Having listened to the show properly now, heres what I heard (other interpretations are welcome):

• The whole tone of this episode is set by Mr. Rothenberg's sleight in the preamble: it's not a, 'ban situation she's had'; it is a ban.
• Then Hr. Günthardt conflates performance and competition related reasons for Wednesday play requests (Fed Cup) with Sharapova's situation which is based on a ban. This player is not tired from play, she is ineligible. Further, show that you always accomodated those requests from Fed Cup players, and that you did so up to four months before the match date. He suggests repeatedly that the arrangements at Stuttgart this year in regards of Sharapova are normal, and with long precedent on the WTA, almost prosaic.

• Then the round table of Mr. Rothenberg, Mr. Wertheim & Mlle Bouchard, in which we begin as Mr. Wertheim mitigates the colusion about the farce of Sharapova's arrangements with Mr. Eisenbud regarding her previous attempts to adhere to the drug testing regime and ensuring that all responsibility was upheld.
• Then Mr. Rothenberg whitewashes the Eisenbud story as irrelevant.
• Then the panel equates the stake, the amount to lose, for Sharapova and Lepchenko, and the behaviours of each as though they were somehow equivalent and required the same type of response; and given that Lepchenko behaved in a less prominent way, that Sharapova should be given special dispensation and allowances for being more public in her damage limitation exercises.
• Then Mr. Rothenberg, constructs some quasi-conspiracy against Sharapova because she was a 'big star', without any substantive proof.
• Then Mlle. Bouchard & Mr. Rothenberg try to minimise the drug offence itself 'it's not exactly EPO'. Oh! It's performance enhancing, but, you know, not the very worst one. It's just the one they though they could get away with. The one that would nevertheless afford them an advantage, and, they thought go undetected. But, not the worst one, not the one that would offer the greatest advantage, and therefore, what you reward the player for not cheating as much as they possibly could have.
• Then Mr. Rothenberg says the FFT shouldn't give young French players a Roland Garros WC anyway because, apparently, they're awful. Or, they're Schiavone, or any other reason that legal players shouldn't be considered in order to give Sharapova a shot, though she is the architect of her own downfall. Henin, and Clijsters were not banned athletes, they had not brought the game in to disrepute.
• Then they suggest that Sharapova's Russian nationality is mitigation, though there is plentiful evidence of systematic state sponsored cheating in many sports in that nation, which sort of makes additional suspicion in that context mandatory. Or, at the very least, not the basis for any sort of leniency. They also fail to prove that there was any agenda in this area by the ITF, WADA, CAS or anyone ainvolved, anyway.
• Then Mr. Rothenberg allows his personal experience to overpower his decision making process by fawning over how this big star has always treated him well, and so must be OK. That is, sir, not objective journalism. It is the antihesis of it.
• Then the panel suggests that all players actually owe Sharapova quite a lot, and should do whatever is required to facilitate her return. This echoes the sentiments of the now deposed Indian Wells chief, that suggested women should get down on their knees to thank Federer & Nadal, and I'm astonished to hear this additional knife twisted in to the backs of the blameless unbanned players of the tour.
• Then the panel question the science on Meldonium, as though that is relevant. If the drug is banned, you don't take it. You pro-actively check every advisory, and act professionally and accordingly. Also, quite a lot of drugs do not have the exact supposed effects that the cheats think that they do. But the cheats take them anyway becasue they believe that they DO give those benefits. Another whitewash from the entire panel.
• Then Mr. Rothenberg orchestrates an agenda against a single player (Konta) on what he heard happened; a rumour about something that might have been said; directing unfair scrutiny and attention to a blameless party!

• Then the discussion with Mr. Fuller, wherein Mr. Rothenberg restates again all of his frameworks of mitigation that excuse Sharapova from ever having to have acted like a professional person.
• Then Mr. Rothenberg suggests that a WC to Roland Garros qualifying would somehow be an act of contrition from Sharapova. A WC to qualifying at one of the four biggest events in the year, to an athlete returning from a ban, is somehow a punishment. And, further, he suggests that that fabulous prize, if accepted ahould act as credit for Sharapova, to have the humility to accept it, as opposed to the inevitable MD WC. That she should exclusively receive credit and praise for that action if it came to pass, though she was deserving odf neither WC.
• Then Mr. Rothenberg attempts to smear the whole of British sport, and British attitudes in general - if, that is, they find against Sharapova.
• Then Mr. Rothenberg suggests that if Sharapova has to play Wimbledon qualifying, she should be given special treatment; like on Court 17 at Wimbledon, rather than Roehampton; that she is too big for the normal treatment.
• Then Mr. Rothenberg floats scenarios why Wimbledon should give a WC, and generally impugns their entire operation in order to advance that agenda.
• Then, when Mr. Fuller moderately states that Sharapova has 'fallen afoul of the doping regulations', Mr. Rothenberg cannot even let that very mild factual statement go unchallenged, interjecting immediately, "accidently... accidently!"

• Then Mr. Rothenberg provocatively plays out with a song, of which the premise is one of a woman apologising to her pretty, more popular rival whom she had previously hated!

Epilogue
Look, I defend the NYT, pretty much daily at this point in time, from all those that would assail it.
Were Mr. Rothenberg's entire agenda in all of these episodes, and it's heavily skewed position, if reflected at large by the journalists of his paper on other subjects, then it would make that task of defending the NYT nigh impossible to maintain in good conscience.
Furthermore, if Ms. Nguyen cannot offer opinion on these matters, or anything of controversial nature about WTA players or tournaments, becasue of her ofiicial position, then one has to question whether she should or can continue to appear at all.