As Sharapova returns, WADA could learn from its handling of meldonium ban

Maria Sharapova makes her return after a 15-month suspension for use of meldonium this week, with the tennis star serving as the most high-profile of those sanctioned for use of the drug.

After hundreds of positive tests in Olympic sports last year, Sharapova remains one of the relative few to be suspended for its use. While the facts of her case differ from the issues the World Anti-Doping Agency faced in determining how long it stays in an athlete’s body, her presence among those testing positive drew attention to WADA’s ban of the drug.

“The whole meldonium saga from beginning to end is very strange, and she’s one of the few athletes who got a really significant sanction from it. A lot of them ended up with nothing,” said Paul Greene, a sports lawyer who handles anti-doping matters around the world.

“It was all over the place. There was no consistency, really. The way it was rolled out was pretty chaotic last year when they hadn’t done the research before they put it on the list.”

Sharapova announced her positive test from the 2016 Australian Open last March, instantly raising awareness to a drug largely unknown in the West.

Meldonium, which also goes by its brand name Mildronate, is a Latvian drug used primarily to treat heart and cardiovascular diseases. WADA monitored its use throughout 2015, and, seeing a high number of athletes taking the drug, added it to the prohibited substance list in September of that year, with the ban in effect starting Jan. 1, 2016.

RELATED:

Russia boasts of better replacements for banned meldonium

Hundreds of athletes, mostly from Eastern Bloc countries where it is legal for use, tested positive, with many protesting they had stopped using the drug before it was banned.

That prompted WADA to conduct studies on the drug’s excretion from the body. In June it issued final guidance allowing that amounts below a certain threshold would be consistent with use before the ban, provided there was no other evidence to the contrary.

Such cases would be no fault or negligence, a classification that counts as an anti-doping rule violation and results in disqualification of results but not in suspension.

WADA declined to provide data on how many positive tests resulted in a no fault or negligence findings. In October, it said there had been 484 positive tests for the drug. (WADA responded after publication of this story that 514 positive tests have been recorded for the drug, all in 2016.)

WADA declined to make director general Olivier Niggli available for an interview.

USA TODAY Sports contacted all 34 international federations for Olympic sports, getting responses from 21. Of 161 cases they reported, 82 resulted in a no fault or negligence finding. Only 11, including Sharapova’s, resulted in a suspension.

“It’s hard to think of another substance that was added to the banned list that created so many problems,” said Howard Jacobs, a sports lawyer who represents athletes around the world and was part of Sharapova’s legal team, “and I think even WADA would concede that it could have been handled better.”

Dionne Koller, director of the Center for Sport and the Law at the University of Baltimore, praised WADA for monitoring for drugs that can enhance performance and for giving clear procedures on how to process cases after a “spotty” rollout.

“Where WADA made its mistake is in a way by just sort of saying we’re going to ban something and it’s going to start Jan. 1, that shifts the burden to the athletes to conduct the science and know how long it can be in your body,” said Koller. “That’s a little bit more of a burden to put on an athlete, and I don’t think (world anti-doping) code puts that burden on the athlete.”

The world anti-doping code does not count no fault or negligence cases as a violation for the purposes of determining multiple violations, so athletes would not have increased sanctions if they test positive in the future.

But the process still presents problems, including reputational harm and provisional suspensions.

Jacobs, who represented several athletes who received no fault findings, pointed to the case of one tennis player who tested positive at decreasing amounts over four months. That player still had to hire an attorney and go through the process.

“In principle, to me, if you stopped taking it in advance of when it was banned, it shouldn’t have even been a no fault case,” Jacobs said. “It should have been a no violation case. Because you never took a banned substance.”

To be sure, the facts of Sharapova’s case differ from those who got relief from sanctions. She tested at a level that would have made her ineligible for a no fault finding, and she admitted to using the drug.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport reduced the initial two-year suspension from the International Tennis Federation, finding anti-doping agencies should have provided clearer notice to athletes and that Sharapova’s violation was without significant fault.

While she argued that she wasn’t notified properly that the substance would be banned, her argument was different than the concerns other athletes expressed about excretion. But experts said Sharapova’s positive test drew attention to the issue.

“What’s troubling to me is I think the high-profile nature of it, because it was Sharapova, you sort of wonder in other circumstances would it have played out this way?” said Koller.

It’s in the handling of the meldonium ban that WADA can learn lessons, experts said, pointing to greater efforts to notify athletes and better science on excretion of drugs.

“You should have an outreach as far as a really public announcement — athletes, international federations, meet organizers, coaches should be aware that following changes have been made to the list effective Jan. 1 so that you can no longer credibly raise a doubt that nobody’s told me about it,” said former WADA president Dick Pound.

In the case of meldonium, it’s a lesson too late after WADA had to change course in the face of public scrutiny.

While it’s Sharapova who will represent the face of the ban, it’s the handling of hundreds of others that will define the response.

“It was just a nightmare for all these international federations,” said Greene. “I don’t think WADA would sit there and say it was their proudest hour.”