McEnroe would have taken Meldonium.

[JohanLiebert]

John McEnroe has defended Maria Sharapova after her shock revelation last week that she failed a drugs test at the Australian Open in January.

And the American confessed that he would've taken the substance himself had it been available during his playing days.

Sharapova is facing a ban of up to four years if she is found guilty of knowingly breaking doping rules.

Meldonium is used to improve circulation, which can give athletes a valuable advantage over their opponents in endurance sports.

And it's for that reason that WADA decided to ban the drug at the start of the year.

However, McEnroe has admitted he would've had no issue taking meldonium while it was permitted.

He said: "If a drug is legal? That is like a no brainer. I mean, are you kidding?

"People have been looking since the beginning of time for an edge, and you're constantly looking for these things in any way, shape or form."

The American, though, said it was difficult to believe Sharapova's excuse that she didn't know the drug had become prohibited.

The three-time Wimbledon champion added: "It would be hard to believe that no one in her camp, the 25 or 30 people that work for her, or Maria herself had no idea that this hapened."

www.mirror.co.uk/sport/tennis/john-mcenroe-says-wouldve-taken-7553836

 

[mistik]

I wouldnt expect any diffrent answer from Mac though who used to dope as well.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

McEnroe suckseeds at any cost.

 

[Inanimate_object]

I wouldnt expect any diffrent answer from Mac though who used to dope as well.

Nothing he said was remotely controversial.

 

[mistik]

Nothing he said was remotely controversial.

He doesnt value something called ethics. To take something you really dont need only to improve your performance is ugly despite that thing not banned yet.

 

[Djokovic2011]

I completely agree with McEnroe on this.

 

[Bender]

He doesnt value something called ethic. To take something you really dont need only to improve your performance is ugly despite that thing not banned yet.

If what is considered as ethical is as clear cut as you suggest, scores of philosophers would have nothing left to do.

Training? Coffee? Nutrition? Protein shakes? Vitamin pills? Protein bars? Sports drinks? Advanced, scientific training techniques?

Edit: grammar

 

[Inanimate_object]

He doesnt value something called ethic. To take something you really dont need only to improve your performance is ugly despite that thing not banned yet.

That's a ludicrous argument beyond defense. As if to say, the hundreds of professional athletes using hyperbaric chambers are morally bankrupt or any others who take natural supplements, altered diets or pharmaceutical products. That is to say, ANYONE who makes choices to improve their performance while staying within the confines of the rules is subject to attacks on their character. In sports drug-use, legality defines the limits of morality. Sharapova had every right to take a legal drug up until the point it was deemed illegal. And no right thereafter.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

The best part of Mac's assessment of the situation was this remark: "Lift the ban, there's no suspension if when she comes back she promises not to grunt."

 

[Djokovic2011]

He doesnt value something called ethic. To take something you really dont need only to improve your performance is ugly despite that thing not banned yet.

This is a sport where you're competing for millions in prize money, prestige and GS trophies, not your local garden tea party where you're comparing who's baked the best cake. If there's a drug that is legal which can improve your on court performance and is readily available to you then ethics should be the last thing on your mind.

 

[mistik]

That's a ludicrous argument beyond defense. As if to say, the hundreds of professional athletes using hyperbaric chambers are morally bankrupt or any others who take natural supplements, altered diets or pharmaceutical products. That is to say, ANYONE who makes choices to improve their performance while staying within the confines of the rules is subject to attacks on their character. In sports drug-use, legality defines the limits of morality. Sharapova had every right to take a legal drug up until the point it was deemed illegal. And no right thereafter.

So it is normal to take a medicine for diabetes and heart problems even you dont have that problems ?? Then why they even bother to TEST ? There is always be new drugs and medicines which would be LEGAL. So what is all the fuss about being clean and not a doper since you can always be LEGALLY CLEAN ??? Seriously What ?????

