Maria Sharapova's announcement yesterday that she had failed a drug test at the Australian Open was "both a bombshell and potentially a devastating piece of news for the WTA," according to Damien Cox of SPORTSNET.ca. Sharapova faces a lengthy suspension for using the banned substance, and the tour "can’t afford to lose Sharapova for an extended period of time or have her become damaged goods with a sullied reputation for using performance enhancing drugs." With tennis "already rattled earlier this year by allegations of match fixing, this story comes at a most inopportune time for the sport." The women’s game "desperately needs new, compelling stars." There was "great hope Canada’s Eugenie Bouchard could be such a player, but she’s fallen well back in the rankings." The last thing the WTA needs is to "lose one of the two biggest stars it has left" (SPORTSNET.ca, 3/7). In Melbourne, Leo Schlink writes while Sharapova is an "increasingly rare sight on the women’s tour because of chronic arm and shoulder issues," she is still "one of the WTA’s box office lightning rods." She "drives spectator interest, participation, debate and fashion," and she is a "once-in-a-generation player." The WTA "can ill afford to lose a personality of Sharapova’s charisma and achievement" (Melbourne HERALD SUN, 3/8). The Washington Post’s Liz Clarke said having Sharapova "out of the picture, out of the scene, for even six months or a year, would be quite devastating for women’s tennis” (“CBS This Morning,” 3/8). In London, Simon Briggs writes even if the ITF is "sympathetic to Sharapova’s arguments, one wonders if tennis can afford to show leniency to such a high-profile star, especially at such a sensitive time for the sport’s public image." But the fact that Sharapova’s positive test "has not been suppressed should help stave off accusations that the sport is institutionally corrupt." It would be "hard to think of many individuals who do more to keep tennis in the public eye, or to draw sponsors and fans into the sport." It is also true that the WTA has "never needed international idols more than it does right now" (London TELEGRAPH, 3/8).
PUNISHMENT FIT THE CRIME? TENNIS.com's Steve Tignor notes it will be left to the ITF to "determine the seriousness of Sharapova's transgression." The fact that she "took the drug for a decade before 2016 shouldn't be a factor." Whatever her motivations were, it "wasn’t illegal" before this year. If the ITF "determines that a doping violation is 'intentional,' a four-year suspension is required." Tignor: "If we believe Sharapova's press-conference story, that’s not what happened here." In the case "of a 'huge mistake' like hers, a two-year ban is mandated." After that, the player’s level "of 'fault or negligence' is assessed." Depending on what the ITF decides, the suspension "can be cut in half, but no more." All of that taken together, Sharapova "may be looking at a one-year ban" (TENNIS.com, 3/8). ESPN's Pam Shriver noted this is the "biggest failure of a doping test by a tennis player ever." But she said it was "good in that it shows that tennis and all sports are really on this." Shriver: "They are trying to keep sports clean, trying to be on top of things by having this drug put on the banned list” (“SportsCenter,” ESPN, 3/7).
GETTING AHEAD OF THE GAME: The N.Y. TIMES Clarey & Tierney in a front-page piece note Sharapova’s positive test under the rules of tennis’ antidoping program "would not normally have been announced by the ITF until the adjudication process had been completed." But she "decided to make her case public." Her attorney John Haggerty said that she "did not intend to request that her B sample be tested." He added that meldonium in higher doses can "serve as a performance-enhancer." But since Sharapova was "taking a prescribed dose for health purposes, he said he would probably request a minimal penalty" from the ITF. He is "holding out hope that no sanctions will be imposed." Clarey & Tierney note tennis’ antidoping program has "sometimes been criticized for its failure to catch its stars." Prominent men’s players Marin Cilic and Viktor Troicki were penalized in '13, with both "having their suspensions reduced on appeal." The program in the past two years has "significantly increased the number of blood tests and out-of-competition tests, although Sharapova’s positive test came in competition" (N.Y. TIMES, 3/8). Haggerty: "We are attempting to have a conversation with ITF up front because we think there are laundry list of extremely mitigating circumstances that once taken into consideration would result in a dramatically reducing any sanction that they might want to impose on Maria" (SI.com, 3/7).
PLEADING IGNORANCE: Haggerty tried to explain how Sharapova could be unaware she was taking a banned substance, saying, "It was just an honest mistake. We're not making excuses, but because she had taken it for so many years and it was OK year after year, it just fell off the radar." He said meldonium is banned because it "does appear that some athletes have used it in some circumstance in bigger dosages to gain some competitive advantage." Haggerty: "Maria was taking a dosage that was significantly lower" (ESPN.com, 3/7). ESPN.com's Bonnie Ford wrote it is "almost inconceivable" that no one in Sharapova's entourage "backed her up on the play." But she "blamed no one else" (ESPN.com, 3/18).
OWNING UP TO THINGS: In Miami, Michelle Kaufman writes it was "refreshing" to see Sharapova during a press conference yesterday "take full responsibility for testing positive for a newly banned substance." Kaufman: "She didn’t run. She didn’t hide. She didn’t have her agent speak for her" (MIAMI HERALD, 3/8). The GLOBE & MAIL's Cathal Kelly writes Sharapova has "already done what none of the many of athletes come before her had the sense to try -- announce her own failed test, admit her guilt and accept the blame." By being forthcoming, she "primed people to believe what logically comes next -- the excuse" (GLOBE & MAIL, 3/7). USA TODAY's Josh Peter writes Sharapova "handled the news of her failed drug test with the same skill and grace she has shown on the court" by getting "out in front of the news." She "accepted responsibility, rather than blaming her doctors, or the drug testers or anyone but herself." Further, she "did not spend the short press conference ducking and dodging or instruct her attorney to do so" (USA TODAY, 3/8). In California, Shad Powers writes Sharapova "may have just written the new blueprint" for handling failed drug tests and other embarrassing news. Powers: "I can’t think of one other instance in the world of sports where the first time the media and or public heard of a player using a banned substance came from the player themselves." Sharapova "nailed it." She "took control of a difficult-to-control news cycle." She "got out in front of it and controlled the narrative." The strategy was "smart." Powers: "Moving forward, this is how all athletes caught doping should handle themselves. Follow the Sharapova method" (Palm Springs DESERT SUN, 3/8).
SIGN OF TROUBLE ITSELF: In London, Mike Dickson writes the fact that Sharapova was "allowed to make her own announcement, to take control of the narrative, is an illustration" of how the sport is "so deferential to its leading stars." Dickson: "That is one of the sport's problems" (London DAILY MAIL, 3/8).
