Hingis faces facts, but does punishment fit the crime?

Martina Hingis was banned from tennis for two years after she was found guilty of testing positive for cocaine at Wimbledon. AP

MAILBAG Jon Wertheim will answer questions from SI.com users in his mailbag every Wednesday. Your name: Your e-mail address: Your home town: Enter your question:

Hope everyone had a good vacation. Check back in a few days for our 2008 Australian Open seed reports.

Martina Hingis should not have been mentioned with the others who retired from the sport. She left in disgrace, not with dignity. It is sad to me that you tennis writers have all minimized her drug use. She humiliated herself and has only herself to blame. Why the need to cover for her?
-- Kathleen, New York

I don't know if anyone is "covering" for her. And I don't profess to speak for "you tennis writers." But, personally, L'Affaire Martina still triggers more sadness and disappointment than outrage. And I think, it highlights some problems with the current anti-doping protocol.

Though last week's announcement from an independent tribunal certainly bolsters assertion that the cocaine really was in Hingis' system, there are still a lot of unanswered questions. What of the hair test exonerating Hingis? What of the long delays? What of the fact that the sample was processed an ocean away from where the sample was gathered? What of the WTA Tour's muted role in this?

Perhaps above all: What of the fact that Hingis tested positive for a recreational drug, not a performance-enhancing drug? Assuming that Hingis did, in fact, "experiment" with cocaine, we could (and should) criticize her for dozens of reasons, not least that it was illegal activity.

But I'd submit we ought to draw a distinction between a "social" drug and a drug that undermines the dignity of competition. Presumably, the sport's anti-doping mechanism is in place to ensure fairness and catch athletes who are cheating the field. That's not the case here.

Does Hingis' offense warrant punishment? I would say, yes -- though a two-year suspension for a first offense seems awfully harsh to me. But, morally and emotionally, I'm more concerned about the PEDs that deprive clean athletes of medals and rankings points and roster spots and glory and, yes, money. Hingis, unquestionably and unfortunately, leaves tennis under a dark cloud. But if she "has only herself to blame," at least there was no collateral damage.

I loved your year end wrap-up, but have two comments on it: 1) What happened to biggest disappointment? Afraid to offend someone? 2) While I do agree that Nadal-Federer at Wimby was the match of the year, what about Roddick-Gasquet? It was an amazing match (only 58 unforced errors combined), a breakthrough win, and a match that was simply compelling. Any thoughts?
-- Matt R. Providence, R.I.

Amélie Mauresmo -- a two-time Grand Slam winner in '06 -- failing to finish anywhere near the top 10, would qualify as a disappointment. Same for Hingis' uninspired results and then, of course, her unceremonious exit. Perhaps the biggest disappointment was the continuing injury-mania. Take stock of the top players (the Williams sisters, Nadal in the fall, Andy Murray, Mauresmo, Maria Sharapova, Gustavo Kuerten, Marat Safin, etc.) who were sidelined by injury and it's really staggering no one is doing anything constructive to address this.

As for the match of the year, I would agree that Roddick-Gasquet is up there. I'd add that Gasquet was down two sets and a break before rallying. And he played exquisite tennis; it wasn't as if Roddick choked. But a five-set Wimbledon final between the No. 1 and No. 2 players is tough to top.

1 of 3