2016)

Myself, Val and a few others have said much the same as Phil on this topic, and it hasn't generated any vitriol aimed at us.

I think that shows just how many people on this forum play the man and not the ball.


----------



## Pin-seeker (Mar 10, 2016)

Kellfire said:



			Myself, Val and a few others have said much the same as Phil on this topic, and it hasn't generated any vitriol aimed at us.

I think that shows just how many people on this forum play the man and not the ball.
		
Click to expand...

& why do you think that is?


----------



## Del_Boy (Mar 10, 2016)

Hacker Khan said:



			But assuming that a person knows the drug they are taking is 'borderline' to put it politely, then do you not think that someone who is apparently scrupulous in their  business dealings and obsessive on every detail, would take 10 seconds to read an email that may well make what they are knowingly taking illegal?

I'd buy that argument more if they were taking that drug for the first time and the last time they looked it was OK, but am struggling to see that scenario if someone has been taking it for 10 years.
		
Click to expand...

But I think she is saying that she wasn't aware the drug was 'borderline' and it was a monumental balls up by not fully reading the email on 22 Dec.  Big businesses even bigger than Sharapova Inc. have a history of making monumental balls up and not overseeing what they should have eg Baring Bros not keeping a watchful eye over Leeson

So in summary until proven otherwise I buy her story that she ballsed up


----------



## Ethan (Mar 10, 2016)

Kellfire said:



			Myself, Val and a few others have said much the same as Phil on this topic, and it hasn't generated any vitriol aimed at us.

I think that shows just how many people on this forum play the man and not the ball.
		
Click to expand...

Well, then, you lot are also wrong and either hopelessly naive and uninformed or just stirring the pot too.


----------



## Ethan (Mar 10, 2016)

Del_Boy said:



			But I think she is saying that she wasn't aware the drug was 'borderline' and it was a monumental balls up by not fully reading the email on 22 Dec.  Big businesses even bigger than Sharapova Inc. have a history of making monumental balls up and not overseeing what they should have eg Baring Bros not keeping a watchful eye over Leeson

So in summary until proven otherwise I buy her story that she ballsed up
		
Click to expand...

I am sure she ballsed up, but i am equally sure she wasn't taking it for its effect on her magnesium levels.


----------



## chrisd (Mar 10, 2016)

Del_Boy said:



			But I think she is saying that she wasn't aware the drug was 'borderline' and it was a monumental balls up by not fully reading the email on 22 Dec.  Big businesses even bigger than Sharapova Inc. have a history of making monumental balls up and not overseeing what they should have eg Baring Bros not keeping a watchful eye over Leeson

So in summary until proven otherwise I buy her story that she ballsed up
		
Click to expand...

Every thread on the forum, probably the same as a chat at the golf club bar, has views 100% one way and 100% the other. It's differing views that make the discussions interesting. How you choose to put your argument across is what causes spats etc but it'd be a very sterile forum if everyone agreed with everyone else, and, were extremely polite through the setting out of arguments. I think the balance is pretty much right and the modding is usually even handed.

That aside, you are still wrong! :lol:


----------



## Kellfire (Mar 10, 2016)

Pin-seeker said:



			& why do you think that is?
		
Click to expand...

Probably the same reason most people gang up on someone - it's easy and gives them a cheap thrill.


----------



## Pin-seeker (Mar 10, 2016)

Kellfire said:



			Probably the same reason most people gang up on someone - it's easy and gives them a cheap thrill.
		
Click to expand...

Yeah that must be it,did you miss Phil joining in giving Homer stick the other night? 
Or Delc for that matter? 

Let's not make the victim here.


----------



## Del_Boy (Mar 10, 2016)

chrisd said:



			That aside, you are still wrong! :lol:
		
Click to expand...

At this moment in time it is only old Sharapova that knows the answer to that.  Sorry meant to add 100% agree that his place would be boring as hell if we all agreed with each other


----------



## Ethan (Mar 10, 2016)

Ethan said:



			Well, then, you lot are also wrong and either hopelessly naive and uninformed or just stirring the pot too.
		
Click to expand...

I just checked the internet and there is a site where you can show solidarity and get T shirts made:

Je Suis Liverproof Phil - Ã©galitÃ©, fraternitÃ©, naÃ¯vetÃ©


----------



## chrisd (Mar 10, 2016)

Del_Boy said:



			At this moment in time it is only old Sharapova that knows the answer to that.
		
Click to expand...

Given that she's admitted the offence? Her explanation is no different from telling the policeman you were speeding because you were late for work - you were still speeding!


----------



## Fish (Mar 10, 2016)

Ethan said:



			I just checked the internet and there is a site where you can show solidarity and get T shirts made:

Je Suis Liverproof Phil - Ã©galitÃ©, fraternitÃ©, naÃ¯vetÃ©
		
Click to expand...

