The final eight words of the independent panel’s conclusion to its report are the most damning for Maria Sharapova.
‘She is the author of her own misfortune,’ states Charles Flint QC, signing off with something of a flourish before publishing his three-man tribunal’s decision.
By doing so he rejects the protestations from one of tennis’s genuine superstars that she made simply an honest mistake in continuing with, as it turns out, the serial use of meldonium after its prohibition on January 1. A two-year suspension is handed down, with the comparatively trivial forfeit of ranking points and £147,000 of prize money from the Australian Open, where she tested positive.
Thereby ends 33 pages of assessment which fairly shreds her reputation as a fair competitor, and is arguably even more damning about the conduct of the man who has masterminded her career and the amassing of her fortune, agent Max Eisenbud.
The one shaft of light in the almost Shakespearean downfall of the charismatic Russian comes in the very last sentence of the judgement. This confirms that she may appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland, an option she immediately went for.
CAS has shown leniency before to tennis players and Sharapova must hope that it does so again. In 2013, for instance, Croat Marin Cilic — found to have inadvertently ingested the banned nikethamide — had his ban reduced from nine months to four months. He went on to win the US Open the following year.
Unless Sharapova gets a similar reduction, pro-rata, it is difficult to see her ever competing seriously again for the sport’s biggest titles, for all her famous iron will.
It could also work the other way, if the World Anti-Doping Agency were to successfully apply for the maximum four-year ban to be imposed. But she has no option — this route must be taken to salvage her career.
If the ruling stands, a player brilliantly determined but with a history of shoulder problems, will be 31 before she participates in a Grand Slam again, the 2018 French Open.
A picture that is both fascinating and disturbing is built up in the ruling of her secretive and extensive use of meldonium (under the trade name Mildronate). No fair-minded person will believe it was for purely therapeutic purposes — the panel certainly did not.
The only people who seemed to know over the years were her one-time doctor Anatoly Skalny, her father Yuri, her manager Eisenbud and, tellingly, Russian Olympic doctor Sergei Yasnitsky. Otherwise she kept her reliance on the Latvian-produced drug to herself, oblivious to the fact that it was outlawed from the start of this year.
That is good news for the reputations of her support team, headed by one of the highest-profile coaches in the world game, Dutchman Sven Groeneveld. The International Tennis Federation is also said to have given adequate warnings of changes to the prohibited substances list last year.
And how Sharapova used meldonium, often consuming it on match days.
‘The lack of any medical justification must inevitably lead to the conclusion that she took Mildronate for the purpose of enhancing her performance,’ says the panel.
At Wimbledon last year, for example. During her run to the semi-finals at the All England Club she took it six times in seven days.
She also admitted taking it before each of the five matches she played when getting through to the same stage of the Australian Open, in doses of 500mg per time.
Of the 24 positive samples for it found in tennis players through the course of 2015 — when it was legal — five were from Sharapova. There are likely to have been other multiple samples provided by individuals.
In 2005, already a Wimbledon champion, she was prescribed 18 different medicines or supplements by Skalny, and five years later that had gone up to 30.
In early 2006, Skalny advised her that during matches ‘of special importance’ she should up her intake to 3-4 pills.
She sacked him in 2010 and cut down her supplements, feeling ‘overwhelmed’, but carried on with her favourite drug.
Despite this she did not disclose it, and it is reported that she omitted to mention it on seven doping control forms between October 2014 and this January.
The ruling also gives other insights, such as her refusal to tick a box allowing samples to be used for research.
‘It does indicate a careful consideration of the form,’ the panel notes. In 2015 she even asked WTA medics for advice on a nasal spray, but never mentioned meldonium.
From 2013, Eisenbud — who also represents Laura Robson, among others — knew of her usage. He claimed he was unaware of changes to the 2016 list because he was preoccupied by separating from his wife, and therefore did not take his usual Caribbean vacation, where curiously he used to review such matters.
He takes a degree of responsibility but his testimony is deemed contradictory and witheringly rejected.
A lack of due diligence runs through the affair, incredible for such a remarkable, famously professional athlete.
Sharapova is as tough as a pair of steel-capped Russian army boots, but this will take a lot of coming back from. – Daily Mail