Why Failed Drug Test Doesn't Diminish Maria Sharapova's Accomplishments

There are countless reactions to Maria Sharapova's failed drug test and what this will mean going forward with her Hall of Fame tennis career. She is one of the two biggest names in women's tennis and in 12 years has amassed 601 singles wins, 35 titles and five majors.

Whatever stance sports fans want to take with Sharapova breaking the new rule in January—and she did break the rules whether it was intentional or ignorant—one thing is crystal clear: Sharapova's legacy is not diminished at all with 597 wins, 35 titles and five majors through 2015.

Many will disagree, but until 2016, it was not illegal to take meldonium. Therefore, we cannot claim that her career was abetted through an unfair advantage. Steve Tignor of Tennis magazine summarized what this means:

"

It will be left to the ITF to determine the seriousness of Sharapova's transgression. The fact that she took the drug for a decade before 2016 shouldn't be a factor. Whatever her motivations were, it wasn't illegal; maybe meldonium should have been banned during that time, but it wasn't. What does matter is that tennis players are responsible for whatever is found in their bodies, and that meldonium was found in Sharapova's in 2016.

"

Alastair Grant/Associated Press

Performance-Enhancing

There's no question all athletes look to enhance their performances and careers. We see it more than ever in the 21st century with advances in science and health, improved nutrition and fitness, vitamins, supplements, stimulants, medicine and countless other methods to gain an edge on the field. The stakes of money and legacy certainly enhance competitive objectives.

Athletes must take care of their bodies and careers while trainers and medical practitioners do all they can to ensure maximum health, vitality, fitness and recovery for the athletes they assist. The objective is optimum productivity and longevity. This is part of every athlete's professional career, and Sharapova is no exception.

Say a distance runner has a deficiency of iron but takes manufactured supplements to boost iron intake so her speed and endurance increase. As long as it's legal within the arena of competition, why would the runner not take supplements, eat better, train harder and boost her performance?

The methods for how athletes enhance their performances would seemingly be on a level playing field if all athletes were clones, but that's not the case. Some athletes are blessed with incredible durability, and others are injury-prone. Some have terrific powers of recovery, but it may be a weakness for others. It stands to reason that players will strengthen themselves to overcome injuries and peak with their performances.

Take Spanish superstar Rafael Nadal. He has been grinding away for years despite chronic injuries. He has had knee injections, stem cell treatment on his back, and platelet-rich plasma therapy, which the Daily Mail described as "bloodspinning." This publication detailed how important this was in helping Nadal enhance his career in 2013:

"

It should be stressed that the latter process [bloodspinning], which involves taking blood and then re-injecting it around the knee tendons, is now entirely legal and in widespread use. The latest research, interestingly, suggests one by-product of it is the natural production of performance-enhancing Human Growth Hormone in the body.

"

OK, so it's clear Nadal is fortunate to have medical advances in his 21st-century career, which is obviously a different kind of advantage not available to players like Rod Laver or Jimmy Connors. Likewise, improved rackets, strings, flights and really all manners of advantages make for entirely different athletes and careers now.

Some sports fans do not like this, but it's reality.

Is it wrong? It probably depends on who you ask because one person's standards of how the game should be played in 1969 is probably different from how someone else might see it in 1984, 1999 or 2016. There are enough disagreements on technicalities like court surfaces let alone more controversial opinions on what an athlete can or cannot take into her body. It's further complicated when people judge athletes through differing moral frames.

Indeed, the real takeaway from 1990s star Jennifer Capriati's critical comments of Sharapova is that she did not get this advantage.

"I didn't have the high-priced team of [doctors] that found a way for me to cheat and get around the system and wait for science to catch up," Capriati wrote on Twitter, which has since been deleted, via Sara Malm of MailOnline. "If this medication helped me to [come back] again, would everyone be alright with me taking it? Maybe I should start taking it? Lol I might feel better."

(Capriati is also stating that public opinion should matter. Should everyone have to be alright with a policy?)

Sharapova has been taking the drug mildronate, which contains meldonium. She has almost certainly been taking it since 2006 because—according to the manufacturer of this drug, as reported by the Associated Press (via Tennis.com)—"it aids oxygen uptake and endurance."

The question is what policymakers will find acceptable or not acceptable to help oxygen uptake and endurance.

Recently, and especially in 2015, the World Anti-Doping Agency investigated what the AP called "a sizable minority of athletes" and decided the drug would be banned. This is what committees are for. They decide to uphold or change the policies within an organization.

Consequently, the rules were changed effective December 31, 2015, disallowing Sharapova and other athletes to continue using their performance-enhancing drug.

Would this change have been made if the vast majority of athletes used meldonium? Or is there now a perception that a few athletes have access to an extra advantage that competing athletes are unable or unwilling to take?

It didn't used to matter. Now it does.

Rob Griffith/Associated Press

Sharapova's Legacy

Sharapova has entered into a new era for her and other athletes who have previously used meldonium. The idea is that the new policy will keep competition on the level or prevent athletes from taking other performance-enhancing drugs that are more potent. It's now up to athletes to comply.

The new policy is not meant to regulate every tiny detail of an athlete's training, unique talents and methods for enhancing her career. If everything was regulated to ensure total equality, we might enter the world of Harrison Bergeron where forced equality eradicates talent and competition.

Does this mean Sharapova's legacy is now tainted? She failed a drug test in January 2016. Four wins in the Australian Open can be called into question, and maybe Belinda Bencic could feel upset about not getting the chance to face Serena Williams in the quarterfinals. Sharapova will await suspension and other punitive measures.

But to get in a time machine and apply a new policy to old parameters is grossly unfair. Sharapova's past cannot be wiped away any more than fictional character Jay Gatsby could change Daisy's past. Sharapova has worked, sacrificed, endured injuries and won important championships that were completely legal. Her accomplishments through 2015 are intact forever, and they cannot be taken away.

There will be more Sharapova discussions about 2016 and how she fits into the future of tennis. She will be a precedent in the sport, and she will be castigated for breaking the new rule.

Her past is a separate chapter that needs to be separated in a brave new world for a select minority. There's no reason to diminish her accomplishments. Tennis fans who have celebrated her big groundstrokes, mental toughness and competitive resilience do not need to apologize.

If they want to call her "The Queen of Clay," there's no need for an asterisk.