What happens when planet earth's most marketable sportswoman and the First World's most lamentable crime come together? The Maria Sharapova doping saga has almost run its course, but you wouldn't know that from the headlines her ‘comeback’ has been generating. Clearly, the name ‘Sharapova’ and the word ‘doping’ make for a heady concoction that is almost too loud for the genteel sport of tennis.
Would it be going too far to say that this is the most unique suspension-and-return in the history of sports? It's the specific combination of the X's and O's associated with the saga that make it so irresistible – the nature of the transgression, the identity of the athlete, and shockingly, her personality.
In ordinary circumstances, testing positive for a banned substance would entail the end of an athlete's career. But of course Sharapova failed to read the email that declared the addition of meldonium to the banned list, and of course her suspension was reduced from two years to 15 months – negligence is a far smaller crime than cheating in the eyes of the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
Normally, tournaments wouldn't go out of their way to give wildcards to a player returning from a doping-related suspension. But of course that wisdom is turned on its head when it's Sharapova you're talking about – the single biggest female tennis star in the absence of Serena Williams, and one of the very few guaranteed ticket-sellers in women's sport.
And usually, a player's fellow competitors would be diplomatic about her return to the court after a 15-month absence. Can you imagine anyone being anything other than 100% supportive and welcoming if, say, a Juan Martin del Potro was banned for 15 months due to, as the CAS put it, ‘negligence'?
We actually don't have to imagine a hypothetical situation here. When Viktor Troicki was banned in 2013 for failing to take a drug test in Monte Carlo, Novak Djokovic defended him with a passion and cast aspersions on the reliability of tennis’ anti-doping measures – even throwing around words like ‘ridiculous’ and ‘total injustice'.
“I think it's not just bad news for him (Troicki), it proves again that this system does not work...I don't have trust in them anymore. I don't have trust in what's going on...For me, this is total injustice,” Djokovic had said, before ending with a flourish. “That's it. That's my statement. Sorry, but that's what I had to do. Not just because of him, but because of the sake of the players and because of the sake of the sport. It's just ridiculous.”
Roger Federer didn't have such strong words to offer in support of Troicki, but after losing at the 2014 US Open to Marin Cilic (another player suspended for doping), he was completely at ease with what he was facing on the court.
“Yeah, I’m fine with it. I truly believed he didn’t do anything wrong in the sense that he did it on purpose. Was he stupid maybe? Maybe. You know, yeah. But I feel like I know him well enough, and I don’t think he would ever do it. I don’t quite remember what the circumstances were, but I feel more bad for him than anything else. So for me, when I see him it doesn’t cross my mind in any way,” he had said in his post-match press conference.
Compare that with the current situation, where the reactions to Sharapova's return have sounded like the female version of a bar-room brawl. In all fairness, most of the negative press directed towards Sharapova has been due to the fact that she has received three wildcards on her return, with the Stuttgart organizers even bending the rules a little and scheduling her first match on Wednesday (the ban got over two days into the start of the tournament).
Still, it's been a little strange to hear so many high-profile players falling over themselves while deriding Sharapova's comeback.
“I don't feel sorry at all for Sharapova and I don't miss her on the court. She's a totally unlikeable person. Arrogant, conceited and cold. When I sit beside her in the locker room, she won't even say hello,” Dominika Cibulkova had chirped last year. On the wildcard issue, she was similarly forthright. “I don't think it's right but what can we do about it? She's still banned but she can come on site on Wednesday, that's pretty strange. For me it's not OK and I spoke to some other players and nobody is OK with it, but it's not up to us..It's not about her, but everyone who was doping should start from zero,” Cibulkova was quoted as saying.
Meanwhile, Simona Halep insisted, “For the kids, for the young players, it is not OK to help with a wildcard the player that was banned for doping.” Alize Cornet was much less reluctant to bare her claws. “Generally speaking, I find it shameful that the WTA is promoting a player who tested positive after all,” she thundered.
Agnieszka Radwanska was slated to play Sharapva in the Stuttgart second round, but if it was up to her that wouldn't have been the case at all. “This kind of entry into the tournament should be available only for players who were dropped in the ranking due to injury, illness or other random accident. Not for those suspended for doping...She wouldn't have a chance for (a wildcard) from my hands (if I was a tournament director),” she said.
Joining Radwanska's chorus was fellow Grand Slam finalist Caroline Wozniacki, who said it was ‘disrespectful to the other players and the WTA’ for Sharapova to be allowed to play a tournament that began while she was still banned. As an interesting aside, being a Grand Slam finalist is apparently not enough for a player to get rid of her ‘journeyman’ status, if we were to go by the response of Sharapova's agent Max Eisenbud to Radwanska's and Wozniacki's comments.
But perhaps the most entertaining comment came from Eugenie Bouchard, who said, “I don't think a cheater in any sport should be allowed to play the sport again.” If you are having a hard time believing Bouchard actually said that, watch the video below:
And just to prove this wasn't merely a locker-room catfight reserved for the women, Andy Murray also weighed in on the issue. “I think you should really have to work your way back,” he said to The Times, continuing with his hardline stance on the entire saga.
