Sharapova's back and so is her lack of class

First topic message reminder :

Sharapova's back soon having obviously learned nothing in the way of contrition during her time away. Her agent showed his true colours by rounding on Wozniacki and Razawanka for voicing what many of us feel by inferring they were "journeymen" trying to win a slam in the absence of the other big names like Serena and Azarenka. Better a journeyman than someone who obviously feels she's better and bigger than the sport itself.

She obviously fancies her own chances of winning a slam in Serena's absence. After all, she had diddly squat chance of beating even a pregnant Serena in Paris or anywhere else for that matter. And yes, Miss Sharapova, there are plenty of other players who will be in the draw and will take great delight in bursting your balloon.

What an excellent decision by Roland Garros to deny her entry via a wildcard. It's a crying shame the organisers of the other non-slams have been falling about themselves to give her one but at least there is some dignity shown by the flagship events.

It would have been a hell of a message to send to make her earn her rankings on the ITF circuit which would have acted both as penance for Sharapova but also a major fillip for some smaller tournaments to have such a big name on their courts. Shame though that Stuttgart, Rome,Madrid and Birmingham have been so utterly classless as to give her such an easy way back. All about the $$$$ as usual.

This is mindboggling. The WTA has just issued a statement criticising the RG decision not to give Sharapova a wildcard. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE?
   May be if Sharapova had not given seemingly spurious reasons for her cheating at her press conference early last year and just served her time, then the French might have looked more kindly on her.
   Also, Shazza showed no remorse and was totally arrogant on her return. Some have spoken of Cilic and his suspension. But I don't remember Cilic trying to justify his wrong doing.
   At least the WTA have said in the statement that they recognise WCs are discretionary. Well, the French have shown their discretion - by rightly showing Maria the door.

sirfredperry wrote:This is mindboggling. The WTA has just issued a statement criticising the RG decision not to give Sharapova a wildcard. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE?
   May be if Sharapova had not given seemingly spurious reasons for her cheating at her press conference early last year and just served her time, then the French might have looked more kindly on her.
   Also, Shazza showed no remorse and was totally arrogant on her return. Some have spoken of Cilic and his suspension. But I don't remember Cilic trying to justify his wrong doing.
   At least the WTA have said in the statement that they recognise WCs are discretionary. Well, the French have shown their discretion - by rightly showing Maria the door.

The WTA made a good point, but just in the wrong situation. The point is that double jeopardy is unfair - it is right that Sharapova has served her punishment and is entitled to be treated like everyone else now she is allowed back on tour. It would be very wrong, for example, for a tournament to try to exclude her in an attempt to enlarge her punishment.

But that is not what is happening with the FFT - their view is that one of the purposes of a WC is to compensate a player who would otherwise belong in the tournament but has failed to make the necessary qualifying criteria for a good reason. The obvious one would be injury, but absence for a family bereavement or coming back from pregnancy might be other examples - the category of good reasons is a wide one. Also, being popular and a big draw will obviously be taken into account - that's life and not unfair since popularity is usually earned and benefits all concerned.

What the FFT did was to say that a failure to make the qualifying requirement for their tournament because the player has been off tour due to serving out a PED suspension is not a good reason; it is a self-inflicted absence for reasons which reflect badly on the player which they will not use a WC to compensate for - it is her bad luck that she ran out of road to qualify on merit (despite others being happy to fast-track her return to the top with WC's to their tournaments). Sharapova will get herself back, very quickly; she will earn a place in the Wimbledon draw on merit, and will be a more welcome presence for having qualified than she would have been with a WC. The FFT's refusal to be part of the fast-tracking exercise is not punishment, it is protecting their integrity, the integrity of the sport, and of sport in general - being out for a PED offence is not a mere inconvenience to be resolved by fast-tracking ahead of others who have not transgressed. The decision was the right one - a WC would have been long remembered and very harmful to trust in RG - just imagine if she had won her third RG?

She's entitled to her tour card and work her way back

Nobodies entitled to a wc

With serena gone they're looking to suckle on her teets and get her money

That's a very poor statement by the WTA. RG aren't seeking to prevent her from entering a tournament she is entitled to enter. They are choosing not to exercise their discretion to offer a wildcard to her in circumstances where she is returning from a drugs ban.

