What the FA has charged and what we know so far
A positive test for meldonium has put Chelsea and Ukraine winger Mykhailo Mudryk at the center of an anti-doping case that could keep him off the pitch for years. The Football Association has formally charged the 24-year-old with anti-doping rule violations after his B sample confirmed the presence of a banned substance. He was provisionally suspended in December and has not played since.
The FA said the charges relate to the “presence and/or use of a prohibited substance” under Regulations 3 and 4 of its Anti-Doping Regulations. Beyond that, the governing body is saying little while the case moves through the process. The charge itself signals that the secondary test backed up the first, which is the usual threshold before a case is pursued.
Mudryk has denied any wrongdoing from the start. When the provisional suspension became public in December, he posted that he was shocked and had “never knowingly used any banned substances.” He said he was working with his team to figure out how it happened and that he hoped to be back on the pitch soon. That remains his stance, and his representatives are preparing a defense built around how meldonium entered his system.
People familiar with the case say the substance was likely administered outside the UK. That detail will matter because where and how the substance entered his body can shape whether a violation is judged “intentional,” which carries the heaviest penalty, or whether the panel accepts arguments about no significant fault or contamination.
Chelsea declined to comment on the FA’s latest step. That’s normal in these situations. Clubs typically keep quiet until a hearing concludes. For now, Mudryk stays sidelined under his provisional suspension while lawyers and experts get to work on both sides.
This is a blow for Chelsea’s planning. The club invested heavily when they signed him in January 2023 for a fee widely reported to be around £88.5 million. He has been part of the rotation across the front line, and his sudden absence has forced changes to selection and development plans, especially in wide areas where minutes have shifted to Raheem Sterling, Noni Madueke, and others.
There’s a lot at stake for the player, too. A maximum four-year ban would remove him from top-level football for a long stretch at a pivotal age. It would also hit his international career with Ukraine, where he has been a regular. Even a reduced sanction would cost him form, rhythm, and standing in both squads. That’s why his camp is pushing hard to explain the finding and seek the lowest possible outcome.
Meldonium, the process, and what comes next
Meldonium is a metabolic modulator sold under the brand name Mildronate in parts of Eastern Europe. It isn’t approved in the UK or US. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) banned it from January 1, 2016, after it found athletes using it for performance benefits like improved endurance and faster recovery. The most famous case was tennis star Maria Sharapova in 2016; she admitted taking the drug and served a 15-month ban after an appeal reduced her initial two-year sanction.
In the early months after the ban, WADA wrestled with how long the substance could linger in the body, which affected some cases. But the rules and detection windows have long since tightened. Today, a positive test means an athlete has to show how the substance got there and why it wasn’t intentional to avoid the worst outcome.
Here’s how the process usually unfolds in English football. After an A-sample finds a prohibited substance, the player is provisionally suspended. The B-sample is tested to confirm or contradict the first result. If it confirms, the FA lays charges. The case then goes to an independent panel under the FA’s anti-doping framework, which hears evidence from both sides—lab data, medical records, supplement logs, expert testimony.
The key questions are simple but tough to prove: How did the substance enter the body? Was there intent to enhance performance? Could it have been a contaminated product? Did the player take reasonable steps to avoid banned substances? The answers shape the sanction.
Potential outcomes vary:
- A four-year ban if the panel decides the violation was intentional.
- Something closer to two years if intent is not proven but responsibility remains.
- A shorter ban, or even a reprimand, if there’s strong proof of no significant fault or contamination tied to a specific product.
- Time already spent under provisional suspension typically counts toward any final sanction.
Past cases in football show the range. Ajax goalkeeper André Onana received a 12-month ban in 2021, later cut to nine months on appeal, after he accidentally took medication prescribed to his partner. Liverpool defender Mamadou Sakho was cleared in 2016 when a substance he’d used was later removed from the prohibited list, and he successfully challenged the initial action. Years earlier, Kolo Touré served six months for taking a diet pill, and Rio Ferdinand missed eight months in 2004 for failing to attend a drug test, even though that case didn’t involve a positive sample.
For Mudryk, expect a detailed paper trail. His team will likely present medical records, travel logs, and supplement lists. If the claim is that meldonium was taken abroad without intent, they’ll need to back that up with receipts, prescriptions, or testimony that fits lab timelines. The FA, working with UK Anti-Doping, will counter with its own experts on detection windows and dosing patterns.
As for timing, these hearings don’t wrap up overnight. Once the charge is laid, parties exchange evidence, set a hearing date, and submit witness statements. Some cases finish in weeks; others run for months depending on the complexity and availability of experts. After a verdict, there’s a right to appeal, and in certain circumstances, WADA or UKAD can challenge a decision they believe is too lenient.
What does this mean for Chelsea day to day? On the pitch, the coaching staff has to plan as if he isn’t available. That affects squad rotation, minutes for younger wingers, and even January or summer market plans. Off the pitch, wage and contract details usually stay private. In many cases, pay is reviewed once a final sanction is imposed, not during a provisional suspension. Training access is also restricted under anti-doping rules, which limits a player’s ability to stay in team rhythm.
From a business angle, the club faces an awkward calculation. A long ban reduces a player’s transfer value and disrupts amortization plans on a major signing. You can’t recoup time lost to suspension. At the same time, clubs tend to let the process run before making big decisions. They’ve seen how outcomes can swing based on new evidence or successful appeals.
For Ukraine’s national team, the absence of a first-choice winger changes selection and strategy in upcoming windows. Coaches hate uncertainty. They’d rather know if a player is out for a fixed period than work week to week without clarity. The sooner a hearing sets a clear outcome, the better for everyone involved.
There’s one more layer here: education. Modern elite dressing rooms are flooded with supplements, vitamins, and medications for travel, recovery, and immune support. Teams run workshops and keep approved lists, but the risk never fully disappears, especially when players travel and see private doctors abroad. Most squads now tell players to photograph every label and clear every tablet with club medics. Cases like this show why that protocol matters.
So where does it go now? Mudryk’s camp will file its response to the FA charge and can ask for a hearing date. The panel will review the evidence, deliver a decision, and set any sanction. Whatever the outcome, the case will shape how Chelsea manages its wing options this season and how one of Ukraine’s brightest talents charts the next years of his career.
Write a comment