Maria Sharapova current Hall of Fame status?

[MatsPhilander]

She was banned from playing tennis, not having time off for recovery and rest!

Given Meldonium has no effect, I would argue that had she not been banned her play would have remained where it was.

Being rubbed out of the game for such a long period of time creates too many variables.

If you are really interested there were Meldonium users in other sports who escaped a ban due to low levels, so you could track their before and after progress.

I am not interested as there is no pharmacology evidence that it is a PED and WADA never claimed to have any. They banned it officially just due to 'intention to use'.

In other words, if they did a survey that discovered that coffee was taken by athletes with the intention to improve performance WADA would be within its powers to ban coffee.

And there is clear evidence that caffeine does have performance enhancing effects & was on the banned list until 2004, of course it would create a problem because Fed is a chocolate ambassador, chocolate companies still sponsor sporting events & probably nearly everybody on the tour eats chocolate &/or drinks coffee/energy drinks.

 

[Bartelby]

Cafffeine is, indeed, a very well studied drug and Meldonium is almost completely unstudied.

 

[MatsPhilander]

I did read it and my direct response to that would be that Federer, Venus, and Serena, are all significantly older than Sharapova and have posted great results….this year. Nadal, is about her age and has done the same. Venus is significantly older and has got to two major finals, with an autoimmune disease. Grand Slam level expectations for someone Maria's age, these days, is not outside the realm of possibility, or expectation for her. Especially with Serena being out, the door is wide open.

She is 30 now and has had a year and a half off to recover, rest, heal, train, and practice the weaker parts of her game. An argument could easily be made that she might be expected to be better than ever in the short term.

My post was more directed toward that faction in this thread who's position is that meldonium is not performance enhancing. That faction, should expect her results to be better than ever with the rest and training that the time off has granted her?

Or, the whole lot of you are just making pre-excuses for the scenario that she does not perform up to expectations, to not blame it on doping.

I am still taking a wait and see approach. I have no preset expectations on what her performance would have to be in order for me to support her induction.

Is this the Serena & Venus who have been allowed to take multiple banned substances over many years because a doctor signed a piece of paper allowing it? The fact is Meldonium is not a PED & as I stated previously 4 slams out of a possible 41 spread over a near decade long time frame is not a good return for somebody doping, much more suspicious from a stat/probability standpoint would be somebody like Clijsters who in the best part of a decade on tour won just 1 slam, retired & then came back after 2 years & won 3 of the next 5 slams she played in. The argument might also be made that she will be pretty rusty & is carrying injuries.

 

[MatsPhilander]

She was banned from playing tennis, not having time off for recovery and rest!

Given Meldonium has no effect, I would argue that had she not been banned her play would have remained where it was.

Being rubbed out of the game for such a long period of time creates too many variables.

If you are really interested there were Meldonium users in other sports who escaped a ban due to low levels, so you could track their before and after progress.

I am not interested as there is no pharmacology evidence that it is a PED and WADA never claimed to have any. They banned it officially just due to 'intention to use'.

In other words, if they did a survey that discovered that coffee was taken by athletes with the intention to improve performance WADA would be within its powers to ban coffee.

People just cannot accept that a Russian who is dedicated & puts the hard yards in can maintain great levels over such a long period. If anything five slams is an under-performance & the only reason she has five is because of the amount of slam finals & semis she has lost to Serena, without that her tally could probably be doubled.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

People just cannot accept that a Russian who is dedicated & puts the hard yards in can maintain great levels over such a long period. If anything five slams is an under-performance & the only reason she has five is because of the amount of slam finals & semis she has lost to Serena, without that her tally could probably be doubled.

Jeebus, doesn't it hurt when you pull such BS out of your derriere?

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

Why is hall of fame a big deal? I cant really be bothered w it. Have no clue which tennis players that are there.

 

[MatsPhilander]

Jeebus, doesn't it hurt when you pull such BS out of your derriere?

What is untrue? She just works harder than nearly all the other women, is mentally stronger than them & has been denied by Serena in multiple slam finals & semis.

 

[Xavier G]

[QUOTE="bigserving, post: 1

When people talk about time, we always use round, ball-park numbers. When she was 28, she said that she had been using meldo for "ten years." That "ten years," may have actually been ten years, nine months, and two weeks. Or, nine years, eight months, and three weeks. Or any number in between or near that. Either way, she admitted that she began using near the time that she won Wimbledon.

