Sports

Ramos denies anti-doping allegations

Published

6 years ago

November 24, 2018

Real Madrid defender Sergio Ramos has dismissed anti – doping allegations against him as a “ lie ” and a deliberate attempt to tarnish his reputation .
According to the German magazine Der Spiegel , Ramos failed to declare he had taken dexamethasone ahead of the 2017 Champions League final at the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff , in which Real beat Juventus 4 -1 .

The club denied the claims on Friday night and Ramos , speaking after Real lost 3 -0 at Eibar on Saturday , made a staunch defence of his record .

“ I am calm , ” Ramos said . “ It is true that it hurts , and obviously I will come out with my legal team against these people , who try to stain my status and my professional career .

“ After 15 years , I have never refused an anti – doping test , I have never breached any procedure and I have passed around 250 to 300 tests . For this reason , I am calm . ”

Ramos added : “ When you know the truth , you can act with a lot of tranquility . You can tell the lie many times over but it is still a lie . ”

Dexamethasone is a glucocorticoid on the banned list of the World Anti -Doping Agency ( WADA ) . The substance can have anti – inflammatory effects and increase concentration .

WADA does not prohibit players taking dexamethasone before games , as long as it is declared during a doping test . Der Spiegel claims Ramos and the Real Madrid team doctor instead registered betamethasone , another glucocorticoid on WADA ’ s banned list.

However the magazine also reports that UEFA were satisfied the mistake was an administrative error and took no disciplinary action .

In a statement, Real Madrid said that Ramos “ has never breached the anti -doping control regulations ” and that UEFA “ closed the matter immediately ” , following the “ verification of experts from the World Anti -Doping Agency , AMA, and UEFA itself ” .

The club continued : “ Regarding the rest of the content from the aforementioned publication , the club will not pronounce on evidence that is so insubstantial . ”

( AFP )