:whoo:

:rofl:


----------



## Del_Boy (Mar 10, 2016)

chrisd said:



			Given that she's admitted the offence? Her explanation is no different from telling the policeman you were speeding because you were late for work - you were still speeding!
		
Click to expand...

We appear to be at cross purposes hear.  My view is she is a cheat from 1 Jan and she has accepted her offence and is now waiting her punishment.  When i said only she knows the answer to that I thought you meant I was wrong in my opinion that until proven otherwise I accept her version of events that the first she could have known the drug was banned was on 22 Dec when she acknowledged she received an email but she didn't fully read it.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Mar 10, 2016)

Del_Boy said:



*But I think she is saying that she wasn't aware the drug was 'borderline'* and it was a monumental balls up by not fully reading the email on 22 Dec.  Big businesses even bigger than Sharapova Inc. have a history of making monumental balls up and not overseeing what they should have eg Baring Bros not keeping a watchful eye over Leeson

So in summary until proven otherwise I buy her story that she ballsed up
		
Click to expand...

I agree it was a monumental balls up.  But I am sorry but I just can not buy that she was not aware of what the drug did.  She is/was the highest earning female athlete for the last 10 years through her endorsements, not her winnings.  Her image is everything and she would have been fully aware of what a drugs scandal could have done. The medical experts have questioned the medical benefits of taking this drug for the purely medical reason she said she was.  I imagine she was not taking a whole concoction of drugs every day so the lost track of what she was taking, so there is no way on earth she had not checked 100 times what was in the offending drug and no way on earth she did not know it provided other 'benefits' in addition to stopping heart disease or whatever she was claiming she was taking it for.

Up to the point it was banned she was 'playing the game' and I actually don't want to castigate her that much for that as such, as I imagine there are plenty of athletes that did read the email and stopped, or are taking similar drugs for alleged medical reasons but are actually for performance enhancing reasons.  She was a bit like Armstrong, everyone else was doing much the same. She was just the stupid one that got caught.  But again I can not buy that she did not know what she was doing. 

So she should have not have said sorry for not reading the email (PR led mea culpa spin) but sorry she was 'playing the game' and taking a drug for performance related properties under medical pretenses. Which finally caught up with her and made her a drugs cheat. She was conniving, stupid and a bit unlucky. IMHO


----------



## Val (Mar 10, 2016)

Kellfire said:



			Myself, Val and a few others have said much the same as Phil on this topic, and it hasn't generated any vitriol aimed at us.

I think that shows just how many people on this forum play the man and not the ball.
		
Click to expand...

We have all said similar things but I think Phil is the only one who really defended. I've stuck to my guns maintaining she didnt cheat whilst it wasn't banned and that anyone would take a drug that wasnt banned that could increase their performance. 



Ethan said:



			Well, then, you lot are also wrong and either hopelessly naive and uninformed or just stirring the pot too.
		
Click to expand...

As must you be then, I agreed in most parts with you


----------



## Slab (Mar 10, 2016)

Lots of folk clinging to the 22nd Dec notification thing as a get out of jail card for her actions

But the guy who ran WADA for 8 years said:

_"Anytime there is a change to the list, notice is given on 30 September prior to the change," he said.

"You have October, November, December to get off what you are doing"

"All the tennis players were given notification of it"_

The Dec notification was more like a final reminder for her



Here's my summary:

So it goes on a watch list for a year, that's like saying, we think what your taking is dodgy and we're gonna check
Sept notification: we checked, its well dodgy, stop it
Dec notification, last warning, we know you were at it, pack it in, we'll check
Jan 2016: would you pee in this cup please? 
March: I'd like to thank my fans for their support


----------



## Hacker Khan (Mar 10, 2016)

Slab said:



			Lots of folk clinging to the 22nd Dec notification thing as a get out of jail card for her actions

But the guy who ran WADA for 8 years said:

_"Anytime there is a change to the list, notice is given on 30 September prior to the change," he said.

"You have October, November, December to get off what you are doing"

"All the tennis players were given notification of it"_

The Dec notification was more like a final reminder for her



Here's my summary:

*So it goes on a watch list for a year, that's like saying, we think what your taking is dodgy and we're gonna check
Sept notification: we checked, its well dodgy, stop it
Dec notification, last warning, we know you were at it, pack it in, we'll check
Jan 2016: would you pee in this cup please? 
March: I'd like to thank my fans for their support*

Click to expand...


----------



## Val (Mar 10, 2016)

Slab said:



			Lots of folk clinging to the 22nd Dec notification thing as a get out of jail card for her actions

But the guy who ran WADA for 8 years said:

_"Anytime there is a change to the list, notice is given on 30 September prior to the change," he said.

