3/10/16

Sharapova – Storm in a tea cup ?

OK, so we should all be sensitive to the issue of drug use in sports. With the immense rewards that success brings at the highest level in any professional sport, drug use is inevitable. When there are millions of dollars at stake, everyone will be looking to obtain an edge, by fair means or foul, and when the means are foul we should be suitably horrified.

But have we not gone a little overboard with the Sharapova case ? I don’t blame the media – they are just there to sell their product and will package it to maximize impact, with without being overly concerned with the truth of the matter. A case in point – AFP writes “The 28-year-old Sharapova admitted she has been taking the now banned drug for about 10 years.” Admitted ? This suggests she has been doing something she should not have been doing for 10 years ! Bravo, AFP.

But some of Sharapova’s competitors are  getting in on the act, using the unique podium their high visibility in sports affords them to utter strong criticism.  Her sponsors too have been quick to condemn without waiting the outcome of the investigation by the International Tennis Federation . Sharapova has been taking Mildonate, the medicine which contains meldonium, since 2006. There is no evidence, at least at this stage, that her motive in taking the drug has at any stage been to enhance her performance as a tennis player. Indeed, according to her lawyer the drug was prescribed specifically to address an irregular EKG and a family history of diabetes. The drug is widely used in Eastern Europe, though less well known in the West. Her sin it would appear has been one of omission – failure to stop taking the medicine when meldonium was banned, rather than one of commission in using it specifically to obtain a performance edge. So is all this “It’s a sad day for tennis” stuff really necessary ?

Now I’m not suggesting that the critics do not have a point. At Sharapova’s level, with a support team that must include substantial medical resources, it is hard to understand how she could have made a mistake of this kind. She says she only made the connection between meldonium and the Mildonite she was taking some time after the ban was announced. Maybe when she did make that connection she just hoped to get away with it.  But let us bear in mind that the prohibited drug list contains over 200 items, and that in many cases these items include categories of substances without specifying names. Monitoring the list and making sure an athlete does not become contaminated is no inconsiderable task.  And let us also bear in mind that there is an exemption under the World Anti-Doping Agency rules for those who depend on  medicine which contains banned substances. Sharapova’s laid back attitude could have been based on her confidence that she is entitled to that exemption and that the whole thing is therefore no big deal. The lawyer also notes that the amount of meldonium contained in Mildonate is a long way below the amounts that have been used to determine that the drug can enhance performance.

In light of the foregoing it is hard not to conclude that a lot of the negative comment is driven by the envy that one so fequently sees where a public figure is endowed with both extraordinary skill and good looks. She is not liked by other players and does nothing to court their good opinion. Many both on and off the court dislike her base-line grunts which are considered unsporting. There is little doubt that not a few of those who have voiced their disapproval are happy that she finally “got hers.” Capriati, particularly virulent in her criticism, has had acknowledged self-image issues and has had to deal with drugs and anger-management. It is not hard to see how bent out of shape she would be over Sharapova’s success and how pleased with this fall from grace. The level of balance in her opinion is perhaps best illustrated by her demand that Sharapova be stripped of all her 35 titles.  The attitude of the sponsors is harder to understand. By suspending Sharapova they are damaging the brand. They could just as easily make a statement that they are following the story and will take whatever action is appropriate once the WTA report is published. I suspect that the real problem is that Sharapova did not give them a heads up ahead of her announcement. No-one likes surprises.

So, my guess is that this is all going to go away. To the chagrin of the nay sayers and the I told you soers, Sharapova will be given a slap on the wrist, and may well be allowed to continue taking the medicine, especially since as mentioned above the amount she has been taking probable makes very little difference to her performance. There will always be those who will claim that she has been very clever and that she and her team identified meldonium way back as a performance-enhancing substance but I do not believe that evidence to date bears that our. But here’s a thought. Couldn’t the ATP and WTA furnish their members with a list of prescription and non-prescription medications and foods that contain the banned substances ? That would surely help the athletes, and would leave them with very little excuse for failing to avoid banned substances.

1/19/16

45 Years – a review

A teacher and a factory manager who has climbed his way up from the shop floor are retired and shortly to celebrate their 45th wedding anniversary. News comes that the body of a long ago girlfriend has emerged from a glacier in Switzerland. Little by little we learn that she died in an accident, that they were in love, that he has kept photos and mementos (in contrast to the 45 years of his marriage where they have nothing), and that she was expecting. The film is the story of the impact that this revelation has on the couple’s relationship.
Most reviews have focused on the relationship’s deterioration and the whys and wherefors. Curiously, though some came close, to my mind not one critic got it right. To understand the process fully you must appreciate that when these two married, distinctions of class were very much alive in the UK (some would say they still are). These two were never a good match. Perhaps the most “in your face” clue is his three failed efforts to get beyond chapter two of Kierkegaard. There are others such as Kate’s expressed pleasure when he talks about bird watching. Here is not a man who enjoys intellectual pursuits. Again, his strong working class roots show in his complaint after the re-union lunch that the Len that they used to call Len-in now has a holiday home and a daughter dating/married to (I can’t remember which) a banker. Jeff is clearly upset by this sell-out. But we don’t really need these clues – Jeff clearly has what back then when they got married would have been considered a working class accent. And if you still need to be convinced, listen to Jeff talking during his speech at the party and referencing Kate’s father’s opposition to the marriage. Kate’s father knew.
Kate, in contrast is educated (one critic noted that she was a head teacher). Her passage of arms with the caterer clearly indicates that she has taste and does not suffer fools gladly. But Kate has sublimated her middle class self. She must have realized at an early stage that the two of them have nothing in common. And here is the key. She has spent the last 45 years selflessly making the marriage work with precious little help from the self-centered Jeff. If pressed she would admit that it has involved sacrifice but it has paid off since they are still together. And then this happens. Kate gradually comes to the conclusion that that lifetime of sacrifice has been for nothing. The fragile marriage she has sought to preserve is meaningless. She has thrown her life away on someone who settled for her when his first love died. Self-centered Jeff doesn’t even realize there has been a sacrifice and wouldn’t understand it, still less appreciate it, even if he did. Yes, the revival of old and deep memories has had a strong effect on him. But he doesn’t understand why Kate should be affected in any way. And there is the real story. Kate feels that her whole life has been wasted. Not surprising that she is beyond being upset. Not surprising that that sentimental cloying speech of Jeff”s did nothing to reduce the pain. And what a perfect ending when Kate snatches her hand away. Perhaps the most eloquent gesture in film since Jonathan Pryce checked his watch at his mother’s funeral in Ploughman’s Lunch.