Maria Sharapova recently topped the fan vote round for induction to the International Tennis Hall of Fame. In her first year on the ballot, the Russian was a clear favorite when it came to public perception.
The process of induction, however, is a seven-step process that includes scrutiny by specialized panels. That’s where the Russian’s history with a doping ban becomes trickier with strong opinions weighing in.Tennis journalist Jon Wertheim for one believes that a player simply being found guilty of having used performance-enhancing drugs should not be grounds for disqualification.
Responding to a question on Sharapova’s chances of being inducted in a Sports Illustrated piece, Wertheim wrote that while the Russian did bring “disgrace” to her name by using performance-enhancing drugs and later coming out with an unsatisfactory explanation, it does not take away from all her achievements.
Without condoning PED use, in some cases—this being one of them—it should not be disqualifying for Hall of Fame eligibility,” Jon Wertheim wrote.
“Did Maria Sharapova disgrace herself both with the positive test and her sloppy alibi, attributing her meldonium use to an alleged family history of diabetes? Yes. Does it negate all she accomplished as a player? No,” he added.
Wertheim noted that the drug found in Sharapova’s system at the 2016 Australian Open, meldonium, had not been on the banned list for years.He went on cite other cases where players had successfully appealed against their bans before noting that Sharapova accepted her punishment in the form of her 15-month ban.
“For years, the banned drug was not banned. Similarly situated players successfully appealed their ban. Maria Sharapova may have made a strategic error trying to control the narrative. She did her time. It’s not as though she skated. Retributive justice and all,” he added.