"You have October, November, December to get off what you are doing"

"All the tennis players were given notification of it"_

The Dec notification was more like a final reminder for her



Here's my summary:

So it goes on a watch list for a year, that's like saying, we think what your taking is dodgy and we're gonna check
Sept notification: we checked, its well dodgy, stop it
Dec notification, last warning, we know you were at it, pack it in, we'll check
Jan 2016: would you pee in this cup please? 
March: I'd like to thank my fans for their support
		
Click to expand...

Ethan said early on that her biggest problem was clinging on to the medical condition part. If she had just said something along the lines of, "I've used it for years and it was an over sight on not recognising it being banned and i'll take the consequences" then she may have got a bit more slack from many.


----------



## Fish (Mar 10, 2016)

Slab said:



			Lots of folk clinging to the 22nd Dec notification thing as a get out of jail card for her actions

But the guy who ran WADA for 8 years said:

_"Anytime there is a change to the list, notice is given on 30 September prior to the change," he said.

"You have October, November, December to get off what you are doing"

"All the tennis players were given notification of it"_

The Dec notification was more like a final reminder for her



Here's my summary:

So it goes on a watch list for a year, that's like saying, we think what your taking is dodgy and we're gonna check
Sept notification: we checked, its well dodgy, stop it
Dec notification, last warning, we know you were at it, pack it in, we'll check
Jan 2016: would you pee in this cup please? 
March: I'd like to thank my fans for their support
		
Click to expand...

:thup:


----------



## Pin-seeker (Mar 10, 2016)

The more I hear about this,the worse it looks for her.


----------



## Del_Boy (Mar 10, 2016)

Slab said:



			Lots of folk clinging to the 22nd Dec notification thing as a get out of jail card for her actions

But the guy who ran WADA for 8 years said:

_"Anytime there is a change to the list, notice is given on 30 September prior to the change," he said.

"You have October, November, December to get off what you are doing"

"All the tennis players were given notification of it"_

The Dec notification was more like a final reminder for her



Here's my summary:

So it goes on a watch list for a year, that's like saying, we think what your taking is dodgy and we're gonna check
Sept notification: we checked, its well dodgy, stop it
Dec notification, last warning, we know you were at it, pack it in, we'll check
Jan 2016: would you pee in this cup please? 
March: I'd like to thank my fans for their support
		
Click to expand...

the bod who ran WADA for 8 years stopped running it 9 years ago things may have changed in that time from what he remembers/ things may not have changed.  Until an official timeline from WADA is released I have not reason not to believe old Sharapova bearing in mind if her timelines are proved incorrect she will slated even more no matter how fit she is


----------



## Slab (Mar 10, 2016)

Pin-seeker said:



			The more I hear about this,the worse it looks for her.
		
Click to expand...

We don't know the half yet, I heard she tapped down spike-marks on court!


----------



## Slab (Mar 10, 2016)

Del_Boy said:



			the bod who ran WADA for 8 years stopped running it 9 years ago things may have changed in that time from what he remembers/ things may not have changed.  Until an official timeline from WADA is released I have not reason not to believe old Sharapova bearing in mind if her timelines are proved incorrect she will slated even more no matter how fit she is
		
Click to expand...

Well I'm gonna guess WADA didn't just jump out from behind a scoreboard wearing silly hats yelling surprise and letting off party poppers while holding a white plastic cup and a funnel


----------



## Del_Boy (Mar 10, 2016)

Slab said:



			Well I'm gonna guess WADA didn't just jump out from behind a scoreboard wearing silly hats yelling surprise and letting off party poppers while holding a white plastic cup and a funnel


Click to expand...

I tend to agree with you on that version of events


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Mar 10, 2016)

Slab said:



			Well I'm gonna guess WADA didn't just jump out from behind a scoreboard wearing silly hats yelling surprise and letting off party poppers while holding a white plastic cup and a funnel


Click to expand...

Shame as that created a great mental image in my head. I still think there is more to come on this and interested to see how hard the tennis authorities come down on her, and whether they are prepared to make a statement about drug taking or whether they'll succumb to her being a media darling and given the minimum ban and a slap on the wrist


----------



## Crazyface (Mar 10, 2016)

you know what? She's the fittest woman on the circuit and should be allowed to continue no matter what. She's THE ONLY REASON I WOULD TURN THE TV ON DURING WIMBLEDON FULL STOP. 

I would forgiver her anything !!!!!

She's also not married....have I got a shot?????????


----------



## Hacker Khan (Mar 10, 2016)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Shame as that created a great mental image in my head. I still think there is more to come on this and interested to see how hard the tennis authorities come down on her, and whether they are prepared to make a statement about drug taking or whether they'll succumb to her being a media darling and given the minimum ban and a slap on the wrist
		
Click to expand...

