At a time when the debate that began after the return of the Romanian champion to the track has reached a particular intensity, the perspective of the arguments “for” and “against” in the “case of Simona Halep” is welcome. HotNews Head of Sports Adrian Ilinescu is one of the Romanian journalists who have been covering tennis for decades. In his article, the journalist presents arguments that each camp considers “winning”.

Simona Halep received a wild card to return to tennis, and the decision of the organizers in Miami caused controversy – it was not seen well by Caroline Wozniacki and Andy Roddick. The main argument of the applicants is related to sports ethics: how fair is it for an athlete who has just returned from a doping suspension to take advantage of such an invitation?

Thus, Simona entered a list of global copies and intimate dilemmas, demanding and forgiving, which includes big names in tennis such as Maria Sharapova and Martina Hingis.

What Halep said in 2017 in the case of Sharapova

In 2017, before the start of the clay season, Maria Sharapova returned to the world circuit after a 15-month suspension. The Russian used a wild card to enter the main draw in Stuttgart.

At that moment, Halep was asked to comment on the decision of the organizers, and her words remained in the memory of the Internet.

“For children, for young athletes, it is not normal to help with a wild card a player who was disqualified for doping. This is not only about Maria Sharapova, but also about all the players who were found to have used doping,” said Simona in 2017 before the tournament in Stuttgart.

They attacked immediately after returning

Seven years after this episode, Halep returned to tennis thanks to a wild card. The chorus of rivals was opened by Caroline Wozniacki, one of the most important rivals in Simona’s career.

Noting from the outset that she had nothing special about the Konstanz-born athlete, the Dane told reporters at a press conference that it did not seem normal when wild cards are given to athletes who have had doping problems.

A few days later, Andy Roddick also discussed the topic, and his stance was: “You have to start from scratch, work hard to prove that you deserve to come back, show us that you’re clean.”

Arguments “in favor” of Simona Halep getting a wild card

Apart from a positive anti-doping test in the summer of 2022, there was never any suspicion of doping in relation to athlete Simona Halep. This is evidenced by hundreds of tests conducted at any time over the years.

Receiving wild cards can also be interpreted as moral and financial compensation. According to the CAS decision, Simona’s disqualification should have ended months earlier (reduced from 4 years to nine months), and Halep would have been allowed to play in any competition throughout this period.

With intact points from the world ranking, Simona could go through the usual methods of registration for tournaments, and not thanks to some wild cards. We are not talking about the financial aspect, about the money he could have earned during that time.

Halep has been a respected name in tennis throughout her career (look at how many white athletes have filed for her during that time – the legendary Chris Evert tops the list) and deserves a second chance, especially after serving her verdict from the doping scandal.

Because an athlete who has not knowingly doped (as per the TAS decision in March) deserves help to be able to compete in tournaments that he would not normally have access to at that time.

The gesture of the owners of the tournament is economically motivated

She has already paid for a mistake that ultimately belonged to her team at the time (not the team around Patrick Muratoglu).

Modern sport is an industry, and the organizers have complete freedom to decide on measures to increase the attractiveness of the competition. In addition, tournament organizers are not courts.

Tournaments are essentially for-profit events, and they can promote big-name players who drive ticket sales and have fan communities behind them (similar to Simona Halep – she’s famous in tennis, garnering television audiences and bringing fans to almost every arena on the WTA circuit).

The health of sports as a whole is also determined by the economic factor. Financially successful tournaments mean bigger and better opportunities for other athletes, now or in the future.

Issuing wild cards to athletes who returned after doping scandals did not start with Simona Halep. For the women’s circuit, Maria Sharapova remains the benchmark, but we can also add Martina Hingis (doubles at Wimbledon 2014) to the list.

Arguments against Simona Halep getting a wild card

Athletes are directly responsible for what goes on in their bodies, and once a suspension is over (or has been lifted), a tennis player must start over.

Simona had the freedom to choose the team, she was not limited by anything, and in tennis, the mistake of Muratoglu’s team pays dearly only to the athlete.

