Content uploaded by Rachel Allison
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rachel Allison on Mar 17, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=fcss20
Sport in Society
Cultures, Commerce, Media, Politics
ISSN: 1743-0437 (Print) 1743-0445 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fcss20
When women athletes transgress: an exploratory
study of image repair and social media response
Rachel Allison, Ann Pegoraro, Evan Frederick & Ashleigh-Jane Thompson
To cite this article: Rachel Allison, Ann Pegoraro, Evan Frederick & Ashleigh-Jane Thompson
(2019): When women athletes transgress: an exploratory study of image repair and social media
response, Sport in Society, DOI: 10.1080/17430437.2019.1580266
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2019.1580266
Published online: 04 Mar 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
View Crossmark data
SPORT IN SOCIETY
When women athletes transgress: an exploratory study of
image repair and social media response
Rachel Allisona, Ann Pegorarob, Evan Frederickc and Ashleigh-Jane Thompsond
aDepartment of Sociology, Mississippi State University, Starkville, Mississippi, USA; bSchool of Human Kinetics,
Institute for Sport Marketing, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Canada; cDepartment of Health & Spor t Sciences,
University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, USA; dDepartment of Management, Sport and Tourism, La Trobe
University, Melbourne, Australia
ABSTRACT
Following the violation of laws or social norms, professional athletes
commonly work to improve their public image and protect their liveli-
hoods. Yet little research has focused on image repair efforts or their
reception for women athletes. We consider the cases of two transgres-
sions that took place in 2016: soccer player Abby Wambach’s arrest for
driving under the influence and tennis player Maria Sharapova’s admis-
sion of a failed drug test. Using Benoit’s image repair theory, we examine
each athlete’s image repair strategies on Facebook and Facebook users’
responses. Wambach used mortification and corrective action strate-
gies, while Sharapova used evading responsibility and reducing offen-
siveness strategies. While there was some rejection of the athletes’
image repair strategies, most users accepted the athletes’ arguments,
emphasized their support, and engaged in additional image repair work
on behalf of the athletes. We consider contextual factors related to
Facebook responses to the athletes’ image repair strategies.
Introduction
Professional athletes occupy a prominent cultural position, vaunted as entertainers and
icons. As public figures, athletes’ perceived character has become as important to their
career trajectories as their athletic skills and win-loss records (Brown etal. 2015; Meng and
Pan 2013). Thus, the transgression of laws or deeply embedded social norms presents a
problem for professional athletes, whether it takes place inside or outside the arena of
competition. Athletes’ misdeeds tarnish not only their own reputations, but also the repu-
tations of teams, leagues, and corporate partners. As a result, athletes’ playing careers,
financial standing, and sponsorship or commercial opportunities are at risk with criminal
or social transgression.
Following transgression, athletes typically engage in communicative processes of image
repair, looking to minimize damage to their public image and protect their careers. Benoit’s
(1995) image repair theory (IRT) has become the primary theoretical tool for conceptual-
izing the strategies athletes use to repair reputational harm. Research to date has investigated
KEYWORDS
Gender; sport;
transgression; social
media; image repair
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
CONTACT Rachel Allison rallison@soc.msstate.edu
https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2019.1580266
2 R. ALLISON ETAL.
the content of image repair among athletes and the effectiveness of image repair efforts.
Most of this research has examined image repair among men. With few exceptions (Allison
and Pegoraro 2018; Benoit and Hanczor 1994; Brazeal 2013; Compton 2013; Kramer 2013),
little research has examined transgression and image repair processes among women
athletes.
This gap is notable because transgressions among professional women athletes have
sometimes received substantial media and popular cultural attention. In fact, women ath-
letes often garner more mass media coverage for transgression than for their athletic achieve-
ments (Brown etal. 2015; Cooky, Messner, and Musto 2015; Van 2014). Precisely because
the process and reception of image repair may not be gender neutral, women athletes’
transgressions present important opportunities to further our understanding of how athletes
address image crises and with what consequences (Brown etal. 2015). Both how women
use image repair strategies and how these are received may reflect the operation of uniquely
gendered expectations.
In this exploratory study, we begin to address the paucity of research on image repair
among women athletes by comparing two cases of transgression that took place in 2016:
soccer player Abby Wambach’s arrest for driving under the influence (DUI) and tennis
player Maria Sharapova’s admission of a failed drug test. We focus on social media as
increasingly ubiquitous communication platforms among professional women athletes.
Through an analysis of Wambach and Sharapova’s Facebook posts following their trans-
gressions, we examine their image repair strategies and user responses to these strategies,
addressing the content and reception of image repair for two high-profile women in pro-
fessional sport.
Background
Image repair theory
Image refers to “perceptions of the source held by the audience, shaped by the words and
deeds of that source, as well as by the actions of other relevant actors” (Meng and Pan 2013,
89). In professional sport, image is important to athletes’ self-worth, social and community
standing, financial status, and playing and promotional opportunities. Image, and the cul-
tural recognition and material rewards that stem from it, are at risk of lasting harm when
a perceived negative event has taken place and an athlete is held responsible for it. In
response, athletes engage in communicative work to repair their public images and protect
their livelihoods (Blaney 2013).
Benoit’s (1995) IRT assumes that communication is a goal-directed activity, intended
towards a purpose, and that maintaining a positive image is one major goal of communi-
cation. As Benoit (1995) has elaborated, image repair strategies fall under five primary
categories, with each strategy accomplished through several communicative mechanisms.
First, using the strategy of denial, individuals may deny that a transgression has occurred
at all. They may also acknowledge the event but deny their involvement in it by shifting the
blame to another. Second, the evasion strategy acknowledges involvement but seeks to avoid
attributions of responsibility. Individuals may claim that they were provoked to action or
that they lacked knowledge of or control over important factors (defeasibility). Individuals
may also make an excuse to account for the event or highlight their good intentions. Third,
SPORT IN SOCIETY 3
individuals may look to reduce the offensiveness of a transgression. They may do so by
minimizing the severity of the event, differentiating it from more offensive acts, attacking
the credibility of their accusers, placing the act in a less offensive context (transcendence),
or by emphasizing positive aspects of the offender’s character (bolstering). Fourth, in taking
corrective action, individuals promise future actions to restore a situation or prevent future
offense. Finally, using the strategy of mortification, individuals admit responsibility and
apologize for the transgression.
Research following Benoit (1995) has identified several additional image repair strategies.
Sanderson’s (2008) analysis of baseball player Roger Clemens’s image repair when faced
with allegations of steroid use documented a strategy of victimization whereby the accused
argues that they are unable to defend themselves because they have been deemed guilty
without consideration of the evidence. More recently, Smithson and Venette (2013) label
stonewalling a strategy that directs audience attention to minor, insignificant details and
away from the transgression. Hambrick, Frederick, and Sanderson (2015)’s study of cyclist
Lance Armstrong’s image repair work following a doping investigation uncovered strategies
of conforming, or justifying one’s actions as a function of environment, and retrospective
regret, or regretting that past actions and events were not handled differently.