She's nearing retirement, she ain't troubling the last few days of any tournaments now and she has more than enough money. I expect she does not care that much if she can play tennis or not now, it's all about her image. I'd argue a 6 month ban or a 4 year ban is mostly irrelevant as she is still a drugs cheat and the damage to her image has been done.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Mar 10, 2016)

Hacker Khan said:



			She's nearing retirement, she ain't troubling the last few days of any tournaments now and she has more than enough money. I expect she does not care that much if she can play tennis or not now, it's all about her image. I'd argue a 6 month ban or a 4 year ban is mostly irrelevant as she is still a drugs cheat and the damage to her image has been done.
		
Click to expand...

29 in April (I think) and so definitely entering the Autumn of her career for sure. However while form has been patchy, she is still a draw, and so important for organisers and sponsors and I fear she'll get the minimum sentence and allowed back in. Don't forget the US sports media and sports fans are very good at forgiving and forgetting. Look at the number of NBA/NFL stars that are banned for all sorts of offences, serve their ban and allowed back into the fold.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Mar 10, 2016)

And now Sharapovas raquet manufacturer Head has extended their contract. Very brave decision especially if she is found guilty and a bold statement from the company backing her


----------



## Pin-seeker (Mar 10, 2016)

Crazyface said:



			you know what? She's the fittest woman on the circuit and should be allowed to continue no matter what. She's THE ONLY REASON I WOULD TURN THE TV ON DURING WIMBLEDON FULL STOP. 

I would forgiver her anything !!!!!

She's also not married....have I got a shot?????????
		
Click to expand...

She's no ivanovic.


----------



## chrisd (Mar 10, 2016)

Del_Boy said:



			We appear to be at cross purposes hear.  My view is she is a cheat from 1 Jan and she has accepted her offence and is now waiting her punishment.  When i said only she knows the answer to that I thought you meant I was wrong in my opinion that until proven otherwise I accept her version of events that the first she could have known the drug was banned was on 22 Dec when she acknowledged she received an email but she didn't fully read it.
		
Click to expand...

I'm happy to differ in my view with anyone one this Del, it doesn't make anyone right or wrong. I accept that legally she was a cheat from Jan 1 too, but that taking drugs to enhance performance in the knowledge that they would be banned if discovered is cheating in my eyes and I'd have every sports person be obliged to register any drugs they are taking and the reason for their use.


----------



## chrisd (Mar 10, 2016)

Pin-seeker said:



			She's no ivanovic.
		
Click to expand...

Marginally better looking!


----------



## Ethan (Mar 10, 2016)

Val said:



			We have all said similar things but I think Phil is the only one who really defended. I've stuck to my guns maintaining she didnt cheat whilst it wasn't banned and that anyone would take a drug that wasnt banned that could increase their performance. 



As must you be then, I agreed in most parts with you 

Click to expand...

I meant you are still wrong on the parts you disagreed with me about


----------



## Del_Boy (Mar 10, 2016)

chrisd said:



			I'm happy to differ in my view with anyone one this Del, it doesn't make anyone right or wrong. I accept that legally she was a cheat from Jan 1 too, but that taking drugs to enhance performance in the knowledge that they would be banned if discovered is cheating in my eyes and I'd have every sports person be obliged to register any drugs they are taking and the reason for their use.
		
Click to expand...

Registering your drugs along with a list of products you can take any cheats would have no excuses


----------



## Hacker Khan (Mar 10, 2016)

HomerJSimpson said:



			29 in April (I think) and so definitely entering the Autumn of her career for sure. However while form has been patchy, she is still a draw, *and so important for *organisersand* sponsors *and I fear she'll get the minimum sentence and allowed back in. Don't forget the US sports media and sports fans are very good at forgiving and forgetting. Look at the number of NBA/NFL stars that are banned for all sorts of offences, serve their ban and allowed back into the fold.
		
Click to expand...

Is that why many of her sponsors have been dropping her like a stone?


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Mar 10, 2016)

Hacker Khan said:



			Is that why many of her sponsors have been dropping her like a stone?

Click to expand...

But once she serves, *for arguments sake* the minimal ban, assuming she's found guilty at all, once she returns there will be plenty willing to be associated again as she has such a huge marketing and social media profile


----------



## Hacker Khan (Mar 10, 2016)

HomerJSimpson said:



			But once she serves, *for arguments sake* the minimal ban, assuming she's found guilty at all, once she returns there will be plenty willing to be associated again as she has such a huge marketing and social media profile
		
Click to expand...

Not so sure.  Any decent sponsors want current winners and they want a clean image that they can associate their brand with, and she will be neither. Assuming she will be found guilty.


----------



## Val (Mar 10, 2016)

Hacker Khan said:



			Not so sure.  *Any decent sponsors want current winners* and they want a clean image that they can associate their brand with, and she will be neither. Assuming she will be found guilty.
		
Click to expand...

Like Nike with Justin Gatlin?

