Maria Sharapova has had her two-year doping ban reduced to 15 months on appeal, allowing the Russian to return to tennis in time for the French Open next year.
The court of arbitration for sport reduced the original two-year ban imposed by an International Tennis Federation tribunal in June after it ruled that the five-times grand slam champion was “the sole author of her own misfortune” in continuing to take meldonium after it had been added to the World Anti‑Doping Agency banned list.
In reducing the ban, however, the Cas panel found that Sharapova’s degree of fault fell short of the “significant” level determined by the ITF and also said it did not agree with many of its decisions.
With Sharapova’s ban having been backdated to when she tested positive for meldonium during the Australian Open, she will be free to return to competition on 26 April.
When she originally revealed she had failed the test at a highly charged press conference in March, there had been speculation over whether she would ever play again.
The Sharapova camp was keen to try to portray the decision as a victory. The player herself declared the ruling one of her “happiest days” while her lawyer John Haggerty called it “a stunning repudiation of the ITF and it exposes the ITF decision for what it is: pure fiction”.
Sharapova’s sponsor Head rushed out a controversial statement from its chief executive Johan Eliasch in which it said it was “very proud” to have stood by the player and said any ban was “wholly unfair”.
The ITF tribunal delivered a stinging verdict in June despite controversy over the status of meldonium. Having added the substance to the banned list, leading to a wave of positive tests, Wada then conceded there was conflicting evidence over how long it could stay in the body and gave a moratorium to some athletes.
That did not affect the Sharapova case, given she did not dispute that she had taken the drug despite it being on the banned list, but added to the general swirl of confusion around the issue.
At the original tribunal, the ITF had argued for a four-year ban. But the Cas panel found that Sharapova had acted reasonably in expecting her agent IMG to assist her in her anti-doping obligations, although she “fell short” by failing to monitor or supervise whether they were doing so. As such, while she was at fault it was not “significant” as the ITF tribunal had originally argued.
The original ruling showed how her agent, Max Eisenbud, had failed to check whether meldonium had been added to the list because he had split up with his wife and therefore not taken his annual vacation, on which he claimed to have habitually made the checks.
While far from exonerating her, the ruling also makes clear that “under no circumstances” can Sharapova be considered to be “an intentional doper”.
However, it did reiterate that she had failed to include the fact that she was taking the substance on her doping control forms.
The original ruling showed that Sharapova was at one point taking more than 30 legitimate substances and supplements, before cutting the number to three – including meldonium.
“I’ve gone from one of the toughest days of my career last March when I learned about my suspension to now, one of my happiest days, as I found out I can return to tennis in April,” said Sharapova, who claimed she had missed several notifications from the ITF that meldonium was to be added to the banned list, and again took aim at the ITF for not doing more to inform her.
“I have taken responsibility from the very beginning for not knowing that the over-the-counter supplement I had been taking for the last 10 years was no longer allowed.
But I also learned how much better other federations were at notifying their athletes of the rule change, especially in eastern Europe where Mildronate is commonly taken by millions of people.”
The court of arbitration for sport reduced the original two-year ban imposed by an International Tennis Federation tribunal in June after it ruled that the five-times grand slam champion was “the sole author of her own misfortune” in continuing to take meldonium after it had been added to the World Anti‑Doping Agency banned list.
In reducing the ban, however, the Cas panel found that Sharapova’s degree of fault fell short of the “significant” level determined by the ITF and also said it did not agree with many of its decisions.
With Sharapova’s ban having been backdated to when she tested positive for meldonium during the Australian Open, she will be free to return to competition on 26 April.
When she originally revealed she had failed the test at a highly charged press conference in March, there had been speculation over whether she would ever play again.
The Sharapova camp was keen to try to portray the decision as a victory. The player herself declared the ruling one of her “happiest days” while her lawyer John Haggerty called it “a stunning repudiation of the ITF and it exposes the ITF decision for what it is: pure fiction”.
Sharapova’s sponsor Head rushed out a controversial statement from its chief executive Johan Eliasch in which it said it was “very proud” to have stood by the player and said any ban was “wholly unfair”.
The ITF tribunal delivered a stinging verdict in June despite controversy over the status of meldonium. Having added the substance to the banned list, leading to a wave of positive tests, Wada then conceded there was conflicting evidence over how long it could stay in the body and gave a moratorium to some athletes.
That did not affect the Sharapova case, given she did not dispute that she had taken the drug despite it being on the banned list, but added to the general swirl of confusion around the issue.
At the original tribunal, the ITF had argued for a four-year ban. But the Cas panel found that Sharapova had acted reasonably in expecting her agent IMG to assist her in her anti-doping obligations, although she “fell short” by failing to monitor or supervise whether they were doing so. As such, while she was at fault it was not “significant” as the ITF tribunal had originally argued.
The original ruling showed how her agent, Max Eisenbud, had failed to check whether meldonium had been added to the list because he had split up with his wife and therefore not taken his annual vacation, on which he claimed to have habitually made the checks.
While far from exonerating her, the ruling also makes clear that “under no circumstances” can Sharapova be considered to be “an intentional doper”.
However, it did reiterate that she had failed to include the fact that she was taking the substance on her doping control forms.
The original ruling showed that Sharapova was at one point taking more than 30 legitimate substances and supplements, before cutting the number to three – including meldonium.
“I’ve gone from one of the toughest days of my career last March when I learned about my suspension to now, one of my happiest days, as I found out I can return to tennis in April,” said Sharapova, who claimed she had missed several notifications from the ITF that meldonium was to be added to the banned list, and again took aim at the ITF for not doing more to inform her.
“I have taken responsibility from the very beginning for not knowing that the over-the-counter supplement I had been taking for the last 10 years was no longer allowed.
But I also learned how much better other federations were at notifying their athletes of the rule change, especially in eastern Europe where Mildronate is commonly taken by millions of people.”
0 Comments:
Post a Comment