Image repair eectiveness
Existing research on athlete transgression has focused on the content and effectiveness of
image repair work. One way to define ‘effectiveness’ is as how well selected strategies have
been used, or the ‘appropriateness standard’ (Burns and Bruner 2000). Accordingly, most
research has consisted of case studies that identify the image repair strategies selected and
assess how well they were used (Blaney 2013; Hambrick, Frederick, and Sanderson 2015).
For example, Glantz (2010) examined cyclist Floyd Landis’ image repair following charges
of illicit substance use during the Tour de France. Landis used denial, differentiation, attack-
ing the accuser, and evading responsibility strategies, yet these were ineffective because they
were confusing and failed to counter the strength of empirical evidence against him.
Other studies have considered sport organization or sponsor decisions as measures of
the effectiveness of image repair strategies (Brown 2016; Meng and Pan 2013; Walsh and
McAllister-Spooner 2011). Swimmer Michael Phelps’ image was damaged after release of
a photo of him smoking marijuana out of a bong. As Walsh and McAllister-Spooner (2011)
show, Phelps used mortification and corrective action strategies by apologizing and prom-
ising to never repeat the offense. He further reduced the act’s offensiveness by reminding
others of his swimming successes and used the defeasibility strategy by invoking his ‘youth-
ful’ indiscretion. By the metric of organizational response, Phelps’ image repair strategies
worked: his career and sponsorships continued.
Another way to understand effectiveness is as public opinion. Several recent studies have
used experimental methods to examine responses to image repair strategies (Brown 2016;
Brown etal. 2015; Brown, Murphy, and Maxwell 2018). For instance, Brown (2016) used
an experimental design to test the effects of image repair strategies on perceptions of athlete
image for criminal and noncriminal transgressions among 210 college students. These
studies are valuable in assessing the casual effects of repair strategies on perceived image.
Yet because these studies rely on fictional athletes, transgressions, or media, and may include
4 R. ALLISON ETAL.
non-sport fans outside of the typical audience for image repair work, this research exists
somewhat outside of real-world athlete transgressions and attempts at image repair.
In a recent review of research on athlete image repair, Hambrick (2018) concluded that
while few studies have examined social media, such data hold promise to shed light on how
image repair is received, echoing calls for audience-oriented studies as a corrective to the
exclusively source-oriented perspective that characterized early research (Blaney 2013;
Kramer 2013). As Hambrick argues, ‘Collecting details about what strategies athletes use
with stakeholder responses to those strategies can provide more insights about their relative
effectiveness’ (2018, 149). Accordingly, a small, but growing body of research has studied
social media users’ reception of athletes’ image repair work (Allison and Pegoraro 2018;
Brown and Billings 2013; Frederick, Stocz, and Pegoraro 2016; Sanderson and Emmons
2014), and social media data have also been analyzed as a measure of image repair effec-
tiveness outside of sport contexts (Sandlin and Gracyalny 2018).
Social media have several particular advantages for studying the effectiveness of image
repair strategies. For one, they have superseded traditional media as the primary loci for
communicating image repair efforts. The interactivity of social media has given athletes
the ability to communicate quickly and directly with a primary intended audience for image
repair work: existing fans. Social media are free and public, allowing fans easy access to
athlete communications and enabling researchers to both view and collect a large number
of responses to image repair efforts. And finally, social media have upended top-down
processes of communication, allowing consumers to also become producers. Social media
users don’t just read, but also respond to image repair work, even multiple times, engaging
with others to debate the issue. In some cases, highly identified fans may do image repair
work on behalf of an athlete or team (Brown and Billings 2013; Sanderson and Emmons
2014; Sanderson and Hambrick 2016). In contrast to experimental studies, then, social
media studies of image repair effectiveness capture the dynamism and power of audiences
following real-world transgressions and attempts at repairing image.
The gender of image repair
In one of the earliest studies of athlete image repair, Benoit and Hanczor (1994) examined
figure skater Tonya Harding’s defense of her image following allegations of her involvement
in the physical attack of competitor Nancy Kerrigan. Through analysis of Harding’s televised
interview discourse, they found that Harding used attacking the accuser, bolstering, and
denial strategies, but was ineffective for failing to address damning evidence. Since then,
however, scarce empirical research has examined image repair among women athletes. Like
Benoit and Hanczor (1994), existing research assesses how well image repair strategies were
used (Brazeal 2013; Compton 2013; Kramer 2013). One notable departure is Brown etal.
(2015), who conducted an experimental study manipulating the gender of athletes in assess
-
ing how image repair strategies effected perceptions of athlete image and did not find gender
differences. However, we know little about how sportswomen use image repair strategies
and less about how women athletes’ image repair work is received.
These are important omissions in the literature for two reasons. First, because cultural
expectations for athletes’ appearance and behaviour are distinctly gendered, transgressions
may be understood and responded to in gender-specific ways. As sport remains defined as
a masculine social institution, women athletes are expected to present and perform a
SPORT IN SOCIETY 5
compensatory femininity that makes their sports participation more socially acceptable,
and they are often presented in mass media through frames of heterosexuality and femi-
ninity (Allison and Pegoraro 2018; Bruce 2016; Van 2014). While men in professional sport
unabashedly pursue endorsements and cultivate their public image for commercial gain,
women are often perceived more negatively for similar behaviours, held accountable to
expectations of nurturance, inspiration of others, and motivations beyond fame and fortune
(Crosby 2016; Douglas 2014). Transgression may thus be perceived as more severe for
women than men as a violation of gender norms, as well as social or legal strictures (Brazeal
2013; Brown etal. 2015; Douglas 2014).
Consider the case of University of New Mexico soccer player Elizabeth Lambert, who
briefly became a household name in 2009 for a rough play during which she pulled an
opponent to the ground by her hair. This action was perceived as well outside the bounds
of acceptable play, even though men routinely use similar levels of force in college sport,
and Lambert was suspended from her team. In a study of Lambert’s image repair after the
incident, Compton concluded that different standards trigger disapproval for men and
women; ‘when a female takes it too far in a soccer game, it becomes national news’
(2013, 263).
Second, the growing popularity of social media and their widespread adoption by athletes
have made women athletes, their transgressions, and their image repair work more visible
and subject to public discussion. Although some women’s sports enjoy measures of popu-
larity and material reward, mass media attention to women’s sport remains persistently low
(Bruce 2016; Cooky, Messner, and Musto 2015). Social media have expanded the number
and type of people able to create and disseminate information about women’s sports. Social
media has been an important space for fans of women’s sports, where the very fact of being
neglected in the mainstream generates tight bonds among members of the online women’s
sports community (Creedon 2014). Social media generate a ‘particularly potent sense of
coherence and community on the Internet’ for fans of women’s sports (Van 2014, 441).
