Jump to content
The World News Media

Maria Sharapova suspended 2 years over positive doping test


Guest Nicole

Recommended Posts

  • Guest
Guest Nicole

 

Maria Sharapova was suspended for two years by the International Tennis Federation on Wednesday, for testing positive for the banned substance meldonium.

She immediately responded by saying she would appeal the decision.

The ruling by an independent three-person panel appointed by the ITF said Sharapova, 29, did not intend to cheat but that she bore "sole responsibility'' and "very significant fault'' for the positive test.

"The ITF tribunal unanimously concluded that what I did was not intentional," Sharapova said in a statement. "The tribunal found that I did not seek treatment from my doctor for the purpose of obtaining a performance enhancing substance. The ITF spent tremendous amount of time and resources trying to prove I intentionally violated the anti-doping rules and the tribunal concluded I did not. You need to know that the ITF asked the tribunal to suspend me for four years -- the required suspension for an intentional violation -- and the tribunal rejected the ITF's position."

The ITF, last month before the tribunal, asked for Sharapova to be suspended for four years, but the rules state that she could not be suspended for longer than two years if it was deemed that her use of the drug was not intentional.

"I cannot accept an unfairly harsh two-year suspension," Sharapova said. "The tribunal, whose members were selected by the ITF, agreed that I did not do anything intentionally wrong, yet they seek to keep me from playing tennis for two years."

The WTA issued a statement on the ruling, saying in part, "It is important at all times for players to be aware of the rules and to follow them. In this case, Maria has taken responsibility for her mistake from the outset. The WTA supports the process that the ITF and Maria have followed."

i.jpeg

Maria Sharapova announces her failed drug test during a news conference in Los Angeles in March. Jayne Kamin-Oncea/USA TODAY Sports

Sharapova and the Russian team had hoped she would be cleared in time to compete at the Olympics in Rio de Janeiro in August, but after the ruling, Russian Tennis Federation president Shamil Tarpischev told the Tass news agency that Ekaterina Makarova would replace her.

She was provisionally suspended by the ITF in March, when she announced she failed a doping test in January, at the Australian Open. Sharapova maintained that she was unaware that the drug she had been taking since 2006, mildronate, was also known as meldonium. That drug became a banned substance on the World Anti-Doping Agency's list as of Jan. 1.

Her lawyer, John Haggerty, said Sharapova took the substance after that date.

In addition to Sharapova's testing positive at the Australian Open, the ITF said she also failed a test for meldonium in an out-of-competition control in Moscow on Feb. 2.

"I am disappointed that the ITF tribunal gave Maria an unfairly harsh suspension because she is such a famous athlete and they wanted to make an example out of her," Haggerty said in a statement Wednesday, adding that he believes Sharapova's suspension will be reduced at her appeal.

Sharapova said in March she had started using the drug, which boosts blood and oxygen flow, under a doctor's guidance a decade ago because of irregular electrocardiogram results and a family history of heart issues and diabetes.

The governing body argued that Sharapova's records with the doctor ended in 2013, yet she continued to take the drug.

The appeal will be sent to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, where three judges will make the ruling. Both Sharapova and the ITF get to choose one of the judges. The decision will be binding.

By rule, Sharapova had to be suspended at least one year because she did not dispute that she took mildronate after Jan. 1, when it appeared on the banned list.

The sentence will be retroactive to the Australian Open, so if Sharapova's original suspension is kept, she will sit out through the 2018 Australian Open. That would mean she would be 31 years old when she competes in her next Grand Slam tournament.

A five-time major winner, Sharapova's last big win came at the 2014 French Open. She hasn't played since a quarterfinal loss to Serena Williams at the Australian Open and is ranked 26th this week.

The tribunal's ruling, as long as it's not reversed on appeal, could be worth a lot of money to Sharapova because of the finding that her use wasn't performance-enhancing. When she announced her positive test, her endorsement deals with Nike and Porsche were suspended.

Nike said in a statement Wednesday that it had lifted her suspension based on ITF's findings, but did not know whether it planned to use her soon. "Based on the decision of the ITF and their factual findings," the statement said, in part, "We hope to see Maria back on court and will continue to partner with her."

One of her other endorsers, Head, said Wednesday it will continue to stand by Sharapova, calling the ITA's decision flawed.

