Draw fixing (hypothesis) at grand slams (2008-2012)

First topic message reminder :

Recently a lot of talk has been done about the possibility of draw fixing at the slams in tennis. It was not only the subject of debate on this site, but also others. The thoughts of the so-called 'conspiracy theorists' were reflected in an interesting study by the Estonian researcher Katarina Pijetlovic in october 2011. Here's the link for who hasn't seen it yet.

http://www.livestream.com/playthegame_dshs/video?clipId=pla_44809e94-aa04-46c7-9f1e-35b212ba9d46

She noticed a strange pattern of Djokovic always landing in Federer's half of the draw at the slams during 2008-2011, with the exception of the French Open (something many posters on this forum had already noticed). Because the French Open showed a healthy pattern she decided to not include it in her study. Her opinion is that the ITF (stimulated by Nike) might fix the draw to increase the chances of getting a Federer-Nadal final. After all those are by far the most popular tennis players in the world. Both sponsored by Nike, who would like a final between the two, as this would mean a lot of advertising.

The omission of the French Open was the main bullet for the opponents of the study to shoot it down and classify it as unstatistical, meaningless, prejudiced. In this article I will try to demonstrate that there was actually no reason to omit the French Open. In my research all slams will be included. Instead of purily looking from a statistical perspective like Katarina Pijetlovic, insight in the dynamics of the recent tennis world will be applied. Our basis assumption is that the ITF and Nike wanted Federer-Nadal finals at the slams. It are the slams that attracts the wider audience. Tennis hadn't always had a wide audience. Many will remember the dark years of the early 2000's, even till 2004, with lot of empty seats at the slams, even in big matches. Tennis wasn't very popular. It was the Federer-Nadal rivalry, hyped into heaven, that really started to attract lots of people. A rivalry that really bursted out in 2006/2007 with consecutive finals the French Open and Wimbledon. There wasn't really much of a problem to get a final back then, with Federer and Nadal at number one and two respectively, so automitically in opposite sides of the draw. There wasn't a single player who could really rival the two. Only at hardcourt slams there was the problem of Nadal not getting to the final, losing to lower players, but this couldn't be helped.

2007 "unfortunately" saw the rise of Novak Djokovic. During the year he got a few wins over Federer and Nadal (all on hardcourts). On clay and at the slams, they still had him very much under control. But he had proven to be the biggest threat so far to their duopoly. The last thing the ITF and Nike wanted, after putting so much effort in promoting Federer and Nadal, was this guy to spoil the party. After all he came from a country that most of the rest of the world looked negatively upon because of what happened there in the 90's, he had a bad haircut, and wore even worse Addidas clothes. They didn't want this guy in the finals instead of the more glamourous looking Federer and Nadal, with the great Nike clothes. What would the fate of tennis be if this guy ever became the top dog.

Djokovic had already made the 2007 US Open final and something had to be done. So from 2008 onwards they started to fix the draw to increase the possibility of a Federer-Nadal final. In the tabel below the slams at which the favourable draw was achieved are marked with a +, when the less favourable draw was achieved there stands a - .

****AO RG W USO

2008 + + + +

2009 + - / +

2010 + + + +

2011 + + + +

2012 - + + ?


This of course needs some explanation. I'll discuss the slams in chronological order.

Period 1: AO08-W09: Djokovic at number three, put in either Federer's or Nadal's half. Federer and Nadal taking number one and two position (not necessarily in this order), automatically in opposite sides of the draw.

AO08: It had been three years ago since Federer last failed to make the final of a hardcourt slams. Nadal still hadn't gone beyond the quarters. It was better to not make life even more difficult for Nadal and to put Djokovic in the opposite (Federer's) half. This was successfully done.
RG08: Nadal was practically unbeatable on clay, so better to put Djokovic in his half, as the Serb would certainly get beaten. Again successful.
W08: At this time Federer was still the king of grass and five time defending champion, while Nadal hadn't won a Wimbledon titel yet. Djokovic in Federer's draw. Successful draw.
USO08: Again Djokovic had to be put in Federer's half, as Nadal still hadn't reached a HC slam final yet, and was beaten twice by Djokovic on HC during 2008. Successful.
AO09: Same stuff as in previous hardcourt slams. Successful draw.
RG09: Best would have been Djokovic in Nadal's half like the year before. This time though the opposite happened, first unsuccessful draw.
W09: Makes no part of the study as Nadal didn't play.