Despite the importance of social media for women’s sports and the centrality of social
media to image repair work, however, only one previous study has focused on how social
media users attach meaning to a woman athlete before and after a transgression (Allison
and Pegoraro 2018). As the authors of this study conclude, ‘Few studies have focused on
how social media users construct and communicate the meanings they attach to women
athletes, and none examine responses to women’s transgression on social media’ (Allison
and Pegoraro 2018, 213).
Research questions
This exploratory study examines image repair strategies and their reception for professional
women athletes. We selected the cases of two transgressions committed by women in 2016:
soccer player Abby Wambach’s arrest for DUI, and tennis player Maria Sharapova’s admis-
sion of a failed drug test. We compare women with similarly high profiles and similarly
timed transgressions, examining how these athletes used Facebook to try to repair their
image and exploring Facebook users’ responses. Our research questions are as follows:
RQ1: Which image repair strategies did the athletes use?
RQ2: How did Facebook users respond to the athletes’ image repair strategies?
6 R. ALLISON ETAL.
The cases
In March 2016, Russian tennis player Maria Sharapova admitted to the global news media
that she had failed a drug test administered at that year’s Australian Open and was provi-
sionally suspended from the sport. Sharapova had tested positive for meldonium, which
had been added to the banned substances list kept by the World Anti-Doping Agency
(WADA) in January 2016.
In her initial public statement, Sharapova claimed ‘full responsibility’ for the failed test.
Yet she also implicated recent changes to the banned substances list in the test’s outcome.
In response to Sharapova’s claim of ignorance, WADA, as well as media reports, noted
multiple email notices of meldonium’s impending inclusion on the banned substances list.
Amid mounting criticism of her possible neglect of these warnings, on March 11th Sharapova
released a lengthy statement on Facebook, which we include in Appendix.
Less than a month later, on 3 April 2016, American soccer player Abby Wambach posted
a statement on her public Facebook page that described her arrest for DUI the previous
evening. In contrast to Sharapova, who had released a statement on social media as part of
unfolding debate over her transgression, Wambach’s statement was released before or in
tandem with mass media coverage of her arrest. The full text of Wambach’s statement is
also included in Appendix.
Methods
To address RQ1, we conducted a deductive thematic analysis of each statement. We used
Benoit’s (1995) image repair typology, as well as additional image repair strategies identified
by Hambrick, Frederick, and Sanderson (2015), Sanderson (2008), and Smithson and
Venette (2013), as a means for categorizing Sharapova’s and Wambach’s comments. First,
we independently coded each statement. Once this round of coding was complete, we met
to discuss our findings until we reached a consensus regarding the image repair strategies
that each athlete used.
On 29 April 2016, about 6½ weeks after Sharapova’s statement and 3½ weeks after
Wambach’s statement, we collected all comments on both athlete posts using the NVIVO
software add-on NCapture and exported them as CSV files for analysis. We excluded com-
ments that ‘tagged’ another Facebook user but did not contain text, comments that only
included emojis, and comments written in a language other than English for a total dataset
of 17,721 comments, 9,150 from Sharapova’s post and 8,571 from Wambach’s post.
CSV files were uploaded into Leximancer, a computer software tool that conducts the-
matic and semantic analysis on written words. This software is advantageous in allowing
for the analysis of large datasets that would be impossible to code manually. Use of
Leximancer avoids issues of researcher bias and weak intercoder reliability, providing highly
reliable analyses of the semantic relationships within textual data (Bals, Campbell, and Pitt
2012). Such software ‘can also enhance systematization, logic, transparency, speed, and
rigour in the research and analysis process’ (Crofts and Bisman 2010, 183).
Leximancer works in two stages; first it generates a set of primary concepts from the
data to determine dominant themes. In the second stage, the software’s algorithm conducts
relational extraction which involves the mapping of relationships of the themes against each
other. One of the advantages of the software is that Leximancer automatically generates a
SPORT IN SOCIETY 7
concept list (i.e. descriptors) that is statistically reliable and reproducible, as it was generated
from the input text itself, whereas manual lists require checks for coding reliability and
validity (Angus, Rintel, and Wiles 2013). The conceptual map produced by the software
identifies the dominant themes contained within the analyzed text. The relative importance
of concepts is determined based on where the words on the concept map appear (Bals,
Campbell, and Pitt 2012). For example, words representative of the themes appear closer
to the center, while those that are less important are located on the periphery. Concepts
that are strongly semantically linked appear close each other, and possibly overlap, and
concepts that are not semantically linked are further away.
Similar to previous research using this software (Allison and Pegoraro 2018; Frederick,
Stocz, and Pegoraro 2016; Pegoraro etal. 2014), computer coding with Leximancer was
supplemented by human readings for verification and contextualization of the results. All
authors reviewed the list of concepts generated for each set of Facebook comments and the
mapping of concepts into themes. Further, we read extensively within each theme and
discussed themes with one another to understand the themes and the relationships
between them.
Results
RQ1: image repair strategies
Abby. RQ1 was concerned with the image repair strategies utilized by each athlete in their
respective statements. Wambach’s statement was relatively brief, relying heavily on two image
repair strategies: mortification and corrective action. Wambach was apologetic for her
behaviour. For example, she wrote, ‘I am so sorry to my family, friends, fans and those that
look to follow a better example’. Mortification was evident, as she admitted guilt by stating,
‘I have let myself and others down’, and ‘I take full responsibility for my actions. This is all
on me’. Corrective action is marked by an individual taking measures to prevent an incident
from reoccurring. This was evident in the statement as well, with Wambach writing, ‘I prom-
ise that I will do whatever it takes to ensure that my horrible mistake is never repeated’.
Maria. Sharapova’s statement was quite different in terms of the image repair strategies
that she employed. Sharapova used the strategy of evading responsibility by justifying her
use of meldonium at doctor’s orders (making an excuse) and by claiming that communica-
tions were confusing (defeasibility). She further employed the reducing offensiveness strategy
by attacking the credibility of media (attacking the accuser). There were several instances
where Sharapova blamed her lack of knowledge regarding the ban on unclear, confusing,
or misleading communications. For example, she wrote, ‘…in order to be aware of this
“warning”, you had to open an email with a subject line having nothing to do with anti-dop-
ing click on a webpage, enter a password, enter a username, hunt, click, hunt, click, hunt,
click, scroll and read’. Sharapova continued,
‘On that email, if a player wanted to nd the specic facts about medicine added to the
anti-doping list, it was necessary to open the “Player News” email, read through about a dozen
unrelated links, nd the “Player Zone” link, enter a password, enter a username, read a home
screen with more than three dozen dierent links covering multiple topics, nd the “2016
Changes to Tennis Anti-Doping Program and Information” link, click on it and then read a
page with approximately three dozen more links covering multiple anti-doping matters’.
