You'd think she'd have at least one pro to handle that side of things, not sure about a "team", but then if I think about it, I must say it is very odd if an athlete takes a banned substance, when they know (a) it's now banned and (b) it will certainly show up in their next test.

That's the bit that suggests monumental cockup rather than attempt to cheat, to me. Unless being tested was unlikely, but I thought they all had to provide samples.

We're talking about professional Tennis at the pinnacle here, no way will it be one person's job. There will be at least 4 or 5 people employed; coach, manager/agent, doctor/physio, psychologist, dietician/nutritionalist. They won't be working for peanuts either, one report suggests a wage figure of around one million dollars.

Pro athletes have doping information consistently forced upon them. It's so high profile that it simply isn't an excuse to say 'I didn't know.' I don't believe for one moment that such a high profile athlete with multiple hangers-on, medical team, personal Doctors, PR and general staff would just take any medication without high profile consultation on the subject.

She's been caught, and now trying to damage control everything.

She has been the highest paid female athlete for the last 11 yrs. and is estimated to be worth $200 million.

Her Nike sponsorship is reputed to be $70 million in total and her losses per year, if banned, are reportedly $30 million per year.

She is a veritable cash cow, pardon the pun, and you would have thought it would be in someone's interest to look after her.

She'll no doubt put some spin on it.

If we recall Keiron Cunningham's mitigating circumstances which went along the lines of "unknowingly taken a banned substance" then perhaps this is the similar ? i.e. I have been taking this permitted substance without issue for 10yrs but since Jan its been banned and no-one told me.

However - the piece from Dick Pound suggests that changes to the banned list were first published in Sep 15, so there's a significant time to make sure you're "clean' by Jan 16.

You would assume that someone like Sharapova, at the very top of the game, has people employed to ensure she doesn't take things that are banned.

I find it hard (not impossible, but hard) to believe that an elite sportsperson, in a sport with plenty of money riding on it and where they're paid lots of money, can take something without knowing what's in it or whether that substance is banned or not. Especially in individual sport.

I have no specific knowledge in this case but I have heard (from a sports conditioner) of cases where people have been taking banned substances alongside other substances that are initially legal. They've managed to mask the banned substances but then caught out when one of the initially legal substances they're taking is made illegal because they don't know how to mask it.

I think the smart money goes on her having people to ensure she doesn't get caught.

We're not in the amateur game any more. She's a fully professional athlete. It stands to reason she and every other fully professional athlete will seek to exploit all possible avenues of advantage - legal or not. She would be UN-professional not to. If people didn't want this kind of thing cropping up in sport they should never have agreed to the introduction of professionalism.

I mean, I've yet to hear a single person argue the difference between performance-enhancing and non-performance-enhancing drugs without sounding ridiculous.

She's been earning around £30 million a year with endorsements and corporate sponsorship. Clearly it's been worth the risk. The hypocrisy of those corporate companies is laughable though. They're happy to throw millions at her when she's the apparent golden girl but now she's been caught out they run for the hills as fast as they can to distance themselves from a 'cheat'.

To be fair - BOTH parties know the end-result should the athlete get found out. There can be no complaints from either side.

By the way - did anyone else think Ernie Els [uSIX-PUTTING FROM TWO FEET[/u the first hole at the Masters ... erm ... [istrange?[/i

Adding to the above, I used to work for one of the big four betting companies and got to know several of the guys operating in a hardened IT sub-basement behind three inches of steel. Knowing the way those guys operated they would have been all over that incident like a rash.

People think I'm suspicious. Betting companies are like a privatised KGB.

So what do they make of Leicester City's rise to the top, the demise of Chelsea, or even the poor start from the Rhinos ?

Given the corruption and betting scandals we've heard about already in other areas can we trust anything anymore ?

Well, I'm still waiting for whatever action was promised in the wake of accusations that up to FOUR THOUSAND MATCHES had been fixed in the German Bundesliga.

Another one of these headlines which sink without trace.

Regarding Leicester, whilst the big betting companies take an interest in ANY bet over £20.00 placed either on-line or in a branch (in which case your photo will have been taken) they are less likely to look at performance over a lengthy time period (i.e. a season) than single events within tournaments or matches which are wide open to fixing.

If I could compile a list of criteria which they deem "suspicious" Els six-putt would be right near the top. Big name player (a former champion?). Big tournament. The FIRST HOLE. An extremely unlikely outcome etc. etc.

Of course, we shouldn't forget that happens even to honest people. But I can guarantee that a hell of a lot of processing power will have been devoted to bets placed on Els over the last few weeks (maybe months). If there's any kind of correlation they'll find it. Whether anything will be done about it is another question entirely...

Has this morphed into another fixed thread, or are you taking something and getting yourself muddled up? This isn't the betting thread, where your rather quaint Els conspiracy theory was debunked. It's about Sharapova, isn't it?

Or, have I missed an opportunity - because if I could have got a bet on whether pro tennis players take substances then I'd have been on, but I can't find any bookies willing to give odds

Do you usually wait EIGHT WEEKS before responding to a post?

Don't answer that.

I think the eight weeks is the average time between ANY posts on the Mugwump's blogs page - sorry Sin Bin. You should be grateful, you're almost talking to yourself. Although actually that's all you ever do

Hmmm ... it seems I have at least one obsessed viewer.



But let us play this silly game (which I thought I'd left behind in nursery school):

The Astronomy Thread: (created Sun Dec 20, 2015 11:47 pm) 71 Replies - 5760 views.

The Weird Science Thread (created Mon Feb 22, 2016 10:11 am): 106 Replies - 7081 views.

Tiger Woods - committed adultery (nothing to do with his sport), loses his sponorships etc

Sharapova - Caught with banned substances (potentially giving her an advantage over her opponents) - keeps her sponsors.

Yeah... women are very hard done by in sport, aren't they

"..But let us ..."

FFS.



Yeah you're right. The Sin bin is burgeoning with content, swarming with posters, and has never been more vibrant. Eat your heart out, Twitter. Well done you.

Don't those stats just prove that mugwump posts a lot to that thread and people who browse will typically open a thread if there's a new post?

Maybe a views per post working would settle your squabble.

I'm more than comfortable saying I write for myself first, maybe a dozen people (they know who they are) second - plus anyone else who might be interested (or not).

Whilst I'll own up to the odd guffaw over the irony of threads which are singularly unappetizing to the low-IQ crowd (a.k.a. the majority) outperforming dreary populism - it's not something I attach any real significance to.

Make that 13.

Of course.



No squabble here, if Mugwump wants validation, I'm glad to stand applaud and congratulate him on his remarkable achievement