Period 2: USO09: Federer number one, Murray number two. Nadal three, Djokovic four.

US09: The only way to get a Federer-Nadal final was to put Nadal in Murray's half, and Djokovic' in Federer's as a consequence of that. Again the draw was successful.

Period 3: AO10-AO11: Djokovic at number three, put in either Federer's or Nadal's half. Federer and Nadal taking number one and two position (not necessarily in this order), automatically in opposite sides of the draw.

AO10: Nadal had been in very bad form for the last six months, losing to most top ten players he faced in that period. Better to make his work a bit easier and put Djokovic in Federer's half. Djokovic had spanked Nadal recently three times in a row and was too dangerous for the Spaniard. Again success.
RG10: Better to put Djokovic in the draw of the unbeatable (on clay) King of Clay Nadal. Success.
W10: Now this was a hard one. Federer hadn't been playing well since the AO that year, while Nadal had cleaned up the clay season. In which half to put Djokovic? Nadal though for the last year hadn't enjoyed success outside of the clay, and had a very poor showing at Queens in 2010. The Bookies made Federer slight favourite for the title, so Djokovic should be in his half. The draw was succesful.
USO10: Federer had showed great form during the US HC summer, in strong contrast with Nadal, and was the big favourite for the title. Djokovic in Federer's half? Yup, achieved.
AO11: While Nadal had been the strongman of 2010, unfortunately just before AO11 he became ill and got bagled by Lacko and spanked by Davydenko in Doha. So Djokovic had to be in Federer's half. Successfully.

Period 4: RG11-RG12: Federer at number three, put in either Djokovic's or Nadal's half. Djokovic and Nadal taking number one and two position (not necessarily in this order), automatically in opposite sides of the draw.

RG11: The only way to get a Federer-Nadal final was to put Federer in Djokovic' half. Success.
W11: Same story.
USO11: Same story.
AO12: The only way to get a Federer-Nadal final was to put Federer in Djokovic' half. This is the second time though the draw was unsuccesful, as Federer was put in Nadal's half.
RG12: The only way to get a Federer-Nadal final was to put Federer in Djokovic' half. Success.


Conclusion:

In 17 slams 15 times the favourable draw was achieved. Only twice the unfavourable. Each time the statistical chance to get a certain draw was 50% each for the favourable and the unfavourable. So you would expect a more even division between favourable and unfavourable draws, something like 8/9 or 7/10 or even 6/11. 2/15 looks very suspect. Probably the ITF decided to do twice the unfavourable draw. 17 times the favourable ones would even make the die-hard naysayers grow suspicious. Maybe not accidently the unfavourable AO12 draw was only a few months after Katarina Pijetlovic had proposed her study, when suspicion grew.

Now remains the question of how did they actually fix the draw? It's impossible to find hard proof for this. The number three and four seeds are picked by hand by the defending champion. No video material of this can be found on the internet, which is not the case for lots of other occasions involving tennis. I remember though seeing video material of the draw picking during the news report on TV. I remember for this year's AO seeing Djokovic pick one piece of paper out of (wherever they put it in) to decide which player goes in a certain half of the draw. Now is the question, do they really pick a second time? There are only two players, number 3 and 4 to be handpicked. As soon if one is picked, they know in which half the other has to be. There is no need to pick the second player, and my guess is they don't do it. This though gives the chance to put twice the same number (3 or 4) on the two pieces of paper, without anyone noticing. This way they can choose which player to put in which half of the draw. This corruption can happen without the necessity of the defending champion being part of the fraud.

Dolgopolov will be the best player in the world soon. Top 4s time is up.

Only if he gets consistent and picks the right shot at the right time. Plus his blood disorder will likely affect his performance from time to time enough to affect his results/ranking at the very top.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Dolgopolov will be the best player in the world soon. Top 4s time is up.

So Dolgy makes the very top
To sweep aside the current crop

Whilst jersey, happily, may have gone
His spirit, sadly, still lives on .....

lol lags...we may even get the photos posted again.

