Maria Sharapova and Meldonium: Strict Liability and a Newly Banned Drug

Timeline

1. Sep 2015WADA publishes the 2016 Prohibited List, adding meldonium effective January 1, 2016.
2. Jan 1, 2016Meldonium becomes a prohibited substance.
3. Jan 26, 2016Sharapova is tested after her Australian Open quarterfinal; the sample later returns positive for meldonium.
4. Mar 7, 2016Sharapova announces the positive test at a Los Angeles press conference, saying she had taken the drug for about ten years.
5. Apr 13, 2016WADA issues guidance that low concentrations in tests taken before March 1 may reflect use before the ban, given uncertainty about how long meldonium stays in the body.
6. Jun 8, 2016An ITF independent tribunal suspends Sharapova for two years.
7. Oct 4, 2016CAS reduces the ban to 15 months, finding "no significant fault" but some fault.
8. Apr 2017Sharapova returns at Stuttgart on a wildcard, prompting debate over whether tournaments should reward players returning from doping bans.

The ethical issues

• Strict liability vs. fairness: athletes are responsible for any banned substance in their bodies, even if they missed a rule change.
• Notice: how much effort should governing bodies make to ensure athletes know about list changes?
• Medicine vs. enhancement: a drug prescribed for a medical condition, whose performance benefits are debated, was widely used by healthy athletes.
• Delegation: Sharapova's team had responsibility for checking the list; can athletes delegate compliance?
• Second chances: whether returning stars should receive wildcards.

Stakeholders

Stakeholder	Interests & obligations
Maria Sharapova	Career, endorsements, and reputation; her responsibility to know the rules.
Other players	Fair competition; some felt the wildcards she received were unfair.
WADA	Keeping the Prohibited List credible and based on evidence.
ITF and the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme	Enforcing the rules consistently; communicating list changes.
Grindeks (manufacturer)	Defending a legitimate medicine it says is not performance-enhancing.
Sponsors and fans	Trust in stars; brand risk.

The case

On March 7, 2016, Maria Sharapova, a five-time Grand Slam champion and for years the world’s highest-paid female athlete, called a press conference in Los Angeles. Many expected a retirement announcement. Instead she said she had failed a drug test at the Australian Open in January. The substance was meldonium, sold in Eastern Europe as Mildronate. She said she had taken it for about ten years, on the advice of a family doctor, for health issues including irregular heart test results and a family history of diabetes. She had not realized that the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) had added it to the Prohibited List effective January 1, 2016. “I made a huge mistake,” she said. “I let my fans down.”^[2][5]

Background

Sharapova’s commercial profile raised the stakes. In January 2010 she renewed her contract with Nike on an eight-year deal reported at $70 million, the most lucrative ever for a sportswoman at the time.^[2] She also endorsed Head racquets from 2011, after ten years with Prince.^[2] Her statement at the press conference set out her defense: for ten years she had taken a medicine called Mildronate, and she said she had not known until receiving the ITF’s letter that it was also called meldonium.^[2]

Experts disagreed about whether the drug helped performance. Don Catlin, a long-time anti-doping scientist, said there was “really no evidence” of any performance benefit.^[1] WADA’s view rested on evidence of widespread athlete use, which it took as intent to enhance performance.^[1]

The rules and governance

WADA publishes its Prohibited List in advance of each year, and it had placed meldonium on its monitoring program in 2015 before banning it.^[1] The change appeared in a summary document from WADA and the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency. It was reported that tennis players had been warned five times that the ban was coming.^[2] Sharapova’s case therefore turned on fault, not on whether a violation occurred.^[3][4]

The CAS panel spelled out the duties athletes keep even when they delegate. She was at fault for not giving her agent adequate instructions on checking the list, and for having no procedure to confirm he had actually done it.^[2] Its reduced sanction ran 15 months from January 26, 2016, the date of the failed test.^[2]

What is meldonium?