Just saying


----------



## Del_Boy (Mar 10, 2016)

She must be good with Head they are standing by her.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 10, 2016)

Ethan said:



			I just checked the internet and there is a site where you can show solidarity and get T shirts made:

Je Suis Liverproof Phil - Ã©galitÃ©, fraternitÃ©, naÃ¯vetÃ©
		
Click to expand...

Ethan i respect your knowledge and experience on medical matters and I also respect your right to an opinion. 

So why do you feel you need to talk down to people and throw in derogatory comments towards people when they share an opinion that you don't agree with - by all means disagree but is it too much to ask to disagree with respect as opposed to mocking someone ?


----------



## Ethan (Mar 10, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Ethan i respect your knowledge and experience on medical matters and I also respect your right to an opinion. 

So why do you feel you need to talk down to people and throw in derogatory comments towards people when they share an opinion that you don't agree with - by all means disagree but is it too much to ask to disagree with respect as opposed to mocking someone ?
		
Click to expand...

Not mocking at all, in fact remarks like this only enhance your reputation as a hero of the people, don't they?. 

I will no longer mistakenly assume you have a sense of humour. Seriously.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 10, 2016)

Ethan said:



			Not mocking at all, in fact remarks like this only enhance your reputation as a hero of the people, don't they?. 

I will no longer mistakenly assume you have a sense of humour. Seriously.
		
Click to expand...

If it's humour and you are just joking then add a smiley or something because it doesn't appear to come across that way Ethan that's all. 

Im pretty sure you can guess by the remarks from the fan club im no hero.

In regards Sharapova I'm pretty sure you will end up being right - im just holding out for some slight hope that it was all an honest mistake - niave and stupid that maybe but you never know it could be the right move


----------



## AmandaJR (Mar 10, 2016)

13 pages - really? Sometimes I have time to sift out the tit for tat but can't face it today...

So - she's a cheater right...or a tall tale teller at the very least? Guilty of sailing close to the edge knowingly and has been getting away with it for years?


----------



## Rooter (Mar 10, 2016)

AmandaJR said:



			13 pages - really? Sometimes I have time to sift out the tit for tat but can't face it today...
		
Click to expand...

51 on default settings!!


----------



## AmandaJR (Mar 10, 2016)

Rooter said:



			51 on default settings!!
		
Click to expand...

I know it can't be that interesting so must have loads of arguing over the teeniest tiniest thing...dogs with bones spring to mind!


----------



## Rooter (Mar 10, 2016)

AmandaJR said:



			I know it can't be that interesting so must have loads of arguing over the teeniest tiniest thing...dogs with bones spring to mind!
		
Click to expand...

It's like you have read all 51 (or 16) pages and summarised it perfectly!


----------



## Ethan (Mar 10, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



*If it's humour and you are just joking then add a smiley* or something because it doesn't appear to come across that way Ethan that's all. 

Im pretty sure you can guess by the remarks from the fan club im no hero.

In regards Sharapova I'm pretty sure you will end up being right - im just holding out for some slight hope that it was all an honest mistake - niave and stupid that maybe but you never know it could be the right move
		
Click to expand...

See edit above


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 10, 2016)

Ethan said:



			See edit above 

Click to expand...

All good then :thup:


----------



## Val (Mar 10, 2016)

AmandaJR said:



			13 pages - really? Sometimes I have time to sift out the tit for tat but can't face it today...

So - she's a cheater right...or a tall tale teller at the very least? Guilty of sailing close to the edge knowingly and has been getting away with it for years?
		
Click to expand...

I see you've fallen into that trap too 

She hasn't been getting away with anything. Anything she did was legal up until Dec 31st 2015. 

Tall tales? I think there will be a few more to come.


----------



## dewsweeper (Mar 10, 2016)

Del_Boy said:



			She must be good with Head they are standing by her.
		
Click to expand...

You set my pulse racing there Delboy for a minute, what a thought.!
Incidently are you from Peckham by any chance.
I am and still have a pronounced Sarf Lunnon twang, our previous club steward called me "Trigger", loved it!


----------



## Hacker Khan (Mar 10, 2016)

Val said:



			Like Nike with Justin Gatlin?

Just saying 

Click to expand...

True, but I'd argue there is a slight difference between a sportswear/clothing sponsor for a sportsperson and the blue chip sponsors such as Porsche, HSBC, Rolex, Tag Heuer, etc etc. 

Nike and Head do not sponsor the big tournaments where as the blue chip sponsors who have dropped her do.  There is a strong argument to say the major sponsors call the tune nowadays in a lot of areas and have been very involved in issues such as Blatter going and the R&A admitting women. And Gatlin is still at the peak of his sport, where as Sharapova is not. And whilst this is purely a wild guess, I'd say Nike more than likely renewed the terms of the contract with Gatlin and are paying him a lot less than they did before the drug bans to represent them.  But I do admit that is pure conjecture.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 10, 2016)

Nike are massive within sports in comparison to the others mentioned

They are sports stars main sponsers - they pay the big bucks which will be the backbone and lifeline for the sports they sponser - if Nike or indeed Adidas or Reebox sponser you that's big news - in fact headline news. Getting minor sponsership from other companies isn't.

