Michael Phelps gets a three-month ban while Martina Hingis gets two years. Am I missing something?
-- Aaron R., Bloomington• It's not a perfect comparison. Different drugs, different circumstances, different sports. Hingis "failed" -- if you want to call it that -- a doping test administered in competition. There was no analytical evidence implicating Phelps; just a "damning" photo.
But your larger point is well-taken. To use a highly technical term, Hingis' test result stinks -- I wish she'd hired me as her lawyer. The timing makes no sense, as she knew the test was coming. The drug in question is generally not considered performance-enhancing. It was a first offense. In what would seem to be a tacit admission of wrongdoing, in the wake of the Hingis decision administrators now have more discretion to reduce punishment when there are extenuating circumstances ...yet she was handed what amounted to a lifetime ban. Unless, of course, she wanted to commit hundreds of thousands of dollars to an appeal. Athletes in other sports would barely get their knuckles rapped for an equivalent offense.
A few of you asked whether I thought Hingis, given her unfortunate exit from tennis, was still a lock for the Hall of Fame. I can speak only for myself but I would vote for her tomorrow without qualification. Five Grand Slams, a long stretch at No. 1, success in doubles. Never mind that it would be hypocritical to deny her, given that various other players enshrined in Newport, in addition to the past three U.S. presidents, have admitted to illicit drug use. I feel -- and you may have gotten this vibe by now -- that Hingis was really railroaded.
Source: sportsillustrated
I really hope Martina is reading some of these, because the WTA needs her more then ever these days.
I also agree on the Hall of Fame induction. She absolutely earned it, and there should be no reason for the tennis officials to even think twice about denying her that right.
No comments:
Post a Comment