Meldonium was developed in Soviet Latvia in the 1970s and is manufactured by the Latvian company Grindeks. It is used in parts of Eastern Europe to treat heart and circulation conditions. It is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. WADA placed it on its monitoring program in 2015 after finding evidence of widespread use by athletes, use that WADA concluded was intended to enhance performance, for example by improving endurance and recovery. Grindeks disputed that it improved athletic performance in healthy people.^[1]

Once the ban took effect, positive tests surged. More than 170 athletes, many from Russia and Eastern Europe, tested positive within months.^[1] Some argued they had stopped taking the drug before January 1 and that traces lingered. Scientists had limited data on how long it stays in the body. In April 2016, WADA issued guidance that very low concentrations in samples taken before March 1 could be consistent with use before the ban.^[1][6] Sharapova had acknowledged taking it during the Australian Open, so the guidance did not help her.

The tribunal and the appeal

Under the World Anti-Doping Code, athletes are “strictly liable” for any prohibited substance found in their samples. Intent and fault matter only to the length of the sanction. An ITF independent tribunal found that Sharapova had not intended to cheat in the Code’s technical sense. But it described her failure to check the list as “very significant fault.” It noted that she had not disclosed meldonium on doping-control forms, and that the person responsible for checking, her agent, had not done so. It imposed a two-year ban.^[4]

In October 2016, the Court of Arbitration for Sport reduced the suspension to 15 months. It concluded that she bore “less than significant fault,” partly because the governing bodies had not done enough to communicate the change, but that she remained responsible for delegating the task without adequate supervision. It also said that “under no circumstances” should she be considered an intentional doper.^[3]

The award itself explains where the line fell. Sharapova had waived testing of her B sample. A three-member panel chaired by Luigi Fumagalli heard the appeal in New York on September 7–8, 2016.^[8] The evidence showed that a Russian doctor who treated her from 2005 to 2013 had given her a January 2006 plan that included “short courses of Mildronate,” and that her management company, IMG, had been given the job of checking the Prohibited List each year from 2013.^[7] The panel found her choice of IMG reasonable. “Where the Player fell short,” it wrote, was “in her failure to monitor or supervise in any way” how IMG was meeting those obligations. An athlete cannot “simply delegate her obligations to a third party” without instructions or supervision, it said, because that “would render meaningless the obligation of an athlete to avoid doping.” It also noted that she had not listed the substance on her doping-control forms. The panel declined to cut the ban further on proportionality grounds. It found that she had not tried to hide her use, had taken the substance in good faith, and “was not clearly informed by the relevant anti-doping authorities of the change in the rules.” The case, it concluded, “was not about an athlete who cheated.”^[7]

Comeback and controversy

Sharapova returned in April 2017 at a tournament in Stuttgart, Germany, which was sponsored by one of her own sponsors and gave her a wildcard entry. Several players criticized tournaments for handing wildcards to a player returning from a doping ban, saying it sent the wrong message. Others said she had served her sanction and deserved no extra penalty. The French Tennis Federation declined to give her a wildcard for the 2017 French Open.^[2]

Aftermath

After her comeback she won no further major titles and struggled with injuries. She played the 2020 Australian Open as a wildcard, lost in the first round, and retired from professional tennis in 2020.^[2] She published a memoir, Unstoppable: My Life So Far, in September 2017.^[2]

The core dilemma

Strict liability makes anti-doping enforceable: no one can escape by claiming ignorance. But it can also punish athletes who used a legal medicine for years and missed a rule change. How much responsibility should an athlete bear for knowing the rules, and how much should governing bodies bear for communicating them?

Competing values

• Enforceability vs. individual fairness: a no-excuses rule prevents gaming but can feel harsh in borderline cases.
• Medical autonomy vs. level playing field: a doctor’s prescription versus evidence that healthy athletes used the drug to gain an edge.
• Delegation vs. personal responsibility: elite athletes rely on teams, but the Code puts responsibility on the athlete.
• Rehabilitation vs. deterrence: welcoming back a star after a sanction versus signaling that doping costs something.