Sponsers want their stars in the news even at times bad news. Nike sponsering Gatlin was massive news as is Head continuing sponsering Sharapova and Nike will continue with the others who leave her wil make up one line in the news


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Mar 10, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Nike are massive within sports in comparison to the others mentioned

They are sports stars main sponsers - they pay the big bucks which will be the backbone and lifeline for the sports they sponser - if Nike or indeed Adidas or Reebox sponser you that's big news - in fact headline news. Getting minor sponsership from other companies isn't.

Sponsers want their stars in the news even at times bad news. Nike sponsering Gatlin was massive news as is Head continuing sponsering Sharapova and Nike will continue with the others who leave her wil make up one line in the news
		
Click to expand...

As Hacker said Nike sponsor the individuals not the events.

The blue-chip companies sponsor the events and without their sponsorship there would (in most cases) be no event.

With no event there are no marketable individuals.

After previous bad PR if Ms Sharapova's guilt is concerned I don't think Nike will hang about, the sponsorship deal currently suspended and under review will cease.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 10, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			As Hacker said Nike sponsor the individuals not the events.

The blue-chip companies sponsor the events and without their sponsorship there would (in most cases) be no event.

With no event there are no marketable individuals.

After previous bad PR if Ms Navratilova's guilt is concerned I don't think Nike will hang about, the sponsorship deal currently suspended and under review will cease.
		
Click to expand...

They won't stop sponsering the events just as sponsers didn't stop giving money to athletics because of the amount of the people banned from drugs competing again. 

The events aren't going to stop and the money won't stop going into the sport 

Not sure what Navratilova has to do with anything but as companies have already shown they don't have a problem sponsering people who have served drug bans. Sharapova if banned and if returning won't have a problem getting sponsership - she is and always will be very marketable


----------



## FairwayDodger (Mar 10, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			After previous bad PR if Ms Navratilova's guilt is concerned I don't think Nike will hang about, the sponsorship deal currently suspended and under review will cease.
		
Click to expand...

Not Martina as well!!!!


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Mar 10, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			Not Martina as well!!!!
		
Click to expand...

It's all "ova" now!

Senility mistake.

Thank God for the edit facility.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Mar 10, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			They won't stop sponsering the events just as sponsers didn't stop giving money to athletics because of the amount of the people banned from drugs competing again. 

The events aren't going to stop and the money won't stop going into the sport 

Not sure what Navratilova has to do with anything but as companies have already shown they don't have a problem sponsering people who have served drug bans. Sharapova if banned and if returning won't have a problem getting sponsership - she is and always will be very marketable
		
Click to expand...

Didn't work that way for John Daly.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 10, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			Didn't work that way for John Daly.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry but in what way is John Daly comparable to Sharapova ?


----------



## Del_Boy (Mar 10, 2016)

dewsweeper said:



			You set my pulse racing there Delboy for a minute, what a thought.!
Incidently are you from Peckham by any chance.
I am and still have a pronounced Sarf Lunnon twang, our previous club steward called me "Trigger", loved it!
		
Click to expand...


Dont know what you mean!!

Ive gone all Boycie and moved to the gween gween gwass of Kent.  You should change your nickname to Trig


----------



## Blue in Munich (Mar 10, 2016)

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/what-we-do/science-medical/therapeutic-use-exemptions

Athletes may have illnesses or conditions that require them to take particular medications.
If the medication an athlete is required to take to treat an illness or condition happens to fall under the Prohibited List, a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) may give that athlete the authorization to take the needed medicine.


So WADA have incorporated a vehicle into their procedures to accommodate athletes who are taking drugs that are on the banned list. I'm pretty sure if she had a TUE we'd have heard about it by now and I'm equally sure that if the medicine in question is not approved outside of the Eastern Bloc then you won't be getting a TUE anytime soon.   And surely she'd have been drug tested before, and therefore declared this legitimately prescribed medication on the paperwork, just as I would if I was being D & A tested at work, so there must be a record of it somewhere. 

For a professional athlete who depends on her health for a living and probably has the pick of the world's sports doctors and support networks available to her this really does seem to have been incredibly badly handled.  Or the story is just a load of old pony.


----------



## dewsweeper (Mar 10, 2016)

Delboy,
I have lived in Cheshire since 1977, love the rural life.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Mar 10, 2016)

So be a drug cheat..and be rewarded with Head


----------



## Del_Boy (Mar 10, 2016)

dewsweeper said:



			Delboy,
I have lived in Cheshire since 1977, love the rural life.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed - mind you I love the smoke and wouldn't want to work anywhere else but wouldn't want to live there.


