Now, let me say it loud to the outrageously large number of people who:
- "see" and "hear" what's already in their emotionally driven heads
- like to skip the process of rational thinking
- skipped the classes in which logical fallacies were taught
- have no interest in learning facts
- do not grasp the idea of context
- definitely skipped the logical fallacy and psychology classes in which black-and-white thinking was taught
What I am about to say does not in any way promote the idea that Maria Sharapova did nothing wrong.
We can all agree that Sharapova did something wrong. There are consequences for making mistakes. But, just as our (I'm speaking of the U.S. since that's the country with which I'm familiar) system of justice is deeply flawed and too frequently based on prejudice, weak evidence and hidden (or, these days, not so hidden) agendas, so are other systems. Like the one involving WADA and the ITF.
Whether one thinks that Sharapova is a shameful and dishonest person (and please bear in mind that the Court for Arbitration of Sport does not agree with you), a careless and irresponsible person, or something in between--what she did or did not do is like everything else anyone does or not do: It took place within a context.
When I saw Sharapova's news conference and then heard about the large number of athletes who had been taking the newly banned meldonium, the first thing that struck me was that they were all from eastern European countries and most were from Russia. The second thing that struck me, almost immediately, was that the Olympic Games were forthcoming.
What a coincidence.
I set about to learn about meldonium and discovered that there were no human studies done on the substance, and therefore, there was nothing known scientifically about its effects on athletes. Other studies did indicate that it could possibly boost energy and speed recovery. So, apparently using Trumpian science, WADA banned it.
How unprofessional.
I consulted some physicians and pharmacists, who said they thought the ban was unjustified.
And then, suddenly, dozens and dozens of meldonium-using athletes were told to proceed to Rio--no problem. But not Sharapova. The ITF wanted to give the Russian star a four-year ban, which has to be interpreted as "your career is over." It wound up being a two-year ban.
By this time, my head was spinning. But not just because I didn't understand what was going on. What was really troubling me was the failure of the media--both the sports media and the news media--to investigate this chain of highly questionable events.
In his excellent October, 2016 article in the New York Times, Christopher Clarey quotes now-ITF president David Haggerty, discussing the ITF's refusal of his idea to skip the ITF hearing and take the case directly to the CAS: "The ITF wouldn’t do it because they wanted to have this sham tribunal of three handpicked people go and blast Maria to give the appearance that they are being tough on doping. But this wasn’t a doping case at its heart, so they really did a disservice to Maria, but also a disservice to the system."
There you are.
But that wasn't the end of it. Following the announcement of the ban, WADA president Craig Reedie announced to the world that "For me, the only satisfactory element in Madame Sharapova’s case was that in one year she can earn more money than the whole of WADA’s budget put together."
And the media was again silent, despite the fact that Reedie was displaying a blatantly prejudicial attitude toward Sharapova because she is wealthy.
The CAS, you may recall, declared that Sharapova "bore No Significant Fault or Negligence for her anti-doping rule violation and therefore her ban should be reduced from two years to 'time served.'" In effect, this reduced Sharapova's ban to a period of 15 months.
Having been declared innocent of "doping" in the strict sense that WADA and the ITF intended, Sharapova was free to resume playing on the tour this month. Now, the granting of wild cards to her is the latest "outrage" surrounding the issue. And while I understand the objection to the wild cards in a legitimate doping case (and I might not even agree with them then, but I understand them), Sharapova's record, while not expunged, is not unclean, either.
There has also been a huge call for Sharapova to stop "playing the victim." Most of her comments have had nothing to do with being a victim, but she has indeed made a few comments about being victimized, and I have no problem with them at all.
There is much more that I could say, but the salient factors here are: Sharapova, not known for being a cheater in her sport, failed to follow the rules. The ban, which affected eastern European athletes, was suspiciously called--with no reliable scientific evidence to support it--right before the Olympics. Everyone but Sharapova got to go on with her or his life. The ITF intended to end Sharapova's career, but couldn't. The president of WADA has a problem with Sharapova's wealth.
No matter what you think about Sharapova, what she did or didn't do, and how guilty you think she is, there's no getting around the reality that the entire WADA/ITF process failed to pass the smell test. Even the worst of crimes cannot be handled by a "justice" system this flawed.
I appreciate your post and your very thoughtful rationale for supporting Sharapova.
ReplyDeleteI can't help feel that the massive Russian doping operation that was exposed during this time had something to do with how WADA acted. They were likely looking to make an example of a high profile Russian athlete.
Personally, I have a hard time summing up outrage on behalf of Sharapova as by her admission she took this drug for ten years without once revealing it in her medical records. That is the one point I can't get past. I understand it was only illegal once it was banned but why on earth did she never list it in the ten years she used it?
Also, a multi million dollar managed product like Sharapova cannot claim to run such a sloppy operation. She had to have people on her payroll that were responsible for checking the meds. It is of course likely that none of them knew she was taking Meldonium.
Either way, to me it stinks and I will save my outrage for a more worthy cause.
She disclosed it in her forms for 7 yes and had taken no objection certificate from wada.
DeleteAlso cas says she was not properly informed and she had been open about her use of mildronate in many placed
That's the best short-hand analysis of the situation I've seen Diane. One thing I've wondered, not just about Sharapova but others, is how much psychological dependency on the "drug" in question--either addiction or something akin to it--or even upon the "medical advice" being given plays a role. Just wondering if your training gives you any insight into this?
ReplyDeleteThank you both for your thoughtful comments. The whole thing wss a disaster in every direction, I agree, and we'll never get to the bottom of it.
ReplyDeleteI don't know how to answer your question, jwr, though it's certainly a good one. Since meldonium does have an effect on the heart and is a popular substance in eastern Europe, I'm inclined to think that some took it because of its efficacy (or perceived efficacy--I haven't seen any studies about that), just as many people in the U.S. take substances that may or may not help them. And even if the efficacy was minimal, there may have been a placebo effect.