Maria Sharapova Banned For TWO YEARS As Damning Report Concludes She Took Drug 'For The Purpose Of Enhancing Her Performance'

Sharapova reacts after losing a point against Serena Williams in January - that is the last match she played

*Maria Sharapova failed a drugs test at the Australian Open in January *The 29-year-old former world No 1 tested positive for banned meldonium *The ITF announced two-year backdated ban on Wednesday afternoon *The drug meldonium was added to WADA banned list on January 1, 2016 *Sharapova says she will appeal the ban, calling it 'unfairly harsh' 

Maria Sharapova has been handed a two-year ban from tennis after she tested positive for meldonium at the Australian Open in January.

Daily Mail UK report continues:

The ban has been backdated to January 26 - the day the Russian failed her drugs test in Melbourne - meaning it will end on January 25, 2018. 

The ban was at the heavier end of expectations and it means she cannot play a Grand Slam until the French Open in 2018. 

One particularly damning section of the ITF's ruling, released on Wednesday afternoon, read: 'In the tribunal's view the answer is clear. Whatever the position may have been in 2006, there was in 2016 no diagnosis and no therapeutic advice supporting the continuing use of Mildronate (Meldonium). 

'If she had believed that there was a continuing medical need to use Mildronate then she would have consulted a medical practitioner. The manner of its use, on match days and when undertaking intensive training, is only consistent with an intention to boost her energy levels. 

'It may be that she genuinely believed that Mildronate had some general beneficial effect on her health but the manner in which the medication was taken, its concealment from the anti-doping authorities, her failure to disclose it even to her own team, and the lack of any medical justification must inevitably lead to the conclusion that she took Mildronate for the purpose of enhancing her performance.

The statement later revealed, 'Sharapova admitted that she did not disclose her use of Mildronate on any doping control form which she completed between 2014 and 2016', although they did disclose some other medications and vitamins. 

Her coach Sven Groeveveld did not know she was taking it, nor did her trainer or physio, but her agent Max Eisenbud of IMG was aware of it from 2013 onwards. 

Sharapova was found with ‘significant quantities’ of meldonium in her system at Wimbledon 2015, although it was then legal.

Sharapova later released a statement of her own on Facebook, revealing she intends to appeal the ban.

The 29-year-old said: 'While the tribunal concluded correctly that I did not intentionally violate the anti-doping rules, I cannot accept an unfairly harsh two-year suspension. 

'The tribunal, whose members were selected by the ITF, agreed that I did not do anything intentionally wrong, yet they seek to keep me from playing tennis for two years. I will immediately appeal the suspension portion of this ruling to CAS, the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

'I have missed playing tennis and I have missed my amazing fans, who are the best and most loyal fans in the world. I have read your letters. I have read your social media posts and your love and support has gotten me through these tough days. I intend to stand for what I believe is right and that's why I will fight to be back on the tennis court as soon as possible.' 

A three-person independent panel convened by the International Tennis Federation announced on Wednesday afternoon that she will not return to the WTA Tour until January 2018 at the earliest. The maximum sentence would have been four years.

Sharapova shocked the whole sport when on March 7 she revealed at a press conference in Los Angeles that she had been found with the substance in her system after a test in Melbourne taken on January 25.

The 29-year-old Russian, at the time the highest earning female athlete in the world, has turned out to be the figurehead of a whole debate about the Latvian-produced substance that has ensnared hundreds of other athletes from a whole variety of sports.

The five-times Grand Slam winner and former world No 1 claimed in Los Angeles that she was simply unaware that it had been formally declared illegal as of January 1 this year.

She said that she had been taking it for 10 years after being prescribed it by her family doctor for a range of ailments, from heart irregularities to a family history of diabetes.

It has subsequently turned out that hundreds of others taking part in elite sport, mainly from Eastern Europe, have also been regular users. It has been a headline case in the recent scandals involving doping and Russia.

The drug was formerly known as mildronate, which was her explanation for neither her nor her highly-professional support team knowing that it has been put on the prohibited list.

While the fallout has been huge for the sport as a whole it has also come at a cost for Sharapova, who has lost an array of her lucrative sponsorships, including her clothing company Nike. It remains to be seen if any will come back on board.

Sharapova, who even without this issue has faced a range of injuries in the past nine months, pledged in March that she did not wish to end her career in such a manner.

Tennis has increased its anti-doping programme in recent years and introduced biological passports, although the likes of Andy Murray and Roger Federer have expressed the view that still more could be done.

The panel met in London in the week prior to the French Open, with the verdict expected within two weeks. However, due to the high profile of the case and scale of legal representation it took a week longer than expected to return its findings.

A consistent theme of the 33-page ruling is the attempt of Sharapova to keep her Meldonium use known to as few people as possible. There are also examples of just how often she used it. For instance at Wimbledon last year – when it had yet to be proscribed – she took it six times in seven days, and at this year’s Australian Open five times in seven days.

'She must have known that taking medication before a match, particularly one not current prescribed by a doctor, was of considerable significance. This was a deliberate decision, not a mistake,' says the ruling.