Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Samir Nasri: Spanish Anti-Doping Agency confirms investigation after midfielder's IV drip revealed in Twitter sex storm

The Manchester City midfielder, on loan to Sevilla, will be investigated after controversial tweets revealed one litre hydration drip at Los Angeles clinic

Jack Pitt-Brooke
Thursday 29 December 2016 12:14 GMT
Comments
Samir Nasri is set to be banned for a year by Uefa
Samir Nasri is set to be banned for a year by Uefa (Getty)

Samir Nasri is under investigation by the Spanish anti-doping agency (AEPSAD), an official from the body confirmed to The Independent.

The case concerns an intravenous drip containing one litre of hydration fluid that Nasri received at the controversial ‘Drip Doctors’ clinic in Los Angeles earlier this week. The World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) only allow IV drips of more than 50 millilitres of fluid unless there is a specific medical reason, such as a hospital visit, or if the athlete has a therapeutic use exemption (TUE).

News broke of Nasri’s “immunity IV drip” on Tuesday night, leading to a series of salacious and swiftly-deleted tweets from his account. Nasri later insisted that his account had been hacked.

But AEPSAD started to look into the matter on Wednesday, in accordance with Wada’s strict rules on IV drips. They have spoken to Sevilla, the club that Nasri is on loan to from Manchester City.

AEPSAD have not spoken to Nasri directly yet, but he is expected to return to Spain from the United States today, and the anti-doping agency are hoping to speak to him later, if not tomorrow. He will be asked to give a medical explanation for why he had the drip, which also contains Vitamin B, Vitamin C, Lysine and Zinc.

Nasri, who has been in excellent form since joining Jorge Sampaoli’s side on loan, is facing the prospect of a ban or even fine if he is found to have contravened Wada’s rules.

AEPSAD would put not timescale on their investigation and insisted that they would have to be “prudent” in looking into what they described as a “very strange” case.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in