Maria Sharapova and the Prison She Just Left
Is it fair that Maria Sharapova was allowed back to the WTA Tour on Wednesday in Stuttgart, Germany?
Is it fair that Maria Sharapova was allowed back to the tour without having to serve a longer suspension?
Is it fair that Sharapova got a wild card to the main draw of the Porsche Grand Prix, in which she defeated an error-plagued Roberta Vinci to move into Thursday's round of 16?
Will it be fair if Sharapova receives a main-draw wild card to future tournaments she enters before cracking the top 90 or 50 or 20 (assuming she hits each of those markers at some not-too-distant point in time)?
Those are all valid questions. They're the questions everyone who follows women's tennis is asking this week.
Everyone has an opinion on these matters. I have mine... but my opinion isn't worth anything, in the sense that no governing-body bigshot, nationally-known tennis commentator, or top-five WTA player cares one whit what I think.
(For the record: I think a qualifying wild card, which Roland Garros appears to be considering, is perfect -- Sharapova gets a chance to win her way into the tournament, but she isn't handed a spot in the main draw, despite the desires of television broadcasters around the world to want her safely in the field on the opening day of the 128-player event in Paris. The qualifying wild card gives Sharapova an opportunity while making it extremely hard for her to go very deep in the tournament. A gift is given and a price is paid at the same time... but enough about that.)
The topic connected to Maria Sharapova which is worth contemplating for at least a few minutes is not the fairness of her suspension and subsequent return to the tour, but the simple fact that they actually happened.
One can arrive at various points on the spectrum in terms of assessing the way in which Sharapova has been treated by the sport of tennis. I will not stop anyone from holding his or her current views, which is why I won't try to change them with a column arguing for a given point of view.
What I will do, however, is highlight Sharapova's treatment within a larger global context. This is what I find interesting and, moreover, relevant to a discussion of all things Sharapova during a very emotional and unique week in the history of women's tennis.
*
The following statement can easily be read through a partisan political lens, but I hasten to say -- as a way of heading off criticism at the pass -- that it applies to multiple political parties and viewpoints, both in the present moment and throughout history:
Powerful people constantly get away with awful deeds for no other reason than power itself, with money often being an extension and accomplice of that power.
Whether it's O.J. Simpson being ruled not guilty of double murder, or a military figure not being prosecuted for a war crime, or a banker not going to jail for fraud or insider trading, or a celebrity not having to go to jail for driving while drunk and causing an accident, powerful people get away with severely reprehensible acts of various kinds. Whether outrageously evil or outrageously careless, many human beings engage in appalling behavior which, at best, endangers others, and at worst, destroys others. Many times throughout the centuries and very much so today, these powerful people aren't held to account by the justice system or our structures of legislative and executive authority which work in concert with judicial realms.
Money buys leverage. Fame buys different standards compared to ordinary people who can't call upon special connections or influential figures in moments of trauma or crisis. Human beings know how the world works -- for the elites, not the commoners. Power multiplies power, whereas weakness breeds more weakness in the face of massive institutional structures and the forces they can summon either in the direction of leniency or retribution.
The rich and mighty typically get the leniency, the weak and unconnected the retribution. Also consider, as an example of this dynamic, the so-called "War on Drugs," which is hardly a lefty-only issue. Noted conservative thinker and writer William F. Buckley decried the War on Drugs before he died roughly a decade ago.
The Sharapova story -- regardless of how one perceives the specific merits or demerits of how the sport and various tournaments are handling her case -- is instructive in that, for all the flaws with tennis as a self-governing sport, it DID hand down a punishment of some note against an athlete of such stature.
One doesn't have to view the punishment as woefully inadequate, perfectly calibrated, or intolerably harsh (or anywhere in between those three basic markers on a continuum) to appreciate this simple point: She got punished beyond a fine or another "easy to serve" punishment.
It's true that Maria Sharapova doesn't need another dime to live comfortably for the rest of her life. Nevertheless, having to miss four major tournaments and 1.25 to 1.3 years of tennis tournaments represents a considerable lost opportunity to make money. What is more significant in her punishment, of course, is that she couldn't win four major titles. At this stage of her career, being eliminated from any possibility of winning four prestige-laden tournaments -- and having one's career be interrupted to such a considerable extent -- is not a minor punishment.
Not severe enough? Possibly. I'm not here to argue with that or set the needle at precisely the right point on the gauge of "too hot, too cold, or just right."
What is notable regardless of specific opinions on the fairness of L'Affaire Sharapova is that the globally-known superstar was locked out of tennis for over a year.
Imagine that general or that banker having to spend 15 months in a jail cell. It might not be a fully fair punishment considering the enormity of misdeeds committed by that person. (One should also realize that using a banned substance in sports and committing a war crime do not exist in the same universe, and shouldn't be thought of as such.)
However, it would be an awe-eliciting moment if such powerful figures had to sit in a prison -- and not a cushy one, either -- with the rest of the prison population. Many -- if not most -- ordinary citizens would find it hard to believe.
Has Maria Sharapova collected enough "time served" that she deserves all the main-draw wild cards she gets? That's for anyone to think about. The ultimate answer won't move me in any direction. I don't care that much about it.
What is remarkable in a larger global context is simply that Sharapova was forced to serve any time a all.
Sometimes, sports -- as messed up as they often are -- can be the comparatively better example in the room, while realms of law enforcement, politics and military justice lag behind.
