Is two years too much for Sharapova?

Meting out justice is always hard.  NFL Commissioner Goodell rightfully took a lot of abuse for his vacillation on the appropriate punishment for Ray Rice (two games, no a lifetime ban, no six games).  Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred has had to make Solomonic decisions on how long to suspend players who participate in brawls.  Sports don’t often have hard and fast penal codes spelling out the length of punishment for a transgression, and what constitutes “justice” is often in the eye of the beholder (just ask the judge who is under fire for sentencing a Stanford swimmer to six months in jail for a sexual assault).

Maria Sharapova has been suspended for two years for using an illegal drug, Meldonium, which sounds like a substance that a super-villain needs to build a super-weapon and not a real life pharmaceutical.  She has announced an appeal, but the best case scenario is that she won’t play another competitive tennis match until she is past 30 years old.

In handing down the sentence, the governing body said that a four-year suspension would have been normal but they were showing Sharapova mercy because she argued that she hadn’t opened the e-mail announcing that the drug that she’d taken continuously for 10 years had been banned starting on January 1, 2016. That makes very little sense; if that is an exonerating fact, then why suspends her at all?  Any more than the layoff she has already had, I mean?

I suspect the stern two-year suspension is meant to punish Sharapova for finding a loophole in the drug policy.  The policy only bans the use of drugs on a yes/no binary basis.  You can’t take this drug; you can take that drug.  Sharapova continually took a heart medicine, which had a side effect of increasing the body’s ability to process oxygen, which was intended to be used for 4-6 weeks.  The substance wasn’t banned, but she wasn’t using it as directed.

One suspects that if the heart medicine had the side effects of facial legions or hair loss she wouldn’t have taken it for more than five minutes no matter what her heart condition was.

Sharapova had no real medical reason for taking the drug (her doctor’s explanation that it was for treating recurring viral infections doesn’t make any sense), but she took it and gained an advantage over her competitors.  It didn’t help her in her last 18 matches against Serena Williams, who beat her 18 consecutive times, but drugs can only do so much.  It wasn’t a banned substance before, but she failed to disclose that she was taking it on forms she was required to fill out before matches, and her excuse was found by the tribunal to be “untenable.”

How much of an advantage did she gain?  You can’t quantify things like that, any more than you can quantify how many home runs Barry Bonds would have hit without assistance from a druggist (unless the number is the number he hit, if you think he is clean).  Sharapova is a talented athlete, and she would have been a top player without Meldonium.  But it gave her an edge, and now she’s paying for it.

Can she come back?  Two years off means returning at age 31, which is traditionally rather old for a women’s tennis player.  However, Serena is going strong at 34, and many tennis players compete into their 30’s.  But this isn’t like a running back who may come back stronger after a year off from pounding.  Two years away from competitive tennis is going to leave her with rust, even if she keeps her game up playing on her own.  The list of women players who have won slams after reaching 31 is sparse. Serena has done it six times, no one else more than once.  There were three back in the 1970’s (the legendary trio of Billie Jean King, Margaret Court and Virginia Wade), one in the 1980’s (Chris Evert at the 1986 French), and one in the 90’s (Navratilova at the 1990 Wimbledon).  In the past 25 years the only two women to win a slam after age 31 have been Li Na at the 2014 Aussie and Flavia Panetta at the 2015 US Open, both of whom almost immediately retired.  Sharapova has talent and has won majors before, but winning at 31 after a two-year layoff would be a tall order.

Maria Sharapova would have the world believe that she took a medication for ten years because she had a weak heart, despite the fact that she was a professional athlete who worked out constantly.  She took a drug with known endurance-enhancing qualities (that is now banned) for ten years, despite the manufacturer’s directions that it was only to be taken for 4-6 weeks.  A two-year suspension at the end of her career may seem steep, but Sharapova had the benefit of an advantage for ten years.  

Besides, she still can sell calendars and candy.