 

[Inanimate_object]

So it is normal to take a medicine for diabetes and heart problems even you dont have that problems ?? Then why they even bother to TEST ? There is always be new drugs and medicines which would be LEGAL. So what is all the fuss about being clean and not a doper since you can always be LEGALLY CLEAN ??? Seriously What ?????

You are down the rabbit hole. "Legally clean" is redundant. Being "clean" is defined by the rules in place. Doping is the use of banned substances. Period.

We expect athletes to do everything within the rules to try and beat other competitors. Why is it that we make the distinction here? The rules were laid out transparently for all to see. That you think there is an oversight is a question for the anti-doping agency, not the athlete. Being "clean" is a legal definition, not an ethical one. Or else, subject to your own prejudices, everyone could be a doper.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

You are down the rabbit hole. "Legally clean" is redundant. Being "clean" is defined by the rules in place. Doping is the use of banned substances. Period.

We expect athletes to do everything within the rules to try and beat other competitors. Why is it that we make the distinction here? The rules were laid out transparently for all to see. That you think there is an oversight is a question for the anti-doping agency, not the athlete. Being "clean" is a legal definition, not an ethical one. Or else, subject to your own prejudices, everyone could be a doper.

I think that the ethical and legal are not always the same thing.

Of course, what is legal is mostly perceived as ethical as well.

 

[mistik]

There is always holes in legal stuff that you can take advantage of.That why so many laws can change through out the years.

 

[ultradr]

John McEnroe has defended Maria Sharapova after her shock revelation last week that she failed a drugs test at the Australian Open in January.

And the American confessed that he would've taken the substance himself had it been available during his playing days.

Sharapova is facing a ban of up to four years if she is found guilty of knowingly breaking doping rules.

Meldonium is used to improve circulation, which can give athletes a valuable advantage over their opponents in endurance sports.

And it's for that reason that WADA decided to ban the drug at the start of the year.

However, McEnroe has admitted he would've had no issue taking meldonium while it was permitted.

He said: "If a drug is legal? That is like a no brainer. I mean, are you kidding?

"People have been looking since the beginning of time for an edge, and you're constantly looking for these things in any way, shape or form."

The American, though, said it was difficult to believe Sharapova's excuse that she didn't know the drug had become prohibited.

The three-time Wimbledon champion added: "It would be hard to believe that no one in her camp, the 25 or 30 people that work for her, or Maria herself had no idea that this hapened."

www.mirror.co.uk/sport/tennis/john-mcenroe-says-wouldve-taken-7553836

I completely agree with Mac on this.
And I'm pretty sure quite a few players are now clearing their body system off Meldonium.

 

[Chanwan]

You are down the rabbit hole. "Legally clean" is redundant. Being "clean" is defined by the rules in place. Doping is the use of banned substances. Period.

We expect athletes to do everything within the rules to try and beat other competitors. Why is it that we make the distinction here? The rules were laid out transparently for all to see. That you think there is an oversight is a question for the anti-doping agency, not the athlete. Being "clean" is a legal definition, not an ethical one. Or else, subject to your own prejudices, everyone could be a doper.

I agree, but that doesn't mean there aren't grey areas. Like the egg, stemcell treatment, blood cell treatment and so on. Areas where WADA and others are discussing whether it should be legal or not. Until it isn't legal anymore, no athlete can be faulted for doing it though.

 

[sureshs]

Of course MacEnroe would have taken meldonium. He was a cheat.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

He was a cheat brat

FTFY

 

[mellowyellow]

He doesnt value something called ethic. To take something you really dont need only to improve your performance is ugly despite that thing not banned yet.

I think you are too narrow minded here, as players age their ability to heal is reduced, they don't play as well because of soreness and nagging injuries. With a sport that has gravitated to 20+ rallies as the norm on predominantly hard surfaces for the greater part of the year I don't think it is too far of a stretch to talk about these drugs as a quality of life movement as well. At least certain ones...

