I mentioned the risk reward ratio for tennis. As things stand now, Sharapova has already been dropped by numerous sponsors: Nike, TAG Heuer, Porsche.

Doping is typically done by athletes who are desperate to make money. Sharapova does not need to win to make money. She was already the highest paid female player in any sport. She was making almost twice what Serena Williams makes even though she has far fewer grand slam wins.

On top of that Sharapova was destined to continue making money after retirement. She would have become a broadcaster for BBC or some big TV channel. Her endorsements would not have dried up after retirement.

Now that she has been busted for doping she could lose some of that. In her case, doping does not make the slightest sense. There is almost no reward for doping yet the penalties for doping are high in her case.

This is the exact opposite of track athletes who are doping. Take a marathon runner for example. His livelihood depends on finishing in the top 3. If he does not finish in the top 3, he makes no money. Thats why track athletes are more likely to dope.

For those like masukuma mkenyan who clearly have comprehension difficulties, let me put this in bold: For a top tennis player, the risk of doping is high and the benefit is low. That does not mean no one in tennis cheats. It just means they are highly unlikely.

And again I am not saying Sharapova is innocent. I am just saying that in her case, the chances that this was a mistake are plausible. Doping does not make sense in her case. She made $30 million in 2015. She could have retired and still made $30 million in 2016. Remember Pele retired in 1977 yet he still makes $10 million per year in endorsements.

OK bring it on. I thrive on these debates.

for these and more jokes send an SMS to 34343

i doubt this. just think she merely has a good pr team. her answer brings up so many questions.

this is what the drug she has been taking does:


and she has been taking it for 10 years while it should be taken for 4-6 weeks.

she may have found, for all these time, a drug which gave her an advantage and wasn't banned and with a plausible deniability. unlucky for her it caught up with her when she didn't realize it had been banned.

The other reason I said tennis has a lower reward for doping is because unlike athletics, there is no direct correlation between doping and performance.

In athletics, doping can take a person from running 10.20 for the 100 metres to running 9.95. This makes a huge difference in whether you will be invited to Diamond league meets or not.

This means a person who had no chance of qualifying for an Olympic final, can actually win gold.

Consider the case of Rita jeptoo. By 2007, she was struggling and ran a season's best of 2:32:03 . Then she started taking EPO and by 2013 she was running 2:19.00. She literally improved 12 minutes

That is the difference between not being invited to a marathon major and making zero dollars and winning several marathons and making millions of dollars.

In tennis, the effect of doping is much lower. A person who is not good enough to qualify for the Australian open will not suddenly win the Australian open because of doping. At best they could win one match if that.

Yet if you are busted for doping , you could lose a year's worth of prize money by being suspended.

Is it worth it? You must strongly consider this especially if you are already wealthy. Rather than using illegal substances to relieve stress or increase stamina like mkenyan is suggesting, why not just use legal supplements? Remember this is tennis not marathon. Therefore you don't need a super boost of endurance.

WADA may have rushed too quickly to accuse Sharapova. They are now backtracking and saying maybe she did'nt dope and it was a genuine mistake.

If she is cleared, I wonder if the sponsors will come running back pleading with her to take them back.