Mykhailo Mudryk passes lie detector in doping case as Chelsea face €30m worry

The case so far

Mykhailo Mudryk has reportedly passed a lie detector test as he fights a doping charge that has kept him out since November 2024. The Chelsea winger tested positive for meldonium while on international duty with Ukraine and has been provisionally suspended ever since. If the violation is confirmed, he could face a four-year ban. He says he never knowingly took a banned substance.

The polygraph result won’t decide the case on its own. In anti-doping matters, lie detector tests are not formal evidence. But they can support a player’s narrative while lawyers build the core defense: where the substance came from, how it entered the body, and whether there was intent. Ukrainian journalist Igor Burbas has said a stem cell injection Mudryk received with the national team may explain the result. If that treatment was contaminated or contained a prohibited compound without proper clearance, it could form the backbone of a “no significant fault” argument.

Meldonium has history. WADA banned it in 2016 after finding widespread use for endurance and recovery. It’s a heart medication, common in parts of Eastern Europe. Early in 2016, labs struggled with detection windows, and WADA later issued guidance for low concentrations that might indicate older use. None of that changes the rule today: if it’s in your system, you need a valid medical exemption. Without one, you’re in trouble unless you can prove how it got there and that you weren’t careless.

The process has been slow. First comes the A-sample finding, then the athlete can request the B-sample test. That step usually confirms the result, but it’s still a formal right. After that, the case moves to a hearing. Because the sample was taken during international duty, jurisdiction can involve the national federation and the relevant anti-doping body overseeing that competition. Hearings, expert reports, and lab questions often push timelines into many months. Mudryk’s camp has kept details tight while the clock keeps ticking.

During the suspension, Mudryk has been kept away from Chelsea’s Cobham base, though the club set a fitness plan to maintain condition. His last appearance came in early December, when he scored in a 2-0 win over Heidenheim in European competition, and he was last named in a squad for a 3-0 win over Aston Villa on December 1, 2024. Updates have been scarce since, beyond reports of the polygraph and the medical-treatment angle now being explored.

What it means for Chelsea — on and off the pitch

On the football side, Chelsea moved to protect themselves on the wings during his absence, with reports of additions including Alejandro Garnacho and Jamie Gittens. That’s about covering minutes and keeping a competitive edge while Mudryk’s status remains unresolved. Squad planning is ruthless at the top level: if a player is unavailable indefinitely, you buy or promote someone who is.

The business side is messier. The club’s “€30m worry” reflects the risk around a big asset sidelined for a long stretch. Transfer fees are amortized over contracts, so any lengthy ban affects both on-pitch value and the balance sheet. Wages, insurance, and potential clawback clauses depend on the exact contract language and league rules. In some cases, clubs can withhold pay during suspensions; in others, it’s more complicated and may trigger grievances or negotiations.

For Mudryk, the hearing will hinge on three questions: what the lab found, how it got there, and how careful he was. If the stem cell injection is the source, can the team produce records, batch numbers, and expert testimony that show contamination or a misstep in medical oversight? Was there any attempt to secure a Therapeutic Use Exemption? Paper trails matter. So do pharmacokinetics: timing, concentration, and metabolite profiles can help reconstruct events.

Possible outcomes range widely, and the wording of the decision will matter as much as the length of any sanction:

• No violation: if the panel is convinced by the evidence or finds a testing/procedural flaw.
• Reduced sanction: if there’s proof of contamination or no significant fault, a ban could drop to months rather than years.
• Full sanction: up to four years if intent or significant negligence is found.
• Backdating: time already served under provisional suspension can count toward any final ban.

There’s also the appeals path. If either side disagrees with the verdict, they can seek review, often at the Court of Arbitration for Sport. That adds months. For Chelsea, that means keeping contingency plans alive and the market options open. For Mudryk, every week of uncertainty chips away at rhythm and confidence, even with private training.

What’s next? A hearing date and a decision timeline. Until then, the polygraph result sits where it belongs: as a supporting note, not a verdict. The case will be decided by documents, lab data, medical evidence, and how convincingly his team explains a banned substance in his system. If he clears his name, he returns with a point to prove. If not, Chelsea’s €30m worry becomes a much larger problem.