Yesterday the International Tennis Federation announced their decision to ban Maria Sharapova from playing tennis for a period of two years. The decisive paragraph concerning Sharapova's use of meldonium, or Mildronate, read as follows:
The manner of its use, on match days and when undertaking intensive training, is only consistent with an intention to boost her energy levels... (s)he took Mildronate for the purpose of enhancing her performance.
Sharapova's failure to disclose her use of the drug to any doctor, except that of the Russian Olympic team, in the years after 2006-when she had been prescribed the drug "as a cardio-protective agent and as a preventative agent for diabetes"-was sufficient evidence of guilt for the Tribunal. As was her high usage of Mildronate during major competition. And the insufficient explanation from her or her team (particularly agent Max Eisenbud) as to why she did not heed the World Anti-Doping Agency's warning as to the illegality of consuming the substance from January 1st, 2016 onwards.
Sharapova came out fighting after the decision, calling it "unfairly harsh" and vowing to "immediately appeal" to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
But what is more noteworthy than this (almost clichéd) plea of innocence and defiant stance is the fact that Nike have jumped back onto the Sharapova bandwagon-right when it appears set to come crashing to a halt.
In March, when Sharapova's failed test was made public, the organisation released a statement claiming it was "saddened and surprised" by the news and suspended its partnership with the five-time major winner while the investigation was ongoing. The organisation was given much credit for taking this decision.
Some commentators, including the Irish Independent's Will Slattery, praised Nike for making "the right decision", while at the same time raising question marks over the organisation's rekindled relationship with two-time drug cheat Justin Gatlin. Slattery wrote that the "double standard" of keeping on Gatlin "didn't make sense" in light of Nike calling a halt to its dealings with Sharapova.
It appears to make even less sense, therefore, that the organisation have come out and backed an athlete who currently stands to serve a two-year ban and whose reputation looks set to take a significant hit. And, judging by the damning language in the ITF report, an appeal from Sharapova to CAS stands little chance of being successful.
Clearly there is no suggestion of actual wrong-doing or sinister activity by Nike here. But their flowery statement that they "hope to see Maria back on court and will continue to partner with her" is perhaps more confusing than their backing of Gatlin.
Why let go of the reins with Sharapova in the first place if their reaction was going to be to jump back on the horse upon a positive finding by the Tribunal?
Their backing of Gatlin, a man in his redemption phase, is arguably more understandable. Despite a commonly held belief that Gatlin is an unapologetic monster whose main priority is to defeat the white angel that is Usain Bolt, Gatlin has tried to make amends for past sins, speaking in colleges about his own experiences and volunteering with local schools' athletics teams, and has been praised for his co-operation in anti-doping operations. Despite what could be perceived as a pro-Bolt bias among some sections of the media, Gatlin is trying to change his image and is, one could suggest, more worthy of Nike backing than an unrepentant tennis star who has essentially been caught red-handed.
It would be inaccurate to compare Sharapova's transgressions to the sins committed by Lance Armstrong (who had a web of victims far greater than his direct opponents and damaged the lives of anyone who dared question his achievements-I could go on) but it is interesting to read Nike's statement on the day they said goodbye to the man who was once a beacon of marketability for them.
Due to the seemingly insurmountable evidence that Lance Armstrong participated in doping and misled Nike for more than a decade, it is with great sadness that we have terminated our contract with him. Nike does not condone the use of illegal performance enhancing drugs in any manner.
More "sadness" from Nike, but a totally different response. In joining 'Head', Sharapova's racket manufacturer, in cheer-leading an athlete found to have "concealed her use of Mildronate from the anti-doping authorities, members of her own support team and the doctors whom she consulted", Nike are arguably not sending out an appropriate message to their customers and to the people who will look at Sharapova and continue to associate her with the brand.
Top US sports writer Bryan Armen Graham predicted in March that regarding Sharapova, Nike had temporarily "suspended ties but will no doubt be on board for the comeback tour."
As is the case with most comeback tours, they should have known better.