8 R. ALLISON ETAL.
Figure 1. Leximancer concept map, Facebook user comments on Abby Wambach’s statement.
Sharapova also justified her use of this drug as her doctor’s order, for instance by arguing,
‘I didn’t take the medicine every day. I took it the way my doctor recommended I take it
and I took it in the low doses recommended’. With regards to reducing offensiveness,
Sharapova began her statement with attacks on the credibility of the media. ‘There have
been things that have been reported wrong in the media, and I am determined to fight back’
and ‘Not all, but some – in the media distort, exaggerate and fail to accurately report the
facts about what happened’ are examples of such attacks.
RQ2: Facebook user responses
Abby. RQ2 concerned Facebook user responses to the athletes’ public social media state-
ments. Figure 1 presents the Leximancer-generated concept map of Facebook user com-
ments on Abby Wambach’s social media statement after her arrest. Eight themes emerged
SPORT IN SOCIETY 9
from the data: a mistake, focus of attention, nature of transgression, respect, sh*t happens,
still loved, thank you, and God. As the concept map shows, the first four of these themes
were most salient in the data, while the last four had a more minor presence. For the sake
of brevity, we focus on the primary themes (i.e. a mistake, focus of attention, nature of
transgression, and respect).
A mistake
The primary theme ‘a mistake’ contained descriptors such as mistakes, everyone, respon-
sibility, human, and example. Facebook users whose comments fell within this theme argued
that Wambach’s arrest evidenced universal human failing and was a ‘mistake’ that could
happen to anyone. For example, one user wrote, ‘You made a mistake like everyone else’.
Another commented, ‘Everyone of us has been guilty of poor choices and bad judgement’.
What stood out to users was not the fact of the arrest as much as the speed and content of
Wambach’s public response. Wambach was praised for ‘taking responsibility’ for her mistake
by admitting guilt and promising that it would not happen again. As one user commented,
‘All people make mistakes, it is the actions you take after those mistakes that show your true
colors’. Another wrote, ‘We all make mistakes Abby, the fact that you have taken responsibility
for your actions makes me love you even more!’ Some argued that Wambach’s Facebook
statement made her a role model, particularly for girls and women, as in:
“Abby, I know so many moms & girls who love you, and I know today they respect you even
more, for showing a straightforward example of apologizing, coming clean about a mistake, and
knowing what it means to do better in the future.”
In contrast to the support of these messages, a small number of commenters argued that
the language of ‘mistake’ downplayed the seriousness of Wambach’s offense. ‘A mistake is
washing whites with colors; your actions were the result of a bad DECISION, not a mistake’,
one user wrote. Another stated, ‘It was NOT a mistake, it was a choice, a Very (sic) bad
choice’.
Focus of attention
The theme ‘focus of attention’ shifted the focus of attention from Wambach to others, with
commenters arguing that unfairly harsh scrutiny was to be expected from mass media.
Descriptors included people, others, best, wrong, and media. Wambach’s status as a high-pro-
file athlete would bring a level of attention that others would not receive for a similar arrest.
As one user wrote, ‘The press loves to bring famous people down’. ‘ I’m sorry that you are in
the spot light for this, and people feel the need to pass judgement on you because of that’,
another user wrote. Some comments hinted that the speedy release of Wambach’s statement
would reduce the expected media frenzy. For instance, one user wrote, ‘You’ve saved us from
the relentless media storm and their always speculation!’ In accepting the media coverage
sure to come, Wambach was again held up as a role model. As one user argued, ‘It’s the life
lessons of life u will get through this your a inspiration to so many people this just shows u r
human God bless!’
As with the first theme, a few users challenged the predominant narrative, shifting atten
-
tion from media to those harmed by drunk drivers. It was not Wambach who merited
empathy, but the victims of impaired driving. For instance, in response to one Facebook
10 R. ALLISON ETAL.
user who described her family’s experiences at the hands of a drunk driver, another user
wrote, ‘I feel empathy for people like [name] and her son and the many other victims of drunk
driving’.
Nature of transgression
‘Nature of transgression’ was the most contentious theme, containing descriptors such as
drunk, drive, killed, behind, and light. The comments reflected vigorous debate about the
nature of DUI as a transgression. One subset of commenters argued that DUI was a minor
offense. For some who had themselves been arrested for DUI, the offense was perceived as
a challenge that could be surmounted. ‘I had my one DUI in 2001 so don’t worry you will
get past this’, one user wrote. Other users argued that the legal limits for alcohol consumption
were too strict and thus that an arrest for DUI did not mean that one was driving while
drunk. As one user concluded, ‘The law’s definition of DUI does not necessarily mean someone
is intoxicated to the point of being unable to drive’.
Other users, in contrast, argued that DUI was a severe transgression. Some Facebook
users highlighted the dangers associated with impaired driving, arguing, for example, that,
‘Apologies are nice and all, but running red lights while DUI kills people every hour of every
day’. Users told stories of losing friends and family members to call attention to the serious-
ness of DUI. Several rejected Wambach’s apology. For instance, one user wrote, ‘To dismiss
Abby’s (or anyone’s) DUI as simply a “mistake” is unjust to those of us who have had a family
member mutilated in a car accident by someone who “just had a few” and then ran a red light’.
Again, though, Wambach was lauded for her honesty about her arrest and for the speed
of her public statement. ‘Thanks for addressing the DUI so promptly’, one user wrote. ‘Bless
you for being forthcoming and honest and not hiding behind your celebrity’, another wrote.
Support for Wambach was not diminished by the arrest; but heightened by it due to the
contrition in her public statement.
Finally, some commenters under the ‘nature of transgression’ theme used Facebook to
provide suggestions on safe alcohol consumption; the main point of advice was for drinkers
to opt for public transportation or ride share companies. One user wrote, ‘We have Lyft,
Uber, a ton of cab companies and our transit is only non-running 3 h out of the day’. Similarly,
another advised, ‘Next time you go out with friends or family and you would like to have a
couple of drinks, take a taxi home or have someone who is a nondrinking designated driver
Its the safest way’.
Respect
The theme of ‘respect’ was also contentious, with descriptors including respect, forward,
look, young, and fan. Facebook users argued over whether the arrest comprised or enhanced
the respect Wambach had earned through her leadership and skill as a member of the U.S.