Born Slippy wrote:That's a very poor statement by the WTA. RG aren't seeking to prevent her from entering a tournament she is entitled to enter. They are choosing not to exercise their discretion to offer a wildcard to her in circumstances where she is returning from a drugs ban.

Well said. Hope Edgbaston changes their mind now and withdraws their WC for her. You sometimes wonder at the calibre of people in charge of sport when the WTA can come out with this nonsense.

Thankfully slams still have their integrity

I was wrong on one point - Sharapova cannot now qualify automatically for the Wimbledon main draw, the closing date is Monday and she has apparently pulled out of Rome with a thigh injury. She is in the Wimbledon qualifying draw - so for Wimbledon (Tim Henman's committee) the question is whether they make her qualify at Roehampton or give her a WC. Not quite such an 'all or nothing' question as they had at RG.

Although Sharapova had only officially being doping for a month and during the Australian Opening, she had been using the same drugs over the course of her entire professional career - under some very suspicious circumstances.  It seems clear she had been breaking the spirit of the game for her whole professional career - using powerful new drugs under conditions where they were not supposed to be used.

Maybe the WTA should focus on stamping out shrieking - ear splitting grunting in the game rather than defending known dopers.

"Sharapova will get herself back, very quickly; she will earn a place in the Wimbledon draw on merit, and will be a more welcome presence for having qualified than she would have been with a WC."

Spot on barrystar. If she has to play the qualifying at Wimbledon then that's surely the best way forward. It will be a lot easier to watch her play there if she's done it the hard way. Call it penance (or whatever you like) but it has to be a better option than the all is forgiven and stick your head in the sand ostrich-like WTA stance.

Penance is the exact word. She comes back on her own steam then she's welcome to her second chance

The word "penance" strikes a slightly more punitive note than I was trying to catch - she's already done her time away as specified by CAS (too short in my view, but I accept the decision). It might be the same practical result, but I think how one puts it matters, so for me it's not penance so much as the fact that I don't believe that a discretionary power to give a player a leg-up should be used to help them to fast-track the otherwise usual consequences of a self-inflicted absence from the game.

In my view the Sharapova case revealed and was an admission of "legal cheating" - where a player breaks the spirit of the game but not the rules of the game.  Many have said in the past the "cheaters" (who take a professional approach to it) are generally one step ahead of the sporting law bodies, WADA and the testers.  So use of new drugs yet to be tested for sporting enhancement, "doctors notes", misuse of TUEs, shrieking to disguise when you hit the ball and to put the opponent off, and so forth.

barrystar wrote:I was wrong on one point - Sharapova cannot now qualify automatically for the Wimbledon main draw, the closing date is Monday and she has apparently pulled out of Rome with a thigh injury.  She is in the Wimbledon qualifying draw - so for Wimbledon (Tim Henman's committee) the question is whether they make her qualify at Roehampton or give her a WC.  Not quite such an 'all or nothing' question as they had at RG.  

Can you not give a wild card into the qualifying - I think that would have been a good choice.

I think Wimbledon will not give her a wild card now. I think there is something in the British stoic correctness that will not want to give it. And especially now the French have not done it they won't want to look weaker on PEDs than the FO.

There was also something in the news a while back about starting to charge for Roehampton this year, and adding extra seating. They claimed it was a coincidence but who knows.

It will be interesting to see if Sharapova can set any record for consecutive slams wins at a single event.

A report I read said they were likely to charge £5 for Roehampton this year. I went last year and saw the bloke that ended up playing Fed on Centre Court a week or so later.

It was the fact that wildcards were being handed out to Sharapova like confetti that really stuck in my craw.

The French open has taken a stance with which many of us agree. Wimbledon might well follow suit. But at least then she'd have the chance to gain entry into the main draw through the qualifying and that has to be the best way forward.

Also remember each time a offered a wildcard then another deserving player misses out to accommodate her. She might put bums on seats in the smaller events and therefore they find it harder to turn her request for a wildcard down. The slams need her less even if the likes of Federer and Serena aren't playing as there are still lots of big names on show. Thankfully, in my opinion, the French authorities have seen sense here.