Chelsea’s Mykhailo Mudryk drugs ban explained: What is meldonium and what punishments could he face?

Mykhailo Mudryk is among Chelsea’s most expensive signings — a player who once represented the club’s ambitious direction of travel in the post-Roman Abramovich era.

But less than two years after his £62million ($78.9m) signing from Shakhtar Donetsk, the Ukraine international has been provisionally suspended after testing positive for the banned substance meldonium.

Both Chelsea and Mudryk have issued statements to categorically make clear that the player has never “knowingly used” any banned substances but any athlete found to have breached anti-doping regulations can face a lengthy suspension.

eScored looks at the key questions as Mudryk faces up to an uncertain future.

---

What has Mudryk done?

Routine testing showed what Chelsea have called “an adverse finding” in a urine sample provided by Mudryk. That has led to a provisional suspension from first-team action as all parties await the results of further testing.

“This has come as a complete shock as I have never knowingly used any banned substances or broken any rules, and am working closely with my team to investigate how this could have happened,” Mudryk wrote on Instagram. “I know that I have not done anything wrong and remain hopeful that I will be back on the pitch soon.”

eScored has reported that Mudryk returned a positive test for the banned substance meldonium after being on international duty in November, a period that saw the winger feature in both of Ukraine’s UEFA Nations League games against Georgia and Albania.

Mudryk has not featured for Chelsea since playing the 90 minutes and scoring in a 2-0 win over Heidenheim in the Conference League on November 28.

When explaining his absence in press conferences since that game, Enzo Maresca, the club’s head coach, has either said simply that Mudryk is “out” without specifying a reason, or has said he was ill.

What is meldonium and which sportspeople have been found to have taken it?

A prohibited substance, in short.

Meldonium is a heart disease drug developed in 1970 in the former U.S.S.R. It is designed to combat ischemia, a condition where blood flow is restricted to body tissue, muscles or organs.

It boosts metabolism and increases blood flow and, by extension, the exercise capacity of athletes. It was added to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)’s list of banned substances in January 2016 after its previous inclusion in the agency’s monitoring programme the year before.

Former Russian tennis player Maria Sharapova had been the most high-profile case of an athlete being banned for using meldonium. A failed drugs test at the 2016 Australian Open led to a two-year ban issued by the International Tennis Federation, with Sharapova accepting she had made “a huge mistake” in taking the substance.

Sharapova told a news conference in Los Angeles she had been given a medicine for 10 years by her family doctor and had been unaware that it had also been known as meldonium, which had been added to WADA’s prohibited list in the weeks before her failed test.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) reduced Sharapova’s ban to 15 months in October 2016 after finding that she did not deliberately cheat and that there was no “significant fault or negligence on her part”.

The use of meldonium was not uncommon by Eastern European athletes before its ban, but it was the subject of a doping scandal in 2016 when the Ice Hockey Federation of Russia replaced its under-18s squad with an under-17s team at the World Under-18s Championships due to several players returning positive test results.

Who is responsible for drugs testing in the Premier League?

UK Anti-Doping (UKAD), the national organisation established to help keep all sports clean, works in conjunction with the English Football Association to test Premier League players.

The disciplinary powers belong to the FA, which will decide the length of suspension that is given out to a player who fails a test.

It was the FA that notified Chelsea and Mudryk of his adverse finding in an ‘A’ sample and will await the findings of the ‘B’ sample before deciding the next steps.

The FA issues clear directives to all players each season and reminds them of the “strict liability” over any banned substances found. The sole responsibility, it says in the FA’s anti-doping guidance, belongs to the player “regardless of how (the substance) got there and whether there was an intention to cheat or not”.

How often are players tested?

There is no set amount or limit to the number of times a player is tested, but UKAD will typically visit each club on three or four occasions throughout a season.

UKAD’s most recent published figures show that between July 1 and September 30 this year it conducted 643 drugs tests on behalf of the FA, over a quarter of the 2,206 tests conducted across sports during that period.

The testing team will arrive without notice and select a small number of players at random.

There are set rules to the procedure, with the selected players remaining in full view of the doping control officer (DCO) and asked to remove enough clothing for observation of a urine sample being taken. A refusal to participate can bring a lengthy suspension of up to four years.

Testing will most commonly take place at training grounds or in a post-match setting. The process will take as long as is necessary, with some dehydrated players known to take more than an hour to produce a sample.

DCOs are also able to visit athletes at their homes but footballers are mostly tested in their professional environment.

How unusual is it for footballers in England to fail drugs tests?

Adverse findings are few and far between and, most commonly, have been due to traces of recreational drugs being discovered.

