Leander Paes: Pressure

“As a human being, I have never felt pressure. Or rather, you feel pressure but you know how to handle it.”
—Leander Paes.

Independent Tribunal deems Maria Sharapova guilty of negligence: Analysis

Maria Sharapova has been found guilty of committing a doping violation and has been sentenced to a two-year ban period backdated to January 26, 2016—the day she failed her drug test in Melbourne at the Australian Open.

Is the ban justified? Should Sharapova have been dealt with more leniently?

Let’s try and seek some answers, shall we?

The Independent Tribunal appointed by the International Tennis Federation (ITF) consisted of Charles Flint QC, Dr. Barry O’Driscoll and Dr. José A. Pascual.

John J. Haggerty of Fox Rothschild LLP and Howard L Jacobs represented Maria Sharapova and  Johnathan Taylor and Lauren Pagé of Bird & Bird LLP presented the case for the International Tennis Federation.

Sharapova was subjected to an additional out-of-competition test on the 2nd of February, 2016 in which meldonium was discovered as well. For the purposes of the tribunal, the results were treated as a single anti-doping violation.

The judgment rested on four legs of a just table:

“(1) Whether the player can establish that the violation of article 2.1 was not intentional within the meaning of article 10.2.3. If so, then the period of ineligibility to be imposed is 2 years; if not, the period of ineligibility to be imposed is 4 years.
(2) Whether under article 10.5.2 the player can establish that she had no significant fault or negligence, in which case the period of ineligibility may be reduced to a minimum of 1 year.
(3) Whether the ITF is estopped from asserting any fault on the part of the player.
(4) Whether the player can invoke the principle of proportionality so as to avoid or mitigate the sanctions that follow from the rules.”

The ITF’s case rested on whether they could prove that Maria Sharapova knowingly disregarded the risk of contravening the anti-doping rules and thus committed an intentional violation.

Sharapova’s lawyers sought to prove that the ITF were well aware that she had failed a Mildronate test in 2015 and thus she ought to have been warned by the ITF explicitly that she would come under the scanner given that Mildronate had been added to the banned substances list.

The ITF were , however, provided the list of last year’s offenders only in March this year; privacy and security concerns are the reasons offered for the list not being provided to the ITF earlier. This effectively negated any assertion from the defendant that the ITF couldn’t assert any fault on Sharapova’s part.

Sharapova submitted that she was first prescribed the said drug in 2005 by Dr. Anatoly Skalny of the Centre for Biotic Medicine in Moscow. She was prescribed a list of 18 medications in total for a “mineral metabolism disorder, insufficient supply of nutrients from food intake and other abnormalities which made it necessary to boost the immune system.”

The prescription for Mildronate was as follows:

“Mildronate 1-2 X 10, repeat in 2 wks (before training or competition)
1 hr before competition, 2 pills of Mildronate
During games of special importance, you can increase your Mildronate dose to 3-4 pills (1 hr before the match). However, it is necessary to consult me on all these matters (please call)
30 minutes prior to a training session: Mildronat – 1 Capsule. 30-45 minutes prior to a tournament Mildronat 2 capsules”.

The drug was also further recommended whenever:

“complaints arose regarding fatigue related to overexertion,[or] lowering of the immune functions, appearance of inflammatory processes, lab results abnormalities in the fat and carbohydrate metabolism (glucose, cholesterol, insulin), affecting the myocardial functions (magnesium, phosphorus deficiency, elevated AST etc.) 8.”

Dr. Ford Vox expressed the opinion that “Dr. Skalny was, in the light of Ms Sharapova’s family history, justified in prescribing Mildronate both as a cardioprotective agent and as a preventative agent for diabetes.” and that the Russian scientific literature supporting Mildronate’s clinical use to compensate for an immune deficiency was strong.

The medications were verified against the WADA Prohibited List and were found in compliance.

Maria Sharapova at the 2007 Australian Open. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In 2012, Sharapova discontinued her association with Dr. Skalny and retained a nutritionist Nick Harris instead.

She continued to self-medicate though with three substances: Magnerot, Riboxin and Mildronate.

Her nutritionist was not informed that she continued the above drugs.

Sharapova’s use of Mildronate was never disclosed either to WTA or WADA and the only documentation of her use was the correspondence between her and Dr. Skalny.

In 2015, WADA announced that usage of Meldonium would be monitored both in and outside competition.

Six percent of athletes tested positive for Meldonium in 2015 under the monitoring program.