Women’s National Team. Those who argued that Wambach would lose the public’s respect
again positioned DUI not as a mistake, but as a ‘choice’, as in, ‘You made a poor choice, you
will certainly pay a price if not in traditional punishment then in the loss of respect and admi-
ration of some of your fans’. Other users argued that Wambach’s arrest had increased her
esteem in their eyes, writing, for instance, ‘I appreciate your sincerity, Abby, and I am proud
to call myself a fan of your’s even more after reading this’, and ‘Abby you owe no one an apology
you are human and being a true fan of yours this has no impact on my admiration of you!’
SPORT IN SOCIETY 11
In summary, while Facebook users responded to Wambach’s public statement in varying
ways, a common response was forgiveness. Most of those who commented on the Facebook
post accepted Wambach’s apology and praised her for its speed and tone. Many went as far
as to engage in additional image repair work on behalf of Wambach, minimizing the per-
ceived severity of her arrest, blaming the media for an unfair level of scrutiny, and delegit-
imizing DUI as a criminal offense. However, a minority of users rejected Wambach’s
arguments and those of other users. Instead, they positioned DUI as a serious criminal
offense and argued that Wambach’s apology was an insufficient response.
Maria. Figure 2 presents the Leximancer-generated concept map of Facebook user com-
ments pertaining to Maria Sharapova’s social media statement during public debate over
her positive drug test. Six themes emerged from the data: drug, support and admiration,
honesty, placing blame, Maria, and matter. As the concept map shows, the first five themes
were most salient in the data, while the last (matter) had a more minor presence.
Drug
The theme ‘drug’ included the descriptors doping, medicine, tested, and performance.
Commenters debated the nature of meldonium; was it a ‘medicine’ legitimately prescribed by
a doctor or an illicit and performance enhancing ‘drug?’ The very fact that the banned sub-
stances list had not always included meldonium was reason to question the severity of
Sharapova’s offense, as one user hinted at in writing, ‘And as for the drugs, who decides and
defines what is drug today, what was drug yesterday and what’s going to be drug in future?’ Some
minimized the severity of the positive test by positioning meldonium as a ‘medicine’ and accept-
ing Sharapova’s claim that she took the substance for health reasons. For instance, one user
wrote, ‘There is a big difference between taking a drug that is on the prohibited list and taking a
medicine that becomes banned while using it’. Another echoed, ‘To call Sharapova or other athletes
cheaters because she didn’t know her medically prescribed med was added recently is fairly comical’.
Figure 2. Leximancer concept map, Facebook user comments on Maria Sharapova’s statement.
12 R. ALLISON ETAL.
However, other Facebook users rejected Sharapova’s argument and felt that her use of
meldonium was for performance enhancement and not for health. As one user wrote, ‘lol
give me a break, you were taking this to enhance your performance’. Some users mentioned
potential sources of evidence for this claim with comments such as, ‘Try googling Meldonium
and you will see that now over 150 athletes from the Eastern block have tested positive-the
latest is a gold medal swimmer’.
In further support of Sharapova, comments under the ‘drug’ theme reflected two addi-
tional arguments. First, some users agreed with Sharapova that information on updates to
the banned substance list was overly complex. ‘Man I would have never gone through that
insanity of finding out what was banned’, one user noted. Another wrote, ‘These ever-changing
banned substances are too much for any one person to keep track of’. Second, some users
argued that Sharapova was being unfairly targeted for her Russian nationality. For instance,
one comment read, ‘Russian Tennis Federation should support and back you up on this, you
done a lot for them, and since the frantic campaigns on you is also for being Russian athletic’.
Support and admiration
The theme ‘support and admiration’ included descriptors such as hope, wish, tennis, game,
and life. Comments under this theme were unanimously supportive of Sharapova, with
users emphasizing her skill in and contributions to the sport of tennis. ‘You were a champ
becoz of your hard work and skill in the game’, one user wrote. Similarly, another wrote, ‘You
bring a level of style, class, grace and dignity to the game that has been missing for decades’.
One Facebook user called attention to the player’s status as a role model for girls, arguing,
‘You are a great role model to many young girls who wish to take it pro’. Sharapova’s supporters
expressed admiration for her and foresaw a future return to tennis. For instance, one user
wrote, ‘We always admire you Maria, you are one of the best tennis sportsperson, dont care
those news, we are waiting for your comeback’.
Some users under the ‘support and admiration’ theme echoed Sharapova’s argument that
media reporting on the drug test had been exaggerated and inaccurate. For instance, one
user wrote, ‘Kudos to you Maria Sharapova for not making excuses while exposing inaccurate
reporting’. And another Facebook user commented, ‘Maria no need to explain, I believe you,
I love how you play the game, besides I ignore what some of the media are saying, they just
want to sell news, these so call “reporters” don’t have respect or a heart’.
Honesty
‘Honesty’ included descriptors like media, down, wrong, mistake, and honest. Users framed
the positive drug test as an understandable mistake and praised Sharapova for admitting
to her error. One user wrote, ‘You are an amazing woman and proved you are human by
admitting you made a mistake’. Similarly, another user commented, ‘Hey we make mistakes,
you are being honest and taking responsibility’. The word ‘honest’ was applied to Sharapova
many times, as in the comment, ‘I appreciate your honest integrity and humility’. However,
a small number of users challenged this narrative, with one user arguing about Sharapova,
‘You are NOT being honest and you know it!’
A second component of this theme was the idea that media coverage of the transgression
was inaccurate and unfair. One user concluded, ‘The Media, screwing with and screwing up
peoples lives, one day at a time’. Another user wrote, ‘Exaggerations and distortions in the
media is to be expected, that is how they operate (unfortunately) and it is hard (emotionally)
SPORT IN SOCIETY 13
for people affected (by such practice) to deal with’. Many users rejected media stories of the
drug test, arguing that they gave them no weight. ‘I don’t care what is written about you in
the paper’s or on the internet’, one commenter wrote.
Placing blame
The theme ‘placing blame’ included descriptors such as need, health, career, personal, and
professional. Here, Facebook users discussed who was responsible for the positive drug test.
Users variously blamed Sharapova’s ‘team,’ her doctors, the International Tennis Federation,
and WADA. As a professional athlete, Sharapova was assumed to employ a team whose job
responsibilities included knowing about and preventing use of banned substances. ‘Very
sorry that your team let you down’, one user commented. Another said, ‘I will say, I hope
you hold your team as accountable as you are holding yourself’. As a member of her team,
Sharapova’s doctor received a large share of the blame. For instance, one user argued, ‘You
are responsible for what goes in your body, but your medical team are responsible for what
medicine you have to take’. Another agreed, ‘your doctor should’ve known better BEFORE
prescribing you anything!’ The ITF and WADA, too, were to blame for not providing clear
information about changes to the banned substances list. As one comment read, ‘I realise
we are all responsible for what goes in our bodies but the antidoping agency needs to work
with athletes rather than trying to ambush them by banning drugs previously seen as accept-
able’. Another commenter wrote, ‘I agree it almost appears that the ITF seem negligent towards
their duties of disclosure and notification to players’.
