SHARAPOVA IS A SNEERING DISGRACE
‘SHARAPOVA’S RETURN WAS PART OF A SAD, CYNICAL CIRCUS’
AMATTER of hours after her drugs ban ended, tennis rushed Maria Sharapova back into its cloistered world last week as if it were a convent refrocking a pregnant nun. Little wonder that within a couple of days she was feeling superior enough to sneer her way through a press conference with the condescension of a woman smiting the unworthy with unspotted righteousness.
Like many athletes who have served drugs bans, Sharapova and her sport have mastered the art of pretending it never happened.
And so, when a journalist, dispatched to Stuttgart to report on her return to competition, had the temerity to introduce himself at her press conference, she appeared to ignore the 15-month ban she just sat out for the use of Mildronate, the brand name of meldonium – a drug scientists say is performanceenhancing – and grew haughty and disdainful.
‘Oh God,’ she said, with a mixture of weariness, hauteur and exasperation, when the reporter began to ask his question. You see, that’s another thing about athletes coming back from drugs bans; they seem to be under the impression that it is impertinent to ask them about what they did.
Eyebrows are raised when journalists raise the subject as if it is unfair and rather beastly. There is rarely any sense that, actually, people such as Sharapova ought to be working damned hard to regain public trust. There is rarely any acknowledgement that she and her like have forfeited their right not to be asked awkward questions.
Sharapova denies any wrongdoing, claims she took Mildronate for various health issues and failed to notice that it had been added to the WADA banned list. Last year, the Court of Arbitration for Sport upheld her appeal and reduced her ban from two years to 15 months. It was a reduction but hardly an act of exoneration.
Anyway, casting doubt on whether his paper had ever sent him to cover the Stuttgart tournament before this, Sharapova went full sneer when he confirmed it was indeed his first time. ‘First time,’ she said, with a thin smile that said she thought she had proved her point. ‘Wow. Virgins.’
The truth, of course, is that Sharapova’s return to tennis was part of a sad, cynical circus designed precisely to attract journalists who had never been to Stuttgart before to the event. They wanted to use Sharapova’s charming turn of phrase, virgins. They wanted a wider audience. Maximum publicity equals maximum cash.
To continue Sharapova’s sexual analogy, her return from the suspension was a sponsor’s wet dream. That’s why Stuttgart tailored its schedule so she could play her first match the day after her ban expired. Talk about indecent haste. We go out of our way to make athletes who have served drugs bans feel welcome again. We roll out the red carpet.
We dole out wildcard entries like confetti, paving the road back with gold, making it easy. And we engage in an unspoken pact – or, in some cases, a formal agreement – never to mention the subject.
Sport’s insidious message, again and again, is that the cheater is also a victim. That is why some sports cover up failed tests. That is why some sports say a man has pulled a hamstring and will be out for a few months when the truth is he has failed a drugs test. And, as we are supine fools, we accept this.
Even now, many sports still do their utmost to avoid transparency. So when Sharapova, 30, was asked last week if she had found a permitted alternative medication to Mildronate, which she said she had taken to combat medical conditions, she was evasive.
‘That information is between myself, the Women’s Tennis Association and the orthopaedic doctor I’m working with now,’ said Sharapova.
Many questioned why an orthopaedic doctor – normally someone who specialises in muscles and bones – would be the right person to advise on her cardiac irregularities and history of family diabetes. But there is a wider point here. Why is that information between her and the WTA? Is tennis serious about transparency in this field or not? Why the secrecy?
Look, I favour giving athletes second chances, even those, like Sharapova, who have served drugs bans. All of us make mistakes and to seek redemption can be an inspiring part of modern sport. What I find hard to accept is denial. And looking the other way. And public relations people and lawyers trying to massage the truth. And sportsmen and women who have served drugs bans failing to show any contrition, much less any humility.
The 2014 Wimbledon ladies’ singles finalist, Eugenie Bouchard, spoke for many last week when she dismissed Sharapova as ‘a cheater’. ‘From the WTA it sends the wrong message to young kids: cheat and we’ll welcome you back with open arms,’ said Bouchard. ‘I don’t think that’s right and she’s not someone I can say I look up to any more.’
Sharapova patronised her, too. She said she was ‘so above’ responding to Bouchard. Maybe somebody should tell her that she is not above anything any more. Bouchard is right: it is a lot harder to look up to her now. As far as earning trust goes, Sharapova is starting from the bottom.