Leaving aside patriotism (where it still exists in Simona’s case in a country where contenders have existed even after winning a Grand Slam), let’s imagine that Halep would be the same top athlete, but of a different nationality.

How would it sound in the minds of many that the former WTA leader from Russia (or the USA, for example) immediately received a wild card after the TAS decision? And that it happened in Miami, the first ranking competition in the WTA circuit.

If you were the parent of a child about to make the step up from junior to senior, and the wild card (so important at this point in a career) went to a former world leader returning from a doping ban, who would you see the deal with? ?

Because Simone is 32 years old, and in today’s tennis there are cases of sportsmen/women older than her who perform decently at a high level. I’m thinking of Angelique Kerber (just back on track after giving birth and 36 years old) and Caroline Wozniacki (33 years old, back on the white sport after two births and a three-year absence). There is no need to hurry with a direct return to major tournaments, and then it can be done by points in the WTA ranking.

In general, the wild card should be given to the juniors in order to make a step to the big tournaments. Plus players who, due to injuries (or other problems), have lost important positions in the world ranking (if they do not use a protected ranking).

“Golden invitations” could even put Simona at a disadvantage

Attending small competitions (starting with the ITF) should not be seen as shameful. Simona needs a rhythm, a lot of matches, and opponents from less important tournaments could help her step by step to return to the desired level (both physically and especially mentally). In the absence of any wild cards, this stage will be considered.

Wild cards can be seen as salvation for an athlete who wants to play as much as possible after a long period of inactivity – a year and seven months in Simona’s case. But they can be a double-edged sword: possible frequent defeats against important opponents in major tournaments can deepen feelings of distrust and lead to a mental block.

Confidence in tennis is something extremely difficult to earn, to acquire, and it can disappear after a series of missed forehands.

Known doping cases from the recent history of the WTA

Martina Hingis (2007)

In 2007, the multiple Grand Slam champion tested positive for benzoylecgonine (the main metabolite of cocaine).

Martina received a two-year disqualification from the ITF (from October 1, 2007), lost her place in the WTA ranking, and also received a fine of more than 120 thousand dollars.

Hingis appealed this decision, but was categorically rejected by the ITF. The reason: in the meantime, the athlete announced the end of her sports career.

Later, the former WTA leader returned to tennis in 2013 and managed to climb to the first place in the doubles hierarchy. To be able to participate in Wimbledon in 2014, Martina received a wild card from the organizers of the All England Club.

Photo source: MARUYAMA, Kohei / AFLO / Profimedia

Barbora Strykova (2013)

In the 2013 season, Barbora Strykova tested positive for sibutramine. He stated that he did not intentionally ingest the substance to cheat. The ITF recognized that the athlete did not take the substance intentionally and imposed a six-month suspension.

The player from the Czech Republic lost all her points in the WTA ranking, as well as the money she won at the Luxembourg Open and Buschl. Because of this disqualification, Strycova was unable to play at the 2013 Australian Open.

In fact, Strykova was one of Sharapova’s challenges when the Russian was given a wild card on her return to tennis.

“Of course, I would like to get a wild card when I come back, but I’m not Sharapova. Nothing has changed for her, she can play in the same tournaments as me,” Barbora said in April 2017.

Maria Sharapova (2016)

On March 7, 2016, Sharapova held a press conference in Los Angeles, where she announced a positive test result after participating in the Australian Open. The Russian woman stated that she did not use doping, but took medication for diabetes. This drug contained meldonium.

Meldonium entered the banned list on January 1 (a few weeks after the incident), and Masha’s medical team was informed in advance of this change in the anti-doping code.

The Russian was banned from competition for two years by the ITF and WADA, with the two forums ruling that the player had a duty to know what he was consuming and to keep abreast of changes to the banned substance list.

Sharapova was initially banned for two years, but was reduced to 15 months on appeal by CAS. The former WTA leader returned to the tennis courts in April 2017 (in Stuttgart), and the first Grand Slam tournament in which she was able to participate was the US Open of the same year as a wild card.

Photo credit: Anthony Harvey / Shutterstock Editorial / Profimedia