 

[TheFifthSet]

He doesnt value something called ethic. To take something you really dont need only to improve your performance is ugly despite that thing not banned yet.

Ethics are a complex subject. Don't try to pass off yours as being universal or objective.

let me ask you, is it ethical for some athletes to train so hard, to the point where they know they'll probably have difficulty walking later in life? Is it 'ethical' for someone like Nadal to train like an animal when he's had a litany of ailments, including a chronic knee problem?

If so, what's the difference between that and taking a legal substance to enhance your performance? You think it's HEALTHY or necessary for multi-millionaire dollar athletes to subject themselves to that sort of physical exertion? Probably not, but to them the ends justify the needs.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

The truth is that some people want to see unnatural PEDs being taken, so that they have a "show".

There is no other explanation why sports like american football are not looked down upon by the spectators.

 

[v-verb]

Where to draw the line? Protein drinks, vitamins, caffeine, special diets, trainers etc all help. If it's legal it's fair game. If it's illegal, don't take it.

Sharapova was guilty after the ban started. Before she was fine.

 

[Shaolin]

Where to draw the line? Protein drinks, vitamins, caffeine, special diets, trainers etc all help. If it's legal it's fair game. If it's illegal, don't take it.

Sharapova was guilty after the ban started. Before she was fine.

The line is easy. The things you noted are not meant to be taken specifically for diabetes or some other illness. Sharadoper intentionally used a medication meant for something she wasn't suffering from just to improve her performance. Thats not right in my opinion.

 

[Alien]

The line is easy. The things you noted are not meant to be taken specifically for diabetes or some other illness. Sharadoper intentionally used a medication meant for something she wasn't suffering from just to improve her performance. Thats not right in my opinion.

No, those things are not taken to treat diabetes. They are taken to directly improve performance, recovery, make muscle, deliberately. They are not produced enough by the body so their existence. And that is right "in your opinion".

Fortunately, your opinion is not required. If not banned no problem by definition. That is the rule. She doped from Jan 1st on. The rest is fine. Period.

 

[bullfan]

In the same interview, JMac said Maria is only allowed back if she stops grunting, otherwise, ban her.

 

[Chadillac]

Always liked mac

 

[Slice'n'dice]

Think he's right. You can't really blame people for taking stuff that's legal, so many people maybe even most will be doing it. What can you do? Ban everything? As for ethics, well maybe, but then what about supplements, top coaches and trainers, top hitting partners, top medical team, nutritionists etc. All things that can help you enhance your performance, it's not a level playing field, because not everyone can afford to hire as good people. Or a select few could be at levels above the rest.

The truth is, there isn't a lot you can do. People will always be taking the latest thing that can enhance your performance, banned or not. Soon to be banned or always to be legal. It kind of doesn't make much difference. It's the world we live in.

 

[Paul Murphy]

McEnroe took steroids and cocaine and who knows what else.
Poor guy is just jealous that all these lovely PEDs weren't all around in his day.
He was a cheat - and not just with what he put into his body.

 

[PBODY99]

McEnroe took steroids and cocaine and who knows what else.
Poor guy is just jealous that all these lovely PEDs weren't all around in his day.
He was a cheat - and not just with what he put into his body.

Getting high, which he did, doesn't help performance. unless he took hits on the change over. Martina N,juiced. Mac taking 'roids when he didn't lift,really.
Using drugs off label for a benefit is common, being sloppy about keeping up with the rules,dumb. I want to know who got fired off of her "team".

 

[Paul Murphy]

Getting high, which he did, doesn't help performance. unless he took hits on the change over. Martina N,juiced. Mac taking 'roids when he didn't lift,really.
Using drugs off label for a benefit is common, being sloppy about keeping up with the rules,dumb. I want to know who got fired off of her "team".

Oh yeah.

Here's McEnroe himself on steroids: "You can tell when someone has been on steroids… A guy bulks up, has a new body and never gets tired."
Cocaine is a stimulant.
He's a drug cheat - and a cheat in general.

