Nike and Maria Sharapova have one thing in common – both have been poorly advised to ‘just do it’.
Nike’s famous slogan could come back to haunt the sports apparel giant as it backs one of its star ambassadors to overturn a two-year doping ban that could effectively end her career.
Nike isn’t the only one, mind. HEAD, who has always stood firmly in Sharapova’s corner, and Evian have defended the Russian. Brands that are waiting on the findings of an appeal include Porsche and TAG Heuer, while Avon has already severed ties but claims this isn’t related to the scandal. (Scroll to the end for a gallery of Sharapova promoting these brands.)
Nike, which sponsors Sharapova to the tune of US$12.5 million per year, said in a statement: “The International Tennis Federation (ITF) has found that Maria did not intentionally break its rules. Maria has always made her position clear, has apologised for her mistake and is now appealing the length of the ban.
“Based on the decision of the ITF and their factual findings, we hope to see Maria back on court and will continue to partner with her.”
Racquet-maker HEAD went even further, suggesting the decision was made under a “flawed process”, which breaks WADA’s own rules in banning substances.
“Without necessary and extensive clinical testing that highlights either Meldonium’s performance enhancing benefits or evidence of it being detrimental to athletes, it is evident that WADA banned Meldonium based upon the amount of athletes using Meldonium rather than any scientific evidence,” chairman and CEO Johan Eliasch said in a statement (see full statement below).
For Sharapova, taking banned substance Meldonium (an Eastern European drug known to her as Mildronate) after it had been placed on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list could cut short an illustrious career. For many years she has been the world’s richest female sports star, largely due to endorsements. This year she was knocked off that perch and came second, with earnings of US$21.9 million to Serena Williams’ US$28.9 million, according to Forbes.
The banned substance was detected in a urine sample after her 2016 Australian Open quarter-finals defeat to Williams, and again in a separate sample on 2 February.
Sharapova has maintained she was taking the substance for medical reasons and unaware it had been banned, despite two official warnings – that it was being monitored in 2015 and banned in 2016.
The ITF tribunal ruled Sharapova’s doping breach was not intentional, but she must bear some fault and was punished with a two-year ban (the minimum), which she is now appealing.
The spirit of sport
A closer look at the full ITF tribunal ruling poses several ethical questions, not just to Sharapova and her team, but the brands who are willing to fight her corner.
They are gambling that the marketing pay-off will be worthwhile in the unlikely event the ruling is overturned.
It’s a case of brands hedging their bets, with more to gain standing by their prized asset than to lose by being dragged through the mud if an appeal is dismissed.
In this case, Nike, Evian and HEAD are missing the point. Although there is no suggestion Sharapova is an intentional drug cheat, it’s pretty clear that the drug she took had performance enhancing properties, she was urged to use it during matches and training, and she did not disclose it to authorities when all drugs and supplements must be revealed (see below).
Brand's legal teams can draw their own conclusions from the facts, but, even if unintended, the spirit of fair play has been compromised, and brands that attack authorities for upholding this spirit need to question their own motives.
Even Eliasch, to a degree, concedes this point, saying: “The only condition that could potentially be argued in favour of WADA’s rules is that the prevalence of Meldonium use amongst certain groups of athletes violated the spirit of sport.”
Sharapova’s plight has divided many in the tennis community, but not Swiss star Roger Federer.
After winning a match in Stuttgart on Thursday, Federer said he opted for a zero-tolerance approach. It doesn’t matter, he argued, if it’s intentional or not, and athletes needed to know 100% what they were putting in their bodies or “be damned”.
Federer believes athletes should have samples held for up to 30 years and retrospective action taken for drug cheats detected years after the offence occurs to send out a strong deterrent.
If Sharapova’s appeal is dismissed, it could lead to an even harsher ban that would all but end her career. At 29, and with her ongoing injury concerns, the Russian could struggle to reach previous heights, if not the motivation, in any comeback. She also has other ventures, including a candy business.