Very few comments implicated Sharapova herself. One such comment was, ‘Maria, I am
sorry, I don’t want to be boring, but it is also true that you could (and the duty, most of all)
ask for better informations to ITF and WTA, to be more precise’. Instead of criticism, Sharapova
was often described as having a long and successful career in tennis, one that would continue
past the transgression. For instance, one user wrote, ‘You are a great sportiest, that have
committed a mistake, it’s not the end, of such a career’.
Maria
Finally, ‘Maria’ included the descriptors strong, love, support, fight, and truth. Most common
in this theme were short statements of love and support, as in, ‘We love you Maria!’ and ‘I
believe you Maria Sharapova and support you’. Many user comments emphasized belief in
the assertions in Sharapova’s Facebook statement. For example, one user wrote, ‘I still believe
you and support youThanks for your explanation!’ Even for those users who felt that
Sharapova had broken a rule, the positive drug test was characterized as an understandable
mistake, as in, ‘Maria we all make mistakes let the who never makes mistakes cast the 1st
stone but have look hard to find one because ever one makes mistakes God bless and look after
yourself your fan know you’.
Like comments under ‘honesty’ and ‘support and admiration’ themes, some users
blamed others for what they felt was an unfair level of scrutiny. In some cases, the ‘other’
doing the scrutinizing was unspecified, as in the comment, ‘And some people who dont
know the the truth and just want to say negative things about you maria!’ Most often, how-
ever, media were the culprit. One user wrote, ‘stuff the press, they couldnt tell the truth if
it hit them in the face love and peace x’. Another argued, ‘Maria I know you for long time
don’t worry about the media all the time they exaggerated to much wherever you need you
can count with us’.
14 R. ALLISON ETAL.
In summary, a minority of Facebook users who commented on Sharapova’s statement
rejected her image repair strategies, arguing that Sharapova was a ‘liar’ who had used meldo-
nium intentionally for performance enhancement. However, the predominant response
was to accept Sharapova’s image repair strategies. Commenters shifted the blame from
Sharapova to doctors, WADA, and the ITF, and excoriated mass media for perceived inac-
curate reporting. Ultimately, most users expressed continued support for Sharapova and
hoped to see her return to tennis.
Discussion
This study examined how two professional women athletes used Facebook to protect their
public images following transgression and analyzed Facebook user responses to the athletes’
image repair strategies. We selected soccer player Abby Wambach and tennis player Maria
Sharapova, athletes of equally high prominence who committed different types of trans-
gression at roughly similar moments in 2016. Using Benoit’s (1995) IRT, we established that
Sharapova used evading responsibility and reducing offensiveness strategies, while Wambach
used strategies of mortification and corrective action.
To be ‘effective’ at preserving or repairing image, image repair work must be credible
and convincing to the audience. In owning her transgression, apologizing for it, and com-
mitting to preventive measures, Wambach sought forgiveness and understanding from her
fans. Our analyses show that Wambach’s statement on Facebook was perceived to be sincere
and was thus ‘effective’ at communicating its message to fans. Users’ framings of the incident
as a human ‘mistake’ and comments that Wambach was ‘taking responsibility’ for her actions
reflect the perceived credibility of her image repair. Sharapova, in contrast to Wambach,
denied wrongdoing and placed the blame for her positive drug test on others. To be effective,
her strategies required the audience to believe that she had not knowingly transgressed. We
did find this to be the case for many Facebook users. Themes of ‘honesty’ and ‘support and
admiration’ in comments to Sharapova’s Facebook statement demonstrate its perceived
believability, as users agreed that the banned substances list was confusing and that doctors
or others on her ‘team’ should have prevented the positive drug test.
Given the interactivity and accessibility of social media, our data are valuable in allowing
us to understand not only whether or not fans find image repair believable, but also how
exactly they maintain or restore the image of public figures after transgression. In many
cases, as is evidenced above, users adopted the arguments of the athletes themselves, arguing
that Wambach was truly sorry for her impaired driving and that Sharapova had been gen-
uinely puzzled by her emails, blindly following doctor’s orders, or both. However, many
users went well beyond this support, engaging additional image repair strategies on the
athletes’ behalf (Brown and Billings 2013). For both Sharapova and Wambach, for instance,
users employed bolstering, a strategy of reducing offensiveness, by emphasizing their athletic
talent and contributions to their sports. Users also shifted the blame, a strategy of denial, by
arguing that media should be held responsible, and minimization, a strategy of reducing
offensiveness, by positioning the transgressions as ordinary mistakes.
Even when image repair is generally received favourably, however, it is never fully con-
vincing to all audience members. In our study, a minority of Facebook users rejected the
athletes’ image repair strategies. Two of the primary themes in our data (‘nature of trans-
gression’ and ‘drug’) reflect a persistent dissention among commenters, organized around
SPORT IN SOCIETY 15
the binaries of ‘mistake/choice’ for Wambach and ‘drug/medicine’ for Sharapova. In these
comments, users worked to change the language used to discuss the transgressions. For
instance, Sharapova called meldonium a ‘medicine’ and many commenters also used this
word. However, a few labelled the substance a ‘drug’ to argue that Sharapova knowingly
used meldonium for performance enhancement. Those who did not buy into the athletes’
image repair were few in number, but contested the terminology used to shift the frame for
understanding the transgressions toward their own interpretation.
Overall, however, we found an overwhelming pattern of Facebook user support that was
equally true for Sharapova and Wambach. In both cases, Facebook users positioned the
athletes as mistake-owning truthtellers in a climate of unfair scrutiny and hostility. Why
might we see such widespread acceptance of image repair strategies and such similarity of
positive response? For one, the athletes had previously unblemished professional reputa-
tions. Sharapova’s achievement of the Career Grand Slam and standing as an Olympic
medalist and Wambach’s team’s recent victory in the 2015 Women’s World Cup likely boosted
their public reputations, perhaps buffering them from some of the fallout from transgres-
sion. Additionally, no one was physically or socially harmed by the transgressions, which
perhaps expedited users’ willingness to lend support and accept the transgressions as human
mistakes. Interestingly, the timing of the athletes’ statements seemed to have had little impact
on their reception. Wambach was lauded for the speed of her statement, but Sharapova’s
release of a statement after a period of criticism did little to dim the enthusiasm of her
supporters. This was even more striking considering Sharapova used the strategies of evad-
ing responsibility and reducing offensiveness which could have the effect of alienating fans
(Hambrick, Frederick, and Sanderson 2015) or fostering mistrust (Frederick etal. 2014).
