Marina Mabrey's foul on Caitlin Clark upgraded to Flagrant-2, AP source says
The WNBA has upgraded the technical foul on Connecticut's Marina Mabrey for shoving Caitlin Clark to the floor during Tuesday's night game against Indiana to a Flagrant-2, a person familiar with the situation said Wednesday.
The person spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because no official announcement had been made.
Any flagrant foul comes with an automatic fine. The person also said the league has fined the Fever's Sophie Cunningham for her role in the on-court melee that occurred after she fouled Jacy Sheldon with 46.1 seconds left. Cunningham received a Flagrant-2 Tuesday night.
There will be no further penalties for on-court actions during the game, the person said. The WNBA doesn't disclose the amount of money players are fined.
The play at the end of the game was the culmination of tensions that had been building throughout.
Mabrey's technical followed a skirmish in the third quarter. Sheldon poked Caitlin Clark in the eye while defending her. Clark pushed Sheldon away and Mabrey forcefully pushed Clark, knocking the star guard to the ground. Clark and Tina Charles were also assessed technical fouls.
In a pool report, official Ashley Gloss said the contact made by Mabrey didn't rise to the level of an ejection or meet the criteria for a Flagrant-2.
After the contest, both teams said missed calls and poor game management by the officials led to the melee at the end.
Fever coach Stephanie White said 'bad officiating' is a leaguewide issue and that 'everybody (in the WNBA) is getting better, except the officials.'
'I started talking to the officials in the first quarter, and we knew this was going to happen,' White said. 'You could tell it was going to happen. So, they've got to get control of it. They've got to be better.'
___
AP WNBA: https://apnews.com/hub/wnba-basketball
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
38 minutes ago
- CBS News
Millions made available for Florida universities to pay student-athletes
Pointing to a need to avoid a disadvantage in recruiting athletes, Florida university-system leaders Wednesday made up to $22.5 million available for each state university to share revenues with athletes. The system's Board of Governors approved the funding, which will be available annually at that level as a loan or transfer for the next three years. It is designed to help carry out a new revenue-sharing model with athletes under a national legal settlement in a case known as House v. NCAA. Will help put universities into a position to compete for talent It comes amid massive change in college sports, in part because of athletes now being able to cash in through "name, image and likeness" deals. Traditionally, college athletes could not be paid. Board of Governors member Alan Levine said the money approved Wednesday "takes some of the pressure off the donors" now funding name, image and likeness deals and ensures "we put our universities in as advantageous a position as possible to compete." The settlement, approved June 6 by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern District of California, in part establishes a 10-year model for NCAA Division I schools to expand rosters and directly pay athletes for their names, images and likenesses. "They're already out there trying to sign contracts with these athletes," Levine said. "And if we don't act, there's a really good chance that our institutions will be severely disadvantaged. I don't think anybody wants that." Spending is capped per school Payments, expected to go primarily to students who play football and men's basketball, would be in addition to currently allowed individual name, image and likeness deals, where money is often raised and distributed through what are known as "collectives" and other organizations tied to schools. Under the settlement, schools that opt in to the plan could spend up to a capped amount on direct payments and roster-expanding scholarships. For the 2025-2026 school year, the cap would be set at $20.5 million per school. Peter Collins, chairman of the Florida State University Board of Trustees, said not every Florida school will reach the cap. "I don't know for sure everybody else around the table, but I know we will, because everybody that we play is spending in the cap," Collins said. The cap is based on calculations involving media, ticket and sponsorship revenue at schools in what are known as the "Power 5" conferences --- the Atlantic Coast Conference, Big Ten, Big 12, Southeastern Conference and Pac-12 --- and at Notre Dame. The additional $2 million being offered to schools would cover back-pay of certain athletes who played before name, image and likeness deals became legal in 2021.
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Mykhailo Mudryk's doping charge explained: Can Chelsea sack him if found guilty and could he appeal?