How this saga plays out for the brands that back her remains to be seen. As Sharapova is universally popular, has admitted wrongdoing and was found unwittingly negligent, it somewhat insulates them against any association of backing a drug cheat – something that would surely have led to them to this juncture.
But in such cloudy cases, sometimes it’s worth playing it cool and sitting on the fence, rather than rushing to throw your support behind an athlete that was careless at best.
Or, as TAG Heuer would put it, ‘don’t’ crack under pressure’ - the watchmaker will see how the appeal goes before placing a bet.
For all the riches Sharapova brings to brands, there is a broader question of fair play in sport, and whether a 'win at all costs' mentality works as well in marketing as it can do on the tennis court.
Five key points in the ITF tribunal findings
1) The evidence suggests Sharapova was advised to take Meldonium to treat a medical condition under the advice of Russian doctor Anatoly Skalny. The Eastern European drug, which cannot be bought in the US where Sharapova lives, has cardioprotective and anti-ischaemic properties.
2) Sharapova and her father took steps to ensure the drug was not on the WADA anti-doping code prohibited list.
3) Although performance enhancement was not the motive, it was recommended the drug be taken “before training or competition”, “one hour before a match”, and higher doses “during games of special importance”.
4) Sharapova continued taking Meldonium after she stopped following Dr Skalny’s drugs regime in late 2012, and did not inform other doctors, her team or her new nutritionist. She did not disclose use of Meldonium on any doping control form that requires all prescription and non-prescription drugs be listed.
5) Sharapova’s conduct was ruled unintentional, but she bears responsibility for ensuring everything she takes remains off WADA’s prohibited list, and had not sought to do so since 2013.
HEAD CEO and chair Johan Eliasch statement
In response to the ITF Tribunal decision today to ban Maria Sharapova for 2 years for the unintentional usage of a banned substance, I would like to clarify our position. Based upon the evidence provided by Miss Sharapova, WADA and by Dr Don Catlin, the Chief Science Officer of the Banned Substances Control Group, it appears that the ITF have made their decision based upon a flawed process undertaken by WADA that clearly highlights how WADA have broken their own rules in determining whether or not Meldonium should be banned.
Using WADA’s decision rubric, WADA’s decision to ban Meldonium is not based upon extensive clinical testing that underlines Meldonium’s performance enhancing benefits. There are a limited amount of scientific studies that point to Meldonium’s cardioprotective and anti- ischaemic properties but nothing that correlates Meldonium as a performance enhancing drug.
There are also no published studies that indicate that using Meldonium is detrimental to the health of an athlete. This indicates that WADA banned Meldonium without fulfilling their first two rules. The only condition that could potentially be argued in favour of WADA’s rules is that the prevalence of Meldonium use amongst certain groups of athletes violated the spirit of sport. This is subject to interpretation and if deemed correct would only fulfil a single rule. In order for a product to be banned it must fulfil two rules.
Without necessary and extensive clinical testing that highlights either Meldonium’s performance enhancing benefits or evidence of it being detrimental to athletes, it is evident that WADA banned Meldonium based upon the amount of athletes using Meldonium rather than any scientific evidence. WADA have a responsibility to make decisions based upon scientific inquiry rather than prevalence of use and most importantly must fulfil their own rules when making such decisions.
We believe, based on the facts and circumstances provided to us, that this is a flawed decision. HEAD will continue to stand by Miss Sharapova.
Marketing gold
Maria Sharapova is one of the most marketable athletes in the world and has been ambassador for some of the world's top brands. Below is a selection of her work for Nike, HEAD, TAG Heuer, Porsche and Evian.
Have something to say on this? Share your views in the comments section below. Or if you have a news story or tip-off, drop us a line at adnews@yaffa.com.au
Sign up to the AdNews newsletter, like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter for breaking stories and campaigns throughout the day.