 

[PBODY99]

Oh yeah.

Here's McEnroe himself on steroids: "You can tell when someone has been on steroids… A guy bulks up, has a new body and never gets tired."
Cocaine is a stimulant.
He's a drug cheat - and a cheat in general.

Paul, I still don't see were he took 'roids. Yes using an banned substance is illegal. Drug use wrecked many players from Vitas down to guys I played against locally then and now.
Just so I'm clear, all off book use of RX drugs that are not list is cheating in your view.
I have no problem with Maria using from whenever until 2015. As of 1 Jan 2016, she was just sloppy. She is a player I seldom watch, since I can't stand her screams, but I doubt that she get the max of 4 years.

 

[Paul Murphy]

Paul, I still don't see were he took 'roids. Yes using an banned substance is illegal. Drug use wrecked many players from Vitas down to guys I played against locally then and now.
Just so I'm clear, all off book use of RX drugs that are not list is cheating in your view.
I have no problem with Maria using from whenever until 2015. As of 1 Jan 2016, she was just sloppy. She is a player I seldom watch, since I can't stand her screams, but I doubt that she get the max of 4 years.

http://espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=1708055

He says he took them "unknowingly".
Sure he did.

Then there's this:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/06/26/1023864607504.html

 

[HewittAlwaysDisappoints]

I completely agree with McEnroe on this.

If what we considered is ethical is as clear cut as you suggest, scores of philosophers would have nothing left to do.

Training? Coffee? Nutrition? Protein shakes? Vitamin pills? Protein bars? Sports drinks? Advanced, scientific training techniques?

That's a ludicrous argument beyond defense. As if to say, the hundreds of professional athletes using hyperbaric chambers are morally bankrupt or any others who take natural supplements, altered diets or pharmaceutical products. That is to say, ANYONE who makes choices to improve their performance while staying within the confines of the rules is subject to attacks on their character. In sports drug-use, legality defines the limits of morality. Sharapova had every right to take a legal drug up until the point it was deemed illegal. And no right thereafter.

“I think taking a prescription drug that you don’t necessarily need, but just because it’s legal, that’s wrong, clearly. That’s wrong. If you’re taking a prescription drug and you’re not using it for what that drug was meant for, then you don’t need it, so you’re just using it for the performance enhancing benefits that drug is giving you. And I don’t think that that’s right.”

Andy Murray​

 

[Bender]

“I think taking a prescription drug that you don’t necessarily need, but just because it’s legal, that’s wrong, clearly. That’s wrong. If you’re taking a prescription drug and you’re not using it for what that drug was meant for, then you don’t need it, so you’re just using it for the performance enhancing benefits that drug is giving you. And I don’t think that that’s right.”

Andy Murray​

That's his definition of what "right" is, not THE definition of what "right" is.

 

[Bartelby]

So given McEnroe has no clue whether it is performance enhancing or not, (it turns out it is not), what he is saying is that he would have followed the herd.

 

[Roddick85]

I'm surprised to see McEnroe saying he would of taken it if it was legal. I do agree with him about Sharapova saying she "didn't know". I mean who is she trying to fool here? She's got a huge team with her, is arguably the WTA's biggest star. I can guarantee you she was notified, someone in her team probably knew, she just decided to ignore it and is now paying the price in a major way for her actions.

While everyone is focused on judging the players for taking drugs, I'm surprised no one is looking at the root cause of all of this? If players have to resort to taking drugs to properly recover between matches/tournaments, then maybe the scheduling should be looked at? If players were given sufficient rest, then maybe they wouldn't need to resort to drugs etc...to compete all year long in this gruesome schedule? As usual, people are looking at the end result and not the cause underneath. Punishing players for taking drugs is just an easy fix that won't do much because they will always look for a way to cheat the system. Addressing the root cause would be a lot more beneficial rather than "patching" the issue until it pops up again.