It seems odd to me that somebody would win Wimbledon clean, then begin using a PED. I think that she[/QUOTE]


The test in question was in early 2016. Going back ten years would be 2006. She may mean 2005 though. She only played one tournament, I believe, in which the new regulations regarding Meldonium were in place.
My personal opinion is that Maria was a clean athlete (and Meldonium-free) when she won Wimbledon in 2004 at 17. That's why I give her the benefit of the doubt regarding her titles.
Maria won Wimbledon in 2004, didn't follow up with a Major in 2005. Maybe someone then suggested things to her. Who knows? Things can change when you hit the big-time and start making money as we know in sport....

 

[Bartelby]

Sharapova took a drug on medical advice which is now an over the counter medication of no proven benefit.

 

[wendyg]

Bear in mind for the purposes of this discussion that Sharapova won't be eligible for the HoF until she's been off the tour for five years. Since she's still playing that means the *earliest* she'd be up for consideration is 2023. A lot of the controversy will be forgotten by then or seen in a different light, depending on how the rest of her playing career goes.

Wikipedia says Bob Hewitt was ejected from the HoF after he was convicted and sent to prison.

I'm not a fan of the three-majors requirement for the HoF. I understand what they're trying to do (although I can't help suspecting they picked three rather than four or five because Capriati and Davenport both have three and as prominent Americans the HoF would want them in), but I think context really does matter. Li Na was the first-ever Chinese winner of a major, yet wouldn't qualify; Myskina was the first Russian winner and led her country's team to its first Fed Cup title, and ditto. I think there should be allowances made for ground-breakers. At the very least, there should be an "Honorable Mentions" wing for people who don't quite make it but who have nonetheless scored notable achievements.

wg

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

I did read it and my direct response to that would be that Federer, Venus, and Serena, are all significantly older than Sharapova and have posted great results….this year. Nadal, is about her age and has done the same. Venus is significantly older and has got to two major finals, with an autoimmune disease. Grand Slam level expectations for someone Maria's age, these days, is not outside the realm of possibility, or expectation for her. Especially with Serena being out, the door is wide open.

She is 30 now and has had a year and a half off to recover, rest, heal, train, and practice the weaker parts of her game. An argument could easily be made that she might be expected to be better than ever in the short term.

My post was more directed toward that faction in this thread who's position is that meldonium is not performance enhancing. That faction, should expect her results to be better than ever with the rest and training that the time off has granted her?

Or, the whole lot of you are just making pre-excuses for the scenario that she does not perform up to expectations, to not blame it on doping.

I am still taking a wait and see approach. I have no preset expectations on what her performance would have to be in order for me to support her induction.

Not a solid premise at all. You've mentioned some extraordinary examples as if this is the norm. Not even close. The vast majority of players start to fade as they hit 30. Most retire shortly afterward (if they haven't already retired prior to 30). And we can't say for sure that some of your examples did not benefit from some performance-enhancing substances.

Also, a return after a year and a half off is no guarantee of improved performance either. Henin came back after an extended period off. She was YE#1 in 2007 and won 2 of the 3 slam events she entered (RG and USO). Reached the QF for AO 2008 and retired from the tour a bit later (still ranked #1). She returned for AO 2010 at the age of 27. To her credit, she did make it to the final for that AO but never did make it back to the top 10. She had 3R and 4R finishes in subsequent slam events. She ended up retiring for good before reaching 30.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Sharapova took a drug on medical advice which is now an over the counter medication of no proven benefit.

If she was going to dope anyway she should have taken something with more oomph. Over the counter pretty much anything doesn't do much - why would she think doping agents would be any different? Go hard or go home.

Based on that my best guess is that she was not intentionally looking to break the rules.

 

[bigserving]

Sharapova withdraws from her second round match at Stanford with left arm soreness.

 

[Tshooter]

...

Wikipedia says Bob Hewitt was ejected from the HoF after he was convicted and sent to prison...

... but I think context really does matter...

I recall Hewitt was "suspended" (some bizzare I presume made up status between in and out) shortly after the HBO special brought the complaints against him to a larger audience.

If context really does matter than being suspended for 18 months disqualifies a player. If they ignore my sage advice and let her in they need to mention the suspension in whatever exhibit mentions her because it's a significant part of her story.

You could argue Hewitt should have been left in -- his tennis accomplishments are what they are -- and add something to inform visitors that he was convicted of rape/sexual assault against former students or whatever the precise facts are. It has the benefit of informing people that at one time tennis made accomadations for rapists. I was with the toss him out group of toothless peasants***but I can understand the other side. However, they should not whitewash the story whether Hewitt or Pova.

***
Limpinhitter said:
"I can see Tshooter cheering from the crowd of toothless peasants while some heretic was being shoved in to a guillotine in Medieval France."