As the debate surrounding Maria Sharapova and her positive doping test rumbles on, we remain uncertain of the full story. The only thing we know for sure is that the five-time grand slam champion tested positive for a banned substance - meldonium - at the Australian Open in January. The speculation has been rife as to whether Sharapova was taking the drug for a medical condition as she stated, or for its performance-enhancing benefits, of which she says to have known nothing.

Whatever her reason, she must be suspended from tennis. The strict liability rule means that she must be banned whatever her reasons are. It remains to be seen how long her suspension will be – there have been suggestions that it could even be less than a year but if it exceeds two years, it is likely to end her career. But the point is, we don’t yet know, and indeed may never know, the true facts of this case.

Despite this uncertainty, the fall-out for Sharapova has begun – and it is significant. Within a day or so of the Russian’s admission that she had tested positive, a raft of major sponsors had bailed on her. First came Nike, with whom she reportedly signed a $70 million deal in 2010, announcing that they had suspended their relationship with her. Porsche quickly followed, announcing that it had decided to ‘postpone planned activities’. Then Tag Heuer, the Swiss watch brand, suspended negotiations to extend Sharapova’s contract, which had ended in December.

That these major companies do not want to be associated with a doper is, in itself, hardly surprising. But what is surprising is that they only now appear to have morals. The double standards shown here are truly astonishing. Nike felt the need to suspend its deal with Sharapova despite having only the most basic facts about her case yet they sponsor Justin Gatlin, a two-time convicted doping cheat. They stood by Lance Armstrong until it became literally impossible for them to continue the partnership and the company has continued to support Tiger Woods through his ‘troubled times’. It felt the need to drop Sharapova immediately though, a decision that appears somewhat incongruent with its other decisions.

Yet this is nothing compared to the double standards shown in the case of Adam Johnson, the footballer who last week was convicted of grooming and of sexual activity with an underage girl. Johnson will be sentenced soon but he is expected to be jailed for between five and ten years. It has been well documented that Sunderland continued to play the 28-year-old for almost a year between the time of his arrest and his trial, during which he earned over £2.9 million in wages.

While the double standards displayed in Sharapova’s case are somewhat mystifying, it is the double standards in Johnson’s case that are truly dangerous. Earlier this week, Sunderland’s chief executive, Margaret Byrne, resigned after admitting to a ‘serious error of judgment’.

Byrne knew of the allegations Johnson’s behaviour yet allowed him to continue to play. If Johnson was of less value to the club in a footballing sense, it is likely that he would, at the very least, have been dropped from the team while his trial was pending.

When three of Leicester City’s fringe players filmed themselves taking part in a racist orgy, their contracts were terminated immediately. Johnson, who was considered a far more valuable asset to his club, was given the benefit of the doubt. No consideration was given to the victim, who admitted that she wanted to kill herself at points of the ordeal.

There is something profoundly sad about the fact that a footballer is, for a period at least, treated leniently when under suspicion for abusing a child because he is of value on the pitch. Make no mistake, football does not turn men into sex offenders, nor does it turn them into misogynists. That some of the men involved in the sport become these things is not football’s fault. Football cannot control the fact that it turns average men into heroes or mediocre players into millionaires - things that can so utterly change an individual’s behaviour. Neither can football control the attitudes of the fans who so blatantly slut-shamed Johnson’s victim. But it can control its reaction to these events and in recent times, football has been left seriously wanting.

Sport has many qualities but in recent months, they have been barely visible. It seems that every athlete is doping, every official is corrupt and every footballer is sexist. Of course, this is not true but sport’s reputation is in the gutter.

There is a presumption that sport will always be held in the highest regard and there is an assumption that it will recover from these recent scandals but why should this be true? If sport continues with the double standards that it is currently displaying then maybe the damage will be irreparable. At the end of the day, sport’s primary attraction is its integrity. But if these double standards continue, then why should anyone be interested?