Evian also has continued using the tennis star, while watchmaker Tag Heuer elected not to renew its deal at the start of this year and Avon, the manufacturer of beauty and personal care products, announced it would not extend a partnership that was set to expire.

Despite Sharapova being off the court, the narrative of her suspension could affect her own brand; her "Sugarpova" line of gummy candy and most recently chocolate have gained worldwide distribution.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Source: http://espn.go.com/tennis/story/_/id/16044538/maria-sharapova-suspended-two-years-international-tennis-federation-positive-drug-test-meldonium

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 399
  • Replies 0
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Popular Days

Posted Images

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...




  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • … and donchew forget now … the GB now allows Sisters to come to meetings and go out in field service in slacks or Mumus.  Or slacks AND Mumus, if poundage appropriate. Did I ever mention I once dated a Sister that made Mumus out of parachutes? She was an Opera singer, and had a UN diplomatic passport. She was on “speed”, couldn’t blink, and typed 600 words a minute with 100% errors. Occasionally she would get lipstick in her eyebrows.  
    • In my perspective, when the Smithsonian Magazine covers a topic, I am inclined to trust their expertise. As for the shadows here, I see no benefit in entertaining irrational ideas from others. Let them hold onto their own beliefs. We shouldn't further enable their self-deception and misleading of the public.  
    • Hey Self! 🤣I came across this interesting conspiracy theory. There are scholars who firmly believe in the authenticity of those artifacts. I value having conversations with myself. The suggestion of a mentally ill person has led to the most obscure manifestation of a group of sorrowful individuals. 😁
    • I have considered all of their arguments. Some even apply VAT 4956 to their scenarios, which is acceptable. Anyone can use secular evidence if they genuinely seek understanding. Nonetheless, whether drawing from scripture or secular history, 607 is a plausible timeframe to believe in. People often misuse words like "destruction", "devastation", and "desolation" in an inconsistent manner, similar to words like "besiege", "destroy", and "sack". When these terms are misapplied to man-made events, they lose their true meaning. This is why with past historians, the have labeled it as follows: First Capture of Jerusalem 606 BC Second Capture of Jerusalem 598 BC Third Capture of Jerusalem 587 BC Without taking into account anything else.  Regarding the second account, if we solely rely on secular chronology, the ancient scribes made military adaptations to align with the events recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles. However, the question arises: Can we consider this adaptation as accurate?  Scribes sought to include military components in their stories rather than focusing solely on biblical aspects. Similarly, astronomers, who were also scholars, made their observations at the king's request to divine omens, rather than to understand the plight of the Jewish people. Regarding the third capture, we can only speculate because there are no definitive tablets like the Babylonian chronicles that state 598. It is possible that before the great tribulation, Satan will have influenced someone to forge more Babylonian chronicles in order to discredit the truth and present false evidence from the British Museum, claiming that the secular view was right all along. This could include documents supposedly translated after being found in 1935, while others were found in the 1800s. The Jewish antiquities authorities have acknowledged the discovery of forged items, while the British Museum has not made similar acknowledgments. It is evident that the British Museum has been compelled to confess to having looted or stolen artifacts which they are unwilling to return. Consequently, I find it difficult to place my trust in the hands of those who engage in such activities. One of the most notable instances of deception concerning Jewish antiquities was the widely known case of the ossuary belonging to James, the brother of Jesus. I was astonished by the judge's inexplicable justification for acquittal, as it was evident that his primary concern was preserving the reputation of the Jewish nation, rather than unearthing the truth behind the fraudulent artifact. The judge before even acknowledged it. "In his decision, the judge was careful to say his acquittal of Golan did not mean the artifacts were necessarily genuine, only that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Golan had faked them." The burden of proof is essential. This individual not only forged the "Jehoash Tablet," but also cannot be retried for his deceit. Why are they so insistent on its authenticity? To support their narrative about the first temple of Jerusalem. Anything to appease the public, and deceive God. But then again, after the Exodus, when did they truly please God? So, when it comes to secular history, it's like a game of cat and mouse.  
  • Members

    • Col310

      Col310 0

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Anna

      Anna 5,083

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • JW Insider

      JW Insider 9,752

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Mic Drop

      Mic Drop 95

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • T.J

      T.J 0

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      159.4k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,680
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Col310
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.