It is likely that user choice to visit athletes’ Facebook pages and post messages partly
explains our results. If highly identified and already supportive fans of the athletes follow
them on Facebook and respond to their statements, we would expect to see higher levels
of support than may be true among the general public. This selection is perhaps what makes
social media valuable for image repair work – it makes supportive messages likely and
acutely visible to the public. Social media users essentially engage in free ‘public relations’
work for athletes (Sanderson and Hambrick 2016, 18).
As noted previously, men and women in sport are held to different expectations for
appearance and behaviour, and thus different standards may shape perceptions of and
responses to transgressions (Allison and Pegoraro 2018; Compton 2013). Yet Facebook user
responses suggest that the transgressions were not perceived as uniquely severe for these
women or as a violation of gendered expectations. In fact, the severity of both transgressions
was minimized by most Facebook commenters. That said, in bolstering, users constructed
Wambach and Sharapova as role models for girls and women. This is a clearly gendered
framing of these athletes that invokes women’s supposed nurturance and relational orien-
tation. Interestingly, this framing was invoked to strengthen the athletes’ images, and not
to argue for their tarnishing through transgression. Yet by implication, this framing may
mean that audiences expect women athletes to connect to them via post-transgression
statements.
This study investigated processes of image repair among women athletes and is among
the few studies to date that rely on social media data to consider audience response to
image repair work. We acknowledge that a single study cannot fully address the dearth
of scholarly research at the intersection of gender, social media, and image repair.
16 R. ALLISON ETAL.
Consequently, future research should build on this study, extending its context, by attempt-
ing to examine a larger range of women athletes or by comparing women and men with
similar transgressions. Consistent with Brown etal. (2015), we encourage scholars to
consider the potential impact of race among women. Moreover, given that overall user
response did not appear to suggest a violation of gendered norms or expectations, future
research would do well to consider whether, when, how, and for whom gender comes to
matter after athlete transgression. Finally, future studies should continue to continue to
look to social media as the primary sites for current image repair efforts among athletes,
perhaps comparing audience response across social media sites or looking to understand
how post-image repair perceptions of athlete image vary between social media users and
non-users.
ORCID
Ashleigh-Jane Thompson http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9391-743X
References
Allison, R., and A. Pegoraro. 2018. “Abby Wambach: G.O.A.T. (Greatest of All Time) or Just A
Goat?” In Reputational Challenges in Sport: eory and Application, edited by A. C. Billings, W. T.
Coombs, and K. A. Brown, 210–226. New York, NY: Routledge.
Angus, D., S. Rintel, and J. Wiles. 2013. “Making Sense of Big Text: A Visual-rst Approach for
Analysing Text Data Using Leximancer and Discursis.” International Journal of Social Research
Methodology 16 (3): 261–267. doi:10.1080/13645579.2013.774186.
Bals, A. S., C. L. Campbell, and L. F. Pitt. 2012. “Viewer Reactions to Online Political Spoof Videos
and Advertisements.” In Online Consumer Behavior: eory and Research in Social Media,
Advertising, and E-mail, edited by A. Close, 185–208. New York: Routledge.
Benoit, W. L. 1995. Accounts, Excuses, and Apologies: A eory of Image Restoration Strategies.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Benoit, W. L., and R. S. Hanczor. 1994. “e Tanya Harding Controversy: An Analysis of Image
Restoration Strategies.” Communication Quarterly 42 (4): 416–433.
Blaney, J. R. 2013. “Introduction: Why Sports Image Restoration and How Shall we Proceed?” In
Repairing the Athlete’s Image: Studies in Sports Image Restoration, edited by J. R. Blaney, L. Lippert,
and J. S. Smith, 1–8. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Brazeal, L. 2013. “Belated Remorse: Serena Williams’ Image Repair Rhetoric at the 2009 U.S. Open.”
In Repairing the Athlete’s Image: Studies in Sports Image Restoration, edited by J. R. Blaney, L.
Lippert, and J. S. Smith, 239–252. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Brown, K. A. 2016. “Is Apology the Best Policy? An Experimental Examination of the Eectiveness
of Image Repair Strategies during Criminal and Noncriminal Athlete Transgressions.”
Communication & Sport 4 (1): 23–42.
Brown, K. A., A. C. Billings, D. Mastro, and N. Brown-Devlin. 2015. “Changing the Image Repair
Equation: Impact of Race and Gender on Sport-Related Transgressions.” Journalism & Mass
Communication Quarterly 92 (2): 487–506.
Brown, K. A., B. Murphy, and L. C. Maxwell. 2018. “Tried in the Court of Public Opinion: Eects of
Involvement in Criminal Transgressions on Athlete Image.” Communication & Sport 6 (3): 284–307.
Brown, N. A., and A. C. Billings. 2013. “Sports Fans as Crisis Communicators on Social Media
Websites.” Public Relations Review 39 (1): 74–81.
Bruce, T. 2016. “New Rules for New Times: Sportswomen and Media Representation in the ird
Wa ve .” Sex Roles 74 (7/8): 361–376.
Burns, J. P., and M. S. Bruner. 2000. “Revisiting the eory of Image Restoration Strategies.”
Communication Quarterly 48 (1): 27–39.
SPORT IN SOCIETY 17
Compton, J. L. 2013. “Unsports(wo)manlike Conduct: An Image Repair Analysis of Elizabeth
Lambert, the University of New Mexico, and the NCAA.” In Repairing the Athlete’s Image: Studies
in Sports Image Restoration, edited by J. R. Blaney, L. Lippert, and J. S. Smith, 253–264. Lanham,
MD: Lexington Books.
Cooky, C., M. A. Messner, and M. Musto. 2015. “It’s Dude Time!” a Quarter Century of excluding
Women’s Sports in Televised News and Highlight Shows.” Communication & Sport 3 (3): 261–287.
Creedon, P. 2014. “Women, Social Media, and Sport: Global Digital Communication Weaves a
We b.” Television & New Media 15 (8): 711–716.
Cros, K., and J. Bisman. 2010. “Interrogating Accountability: An Illustration of the Use of
Eximancer Soware for Qualitative Data Analysis.” Qualitative Research in Accounting &
Management 7 (2): 180–207. doi:10.1108/11766091011050859.
Crosby, E. D. 2016. “Chased by the Double Bind: Intersectionality and the Disciplining of Lolo
Jones.” Women’s Studies in Communication 39 (2): 228–248.
Douglas, D. D. 2014. “Forget Me…Not: Marion Jones and the Politics of Punishment.” Journal of
Sport & Social Issues 38 (1): 3–22.