Meldonium was added to the Prohibited Substances List for 2016 on 29 September 2015 by WADA and published on its website.

The ITF published the same on 7 December 2015 on its website.

Plastic wallet cards listing the prohibited drugs were handed over to Sven Groeneveld, Ms Sharapova’s coach by Neil Robinson of the WTA sometime in January 2016.

Two emails were mailed out by the WTA and the ITF respectively to players with references to the 2016 Tennis Anti-Doping Programme but there was no intimation of changes to the Prohibited List or specifically addition of Meldonium to the list.

24 samples taken from tennis players tested positive for Meldonium in 2015 (just over 1% of tennis players)—five of which were Ms. Sharapova’s.

However, results from WADA are reported to sports bodies only on an aggregate basis.This ensures confidentiality of the players’ results.

The ITF had no way of knowing that Meldonium was being used by Sharapova in 2015.

The tribunal found that the decision by Sharapova not to disclose her use of Meldonium on her doping control form was deliberate.

Max Eisenbud, Sharapova’s manager, claims to have no training as to how to distinguish a prohibited substance from a legally allowed drug and that he was encountering personal problems i.e. separation from his wife because of which he did not take his annual vacation which he usually utilized to check his wards’ adherence to the prohibited list and hence failed to review the 2016 list.

The tribunal found Eisenbud’s testimony ‘incredible’.

The triune also found that Sharapova’s continued use of Meldonium was “consistent with an intention to boost her energy levels”.

Did Sharapova intentionally break the rules?

Article 10.2.3 states:

“The term, therefore, requires that the Player or other Person engaged in conduct that he/she knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation or knew that there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an Anti-Doping Rule Violation and manifestly disregarded that risk.”

The tribunal found her use of Mildronate unintentional as per the above Article.

Hence she was not handed a full ban of four years

Was she negligent?

Conscientiousness is the personal responsibility of a player and thus Sharapova’s professed indifference to checking the Prohibited List landed her squarely in the cross-hairs of the tribunal who found her guilty and handed her a ban of two years.

Sharapova sought to invoke estoppel on the basis  that “the ITF (a) failed to notify her of the test results obtained in 2015 (b) failed to distribute the Prohibited List to her and (c) failed to publicise the amendments to the Prohibited List.”

The Tribunal found no basis for this claim.

The Tribunal also found no extreme or unique circumstances under which principles of proportionality could be invoked to reduce the sanction.

The only concession granted to Sharapova is the back-dating of her punishment to the date of her Australian Open failed drug test.

The tribunal concluded:

“The contravention of the anti-doping rules was not intentional as Ms Sharapova did not appreciate that Mildronate contained a substance prohibited from 1 January 2016. However she does bear sole responsibility for the contravention, and very significant fault, in failing to take any steps to check whether the continued use of this medicine was permissible. If she had not concealed her use of Mildronate 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. She is the sole author of her own misfortune.”

The decision of the tribunal can and will  be appealed by the Russian in the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

Source: Text of tribunal verdict on ITF website.

Related articles

• Meldonium in 47 of 49 Russia tests: WADA(theage.com.au)

  ---

• How important is integrity, really?(theglobeandmail.com)

  ---

• Nadal asks for all doping tests to be revealed(abc.net.au)

  ---

• ‘Confident’ Nadal urges to publish drug test results after doping accusation(dnaindia.com)

  ---

• Rafael Nadal requests his drug-testing results be made public(upi.com)

  ---

• Meldonium concentration in Sharapova’s blood sample exceeds permissible levels – minister(tass.ru)

  ---

Federer, Nadal, Djokovic: Generation of greats

Roger Federer couldn’t do it.

Rafael Nadal couldn’t either.

But Novak Djokovic has.

The Serb claimed his first French Open title—his 12th Slam—on his 12th attempt to round off a superb year beginning with Wimbledon 2015, thus holding all four titles at the same time.

It’s a supreme achievement from a supreme athlete.

Andy Murray surpassed himself this year making his first French Open final.

But nothing could stop the incorrigible Nole from getting what he richly deserves—a seat at the pantheon of greats.

Federer has 17, Nadal has 14 and now the Djoker has 12.

Is this the best generation of tennis greats ever?

It sure seems like it.

Why Serena should not be ruled out yet

Is it the beginning of the end for Serena Williams?

Three shots at glory—a 22nd Slam—all gone a-begging.

The US Open last year would have made it a genuine Grand Slam—all four big guns in a calendar year.

