Crying all the way to the bank

Martina Hingis' image is not exactly getting better these days.

Enough of her debacle in Paris. Enough of her struggles and her apparent inability to grow up on the court. The latest shake-your-head moment brought to you by the Swiss Miss-the-Point comes from the legal arena.

Yes, now that her Grand Slam drought is continuing, the woman who is still No. 1 in the world (again, only nominally) took the time Monday to file a $40 million lawsuit charging that Sergio Tacchini, the Italian sportswear maker she endorsed, gave her shoes that injured her feet.

Court papers filed by Hingis -- through her legal team -- say one thing after another:

Tacchini outfitted me with "defective" shoes that were "unsuitable for competition."

I had to withdraw from several tournaments because of foot injuries caused by the shoes.

Quote: "The shoes were defectively designed and manufactured and therefore were not providing [me] with the support necessary to play competitive tennis."

And of course -- a Manhattan doctor can back me up, dammit.

Tacchini -- who cited a "breach of contract" for firing Hingis as a company spokeswoman back on April 23, 1999 -- had a simple retort through his legal team:

"The company can do no more than note that with Sergio Tacchini sneakers, Martina Hingis became the undisputed leader of women's tennis worldwide, winning her last Grand Slam dressed in Sergio Tacchini."

So... so... so there!

Capice?

Ah, aren't legal cat fights beautiful? I wonder if Lindsay Dole and Ellenor Frutt, on their very worst days, could come up with something as good on "The Practice." Too bad Richard Bay's dead, or he would have been able to mix it up with similarly electrifying results.

Getting back to whatever shred of seriousness exists in this pathetic episode, let's establish a few things:

1) Did Hingis blame her shoes for outplaying Venus Williams in 98 percent of last year's U.S. Open semis, only to miss an overhead at 30-15 and 5-3 in the third set that enabled Venus to come back and win the match?

2) Did Hingis blame her shoes for waxing both of the Williams sisters in the quarters and semis of this year's Australian Open?

3) Did Hingis blame her shoes for reaching the semifinals of all Grand Slam tournaments with more consistency than any other player around?

Now that this court has exposed Hingis as even more of a crybaby than she already had been, here's a final question submitted by the prosecution (or the defense for Tacchini's team):

Did Hingis choose to give back the $5.6 million she earned from the five-year endorsement deal she signed with Tacchini back in 1996?

What do you think Swiss Miss-the-Point decided to do, boys and girls?

Martina, if something happened, you should have acted then.

Martina, if the shoes are defective, then give back the money -- period!

Martina, your struggles -- and oh, wouldn't we like to have such struggles in such "defective" shoes -- are the result of you, not outside elements.

The Brits who will watch you in a few weeks in suburban London would say that your actions represent "ah bloody rich piece ah work if I evah saw 'un."

For the love of England, Swiss Miss-Out-On-Reality, would you grow up and remove the plank from your own eye instead of looking at the splinter in someone else's eye?