----------



## larmen (Mar 11, 2016)

Blue in Munich said:



https://www.wada-ama.org/en/what-we-do/science-medical/therapeutic-use-exemptions

Athletes may have illnesses or conditions that require them to take particular medications.
If the medication an athlete is required to take to treat an illness or condition happens to fall under the Prohibited List, a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) may give that athlete the authorization to take the needed medicine.

Click to expand...

Is anybody else shocked that the prohibited list is only 8 pages long, with much of it being explanation rather than list of names and active ingredients? I expected it to be a bit like the yellow pages going on and on.

I am also quite surprised that none of my stuff is on there. I had researched TUE previously, but UKA says that if you are not at the sharp end you don't really need one and can get one once you are tested. They don't care about my parkrun efforts on the weekend until I hit 14ish minutes, and I am further away than ever. I need some Maria's good stuff I think.


----------



## Snelly (Mar 11, 2016)

Bunkermagnet said:



			So be a drug cheat..and be rewarded with Head

Click to expand...

Indeed.  Very poor from Head.

A great reaction from Andy Murray though.  Well said.  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tennis/2...-dismayed-at-head-supporting-maria-sharapova/


----------



## Pin-seeker (Jun 8, 2016)

Receives a 2yr ban.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Jun 8, 2016)

Pin-seeker said:



			Receives a 2yr ban.
		
Click to expand...


So she should to. Can't belive she actually thought she would get away with it.


----------



## ger147 (Jun 8, 2016)

Next stop CAS to appeal the length of the ban.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Jun 8, 2016)

She can appeal the length of ban all she wants, but she is officially a drugs cheat.


----------



## Fish (Jun 8, 2016)

Has she got 2 years at the top level left in her?


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Jun 8, 2016)

Fish said:



			Has she got 2 years at the top level left in her?
		
Click to expand...

Maybe..maybe not. Butu she won't be sponsered for the 2 years though.


----------



## chrisd (Jun 8, 2016)

So, do we all accept now that she is a drugs cheat?


----------



## Pathetic Shark (Jun 8, 2016)

I think she should only be allowed back if she undergoes a full "medical examination".  I would like to volunteer for this task.


----------



## larmen (Jun 8, 2016)

Bunkermagnet said:



			Maybe..maybe not. Butu she won't be sponsered for the 2 years though.
		
Click to expand...

Would you take a bet on it? I wouldn't.

It's funny. She was the 1st one caught, already admitted she took it after the ban date, then all the others found a loop hole. I hope they close these holes so all of them (in future) can get the ban they deserve.


----------



## Kellfire (Jun 8, 2016)

chrisd said:



			So, do we all accept now that she is a drugs cheat?
		
Click to expand...

The ITF don't even think that as they said she didn't act intentionally. In this case cheating would be an intentional act.


----------



## freddielong (Jun 8, 2016)

Fish said:



			Has she got 2 years at the top level left in her?
		
Click to expand...

Depends what "supplements" she takes.


----------



## freddielong (Jun 8, 2016)

Kellfire said:



			The ITF don't even think that as they said she didn't act intentionally. In this case cheating would be an intentional act.
		
Click to expand...

She like any other athlete is solely responsible for what goes into her body she is a cheat.


----------



## Beezerk (Jun 8, 2016)

Bunkermagnet said:



			Maybe..maybe not. Butu she won't be sponsered for the 2 years though.
		
Click to expand...

Nike are backing her from what I've read.


----------



## Crazyface (Jun 9, 2016)

Beezerk said:



			Nike are backing her from what I've read.
		
Click to expand...

I'm with her too. The most stunning female tennis player ever. Still single I believe....whilst she is I can still dream:thup:


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jun 9, 2016)

Beezerk said:



			Nike are backing her from what I've read.
		
Click to expand...


Nike have form. Happy to sponsor Gatlin.


----------



## Kellfire (Jun 9, 2016)

freddielong said:



			She like any other athlete is solely responsible for what goes into her body she is a cheat.
		
Click to expand...

Sadly that isn't your call to make, and the people that do make it have said it wasn't an act of cheating per se. Sorry. Don't let it get to you.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jun 9, 2016)

This was part of the report, from the BBC website

"In a letter she wrote to the panel before the hearing, Sharapova  admitted she took 500mg of meldonium on 18, 20, 22, 24 and 26 January  this year: the days on which she played her five matches at the  Australian Open.

The panel concluded that the "manner of its use,  on match days and when undertaking intensive training, was only  consistent with an intention to boost her energy levels... which must  inevitably lead to the conclusion she took Mildronate (a brand name for  meldonium) for the purpose of enhancing her performance".