Strongest arguments

For a firm sanction: Sharapova had ample notice and resources. She took the drug during competition, did not disclose it, and should have checked a list that changes every year. Exceptions for stars would undermine the whole system.

For leniency: she used a legal medicine openly for a decade, the performance benefit is debated, and governing bodies did little to alert players. Treating a paperwork failure as doping blurs the line between cheating and carelessness.

Applying the frameworks

Kantian (duty)

A Kantian lens asks whether an athlete who took a medicine legally for years, and missed a rule change, acted wrongly. Strict liability says the duty to check is hers, and the CAS findings focus on her failure to supervise the delegation of that duty. The lens accepts the rule if it is public and universally applied, but resists treating a negligent mistake like deliberate cheating.

Justice

A justice lens asks whether the system treated athletes consistently, given the many meldonium cases and the uncertainty about how long it stays in the body. It also asks whether wildcard entries after a ban were fair to other players who had not been sanctioned.

Utilitarian

Consequentialists weigh the deterrent value of a firm sanction for a famous player against the costs of punishing an athlete who used a legal medicine before the ban. They also ask whether governing bodies could have reduced harm with clearer communication.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

1. Spot the issue. You are an elite athlete’s agent in late 2015, responsible for checking the athlete’s medicines against WADA’s list. The stakeholders include the athlete, sponsors, the tour, fans and other players. The code in play is the World Anti-Doping Code and its Prohibited List.
2. Gather facts. What medicines is the athlete taking, under what names, and what do the new list and monitoring program say?
3. Test options. Options: (a) rely on past checks; (b) check every substance against the new list under all names; (c) also consult a doctor and the anti-doping agency. Weigh the athlete’s medical needs against compliance.
4. Check codes and law. Have you checked substances under their alternative names? Would your process stand up if questioned?
5. Decide and document. Record the checks and any advice received.
6. Communicate and follow up. Communicate the results to the athlete and team, with a written procedure for each new list.

What’s settled and what’s contested

• Settled: the positive test; the ITF’s two-year ban; CAS’s reduction to 15 months and its finding that she was not an intentional doper.
• Contested: whether meldonium meaningfully enhances performance; whether her medical justification was adequate; the ethics of wildcards after doping bans.

Why this case matters

Sharapova’s case is a primer on strict liability, the Prohibited List, and the TUE system. It is especially useful for teams that handle medications on behalf of busy athletes.

Key terms

Strict liability

The anti-doping principle that athletes are responsible for any prohibited substance in their bodies, whether or not they meant to take it.

Therapeutic use exemption (TUE)

Advance permission for an athlete to use a medically necessary substance that would otherwise be prohibited.

Due process

Fair procedures before a sanction: notice, a chance to respond, an impartial decision-maker and a right of appeal.

Brand as ethical promise

A brand is more than a logo: it is a promise to stakeholders about values and conduct, and it is broken when actions contradict it.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

1. Is strict liability fair when an athlete has used a substance legally for years and it is banned with a few months' notice? What alternatives exist?
2. CAS found Sharapova bore "some degree of fault." Given her resources and support team, should she be held to a higher standard than a lower-ranked player?
3. How should WADA decide whether a medicine widely used by healthy athletes is performance-enhancing enough to ban?
4. Should tournaments give wildcards to players returning from doping suspensions? Who has a legitimate interest in that decision?
5. Does the large number of meldonium positives after the ban make the rule look more justified or less? Explain.

Sources

1. Meldonium — Wikipedia
2. Maria Sharapova — Wikipedia
3. Maria Sharapova's drugs ban cut to 15 months on appeal — CNN
4. Maria Sharapova banned for two years for failed drugs test but will appeal — BBC Sport
5. Maria Sharapova failed drugs test at Australian Open — BBC Sport
6. WADA updates list of banned substances — USA Today
7. CAS 2016/A/4643 Maria Sharapova v. International Tennis Federation, arbitral award — Court of Arbitration for Sport (copy hosted by Morgan Sports Law)
8. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) reduces the ban of Maria Sharapova to fifteen months (media release, 4 October 2016) — Court of Arbitration for Sport