Once upon a time there was an athlete who did not bother to contest their positive doping test, and did not also reserve the position that it was all wrong but that there was no point in even trying to start convincing the world about it because the world was determined to do them down.

“I did it because I felt others in my event were doing it. I thought, ‘If they can do it and get away with it, then let’s have a go.’”

Thus spake British shot putter Neal Brunning unto me in the aftermath of receiving a four-year ban for testosterone in 1992.

The burly Londoner, who fitted a career as a discus thrower around 13-hour days as a chef, remains unusual. When his number came up after a positive test at the National Indoor Championships, he admitted what he had been doing and accepted disciplinary action.

"If you are caught, you put your hand up," he said. "There is no point in doing anything else. It just makes you look like a fool. That's why everyone speaks to me: because I'm an honest banned athlete."

As things stand, and pending an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, Russia’s five-times Grand Slam tennis champion Maria Sharapova is now officially a banned athlete, having received a two-year doping suspension yesterday from an independent tribunal appointed by the International Tennis Federation – ruling her out of the Rio 2016 Olympics, and the next seven Grand Slam tournaments.

Is she an “honest banned athlete” though? Well yes and no.

The initial reaction upon hearing that this experienced, 29-year-old athlete had tested positive at this year’s Australian Open for a substance – meldonium, commercially known as Mildronate – that had been put onto the World Anti-Doping Agency’s list of Prohibited Substances on January 1, 2016 was – how on earth could her team have failed to keep track of that change, and to take the obvious step of telling her to stop taking a substance she had been prescribed, for somewhat nebulous reasons, 10 years earlier?

And the answer was simple. Because she never told them.

Doping control forms require players in their own hand to make a declaration as to medication or supplements taken. The requirement is headed “Declaration of Medication/Supplements“ and requires a “List of any prescription/non-prescription medications or supplements, including vitamins and minerals, taken over the past 7 days (include substance, dosage and when last taken).”

Sharapova eschewed countless opportunities to put on the list what was one of a number of substances prescribed for her by Dr Anatoly Skalny of the Centre for Biotic Medicine in Moscow a year after she had won the 2004 Wimbledon singles title as a 17-year-old.

The tribunal commented: “This was a deliberate decision, not a mistake. Taken together with the evidence that over a period of 3 years she did not disclose her use of Mildronate to her coach, trainer, physio, nutritionist or any medical adviser she consulted through the WTA, the facts are only consistent with a deliberate decision to keep secret from the anti-doping authorities the fact that she was using Mildronate in competition.”

Meldonium, the tribunal notes, “is manufactured by JSC Grindeks in Latvia and marketed under a number of brand names, including ‘Mildronate’. The indications stated in the instructions for use 5 issued by the distributors of Mildronate are principally ischaemic heart disease and cerebrovascular disorders, but also include ‘decreased working efficiency, intellectual and physical overstress (including in sportsmen).’

The report continues: “In the period from January to April 2006 Dr. Skalny sent very detailed messages to Ms Sharapova advising on her nutritional intake, including advice as to medications. The messages which have been disclosed include the following advice given in 2006 on taking Mildronate:

“Mildronate 1-2 X 10, repeat in 2 wks (before training or competition)” “1 hr before competition, 2 pills of Mildronate” “During games of special importance, you can increase your Mildronate dose to 3-4 pills (1 hr before the match). However, it is necessary to consult me on all these matters (please call)” “30 minutes prior to a training session: Mildronat – 1 Capsule. 30-45 minutes prior to a tournament Mildronat 2 capsules”.

Clearly the substance was regarded as performance-enhancing. But until January 1, 2016 – so what? It wasn’t on the prohibited list.

So why did Sharapova remain so secretive about it, telling only her manager, Max Eisenbud, about her supplementation? There is no clear answer to that.

Sharapova split with Dr Skalny in 2013, but continued to take meldonium. Eisenbud told the tribunal that he had taken over responsibility for checking Sharapova’s medications and supplements against the WADA Prohibited List each year.

The tribunal notes relate his witness statement: “In November 2013 and 2014 he printed out a copy of the Prohibited List for the forthcoming year to take it with him on his vacation in the Caribbean so that it could be checked. In 2015 he separated from his wife, did not take his annual vacation in the Caribbean and due to the issues in his personal life failed to review the 2016 Prohibited List.”

The tribunal found his evidence “wholly incredible” and dismissed it. Why tell this story? Even if it had been believed, it would not have altered the case.

Importantly, the ITF accepted that Sharapova “did not engage in conduct that she knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation,” adding: “The basis of that concession is that she would not have continued to take Mildronate after 1 January 2016 if she had known that its active ingredient was on the Prohibited List, because she would inevitably be tested at the Australian Open.”

Because of this, the original request by the ITF for a four-year suspension was halved. But the tribunal’s crushing conclusion would appear to leave no room open to appeal:

“The contravention of the anti-doping rules was not intentional as Ms Sharapova did not appreciate that Mildronate contained a substance prohibited from 1 January 2016. However she does bear sole responsibility for the contravention, and very significant fault, in failing to take any steps to check whether the continued use of this medicine was permissible.

“If she had not concealed her use of Mildronate from the anti-doping authorities, members of her own support team and the doctors whom she consulted, but had sought advice, then the contravention would have been avoided. She is the sole author of her own misfortune.”

After all the words, Sharapova’s actions remain, frankly, inexplicable.

There is less ambiguity about the recent statement made by her fellow Russian sportswoman Tatyana Firova, an Olympic silver medallist in the 4x400 metres at the 2004, 2008 and 2012 Olympics whose re-tested sample from the Beijing 2008 Games has come up positive.

Firova was speaking at the Meteor Stadium near Moscow during an event intended to help convince visiting Western media that Russia was getting to grips with the doping irregularities which have left its track-and-field athletes suspended from international competition – with a key decision on their eligibility for Rio 2016 due to be taken by the IAAF Council on June 17.

Interviewed by Sky News’ John Sparks, the former relay runner dropped the baton good and proper for her embattled sporting administrators and politicians, saying that the “bureaucrats” had to take responsibility for the numerous doping positives shown up by Russian sportsmen and women, adding: “We sportsmen are performers, we follow the rules that are given to us by the system.”

Firova then offered the following observation: "A normal person can take banned substances if they want to.

"So why can't athletes take them as well? How else can we achieve high results?"

In the space of four sentences, the problem encapsulated. But you don’t doubt the sincerity of Firova’s views. Unpalatable as they may be, her comments ring true. And without that, there is no firm ground from which to move forwards to fair and proper competition.