It was not to be.

And the next two Slam finals have only seen Serena fall by the wayside to her younger opponents—German Angelique Kerber and Spaniard Garbine Muguruza.

American tennis is on the wane and Serena—their last bastion—is losing her glitter too.

Yes, Serena is not getting any younger. She’s 34—and she’s treading the path that Roger Federer has over the last four years—still competitive but not a real contender.

At least, Federer had the likes of Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray and Stanislas Wawrinka to reckon with.

Williams has no such excuse. She’s still No.1 and she’s expected to dominate her younger opponents.

Is it a mental thing? Is there some fragility , some frailty, not apparent earlier?

It would appear so—every opponent now has the belief that on their day, they can bring the 21-time champion to ground level from her previous stratospheric heights.

Are we being too harsh, too critical already?

Most top 10 women players would give an arm and a limb to have the same kind of results Serena has achieved in the past three Slams.

Yes, Serena’s vulnerable but there’s also a possibility that she can snatch a bigger slice of history once Wimbledon begins in another three weeks.

Lush green grass will tell.

Kiki Bertens makes the French Open semis: Who’s she, really?

Who is Kiki Bertens?

Sure, she’s that unseeded Dutchwoman who’s reeled off 12 wins in a row over the past two weeks to make the semi-finals of the French Open.

She now faces  top seed Serena Williams this afternoon.

We all know that—now.

But where was this wonder-woman prior to this?

What’s her record?

Her best result in a Grand Slam was at the 2014 French Open—again—where she made the fourth round as a qualifier.

It’s on clay that Bertens has really shined—taking a liking to the surface and clinching two WTA singles titles.

That explains a lot.

What’s her head-to-head record against the other three semi-finalists?

Bertens has played Samantha Stosur and Williams just once—losing to them in the Slams—the French Open and the US Open respectively.

She has a much more formidable record against Spaniard Garbine Muguruza holding a 3-0 lead. But these wins were aeons ago—the last one coming in 2014.

But her performances at Roland Garros so far have been stellar.

Australian Open champion Angelique Kerber, Daria Kasatkina , fifteenth seed Madison Keys and eighth seed Timea Bacsinszky.

Can it get better than that?

It surely can.

Maybe Williams will have an off day.

It won’t be easy. Bertens is carrying a left-calf injury.

And then, we could have a new French Open women’s champion.

Samantha Stosur at the 2009 US Open (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Stosur, Muguruza, Bertens.

Take your pick.

Muguruza’s been close before losing last year’s Wimbledon final.

Stosur has the US Open to her credit and has made a French Open final before falling to Francesca Schiavone.

It’s all good for women’s tennis—the more competitive the better.

But the news story of the year , of course, would be Bertens doing a mini-Leicester.

Can she? Will she?

Your guess is as good as mine.

Is Maria Sharapova on her way out?

Maria Yuryevna Sharapova is still hitting the headlines regularly despite not playing.

Why are we surprised?

Ever since she made her debut as a 17-year-old winning Wimbledon on her first attempt, the Russian diva is first among equals when embodying the glamorous side of her sport.

Her Sugarpova label expanded to incorporate not just candy but also eye candy— her own brand of apparel and cosmetics.

Sugarpova chocolate went on sale this May despite Sharapova’s provisional suspension from the sport following a failed meldonium test at the Australian Open this year.

A hearing into the her case was scheduled last Wednesday by the ITF.

The ruling probably hinges on the amount of the banned drug in her system at the time and how lenient or strict the governing body is about her continuance past the official ban date. WADA subsequently backtracked from tarring all barred athletes with the same brush when it was discovered that the drug could lie latent in the system for months after its use was discontinued.

Can Sharapova play again? Will she?

Speculation about her future has already begun in the media with commentators and administrators joining the media circus.

Former glamour puss Chris Evert chimed in.

She said:

“I think at 29 time is running out for Maria.Look, she started in her teens playing full schedules. I think that motivation and hunger—her hunger even more so has always motivated her to go out and play and that’s what we’ve admired in her so much is the intense hunger that she’s had.
And now that she’s getting a taste of real life. I’m seeing tweets she’s out and about, traveling and going to premieres, modeling and she’s everywhere. And I think as she gets a little taste of the good life who knows if she’s gonna comeback as hungry? I don’t know maybe she’ll have a little bit different attitude.