 

[Bartelby]

So she has a large team ... and therefore must have known ... but apparently it's a large team of stupid people ... who know nothing about drugs and drug testing.

 

[Bender]

You are down the rabbit hole. "Legally clean" is redundant. Being "clean" is defined by the rules in place. Doping is the use of banned substances. Period.

We expect athletes to do everything within the rules to try and beat other competitors. Why is it that we make the distinction here? The rules were laid out transparently for all to see. That you think there is an oversight is a question for the anti-doping agency, not the athlete. Being "clean" is a legal definition, not an ethical one. Or else, subject to your own prejudices, everyone could be a doper.

Do you not read? Here on planet TTW, everyone's a doper except your favourites.

Never mind the fact that calling someone a cheater for using an unbanned ie LEGAL substance defeats the whole purpose of having a banned substances list, rules, and regulations in the first place!

 

[Bender]

So she has a large team ... and therefore must have known ... but apparently it's a large team of stupid people ... who know nothing about drugs and drug testing.

It's not entirely impossible that everyone failed to read the notice. Slim, but still possible. We can't rule it out--it could be like the Bystander Effect but in the context of anti doping regulations:

The bystander effect, or bystander apathy, is a social psychological phenomenon that refers to cases in which individuals do not offer any means of help to a victim when other people are present. The probability of help is inversely related to the number of bystanders.

 

[Bartelby]

It's more probable that Sharapova didn't tell them all of her medical history, so if they don't know she was taking meldonium why would the name create a red flag in their mind?

This is a guess, but it's a lot more plausible than the bystander effect. That effect relies on everyone knowing something is wrong and leaving it to someone else.

Your supposition that no one read the list means that none of them thought she needed help, not that everyone thought she needed help.

 

[Bluefan75]

I'm surprised to see McEnroe saying he would of taken it if it was legal. I do agree with him about Sharapova saying she "didn't know". I mean who is she trying to fool here? She's got a huge team with her, is arguably the WTA's biggest star. I can guarantee you she was notified, someone in her team probably knew, she just decided to ignore it and is now paying the price in a major way for her actions.

While everyone is focused on judging the players for taking drugs, I'm surprised no one is looking at the root cause of all of this? If players have to resort to taking drugs to properly recover between matches/tournaments, then maybe the scheduling should be looked at? If players were given sufficient rest, then maybe they wouldn't need to resort to drugs etc...to compete all year long in this gruesome schedule? As usual, people are looking at the end result and not the cause underneath. Punishing players for taking drugs is just an easy fix that won't do much because they will always look for a way to cheat the system. Addressing the root cause would be a lot more beneficial rather than "patching" the issue until it pops up again.

I'm not so sure that your "root" cause is that. First of all, unless the money goes down, the biggest incentive to take the drugs is still there. And the distribution of the money. It's all at the top end. It's very financially rewarding to get yourself into the top 50 or so.

And why would a cyclist, or a track an field athlete take the same items if it were the tennis schedule driving athletes to take this stuff? If you honestly believe a smaller schedule would reduce doping, I think you're in for a nasty surprise. The money first, second, and third, is what needs to be addressed. And then there is the matter of someone who takes their actions based whether something is right(ie., the stand Murray has publicly pronounced--don't take a medication you don't have a need for even if it is not banned), or whether it is legal(they won't suspend me, so I'm good to go.) Some people, professional athletes among them, do live by a code of doing what is right, not simply what is legal. They're not robots, and some of them do want to be able to look themselves in the mirror in the morning.

 

[Tshooter]

It's more probable that Sharapova didn't tell them all of her medical history, so if they don't know she was taking meldonium why would the name create a red flag in their mind?

It's possible, however she is reported to have a very close relationship with her agent from way back:

"Agents have much bigger jobs than just everyday life -- booking planes, looking into your agenda -- of course he's trying to make you money and make you big deals, but at the end of the day, he does everything for me." "He has this old-fashioned calendar and just looks at every date. He knows my schedule, exactly when I'm flying to this tournament, when I'll be back, when we can fit this in."

