Sharapova Acute angina!

1) How was Sharapova unaware that meldonium was banned?
It beggars belief that an elite sportswoman, who employs a legion of advisers, physios and support staff, remained entirely unaware of the new list, which is published in October every year. If they had scanned the list and, as she claims, she was taking the substance for legitimate medical reasons, it would have given them three months to apply for a Therapeutic Use Exemption that would have allowed her to carry on taking it

2) Did she ever put meldonium down on her sample collection form?
When they give a sample, athletes are encouraged to write down any medication they are taking, whether or not it is on the prohibited list. Did Sharapova include meldonium on that form over the 10 years she was taking it? It is not mandatory to do so. But if she did not, then why on earth not?

3) Why did she start taking the drug, for how long and how often did she take it?
In her bravura press conference, Sharapova said several of her electrocardiography (EKG) tests were irregular and she was magnesium deficient, which prompted her doctor to prescribe the drug in 2006. But on Tuesday, the manufacturers said a typical course only lasts for four to six weeks. It is now incumbent on Sharapova or her team to explain whether she was taking meldonium for that entire period. If not, when was she taking it for and for how long? Nor is the drug licensed for sale in the US (or, indeed, the UK). So where was it prescribed and where did she get it?

4)Was she aware of the performance benefits?
Sharapova said in passing that the drug was not performance-enhancing for her. And yet Wada only added it to the list after concluding definitively that it has performance-enhancing properties. Explaining why, UK Anti-Doping’s head of science and medicine, Nick Wojek, said: “If you increase the blood flow to your heart there could be an increase in heart function and physical work capacity. If you’re increasing the blood flow to the heart and muscles, it brings into play endurance and potentially increasing your aerobic capacity.” Again, it seems unlikely that Sharapova could take the drug for 10 years, on and off, and not be aware of its potential performance-enhancing effects

5) Did she ever apply for a TUE?
A Therapeutic Use Exemption allows athletes taking a banned substance if they have a legitimate medical reason to do so. Given the way it has been exploited as a grey area by some, the entire TUE process has also come under scrutiny. But under the rules as they stand there are four conditions that allow an athlete to apply for a TUE after a positive test: if there was an emergency treatment or treatment for an emergency condition, an exceptional circumstance that would mean the athlete didn’t have the opportunity to submit a TUE application, if it was a low-level athlete (not applicable here) and, finally, a catch-all “fairness” provision that would allow Wada or the ITF to grant a retroactive TUE if they believed it was fair to do so. Has Sharapova applied for a TUE? If she has, was her application therefore refused?
Guardian services

Muahahaha wrote: »

Not only that we had the BBC/Buzzfeed investigation of gambling irregularities only a few days before the Australian Open began in January this year. In that scandal it was said that there was eight tennis players competing at the tournament who had previously taken bribes to throw sets. It's been said that match fixing has taken place even at the highest levels. Novac Djockivic then came out and said he had been offered a bribe back in 2008 and refused it point blank. There wasn't exactly an avalanche of other tennis players coming out talking about the bribes they refused like Djockivic did but it makes sense that if gambling syndicates were trying to get to the world no.1 then they were also trying to get to every other player they could, no ranking was too high for them to try set up a fixed match. iirc a lot s suspicion fell on Lleyton Hewitt in the Aussie media as he was a tennis player who at 22 looked like he had the world at his feet but then suddenly his career tapered off.

All is not well in the game of tennis it seems.

But the words of Sampras after the 2001 US Open final carried greater prophetic weight. Sampras had not lost as much as he had suddenly become obsolete over three sets.

"The kid is so quick it's unbelievable. I wish I had some of those legs for this old guy.

"I lost to a great champion. You're going to see this Lleyton Hewitt guy for the next 10 years like you saw me."

Soon after Hewitt would become the youngest world No 1, at 20 years and nine months, and if Sampras sounded unusually hyperbolic - and he did not sound as in awe after the more seminal defeat to Federer at Wimbledon that year - it was only because most of tennis felt that way.

That it did not turn out that way has much to do with Hewitt running himself into the ground.

His knees and hips betrayed him first, requiring major surgeries, and then hand, wrist and back problems hurt him.

In February this year he had screws inserted in his left big toe, which left him relearning how to walk. He says he has played the last two years on painkillers; his manager says the last five have not been pain-free.

And so, instead of creating his own golden age, he gently fell in between two, a little less golden for it.

Muahahaha wrote: »

Still though if the allegation of 8 players out of 40 (I think?) at the Aussie Open previously drawing the attention of the betting companies for irregular betting patterns is true then there is something seriously wrong in tennis. And I mean not only are certain players corrupt but that also there are Blazers at the top of the sport who see it as their duty to cover up any scandal and minimise it.

A recent example of this was the head of Irish Tennis who was on RTE on the same day Djockivic told the media that he was offered bribes. She gave an interview on the 6.1 news and categorically stated that absolutely no Irish tennis player has ever fixed matches. It struck me that her instinct was to protect Irish tennis rather than to ask the question that if people are out to bribe the top 50 players then an Irish player who earns €300 a match would be a lot easier to influence. I'm not at all claiming Irish players are up to something but it just struck me the head of Tennis Ireland immediately went into defensive mode rather than keeping an open mind. If that is the kind of attitude that pervades across the administrators of the sport then they will have created a fertile ground for both doping and gambling scams. We all know Andre Agassi admitted to taking crystal meth but got away with a ban because he wrote a letter of apology. The powers that be seemed more interested in protecting one of their biggest draws on the Tour than making sure everyone was playing on a level playing field.

topmanamillion wrote: »

She has an entire team of experts behind her who's job it is to keep an eye on things like this and they missed it, how many of these people does she plan to fire and are there any in particular she holds responsible?

Apparently meldonium can only be taken for 6 weeks at a time and is a short term treatment. She reckons she was on it for 10 years?

Had she declared it as a prescription medication as she is obliged to do?

5) Did she ever apply for a TUE?
A Therapeutic Use Exemption allows athletes taking a banned substance if they have a legitimate medical reason to do so. Given the way it has been exploited as a grey area by some, the entire TUE process has also come under scrutiny. But under the rules as they stand there are four conditions that allow an athlete to apply for a TUE after a positive test: if there was an emergency treatment or treatment for an emergency condition, an exceptional circumstance that would mean the athlete didn’t have the opportunity to submit a TUE application, if it was a low-level athlete (not applicable here) and, finally, a catch-all “fairness” provision that would allow Wada or the ITF to grant a retroactive TUE if they believed it was fair to do so. Has Sharapova applied for a TUE? If she has, was her application therefore refused?
Guardian services