Former Chelsea forward Adrian Mutu, goalkeeper Mark Bosnich and one-time England midfielder Jake Livermore were all given suspensions by the FA for testing positive for traces of cocaine, as was the Cardiff winger Nathaniel Mendez-Laing more recently, in 2020.

Further afield, the use of performance-enhancing drugs is rare but not without precedent.

In February, French World Cup winner Paul Pogba was banned for four years when found to have taken a doping agent while at Juventus, a suspension that was later reduced to 18 months when an appeal to CAS found the consumption of the drug had not been intentional. He is still without a club.

In February 2021, Manchester United goalkeeper Andre Onana, then playing for Ajax, was banned for a year by UEFA after testing positive for furosemide, a diuretic. That was reduced to nine months by CAS after the court accepted Onana’s explanation that he had confused the medication — which he said belonged to his wife — with aspirin.

Last month saw Oscar Zambrano, the Hull City midfielder, also given a lengthy ban.

Zambrano had returned a positive test last season when playing for his Ecuadorian parent club LDU Quito but had remained eligible to feature until CONMEBOL issued a ban for breaching anti-doping rules on November 4. Hull, who had only signed the player on loan, said Zambrano intended to appeal through CAS but the case is not yet listed.

What are the rules around confidentiality for players who fail tests?

The FA outlines the process in their anti-doping regulations. The player and his or her club are the first to be notified if an initial sample returns adverse findings, prompting a provisional suspension under Regulation 54.

An investigation, including further testing of a ‘B’ sample, follows and the theory is that the process is kept confidential until the point of a charge letter being sent out. The FA, as such, has declined to comment on Mudryk’s situation so far.

The coordinated statements issued by both Chelsea and Mudryk on Tuesday morning came after several media outlets in Ukraine broke the news of the player’s suspension.

What kind of punishments can be applied now?

Nothing as yet. The initial tests are not grounds for guilt and, in cases, have been known to be erroneous.

The provisional suspension issued by the FA ensures Mudryk cannot feature for Chelsea until that further analysis has taken place and it will be an anxious wait to discover if the ‘B’ sample shows evidence of the same banned substance.

If that sample comes back positive, the consequences of that could be severe for Mudryk. Doping bans typically cover between two and four years, though as mentioned above, appeals can reduce the length of those bans.

“If we look at what happened with Paul Pogba, his violation and the consequences that followed, that was a lengthy ban,” says Jibreel Tramboo, a sports lawyer at Church Court Chambers. “I understand the circumstances are different but the point still follows.

“Anti-doping regulations are a strict liability offence. Athletes are fully responsible for substances found in their bodies. It’s irrelevant if it’s accidental or intentional. If it’s there, it’s a breach. You could argue a reduced sanction if he can demonstrate no significant fault or negligence in what he’s taken but there is arguably no defence.”

What are Chelsea’s options now?

Chelsea have indicated their support for Mudryk, who “confirmed categorically that he has never knowingly used any banned substances”. The early emphasis has been placed upon establishing the facts of the case, but there will be a decision to be made should Mudryk face a long-term ban.

Chelsea, albeit under previous ownership, sacked both Mutu in 2004 and Bosnich in 2003 when they were banned by the FA for taking cocaine. Bosnich, then an ageing goalkeeper, saw his protests of innocence overlooked by Chelsea, while Mutu, signed for £15million, also had his contract ripped up.

There is little doubt that an intentional doping offence can form the grounds for dismissal if Mudryk is sanctioned, but Chelsea’s willingness to pursue that avenue would not be a given. Mudryk, after all, is a player signed as a huge future investment and has a contract running until at least 2030. Parting company with an obvious financial asset — no matter Mudryk’s struggles in English football — would be difficult without an avenue for compensation.

Chelsea, though, again have history on that front. Mutu’s sacking left them out of pocket and the club successfully took legal action against the player, winning £14million in damages for breach of contract. Mutu lost a series of appeals, including one through the Swiss Federal Court.

“Chelsea have their precedents, sacking Adrian Mutu for the use of cocaine, but based on what we’re seeing so far, with Mudryk not knowingly using a banned substance, it’s a very different case,” says Tramboo. “Mutu was taking cocaine, which was in complete breach of his contract.”

Depending on what happens next, Tramboo says “there might be enough to lead to a sacking through breach of (Mudryk’s) contract” but he is “not convinced that’s the road Chelsea would choose to go down. I think ultimately they will support him and the best argument they will have legally is what they can do to mitigate the situation, to reduce the sanction.”

(Top photo: Ryan Pierse/Getty Images)