Mailbag: Should Maria Sharapova be given a French Open wildcard?
Jon Wertheim
an hour ago
INDIAN WELLS – Some quick questions before Indian Wells kicks off. We’ll try and file periodic dispatches from the desert. The Tennis Channel pregame show starts at 10 a.m. ET, 7 a.m. PT, which leads into match play each day. Onward…
Hi Jon, You're on the committee that makes decisions pertaining to wild cards at the French Open. Do you give Maria Sharapova a wildcard or not? (My vote: Aye)
—Cheers, Sheba
• This was the hot question in Tennistan last week. After Andy Murray came out against Sharapova receiving wildcards, many followed with their own opinions, which were distributed all over the place.
Truthfully, I see it both ways. It looks lousy when a player returning from a doping a suspension is welcomed back so enthusiastically. After her punishment lapses and she’s served her time, should Sharapova be allowed back on the road to recovery? Sure. Should she have that road paved? That’s another matter.
That Sharapova is playing the Porsche event—that begins while she is still suspended—is especially unfortunate. This whole unfortunate affair was predicated on loopholes and fine print and flexible deadlines; now you’re returning mid-tournament, a move that returns you to the Land of the Ethically Gray?
On the other hand….First, there are, of course, commercial interests. Tournaments, the smaller ones especially, are businesses that rely on stars. When one of the biggest stars is eligible, you do what’s necessary to ensure her services. Once the suspension is over, shouldn't Sharapova treated as any other player?
The majors—and Andy Roddick made this point to Pete Bodo—are another category and don’t have the same business justification. Should they be held to a higher standard? Perhaps. But wild cards are inherently unfair. And much as the U.S. Open gave a lot to former champ Juan del Potro, it seems reasonable that French and Wimbledon would want a former champ in the draw. But one is returning from injury and the other from a doping suspension, you say? True. But, again, Sharapova has served her sentence. A goal of punishment is rehabilitation.
My solution: I realize how terribly naïve this will sound. But here goes. Sharapova is eager—understandably—to restore her ranking, yes, but more important, her reputation and clear her name. What if she said: “I really appreciate the wild cards I have been offered. But when I said that I take ownership of this unfortunate affair, that extends to my return. Rather than accept wild cards—which are kind of unfair and lame to begin with; and which deprive deserving colleagues of spots in the draw—I am going to EARN my way back, the same way I want to EARN back your trust. Yes, I am going though the qualifying draws. I believe in my game. I believe in my fitness. I believe that this is the right way to return. Please come cheer me on and support me and the XXYZ Open!”
Again, I realize this isn’t realistic.
Not when the star in question has sponsor commitments. Not when the management company that represents her also runs one of the events dispending wild cards. Not when she is in her 30s and doesn’t have time for a three-digit ranking. But the good will Sharapova would accumulate? It would be immeasurable. Her playing the back courts as she tries to “earn” her way back, would make international news. If reputation restoration is really the goal, this—the equivalent of conceding a point dubiously given to the opponent—would be gold.
So where do you stand on this, Jon: Murray came out and said he does not want wildcards given out to athletes returning from drugs associated bans, on the other hand there are shades of gray in every issue, aren't there?
Roland Garros came out and said it will not be easy to give Sharapova a wildcard. I personally feel that once you have done the time for the crime, we all need to move on. You do the time and hopefully after that there are no strings or stigma attached. Am I suffering from naiveté here, Jon? She deserves a wild card, as much as anyone else, after 4/26?
Go ahead, call me naive?
—Deepak, Seattle
• I include this to stress that reasonable people can disagree. Most of you seem to side with Murray and against Sharapova. But plenty of you—not unreasonably—share Deepak’s view that once April 26 rolls around, Sharapova has served her time and should retain all her rights and privileges.
Добавил и другие мнения:
Другие посты из этой серии можете прочитать здесь:
Книга «Наша Маша» - Глава «Нечестный ПИАР. ПИАР за счет Шараповой»
https://www.sports.ru/tennis/blogs/1201967.html
Содержание книги «Наша Маша» (все другие ссылки) Вы можете узнать здесь:
https://www.sports.ru/tennis/blogs/579537.html
>