tennis federation to conduct more anti-doping tests. Novak Djokovic said that he felt sorry for her, but that she must still be ready for punishment. The Russian Tennis Federation strongly defended Sharapova, describing the positive drug test as "nonsense" and adding that they expected Sharapova to be available for the 2016 Summer Olympics. As a result of the failed drug test, Nike and TAG Heuer suspended their relationships with Sharapova, while Porsche postponed promotional work. Racquet manufacturer HEAD stood by Sharapova, saying, "We look forward to working with her", and announced that they intended to extend their contract. They also suggested that WADA should prove scientifically why the drug should be banned. The United Nations Development Programme suspended Sharapova from her role as a goodwill ambassador on March 16, while expressing thanks for her support of their work over the previous nine years. On 12 April, WADA intimated that athletes who tested positive for meldonium before March 1 could avoid bans, but the International Tennis Federation said that Sharapova's case would proceed. On June 8, the ITF announced that Sharapova would be suspended for two years. Sharapova indicated she would appeal the ban. Following a hearing on 7 and 8 September 2016, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel found that Sharapova had a reduced perception of the risk that she took while using Mildronate, because (a) she had used Mildronate for around ten years without any anti-doping issue, (b) she did not mask or hide her use of mildronate and was in fact open about it to many in her entourage (c) she had consulted the Russian doctor who prescribed the Mildronate for medical reasons, not to enhance her performance, and (d) she had received no specific warning about the change in status of meldonium from WADA, the ITF, or the WTA. However, the CAS panel also noted Sharapova's failure to disclose her use of meldonium on her doping control forms and that she was at fault for (a) failing to give her agent adequate instructions as to how to carry out the important task of checking the Prohibited List, and (b) failing to supervise and control the actions of her agent in carrying out that task (specifically the lack of any procedure for reporting or follow-up verification to make sure that her agent had actually discharged his duty). Finally, the panel wishes to point out that the