After provisionally suspending Mykhailo Mudryk in December for a failed drugs test, the English Football Association (FA) has now charged the Chelsea winger for violating its anti-doping regulations. This means Mudryk, who has not played a competitive game of football since the end of November, could now face a maximum penalty of a four-year suspension. Advertisement Although the 24-year-old was in Wroclaw, Poland, to watch Chelsea lift the UEFA Conference League on May 28, he is not with the squad for their ongoing involvement in the FIFA Club World Cup, which is taking place in the United States. In statement released on Wednesday afternoon, the FA said: 'We can confirm that Mykhailo Mudryk has been charged with anti-doping rule violations alleging the presence and/or use of a prohibited substance, in terms of regulations 3 and 4 of The FA's Anti-Doping Regulations. As this is an ongoing case, we are not in a position to comment further at this time.' As per the FA's anti-doping regulations, Mudryk now has 20 days to decide whether to accept the finding and whatever punishments follow, or request a hearing with the FA. Although a four-year ban would be the worst-case scenario for Mudryk, a possible suspension could range anywhere from two years to a month, depending on any mitigating factors. Here, we explain the background to his case — some of which appeared in an article previously published in December — and what happens now. In December, it emerged that a routine drugs test found Mudryk to have — in Chelsea's words — 'an adverse finding' in a urine sample provided by the player. This immediately led to a provisional suspension from Chelsea's first team as they awaited the results of further testing. When urine samples are collected, they are put into two separate containers. The A sample is used for the initial test, and if that comes back positive, they then test the B sample to verify the accuracy of the first result. So, following Mudryk's positive A sample, his B sample was then tested, which verified that he had tested positive for meldonium, a banned substance. The Athletic previously reported that Mudryk returned the positive test for meldonium after being away on international duty in November during a period that saw him feature in Ukraine's Nations League fixtures against Georgia and Albania. Before his positive test became public knowledge, Chelsea head coach Enzo Maresca was asked about Mudryk's absence and simply said he is 'out', or that he was ill, without giving any further reason. Advertisement Neither Mudryk or Chelsea have spoken publicly since the FA announced its decision to charge him on Wednesday. In December, the club issued a statement saying that Mudryk 'has confirmed categorically that he has never knowingly used any banned substances'. In the same statement, the player said: '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.' If the charge is upheld, the player's options would be limited. 'If a ban is imposed, he will have the option to try to reduce the length of the ban by appealing the sanction,' says Dan Chapman, a partner and head of employment and sports law at Leathes Prior. Chapman notes that any appeal by Mudryk would be to the FA, though his legal team may also explore whether they can appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS), which is where Paul Pogba had his four-year ban reduced to 18 months. Chapman says that the 'domestic process is reasonably speedy', both in terms of possible sanctions and any appeal. 'Appeals to the European system are complex, even if available, and will take some while,' he adds. 'The thing with Pogba was that he was of an age where the sanction was career-ending and challenging the ban was his only play. If Mudryk feels that he no realistic prospect of overturning any ban, the situation could change. 'Depending on how long the ban is for,' Chapman continues, 'the advice might be that once the FA process has been concluded, he will need to accept the outcome and that he will still have plenty of time to play after the ban ends.' If the FA finds against Mudryk then, unlike the player, Chelsea would have several options. In the standard Premier League contracts that are in place between all players and clubs, there is a definition of gross misconduct, and being found to have taken a prohibited substance falls under the definition, as it does in accordance with FA rules. Advertisement 'The club, on the face of it, would have a relatively open-and-shut case to say the player is guilty of gross misconduct and, if they wanted to, they could terminate the player's contract,' Chapman says. 'They would need to give 14 days' notice to the player in writing if that is what they wanted to do. 'There is an appeal process available to the player, and we are not talking about an appeal against the drugs finding, but an appeal against the decision of the club to terminate his contract for gross misconduct. 'The player can follow that process, although it is hard to see how any appeal could realistically be successful, if the FA allegations have been upheld.' When Mudryk joined Chelsea in January 2023, he signed an eight-and-a-half-year contract, the last year of which is optional, meaning he could be tied to the club for another six years. But Mudryk would not have the remainder of his contract paid out if he is sacked for gross misconduct. Chelsea would only need to pay him for the 14 days. Another option open to Chelsea, Chapman explains, is that they may decide to keep Mudryk, given his age, potential and remaining contract length. In this scenario, the Premier League side may seek to renegotiate the Ukrainian's contract and put him on a significantly lower wage while he serves the ban. It would still be up to Mudryk, however, to sign a new deal on reduced terms. He may instead fancy his chances as a free agent if the alternative to that is being sacked by the club. If Chelsea opt to sack Mudryk, then Chapman says they could in theory also sue him for damages, which is what they successfully did when they sacked Adrian Mutu in 2004 after he tested positive for cocaine and was handed a seven-month ban. 'That is a very rare step, but that is an option open to them,' adds Chapman. 'They would argue they bought an asset for £80million, he breached the contract, and now the asset is worth virtually nothing. Advertisement 'Not many clubs would ever want to do that because the message you are sending future players is that if you sign for us and things go wrong, then we may sue you. This doesn't tend to happen, but it can. The signs so far, and who knows whether this is a justified position not being privy to the facts, is that Chelsea are being fully supportive of their player.' A prohibited substance, in short. Meldonium is a heart disease drug developed in 1970 in the former Soviet Union. 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. Philip Buckingham Adverse findings are few and far between and, most commonly, have been due to traces of recreational drugs being discovered. 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. Advertisement Further afield, the use of performance-enhancing drugs is rare but not without precedent. In February, 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. On November 4, Oscar Zambrano, the Hull City midfielder, was 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. Hull, who had only signed the player on loan, said Zambrano intended to appeal through CAS but the case is not yet listed. Philip Buckingham Doping bans ordinarily fall between two and four years, although appeals can reduce the length of those bans, as was seen in the case of Pogba. '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.' Philip Buckingham
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Full injury report for Thursday's Thunder vs. Pacers Game 6 matchup
Full injury report for Thursday's Thunder vs. Pacers Game 6 matchup The Oklahoma City Thunder travel on the road to face the Indiana Pacers for Game 6 of the 2025 NBA Finals on Thursday. The Thunder hold a 3-2 series lead in the 2025 NBA Finals. The Thunder are on the cusp of a championship. Jalen Williams had the game of his life with 40 points in a 120-109 Game 5 win on Monday. Shai Gilgeous-Alexander was the co-headliner with 31 points and 10 assists. Meanwhile, the Pacers could be in trouble. Tyrese Haliburton had a quiet four points and six assists in their Game 5 loss. He suffered a calf strain that puts his Game 6 status in the air. If he's out, that jeopardizes Indiana's chances of forcing a Game 7. The Thunder continue to enjoy health luck. Only Nikola Topic (torn ACL) is out. Meanwhile, the Pacers will be without their best player. Tyrese Haliburton (calf strain) is questionable. Jarace Walker (ankle sprain) is out. Isaiah Jackson (torn Achilles) is out. Tipoff from Indiana is set for 7:30 p.m. CT.