Sounds very much like cheating to me.


----------



## Ethan (Jun 9, 2016)

Lord Tyrion said:



			This was part of the report, from the BBC website

"In a letter she wrote to the panel before the hearing, Sharapova  admitted she took 500mg of meldonium on 18, 20, 22, 24 and 26 January  this year: the days on which she played her five matches at the  Australian Open.

The panel concluded that the "manner of its use,  on match days and when undertaking intensive training, was only  consistent with an intention to boost her energy levels... which must  inevitably lead to the conclusion she took Mildronate (a brand name for  meldonium) for the purpose of enhancing her performance".

Sounds very much like cheating to me.
		
Click to expand...

The argument she was taking this for a bona fide medical reason is laughable. 

She lives in the US where the standards of medical care are excellent and there would be no need to use this crappy so-called medicine which is only approved in eastern Europe. No proper western doctor would touch it with a bargepole. 

She may have genuinely missed the info that it was banned from Jan 2016, but it was her job to know, so tough luck. End of career.


----------



## Kellfire (Jun 9, 2016)

Lord Tyrion said:



			This was part of the report, from the BBC website

"In a letter she wrote to the panel before the hearing, Sharapova  admitted she took 500mg of meldonium on 18, 20, 22, 24 and 26 January  this year: the days on which she played her five matches at the  Australian Open.

The panel concluded that the "manner of its use,  on match days and when undertaking intensive training, was only  consistent with an intention to boost her energy levels... which must  inevitably lead to the conclusion she took Mildronate (a brand name for  meldonium) for the purpose of enhancing her performance".

Sounds very much like cheating to me.
		
Click to expand...


She took it to enhance performance, yes. She's only intentionally cheating if she didn't know it was banned. Before it was banned it was no different to eating a banana or taking multi-vitamins in terms of "cheating".

Does anyone really think she'd take it on all five match days, knowing how often they get tested, had she known it was banned? I don't believe she'd fly that close to the wind in a time when tennis is under such scrutiny. And the ITF agree with me, as they said they don't believe she was taking it in the knowledge that it was banned.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jun 9, 2016)

Stupidity isn't a valid excuse.


----------



## Ethan (Jun 9, 2016)

Kellfire said:



			She took it to enhance performance, yes. She's only intentionally cheating if she didn't know it was banned. Before it was banned it was no different to eating a banana or taking multi-vitamins in terms of "cheating".

Does anyone really think she'd take it on all five match days, knowing how often they get tested, had she known it was banned? I don't believe she'd fly that close to the wind in a time when tennis is under such scrutiny. And the ITF agree with me, as they said they don't believe she was taking it in the knowledge that it was banned.
		
Click to expand...

Did Tiger think he could, ahem, befriend every cocktail waitress in Orlando and not get caught? Sure he did.

It is hubris and God complex - normal rules don't apply to them.


----------



## bluewolf (Jun 9, 2016)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Stupidity isn't a valid excuse.
		
Click to expand...

It apparently is if you're tall, blonde and good looking...... Lucky me.....


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jun 9, 2016)

Kellfire said:



			She took it to enhance performance, yes. She's only intentionally cheating if she didn't know it was banned. Before it was banned it was no different to eating a banana or taking multi-vitamins in terms of "cheating".

Does anyone really think she'd take it on all five match days, knowing how often they get tested, had she known it was banned? I don't believe she'd fly that close to the wind in a time when tennis is under such scrutiny. And the ITF agree with me, as they said they don't believe she was taking it in the knowledge that it was banned.
		
Click to expand...

She knew it was performance enhancing, she took it because it was performance enhancing, so did she not suspect that a performance enhancing drug might be banned and so check.

I don't keep up with changes to the rules of golf that well.  That won't stop me getting DQ'd if I break a rule that wasn't a rule break 20yrs ago.  I need to keep up.  As said - ignorance - deliberate or otherwise - is no excuse.


----------



## ger147 (Oct 4, 2016)

Sharapova ban reduced from 2 years to 15 months after her appeal to CAS so she'll be back on the court by April next year.


----------



## guest100718 (Oct 4, 2016)

Nice


----------



## freddielong (Oct 5, 2016)

ger147 said:



			Sharapova ban reduced from 2 years to 15 months after her appeal to CAS so she'll be back on the court by April next year.
		
Click to expand...

Terrible decision it should have been increased not reduced, cheating is cheating and sorry I didn't realise I couldn't kick my ball back on the fairway doesn't cut it.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 5, 2016)

freddielong said:



			Terrible decision it should have been increased not reduced, cheating is cheating and sorry I didn't realise I couldn't kick my ball back on the fairway doesn't cut it.
		
Click to expand...

But you wouldn't be DQ'd for 2 years, just one game, she messed up and has been punished, whether it's 1, 2 or 10 years, still guilty.


----------