Frederick, E. L., L. M. Burch, J. Sanderson, and M. E. Hambrick. 2014. “To Invest in the Invisible: A
Case Study of Manti Te’o’s Image Repair Strategies during the Katie Couric Interview.” Public
Relations Review 40 (5): 780–788.
Frederick, E. L., M. Stocz, and A. Pegoraro. 2016. “Prayers, Punishment, and Perception: An Analysis
of the Response to the Tony Stewart-Kevin Ward, Jr. Incident on Facebook.” Sport in Society 19
(10): 1460–1477.
Glantz, M. 2010. “e Floyd Landis Doping Scandal: Implications for Image Repair Discourse.”
Public Relations Review 36 (2): 157–163.
Hambrick, M. E. 2018. “Investigating Athletes and eir Image Repair Strategies During Crises.” In
Reputational Challenges in Sport: eory and Application, edited by A. C. Billings, W. T. Coombs,
and K. A. Brown, 137–152. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hambrick, M. E., E. L. Frederick, and J. Sanderson. 2015. “From Yellow to Blue: Exploring Lance
Armstrong’s Image Repair Strategies across Traditional and Social Media.” Communication &
Sport 3 (2): 196–218.
Kramer, M. R. 2013. “e Image Repair Media Interview as Apologia and Antapologia: Marion Jones
on the Oprah Winfrey Show.” In Repairing the Athlete’s Image: Studies in Sports Image Restoration,
edited by J. R. Blaney, L. Lippert, and J. S. Smith, 59–70. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Meng, J., and P. Pan. 2013. “Revisiting Image Restoration Strategies: An Integrated Case Study of
ree Athlete Sex Scandals in Sports News.” International Journal of Sport Communication 6 (1):
87–100.
Pegoraro, A., L. M. Burch, E. L. Frederick, and C. Vincent. 2014. “I Am Not Loving It: Examining
the Hijacking of #CheerstoSochi.” International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing 15
(3/4): 163–183.
Sanderson, J. 2008. “How Do You Prove a Negative?” Roger Clemens’s Image-Repair Strategies in
Response to the Mitchell Report.” International Journal of Sport Communication 1 (2): 246–262.
Sanderson, J., and B. Emmons. 2014. “Extending and Withholding Forgiveness to Josh Hamilton:
Exploring Forgiveness within Parasocial Interaction.” Communication & Sport 2 (1): 24–47.
Sanderson, J., and M. E. Hambrick. 2016. “Riding along with Lance Armstrong: Exploring
Antapologia in Response to Athlete Adversity.” Journal of Sports Media 11 (1): 1–24.
Sandlin, J. K., and M. L. Gracyalny. 2018. “Seeking Sincerity, Finding Forgiveness: YouTube
Apologies as Image Repair.” Public Relations Review 44 (3): 393–406.
Smithson, J., and S. Venette. 2013. “Stonewalling as an Image-Defense Strategy: A Critical
Examination of BP’s Response to the Deepwater Horizon Explosion.” Communication Studies 64
(4): 395–410.
Van, P. 2014. “Changing the Game: e Role of Social Media in Overcoming Old Media’s Attention
Decit toward Women’s Sport.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 58 (3): 438–455.
Walsh, J., and S. M. McAllister-Spooner. 2011. “Analysis of the Image Repair Discourse in the
Michael Phelps Controversy.” Public Relations Review 37 (2): 157–162.
18 R. ALLISON ETAL.
Appendix: Athlete facebook statements
To My Fans:
I want to reach out to you to share some information, discuss the latest news, and let you know
that there have been things that have been reported wrong in the media, and I am determined to
ght back.
You have shown me a tremendous outpouring of support, and I’m so grateful for it. But I have
also been aware that some – not all, but some – in the media distort, exaggerate and fail to accurate-
ly report the facts about what happened.
A report said that I had been warned ve times about the upcoming ban on the medicine I was
taking. at is not true and it never happened.
at’s a distortion of the actual “communications” which were provided or simply posted onto a
webpage.
I make no excuses for not knowing about the ban. I already told you about the 22 December 2015
email I received. Its subject line was “Main Changes to the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme for
2016.” I should have paid more attention to it.
But the other “communications”? ey were buried in newsletters, websites, or handouts. On
December 18, I received an email with the subject line “Player News” on it. It contained a newsletter
on a website that contained tons of information about travel, upcoming tournaments, rankings,
statistics, bulletin board notices, happy birthday wishes, and yes, anti-doping information. On that
email, if a player wanted to nd the specic facts about medicine added to the anti-doping list, it was
necessary to open the “Player News” email, read through about a dozen unrelated links, nd the
“Player Zone” link, enter a password, enter a username, read a home screen with more than three
dozen dierent links covering multiple topics, nd the “2016 Changes to Tennis Anti-Doping
Program and Information” link, click on it and then read a page with approximately three dozen
more links covering multiple anti-doping matters. en you had to click the correct link, open it up,
scroll down to page two and that’s where you would nd a dierent name for the medication I was
taking.
In other words, in order to be aware of this “warning”, you had to open an email with a subject
line having nothing to do with anti-doping, click on a webpage, enter a password, enter a username,
hunt, click, hunt, click, hunt, click, scroll and read. I guess some in the media can call that a warning.
I think most people would call it too hard to nd.
ere was also a “wallet card” distributed at various tournaments at the beginning of 2016, aer
the ban went into eect. is document had thousands of words on it, many of them technical, in
small print. Should I have studied it? Yes. But if you saw this document (attached), you would know
what I mean.
Again, no excuses, but it’s wrong to say I was warned ve times.
ere was also a headline that said, “4–6 Weeks Normal Treatment for Drug in Maria Sharapova
Case.” at headline has been repeated by many reporters who fail to tell their viewers and readers
what the rest of the story says. e story quotes the manufacturer of my medicine as saying:
“Treatment course can be repeated twice or thrice a year. Only physicians can follow and evaluate
patient’s health condition and state whether the patient should use meldonium for a longer period
of time.”
at’s exactly what I did. I didn’t take the medicine every day. I took it the way my doctor recom-
mended I take it and I took it in the low doses recommended.
I’m proud of how I have played the game. I have been honest and upfront. I won’t pretend to be
injured so I can hide the truth about my testing.
I look forward to the ITF hearing at which time they will receive my detailed medical records.
I hope I will be allowed to play again. But no matter what, I want you, my fans, to know the truth
and have the facts.
- Maria
Last night I was arrested for DUI in Portland aer dinner at a friend’s house.
SPORT IN SOCIETY 19
ose that know me, know that I have always demanded excellence from myself. I have let myself
and others down.
I take full responsibility for my actions. is is all on me. I promise that I will do whatever it takes
to ensure that my horrible mistake is never repeated.
I am so sorry to my family, friends, fans, and those that look to follow a better example.
– Abby
