Has there ever been a tennis player more assured in her dealings with the media than Maria Sharapova? I've seen feisty New York fashion writers eating out of her hand at a clothes launch in a swish boutique in Manhattan, and critics of her readiness to ply children with her Sugarpova confectionery brushed aside at a publicity event by the River Yarra in Melbourne. All done with the smile for which sponsors have been willing to pay millions in exchange for her endorsement of their products.
Nike suspends relationship with Maria Sharapova following her failed drug test: https://t.co/oHSBbzBus3 pic.twitter.com/70z4Xw7AWV
— Complex (@ComplexMag) March 9, 2016
Sharapova gave another masterclass in public relations in front of the cameras in a Los Angeles hotel on Monday. When a sporting figure stands up and admits to failing a drugs test, sympathy is not often forthcoming. From within tennis the public reaction has been almost entirely supportive since Sharapova's statement that she had taken Meldonium on medical advice since 2006 but had been unaware - through her own failure to read her mail - that the drug had been placed on a banned list.
Steve Simon of the Women's Tennis Association said he had always known Sharapova to be “a woman of great integrity”, Martina Navratilova said the whole thing seemed to be “an honest mistake” and even Serena Williams - not exactly the Russian's biggest buddy - said she had shown “a lot of courage” in being “very honest”.
The tennis star failed a drug test at the Australian Open for the banned substance meldonium https://t.co/vBEFXXyVjd
— New York Post (@nypost) March 9, 2016
Richard Ings, a former head of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority and the ATP's anti-doping programme, thought Sharapova handled the press conference brilliantly. “That's the play book if you ever face a positive drugs test,” he said on Twitter. “Transparent and sorry.”
The Sharapova publicity machine kept rolling even after the press conference. Within minutes an interview with John Haggerty, her lawyer, appeared on the Sports Illustrated website in which he claimed: “We think there are a laundry list of extremely mitigating circumstances that once taken into consideration would result in dramatically reducing any sanction that they might want to impose on Maria.”
Some critics have wondered how Sharapova could have been allowed to take control of a situation in which, by her own admission, she is at fault. However, protocols are such that the International Tennis Federation, which administers the sport's anti-doping programme, does not routinely reveal positive drugs tests. If exonerated, a player would have good reason to complain about the case being publicised.
Sharapova has won the opening exchanges but has many questions to answer. Was this medication, which the anti-doping authorities eventually realised was being used by some athletes to enhance performance and which is not licenced in the United States, really the appropriate treatment for the medical problems that she claimed affected her?
If so, how often was she taking Meldonium, which manufacturers say should be used for between four and six weeks, two or three times a year? Haggerty said: “She took it on a regular basis as recommended by her doctor.”
One of the keys to Sharapova's fate could be whether she ever informed drugs testers that she was taking Meldonium. Athletes are required to reveal whatever medication they are taking, whether it is on a banned list or not.
Finally, are we to believe that Sharapova has performed brilliantly at the highest level for 10 years despite heart and diabetes-related problems of which we were unaware?
The Sharapova publicity machine might need to work overtime now. Besides, whatever might be said in public could be of little consequence once her case is heard behind the closed doors of a tribunal hearing. – The Independent