Five-time Grand Slam champion Maria Sharapova has been banned from tennis for two years by the International Tennis Federation (ITF) for her use of meldonium, a substance that just went on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited Substances list in January.
The suspension will be backdated to January 25, 2016, the date she provided the urine sample at the Australian Open that tested positive. She is immediately appealing the ruling to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
“I cannot accept an unfairly harsh two-year suspension,” Sharapova wrote on her Facebook page. “I intend to stand for what I believe is right and that’s why I will fight to be back on the tennis court as soon as possible.”
Sharapova was eligible to be banned for up to four years. A two-year suspension, while incredibly significant for such a high-profile athlete late in her career, does indicate that her usage of meldonium was “unintentional.”
Maria Sharapova’s Intentions Are IrrelevantSports by CREDIT: Damian Dovarganes, AP As you’ve no doubt heard by now, the world’s highest-earning female athlete is…thinkprogress.orgThe ITF laid out its decision in a 33-page document released on Wednesday that shines a lot more light on the confounding case that became public when Sharapova held a press conference to announce the positive test in March. In determining the degree of the punishment, the tribunal was focused in on why Sharapova was taking the drug, whether she was forthright about her usage, and what steps she took to monitor the Prohibited List.
Why Was Sharapova Taking Meldoinum?
The tribunal found that Sharapova initially began taking meldonium in 2006, when she went to Dr. Anatoly Skalny in Russia because she was suffering from recurring viral illnesses. Dr. Skalny diagnosed her with immune deficiency, mineral metabolism disorder, and loss of energy, and prescribed her meldonium as part of a treatment plan that initially included 18 medications and supplements. Meldonium was supposed to be taken for periods of 7–14 days on a recurring basis, especially when she was suffering from fatigue or overexertion.
Ultimately, the ITF tribunal concluded that Sharapova initially “did not seek treatment from Dr. Skalny for the purpose of obtaining any performance enhancing substances, but for the treatment of her recurrent viral illnesses.”
[Her meldonium use] is only consistent with an intention to boost her energy levels.
But Sharapova stopped seeing Skalny in 2012, choosing to stop his treatment plan — which had grown to 30 pills — and instead seeking the advice of a nutritionist. Still, she continued to take meldonium, along with two other substances that Skalny had prescribed. (She did not need a prescription for meldonium, because it is available over-the-counter in Russia.) No doctor was overseeing her use of the medication, and the ITF clearly had an issue with this.
Sharapova would take meldonium regularly during big tournaments — she took it each morning before an Australian Open match in January.
“The manner of its use, on match days and when undertaking intensive training, is only consistent with an intention to boost her energy levels,” the report found, “and the lack of any medical justification must inevitably lead to the conclusion that she took [meldonium] for the purpose of enhancing her performance.”
Why Didn’t Sharapova Disclose Her Meldonium Usage?
After leaving Dr. Skalny’s care in 2013, the only two people who knew about Sharapova’s ongoing meldonium usage were her father and her agent, Max Eisenbud.
“She has no excuse for failing to disclose her use of [meldonium] or to seek advice from a specialist doctor as to whether its continued use in competition was permissible,” the report stated. “The tribunal finds it hard to credit that no medical practitioner whom she consulted over a period of three years… asked her what medications she was taking. In any event Ms. Sharapova should have disclosed that she was regularly using [meldonium] in case there was a possibility of adversely affecting another treatment prescribed.”
In March, Sharapova's team suggested that she'd taken Mildronate once or twice a year, for 4-6 weeks. Ruling suggests otherwise
— Simon Cambers (@scambers73) June 8, 2016
The tribunal found this to be a “deliberate decision to keep secret from the antidoping authorities the fact that she was using [meldonium].”
But as Daniel Kaplan of Sports Business Journal points out, the substance was legal from 2013–2015, so why would she need to hide it? At best, that could be considered an irrelevant point. The ITF didn’t see it that way, though. The tribunal clearly found her secrecy alarming and irresponsible, and noted that if she had been more open with her team and doctors about the use of the drug, she would likely still be playing tennis today.
“If she had not concealed her use of [meldonium] from the anti-doping authorities, members of her own support team and the doctors whom she consulted, but had sought advice, then the contravention would have been avoided,” the report concluded. “She is the sole author of her own misfortune.”
Did Sharapova Know That Meldonium Was On The Banned Substance List?
This really is the crux of the issue. After all, Sharapova definitely took this illegal substance, and never has denied that. But did she do so knowingly? Ultimately, the ITF concluded that she did not, which is why it reduced the ban from four years to two.
“It is accepted by the ITF that her belief was that [meldonium] was not a Prohibited Substance,” the report stated.
The tribunal rejects Mr. Eisenbud’s evidence
However, they didn’t decide that she was blameless for her ignorance. While Sharapova argued that the emails she received did not properly alert her to the fact that meldonium was being added to WADA’s list of banned substances, the ITF felt that the information was readily available. Furthermore, the tribunal came down hard on Eisenbud, who told officials that he knew Sharapova was on meldonium and was the person in charge with cross-checking her medications with WADA’s list each year. However, he claimed that he had not done so this year because he was in the middle of a divorce, and therefore had skipped his usual offseason routine — which included a vacation to the Caribbean.
The tribunal is not required to accept evidence which it finds to be wholly incredible. The idea that a professional manager, entrusted by IMG with the management of one of its leading global sporting stars, would so casually and ineptly have checked whether his player was complying with the anti-doping programme, a matter critical to the player’s professional career and her commercial success, is unbelievable. The tribunal rejects Mr. Eisenbud’s evidence.
Ultimately, though, Sharapova was in charge of making sure that there was a proper system in place to check the updated WADA list each year. She did not.
“On the findings of fact set out above the player cannot prove that she exercised any degree of diligence, let alone utmost caution, to ensure that her ingestion of [meldonium] did not constitute a contravention,” the report concluded. “Her conduct was serious in terms of her moral fault and significant in its causative effect on the contravention.”
What’s Next?
Overall, this report does not look good for Sharapova (or Eisenbud). She has a reputation as an extremely put together, detail-oriented person in control of every aspect of her life and career, so it’s shocking that she would proceed with such carelessness with an issue as serious as doping.
But it’s important to remember that as damaging as some of the facts of the case seem on the surface, the ITF did determine that this was an “unintentional” offense.
Her lawyer believes that she has a good chance to get the suspension reduced upon appeal, an act that would not be unprecedented.
“[W]hile I am pleased with the ITF’s unanimous ruling about Maria’s lack of intent to violate the rules, 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,” John Haggerty said. “I believe that at CAS, which is made up of an arbitrator selected by Maria, one selected by the ITF and a neutral arbitrator selected by CAS, Maria’s suspension will be reduced and she will return to tennis sooner.”
If the ban is upheld, Sharapova won’t be able to return to tennis until late 2018. She’ll be 30 at that time, but these days success after 30 is more the norm than the exception. Whether or not we see Sharapova back on a tennis court contending for Grand Slams, one thing is for sure: Her legacy just got a lot more complicated.
Update:
Nike, which suspended its relationship with Sharapova after she first announced the positive doping test, announced on Wednesday that it was resuming its partnership with her:
Breaking: Nike says it will lift contract suspension and continue to back Maria Sharapova, following ITF ban today. pic.twitter.com/JoaO0GdvEb
— Sara Germano (@germanotes) June 8, 2016