Early last week saw global sport plunged into yet another high profile scandal as the Gods of controversy set their eyes on one of their biggest scalps yet - sport’s richest woman, Maria Sharapova.
Sharapova revealed during a seemingly heartfelt press conference in a downtown Los Angeles hotel that she has tested positive for Mildronate (or Meldonium), a substance the 5-time grand slam winner claims she had been using for the past 10 years to treat an ongoing health problem. The substance has been found to increase blood flow and the amount of oxygen carried to muscle tissue, thus improving the athlete’s capacity for exercise. On January 1st, the World Anti- Doping Authority (WADA) took the step to add mildronate to its lengthy list of banned substances after finding it present in a number of failed blood samples over the last few years - much to the alleged ignorance of Sharapova and her presumably extensive backroom team.
But to what extent are we to believe in Sharapova’s version of events? Did she really miss the memo or are we looking at something all together more sinister than a simple miscalculation? The situation is far from black and white but you would suggest it’s a safe assumption that someone within her team would be tasked with the responsibility of ensuring any supplements she takes are well within regulations.
The personal and professional implications for Sharapova can’t be understated. Her main two sponsors, Nike and Tag Heuer, have both suspended their contracts and a number of others are under review. Admittedly, this is unlikely to bankrupt her, but an empire that is built on not only her undeniable talent on the tennis court but a personable and successful PR image, it doesn’t take much for the house of cards to topple as other stars such as Tiger Woods and Marion Jones can certainly attest to.
But the questions raised by Sharapova’s case permeate far further than the comparatively small world of tennis’ elite. Why is it we hear about doping cases from sports such as tennis, athletics and cycling, but footballers, cricketers, rugby players get off relatively scot free? The internal and external pressures of life as a sportsperson at the upper echelons of any sport must at times be unbearable to the point of at least considering substances designed to alleviate the physical burden imposed by the unrelenting pressures of success.
But from where do these pressures arise? Craig Chalmers, the Father of Sam, a rugby union player who tested positive for two kinds of anabolic steroids, explained of his son’s ban, “There is a lot of pressure on young guys,” Chalmers said. “Sam was desperate to put on weight because they said he was not big enough. The message was that if you are not big enough or strong enough then you don’t get picked. He wanted to put on weight. He did not do it the right way, but he did it because he wanted to take that next step. Just because Sam got banned does not mean that pressure has disappeared.”
Chalmers raises a few pertinent points. Like it or not, sport is a results based business and if you are not pulling your weight, regardless of the reason, it’s fair to expect that over time, chances to prove your worth become lesser and lesser if something is not done to up your game. As the case of Sam Chalmers shows, it’s not everyone that gets caught. While accepting full responsibility, his claims that he was recommended an online supplement called PRO-SD from friends and teammates seem realistic and point towards naivety rather than cheating. This just illustrates how the problem may be far more widespread than a few individuals but there are simply an unlucky few who get caught by the authorities.
In football, Arséne Wenger’s revelation last November once again prompted debate over the effectiveness of UEFA’s doping controls in football after proclaiming to have “never injected my players to make them better” but playing “against many teams that weren’t in that frame of mind”. As thinly veiled as this innuendo may be, the question must be posed, if those in the know won’t expose offenders, then who will?
Last December, then UEFA General Secretary, now FIFA president, Gianni Infantino released a statement outlining UEFA’s intent to tighten the belt buckle on drug cheats in football, citing the leap in the amount of drug tests in all competitions from 692 in 2004/05 to 2,388 in 2014/15. But for all the positive statistics, the voices of dissent seem to ring as true as ever. John Fahey, director general of WADA, recently said rather ominously that, "Team sports players can go their entire career without being tested once”. A worrying trend if true.
There is, of course, almost a reluctance to want to expose what could be so damaging to the sports we invest so much time, heart and money into but the question must be posed, are they not precisely the reasons we should be demanding more clarity? Perhaps the issues must worsen before they improve? With all the rhetoric from sports leading bodies, it would be easy to believe that we are heading for a 100% clean sports world but instinctively, with the amount of money in elite sport, it will only take loss of sponsorship and revenues to really stop the rot and the token regulations applied are simply licks of paint to disguise the damage. Perhaps other sports need a Lance Armstrong type situation before anything really changes.
Sharapova may well have been the victim of a simple miscalculation, but the question remains, how many others are there in the world of sport who have managed to stay ahead of the curve and for how long do we trust in those who continue to peddle the narrative that all is being done to ensure that drug cheats stay out of the games we love?