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/01/sport/tennis/maria-sharapova-eisenbud-tennis/

Yes, it's still possible she did not share this medical information with her agent and/or her agent neglected to deal with the list issue for some reason. Or her trainer. Or anyone else.

But there is her doctor. She doesn't have to share it with her doctor because her doctor is the one who knows her medical condition and course of treatment.

So her doctor is not explained away by your point about her not sharing her medical information.

 

[Bartelby]

She may have various doctors and a cardiologist is, for example, not going to care about what's on a WADA list.

Maybe she was told and the psychological compulsion to keep taking something that you find comfortable was too great.

There are many possibilities, but the 'she must have known' possibility that most gravitate to is not necessarily the strongest.

 

[Tshooter]

She may have various doctors and a cardiologist is, for example, not going to care about what's on a WADA list.

I think it's not a winning statement to make to the doping panel to state that whoever the doctor prescribing a course of drug treatment to a world class athlete is is simply unfamiliar with the doping rules including the WADA list.

I assume they will want access to email and other business records as well as to understand the doctors general practices when it comes to treating pro athletes. And if they accept that statement as true they should ban the doctor from ever treating a pro athlete.

This is the question they should have hammered her on at the press conference. Instead no follow up when she answered some question about "did your doctor not tell you" that "she takes full responsibility." They should have said, yes we understand you didn't check and you take responsibility for that, but did you doctor tell you. Did your agent. Did anyone on your team.

 

[The Fedfather]

She may have various doctors and a cardiologist is, for example, not going to care about what's on a WADA list.

Maybe she was told and the psychological compulsion to keep taking something that you find comfortable was too great.

There are many possibilities, but the 'she must have known' possibility that most gravitate to is not necessarily the strongest.

Sharapova should care. That's it. The rules are for her to follow, not her doctor or agent. She is responsible for breaking the rules, intentionally or not.

 

[Steve0904]

I'm surprised to see McEnroe saying he would of taken it if it was legal. I do agree with him about Sharapova saying she "didn't know". I mean who is she trying to fool here? She's got a huge team with her, is arguably the WTA's biggest star. I can guarantee you she was notified, someone in her team probably knew, she just decided to ignore it and is now paying the price in a major way for her actions.

While everyone is focused on judging the players for taking drugs, I'm surprised no one is looking at the root cause of all of this? If players have to resort to taking drugs to properly recover between matches/tournaments, then maybe the scheduling should be looked at? If players were given sufficient rest, then maybe they wouldn't need to resort to drugs etc...to compete all year long in this gruesome schedule? As usual, people are looking at the end result and not the cause underneath. Punishing players for taking drugs is just an easy fix that won't do much because they will always look for a way to cheat the system. Addressing the root cause would be a lot more beneficial rather than "patching" the issue until it pops up again.

I'm not sure it will stop players from taking drugs, but I agree that the schedule should be looked at. 11 months out of 12. That's crazy.

 

[Bartelby]

I think we went past the obvious 'rules are rules' in this discussion a long time ago.

Sharapova should care. That's it. The rules are for her to follow, not her doctor or agent. She is responsible for breaking the rules, intentionally or not.

 

[Tshooter]

...The rules are for her to follow, not her doctor or agent. ..

Incorrect.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...ormance-enhancing.558008/page-3#post-10119931

 

[The Fedfather]

I think we went past the obvious 'rules are rules' in this discussion a long time ago.

Well, we should go back to that discussion. There are possible scenarios which support Sharapova's claim about not breaking the rules intentionally. The ITF will take them into account when choosing the punishment. The fact is she broke the rules and should be penalized. That's how law works.

 

[Tshooter]

...The fact is she broke the rules and should be penalized. That's how law works...

Tell it to the banking industry.