But at 29 years old and the players are getting better and better. And Maria, if you look at her results the past few years, she’s having more and more losses to players that are ranked below her. And I think she was starting to kind of get a little fragile anyway when this happened earlier this year. So I think it’s gonna be tough (to comeback).”

She added:

“If she comes back hungry and as mentally strong as she always has been then again nothing she can do will surprise me. But at the same time, I just wonder just about how much tennis she’s played in her career and the players getting better. I doubt whether she can get back to number two.”

Novak Djokovic felt otherwise:

“I obviously wish her all the best. I’ve known her for a long time. I feel for her with all that’s happening and I just hope she gets out of this stronger.”

But the most surprising comments have come from her own camp.

Shamil Tarpishchev, president of the Russian Tennis Federation, termed Sharapova’s future “very doubtful” and said that she was in a “bad situation.”

Tarpsichev later withdrew his remarks but doubts linger.

What does the future hold for Sharapova?

Can she return if she’s banned for a year or more?

It’s possible, theoretically.

Serena Williams still competes with the same vigour and determination that she displayed when she first burst on the scene as a 16-year-old.

But she and her sister Venus have enjoyed breaks from the game that other tennis stars would term a luxury.

Roger Federer—notwithstanding his withdrawal from this year’s French Open—continues to perform on the big stage and is ranked among the top three.

Federer, though, has fine-tuned his game over the years turning to Swede Stefan Edberg to help improve his serve-and-volley game. Yes, an old dog can learn new tricks and how. Federer may not have clinched a Grand Slam under his tutelage but he’s always the danger man should Murray, Djokovic or Nadal falter.

Williams is, of course, the supreme woman athlete of her generation. But Sharapova with five Slams has not been less consistent over the past few years.

Surely, she can make a fist of this setback and return stronger to the court.

After all, it is this generation of women players that has seen teenagers relegated to the side-lines as the likes of Kim Clijsters, Li Na, Francesca Schiavone proved  that age is just a number.

Sharapova reworked her serve post a shoulder surgery. She belongs to the school of hard-hitting baseliners.

Can she add more weapons to her arsenal to overcome her younger opponents? Can she add guile and deception to the mix?

Mentally, she’s been right there in the top echelons.

Can she continue in the same vein on her comeback—if and when it happens?

Can Sharapova return?

Yes, she can.

Will she?

Why not?

Why not, you say?

Are you implying that of the 17℅ of Russian athletes tested positive for mildronate were all unaware of the performance-enhancing properties of the drug? Are you unaware that WADA is simply playing catch-up when it comes to listing the numerous synthetic steroids and chemicals that athletes—in this modern age—can and will consume just to get that extra yard of pace, that extra strength, that ounce of stamina, that edge over their competitors? Are fans to believe their PR machinery that they’re simply victims in this ‘arms race‘ of another kind?

Are they that gullible? Really?

Arthur Ashe: Living and life

“From what we get, we can make a living. From what we give, we make a life.”
—Arthur Ashe.

Interview with Musab Abid, Managing Editor of Sportskeeda

Who and what is Musab Abid? Define yourself.

If I had to define myself in one line, it would be – ‘A tennis nut and a writer, with a bunch of obsessive compulsive disorders that make me perfectly suited to correcting mistakes wherever I find them.’

Musab, you’re currently Managing Editor with Sportskeeda. What prompted you to quit your job with KPMG as a Tax Executive , throw it all up as it were, and join a start-up like SK? Did you have any apprehensions while making that decision?

I have always loved writing and sports, and I didn’t get to be involved much with either of those things at KPMG. It’s not that I hated my job as a Tax Executive; it’s just that Sportskeeda offered me the chance to do so many things that I love. As for apprehensions regarding the fact that SK is a start-up, let’s just say that I’ve always had immense faith in myself and the people I choose to work with. I was always fully confident that SK would turn into a success story with Porush and me at the helm.

As a managing editor at SK, what does your typical day entail?

As much as I’d love to have a ‘typical day‘, the reality is that the term is alien to me now. Every single day brings new challenges, and sometimes I find it hard to predict what I’ll be doing two hours from the present. Whether it’s motivating the team members, evaluating the site metrics, communicating with clients or even editing articles myself, my work changes with every passing minute.

Four years, four months into SK, what are the highlights of your career there?

We’ve seen a lot of important milestones during the time I’ve been at SK. There have been the traffic milestones, the referencing milestones (where SK has been lauded by external sites for our work) and even personnel milestones. I think I personally have had a lot to do with the gradual quality improvement of the site (although there’s still plenty of room for more improvement there), as well as the strength of our social media.

