Russian Tennis Player Maria Sharapova Given Two-Year Doping Suspension

Tennis player Maria Sharapova has been banned for two years following her positive test for a banned substance. The suspension was back-dated to 26 January this year – the day she provided a urine sample after her quarter-final match at the Australian Open

All SwimVortex articles are placed in our archive after five days, the library of content available to subscribers.
Log In Register



Yeah there’s enough holes in Efimova’s case defense to make ricotta cheese.
This 2 years Sharapova ban is certainly not a good news for Yuliya.


I hope you’re right ASwimfan. But I try to not get my expectations up too much lest I be disappointed with more suits lacking spine and integrity.

As for Sharapova, I find it really hard to have any sympathy for this “unintentional” mistake. The dishonesty behind her bizarre excuse is where it really falls apart. If she was really going to come forward and be straight with the public she would acknowledge that yes I took this substance to help my performance. It was not illegal at the time and I wasn’t violating the code. I didn’t realize the rule had come into effect and mistakenly took it after the deadline and so on…. I could say OK Maria originally wasn’t breaking the rules, although she did in a way break the spirit of the rules, at least she’s being honest about it now. She wouldn’t come off great mind you, exploiting was essentially a blind spot in the code and testing regime, but at least she’d be honest (and smart) enough to know the jig was up.

But no, she supposedly took it because her family has a history of diabetes? Does someone with normal blood pressure take medication to treat high blood pressure because their family has a history of heart disease? Of course not. Look at the sheer number of athletes that we know were taking it. We already know why they were taking it. Just admit it and move on. Most of those athletes seem to have been aware and had the common sense to cease taking the drug.


Is the decision available yet?


Good points made by KeithM. I suppose for someone like Sharapova, who is made of marketing, is to admit to taking what is effectively a performance enhancing substance – albeit previously not banned! – is hardly going to go down well. Even if it’s true and everyone does it.

Let’s be honest- how many Olympic swimmers are not taking any supplements or any kind of pills whatsoever? We have already discussed at what point something becomes a PED (Lucozade*? it certainly claims to help performance! *Other brands are available), so erring on the side of technicality is unlikely to see.

I would be interested to see, given the recent meldonium stories, the prevalence of top level athletes who have “”heart conditions”” compared to the normal population.

Efimova’s dual excuse – I didn’t know it was illegal; and I didn’t take it past December – is nonsensical.

Craig Lord

What constitutes a PED is what’s listed on the WADA banned substances list, stabilo (regardless of any argument over what ought to be there or not) but the trouble extends to inconsistency of application and to some extent a lack of transparency when it comes to why one case merits slap on writ and another a two-year ban for the same substance.


Yes, absolutely Craig, but what I mean is, if someone was to say in an interview “Oh yeah I take all kinds of things that I and my coach believe will enhance my performance, but they’re not on the WADA list so they don’t count as PEDs”, it probably is not going to go down very well..

Apologies if I have misunderstood, but is it known precisely that Efimova did not test positive in the January testing? Because that would seem to be quite damning.

Craig Lord

Yes, I see what you mean, stabilo (first parag).
It is understood that the January test did not lead to an adverse finding.

Leave a comment

Post a comment with your SwimVortex Account. Don't have a SwimVortex Account, Sign Up?

(*) Fields are required!