It gives one pause.
Is it fair that Maria Sharapova was allowed back to the tour without having to serve a longer suspension?
Is it fair that Sharapova got a wild card to the main draw of the Porsche Grand Prix, in which she defeated an error-plagued Roberta Vinci to move into Thursday's round of 16?
Will it be fair if Sharapova receives a main-draw wild card to future tournaments she enters before cracking the top 90 or 50 or 20 (assuming she hits each of those markers at some not-too-distant point in time)?
Those are all valid questions. They're the questions everyone who follows women's tennis is asking this week.
Everyone has an opinion on these matters. I have mine... but my opinion isn't worth anything, in the sense that no governing-body bigshot, nationally-known tennis commentator, or top-five WTA player cares one whit what I think.
(For the record: I think a qualifying wild card, which Roland Garros appears to be considering, is perfect -- Sharapova gets a chance to win her way into the tournament, but she isn't handed a spot in the main draw, despite the desires of television broadcasters around the world to want her safely in the field on the opening day of the 128-player event in Paris. The qualifying wild card gives Sharapova an opportunity while making it extremely hard for her to go very deep in the tournament. A gift is given and a price is paid at the same time... but enough about that.)
The topic connected to Maria Sharapova which is worth contemplating for at least a few minutes is not the fairness of her suspension and subsequent return to the tour, but the simple fact that they actually happened.
One can arrive at various points on the spectrum in terms of assessing the way in which Sharapova has been treated by the sport of tennis. I will not stop anyone from holding his or her current views, which is why I won't try to change them with a column arguing for a given point of view.
What I will do, however, is highlight Sharapova's treatment within a larger global context. This is what I find interesting and, moreover, relevant to a discussion of all things Sharapova during a very emotional and unique week in the history of women's tennis.
*
The following statement can easily be read through a partisan political lens, but I hasten to say -- as a way of heading off criticism at the pass -- that it applies to multiple political parties and viewpoints, both in the present moment and throughout history:
Powerful people constantly get away with awful deeds for no other reason than power itself, with money often being an extension and accomplice of that power.
Whether it's O.J. Simpson being ruled not guilty of double murder, or a military figure not being prosecuted for a war crime, or a banker not going to jail for fraud or insider trading, or a celebrity not having to go to jail for driving while drunk and causing an accident, powerful people get away with severely reprehensible acts of various kinds. Whether outrageously evil or outrageously careless, many human beings engage in appalling behavior which, at best, endangers others, and at worst, destroys others. Many times throughout the centuries and very much so today, these powerful people aren't held to account by the justice system or our structures of legislative and executive authority which work in concert with judicial realms.
Money buys leverage. Fame buys different standards compared to ordinary people who can't call upon special connections or influential figures in moments of trauma or crisis. Human beings know how the world works -- for the elites, not the commoners. Power multiplies power, whereas weakness breeds more weakness in the face of massive institutional structures and the forces they can summon either in the direction of leniency or retribution.
The rich and mighty typically get the leniency, the weak and unconnected the retribution. Also consider, as an example of this dynamic, the so-called "War on Drugs," which is hardly a lefty-only issue. Noted conservative thinker and writer William F. Buckley decried the War on Drugs before he died roughly a decade ago.
The Sharapova story -- regardless of how one perceives the specific merits or demerits of how the sport and various tournaments are handling her case -- is instructive in that, for all the flaws with tennis as a self-governing sport, it DID hand down a punishment of some note against an athlete of such stature.
One doesn't have to view the punishment as woefully inadequate, perfectly calibrated, or intolerably harsh (or anywhere in between those three basic markers on a continuum) to appreciate this simple point: She got punished beyond a fine or another "easy to serve" punishment.
It's true that Maria Sharapova doesn't need another dime to live comfortably for the rest of her life. Nevertheless, having to miss four major tournaments and 1.25 to 1.3 years of tennis tournaments represents a considerable lost opportunity to make money. What is more significant in her punishment, of course, is that she couldn't win four major titles. At this stage of her career, being eliminated from any possibility of winning four prestige-laden tournaments -- and having one's career be interrupted to such a considerable extent -- is not a minor punishment.
Not severe enough? Possibly. I'm not here to argue with that or set the needle at precisely the right point on the gauge of "too hot, too cold, or just right."
What is notable regardless of specific opinions on the fairness of L'Affaire Sharapova is that the globally-known superstar was locked out of tennis for over a year.
Imagine that general or that banker having to spend 15 months in a jail cell. It might not be a fully fair punishment considering the enormity of misdeeds committed by that person. (One should also realize that using a banned substance in sports and committing a war crime do not exist in the same universe, and shouldn't be thought of as such.)
However, it would be an awe-eliciting moment if such powerful figures had to sit in a prison -- and not a cushy one, either -- with the rest of the prison population. Many -- if not most -- ordinary citizens would find it hard to believe.
Has Maria Sharapova collected enough "time served" that she deserves all the main-draw wild cards she gets? That's for anyone to think about. The ultimate answer won't move me in any direction. I don't care that much about it.
What is remarkable in a larger global context is simply that Sharapova was forced to serve any time a all.
Sometimes, sports -- as messed up as they often are -- can be the comparatively better example in the room, while realms of law enforcement, politics and military justice lag behind.
It gives one pause.
Comments
Post a Comment