Sharapova’s doping scandal - are athletes now more concerned about legality than ethics?
Published 17 March 2016 By: Jack Anderson
One week since Maria Sharapova’s admission1 that she had tested positive for a prohibited substance (meldonium), it is time to take stock on what was revealed and what might happen to next.
To recap, the immediate reaction to Sharpova’s admission varied hugely.
It included the coolly scientific,2 explaining that, although the drug is designed for short-term use relating to the effects of diabetes, it has long-term athletic benefits in enhancing a player’s endurance and recovery.
The reaction was also coolly commercial3 in the guise of the various sponsors, notably Nike, who with a swoosh suspended endorsement contracts with Sharapova.
Outside of tennis, some of the commentary has cast more heat than light. For instance, former WADA chief Dick Pound was quoted as stating that the use of meldonium is “widespread” in tennis – a claim that was particularly unhelpful and unsubstantiated.4
Within tennis, the reaction was generally muted though tending towards the sympathetic and even empathic. Serena Williams, for instance, remarking:
“I think most people were happy she was upfront and very honest and showed a lot of courage to admit to what she had done and what she had neglected to look at in terms of the [prohibited] list.”5
Williams’ use of the word “neglect” is interesting. In her press conference announcing the positive test, Sharapova described her actions as “careless”. The implication appears to be that, although Sharpaova ought to have known that meldonium was on the prohibited list from 2016, her continuing use of the substance was not a deliberate act of doping or cheat.
In this regard, the press conference,6 which most thought would concern the Russian’s retirement, was characterised by a very controlled and self-serving performance by Sharapova.
To be fair to her, there were no crocodile tears such as those shed by previous drug cheats such as Marion Jones. The aggressive dismissiveness of Lance Armstrong’s defence – everyone else was doping, I was just better at it – was also absent.
And yet in many ways the Sharapova press conference must be understood as one long, legal plea in mitigation.
In the law of doping, the principle of strict liability applies or to paraphrase Article 2.1.1 of the World Anti-Doping Code 2015 (WADC) anti-doping rule violations can be committed without regard to an athlete’s fault. This means that the athlete is responsible for what they ingest. If that substance is prohibited, that athlete is guilty irrespective of whether they intended to take the substance or did so carelessly or accidently. Moreover, pursuant to Article 10.2 WADC, an athlete can be banned (that is, deemed ineligible to compete) to a maximum of four years for a first offence.
Get access to this article and all of the expert analysis and commentary at LawInSport
Already a member?
Articles, webinars, conference videos and podcast transcripts
This work was written for and first published on LawInSport.com (unless otherwise stated) and the copyright is owned by LawInSport Ltd. Permission is granted to make digital or hard copies of this work (or part, or abstracts, of it) for personal use provided copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage, and provided that all copies bear this notice and full citation on the first page (which should include the URL, company name (LawInSport), article title, author name, date of the publication and date of use) of any copies made. Copyright for components of this work owned by parties other than LawInSport must be honoured.
- Tags: Anti-Doping | Athlete Welfare | Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) | Governance | International Tennis Federation (ITF) | Regulation | Tennis | World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) | World Anti-Doping Code (WADC)
- Top 50 Anti-Doping Articles and Podcasts
- Why ASADA’s removal of Australian athletes’ right to silence is arguably unlawful
- An exclusive interview with the former Court of Appeal judge who helped expose corruption at the IAAF - Episode 34
- Should doping in sport be criminalised? A review of Germany's new Anti-Doping Act
Jack Anderson is Professor and Director of Sports Law Studies at the University of Melbourne. The sports law program at Melbourne was one of the first to be established globally in the mid-1980 and continues to expand at the Melbourne Law School, which itself is ranked in the top 10 law schools globally.
Jack has published widely in the area including monographs such as The Legality of Boxing (Routledge 2007) and Modern Sports Law (Hart 2010) and edited collections such as Landmark Cases in Sports Law (Asser 2013) and EU Sports Law (Edward Elgar 2018 with R Parrish and B Garcia). He was Editor-in-Chief of the International Sports Law Journal from 2013 to 2016.
Jack is a former member of CAS (2016-2019). He is currently a member and arbitrator for World Athletics’ Disciplinary Tribunal, the National Sports Tribunal of Australia and the Football Federation of Victoria. He is a member of International Hockey Federation’s Integrity Unit and Basketball Australia’s National Integrity Advisory Committee. in 2019, he was appointed to the International Tennis Federation’s Ethics Commission and is currently a Board Member of Harness Racing Victoria.