Many of the comments, while unnecessarily harsh and occasionally derogatory, do have a point. A wildcard should ordinarily be the preserve of a player who's suffered some misfortune, or who is a local talent struggling to make a mark in the tennis world. A convicted dope offender shouldn't exactly merit a special invitation or a bending of the rules to play in a tournament that everyone else has to qualify for.
But ever so often, we lose sight of the fact that the world we live in is built on the business acumen and street-smartness of the powers that be. Tennis tournaments want to sell tickets, and as I said above, there's no female tennis player currently on tour who can sell as many tickets as Sharapova.
If she wasn't playing in the Stuttgart tournament, the organizers would have had to bank on the star power of Angelique Kerber, Karolina Pliskova and Garbine Muguruza – and Muguruza has already been knocked out. And no matter how unlikeable Sharapova may be in the locker room, there's no way her popularity among stadium-goers can even be compared with either of the remaining two.
It's also pertinent to note that none of these tournaments are breaking any rules by offering Sharapova wildcards. Even though the Stuttgart tournament's decision to schedule Sharapova's first match on Wednesday is ethically questionable, technically they didn't break any rules; they just bent them.
As the WTA rule-book states, Sharapova is eligible to request and receive an unlimited number of wildcards, by virtue of being a former Grand Slam champion. Yes, I agree there should have been a clause that disallowed tournaments from tweaking their schedules to suit the return date of a banned player. But can you really blame the Stuttgart organizers for exploiting the loophole in the rulebook?
At the end of the day, as much as we may feel morally obliged to disapprove of this whole episode, the fact remains that tennis is benefiting from Sharapova's return. Stuttgart saw packed stands for her 7-5, 6-3 first-round win over Roberta Vinci. The tournament is suddenly the cynosure of eyes from the entire tennis world; so much so that even Rafael Nadal's ‘La Decima’ attempt in Barcelona has been pushed to the back pages.
That, of course, has been the case right since the draw was released last week and Sharapova's name was officially pencilled in for the first time in 15 months. Vinci, and now Ekaterina Makarova, have become the unwitting subjects of attention – for no other reason than that they were slated to play Sharapova. Never one to let go of a chance to display her trademark sense of humour, Vinci quipped during her jam-packed pre-tournament press conference, “Wow, why so many journalists!”
On a women's tour that is sorely lacking in star power – Serena Williams and Victoria Azarenka will remain on the sidelines for the foreseeable future – Sharapova's return is the best thing that could have possibly happened for the WTA. So why is everyone so grumpy about it?
I think back to the comment that Cibulkova first made upon hearing of Sharapova's suspension. “She's a totally unlikeable person.” I don't know about you, but I can't always separate the personal from the professional in my everyday life. Is it possible that the WTA's stars are also finding that hard to do right now? I wouldn't blame them if that were the case.
But I wouldn't blame Sharapova for the storm she is facing either. She is here to do a job, and if tournament organizers are bending over backwards to help her in that, why should she refuse?
To nobody's surprise, she was asked about the wildcard issue yesterday. And she responded in typical Sharapova style: “I think I'd be prepared to play in the juniors if I had to.”
She didn't stop there though. “I'm coming with no ranking and I'm not getting a wildcard to receive a trophy on a golden platter. I have to get through the matches and I still have to win them and that's my job.”
As you've probably heard, the French Open organizers haven't yet committed to giving her a wildcard for the 2017 main draw, and rumours are agog that she may have to go through qualifying. But the officials are certainly making sure they milk the issue for every penny it's worth; they are going to live stream the wildcard announcement on 16th May.
When was the last time you saw a wildcard announcement being live streamed? There's no two ways about it – Sharapova raises the profile of every event she's associated with, and the event organizers know it.
For now though, she's probably not concerned about what the Roland Garros officials decide. If you saw her match against Vinci yesterday, or her match against Makarova today, you'd know that the 15-month layoff has done nothing to dull her power or her intensity.
Her serve, forehand, backhand and return all seem to be in fine working order, and she has even started using slices and dropshots more liberally. But most strikingly, her intensity seems even higher than before, if that is even possible.
Sharapova has always been one of the most competitive players in the world of sport, and we know now, if we didn't already, what we've been missing for the last year and a half.
Kim Clijsters put it better than anybody when she said, “She has done her punishment. I was disappointed and surprised when the news came out but she's had the career that she's had and I don't think she needs to be punished more. It's up to the tournaments whoever they want to give a wildcard or not. But in a week's time this news will be over and she will be back playing normally, and probably some of her best tennis.”
Her sentiments were echoed by Johanna Konta who said, “Hopefully the tennis world can move on and can really focus more and more on the tennis and not so much the drama that surrounds it.”
The drama might just be getting started, for all we know. If Sharapova does indeed have to go through qualifying at Roland Garros, it might kick up another storm of verbal volleys from all over the tennis world. But will that come in the way of her producing her fiercest tennis on the court?
Vinci and Makarova would attest that it wouldn't. Not in the slightest.