What’s the best part about your job?

The best part about my job is that very little of what I do feels like ‘work‘. Many of the things that I do are what I’d like to do in my leisure time too, which is probably why I end up working a fair bit on the weekends too.

What’s the worst part about it?

I guess the worst part is that with all the day-to-day management work that I have to do, I get very little time to pursue my creative interests – mainly, writing.

It has been remarked that editors can’t write after having to wade through other people’s work. Has that been your experience too, a writer’s block? How do you get over it?

I personally haven’t found it difficult to write because of my editing work. I actually don’t get much time to write these days, as I said above – that’s the only reason why you won’t find too many articles lately on my writer profile.

Sania Mirza in Citi Open Tennis on July 31, 2011 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Recently, you published an interview with Sania Mirza at the Australian Open. Can you tell the readers about your experience meeting India’s tennis diva?

The most striking thing about meeting Sania is that she’s hardly a ‘diva‘ in person. All those stories about her being an arrogant, spoiled child are either fabricated or a result of her forthrightness. She is honest to a fault, almost blunt, and that is refreshing to see in such a high-profile public figure.

What sports are you into besides tennis, of course?

I like cricket a great deal, and I also occasionally follow badminton and F1.

Do you have a fitness routine? Can you tell us about it?

About the only fitness activity I religiously undertake is playing tennis over the weekend – 2 hours each day. I do occasionally hit the gym, and on other days I try to do a small workout at home, but I’ve never been able to do either of those things with regularity.

Besides Sportskeeda, what are your favourite sites on the web?

I love tennis.com mainly because of Steve Tignor, and I also follow Jon Wertheim’s columns on Sports Illustrated. For cricket, Cricinfo has been my go-to destination for about a decade now.

What next for Musab Abid?

Perhaps my worst quality is that I never plan for the future; I’m dangerously fickle-minded. I honestly can’t say with certainty where I’ll be 1 year from now, but I do think it’s a strong possibility that I’ll be helping Sportskeeda take the next big step in its evolution. Either way, I hope that wherever I am, I am doing good work.

Musab Abid is the Managing Editor of SportsKeeda,”the largest all-sports website in India, reporting on more than 30 different sports with a focus on indigenous sports.”

Disclosure: The interview was facilitated via email. Answers are published as-is.

Sania Mirza: What she said, really meant and definitely didn’t

Sania Mirza works out.

What she said:

“Strong is sexy. I don’t think very skinny is attractive. I think healthy, strong and muscular is extremely attractive.”

Sania Mirza is not confused. She’s a tennis player first and then anything else or everything else.

The Indian tennis diva says:

“I have the kind of body that no matter how much weights I lift, I don’t look muscular – not that I have a problem with anyone looking muscular. I don’t bulk up, I don’t have that body shape or type, which is not a good or bad thing, it is what it is. Tennis is my first priority. If I don’t have tennis, I don’t have anything else. I don’t think anyone wants to photograph me if I’m not playing well. Tennis requires me to have a certain level of fitness and strength, and I’ll do everything I can to get there.”

What she really meant:

“Strong is beautiful. Isn’t that the WTA tag line for their promotional video. Can I say otherwise?”

What she definitely didn’t:

“I wonder why tennis players don’t come in ‘petite’ anymore.”

Roger Federer: What he said, really meant and definitely didn’t

Roger Federer totes up Francesco Totti.

What he said:

“It’s a good joke, but there’s some truth in it because, in a certain sense, we belong to another species.”

Roger Federer is feeling his age as he jokingly responds to a reporter’s query whether he and the 39-year-old Roma star, Francesco Totti, should be provided protection by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).

He added:

“Francesco and I embody our respective sports. What he has done for football is unrivalled. He’s an example, a contemporary icon.

No one should tell you when to stop, it’s such an intimate and personal decision.

If he wants to keep on going, I’m right behind him. With me, he’s always been super nice. This year, if I see him, I’ll be asking him for some restaurant tips.”

Totti’s employers are still undecided whether to offer the icon an extension—a record 24th year at Roma.

The Italian is the second-highest ever goal scorer in the Serie A notching up 244 goals. The all-time record holder is Silvio Piola with 274.

What Federer really meant:

“Us ageing superstars of sport—we’re an endangered species , relics of another age. We’re dinosaurs, really.”

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

What he definitely didn’t:

“Totti, myself and Po—we’re Kung Fu Panda 3.”