Samir Nasri could face a four year ban over infamous Drip Doctors treatment 5 years ago

Samir Nasri could face a four year ban over infamous Drip Doctors treatment

This story just keeps getting worse for Samir Nasri after it emerged he could face a ban of up to four years as a result of his use of the Drip Doctors service.

The Manchester City midfielder who is currently on loan at Sevilla was caught up in an extraordinary story last week when an LA-based service called Drip Doctors tweeted that Nasri had been given a "concierge immunity IV drip to keep him hydrated & in top health during his busy soccer season".

Advertisement

What followed was a series of bizarre tweets from Nasri's own account claiming the France midfielder had slept with the woman who administered the treatment.

Nasri later said his account had been hacked, but it has now emerged that he is being investigated by the Spanish Anti-Doping Agency (AEPSAD) over the drip he is said to have received in LA, in case it broke World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) rules.

AEPSAD said it had "commenced an investigation into treatment used by football player Samir Nasri".

Advertisement

The statement added: "AEPSAD wants to gather all the information and check what happened. We must be very prudent at the moment. We can't prejudge the player."

Samir Nasri (L) is still allowed to play while the investigation is ongoing (Photo by Aitor Alcalde/Getty Images)

 

Advertisement

According to the Drip Doctors website the immunity IV drip is one litre of hydration designed to "combat superbugs and common viruses".

The WADA limit for active athletes is 50ml, unless "received in the course of hospital admissions, surgical procedures or clinical investigations".

Now WADA spokesman Ben Nichols has told the Daily Mail that Nasri could be hit with a four year ban.

He said: "A violation of Article 2.2 of the code could result in a sanction of up to four years.

Advertisement

"However, this will depend upon factors such as whether or not the use was intentional and if unintentional, the sanction could be subject to further reductions on the basis of no significant fault or negligence."

Bet he wishes he'd never bothered, now...