Is there a reason Julius you delete all my posts on this subject why are others allowed to talk about it and not me? Again you delete my post and leave everyone elses?

socal1976 wrote:Is there a reason Julius you delete all my posts on this subject why are others allowed to talk about it and not me? Again you delete my post and leave everyone elses?

Yes - the reason is that I ask the Admins what can stay and what can't, and they tell me.

So everyone else can talk about this subject but me even though I make no accusations and state this is my opinion. Also why is it you make it a hobby of yours to go about and quote me out of context when you post. Even lags called you on it. Just let me get this straight I am officially not allowed by you to mention any alleged draw fixing, am I officially muzzled? Its ok for everyone else but not me, ok that sounds like good moderation to me.

If any of the administrators are reading this or if you could forward it to them I want a clarification of why my other post was deleted. This is getting to the point where if this is how I am going to be censored why waste my time writting here.

Ignore the admins Julius, you are a free man, you were born free and you shall ultimately perish free. Socal is a tough customer and his posts deserve to stand up, and anyway, isn't it the admins who tell us to put people on their "foe" list if they don't like someone?

- Voice of Reason

Seriously Julius get one of the higher ups to give me answer on this your moderation is not making me happy.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Ignore the admins Julius, you are a free man, you were born free and you shall ultimately perish free. Socal is a tough customer and his posts deserve to stand up, and anyway, isn't it the admins who tell us to put people on their "foe" list if they don't like someone?

- Voice of Reason

It is so funny, everyone else's posts say some of the same things and they get to stay. I have officially been muzzled and I don't buy this line that administrators demanded that my last post should have been removed. If people had a chance to read it, which they don't because I have been censored then they would see that it is balanced and careful not to make point blank assertions. This is gone far enough I am not a satisfied customer of Julius' moderation. He goes through my posts picks out one line at a time to make it look bad and posts them in chopped up little controversial segments so he can get others to gang up on me. Lags called him on today, it isn't the first time he has done it. Doesn't sound like objective moderation to me.

socal1976 wrote:So everyone else can talk about this subject but me even though I make no accusations and state this is my opinion. Also why is it you make it a hobby of yours to go about and quote me out of context when you post. Even lags called you on it. Just let me get this straight I am officially not allowed by you to mention any alleged draw fixing, am I officially muzzled? Its ok for everyone else but not me, ok that sounds like good moderation to me.

I didn't quote you out of context, I got the quote brackets mixed up and ended up quoting Craig out of context. So you seem to have simply made that bit up - the same as the 'online mania' and the bit about multiple posters mentioning puddles on the court - pure fabrication, which seems to be a bit of a habit on your part.

If you read my previous post, if that's not too much trouble, you'll see that when it comes to draw-fixing allegations I refer it to the Admins - since it is their site, not mine.

Socal, PM one of the Admins if you wish to complain. Their names are in green.

Forget not worth my effort, why waste my time contributing if things I write that are on the same subject matter as others and voice my opinion are just going to be shown the waste bin. Forget it, not worth it. See you all when I see you all.

Dont be hasty socal...if you're posting things about "fixing" that are accusatory of draw committees then the site has to be clearly careful. If posters are defending the draws not being fixed then thats different. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water.

I don't get the moderation on this forum. Noleisthebest, Tenez banned. Socal censored? Free discussion is not allowed in Great Britain?

I second that lydian (FWIW ! )

Easy to forget that website owners have legal responsibilities.

lags72 wrote:I second that lydian (FWIW ! )

Easy to forget that website owners have legal responsibilities.

You mean that ITF could put a judicial complaint against the website owners because posters suggest the possibility of draw-fixing?

Chydremion wrote:I don't get the moderation on this forum. Noleisthebest, Tenez banned. Socal censored? Free discussion is not allowed in Great Britain?

.... Yet your comment is allowed to stand. . There is whole history behind the Exodus and has been discussed at length. JHM would have had very valid reasons (libel being primary) to delete posts.

Free discussion within house rules is allowed.

laverfan wrote:

Chydremion wrote:I don't get the moderation on this forum. Noleisthebest, Tenez banned. Socal censored? Free discussion is not allowed in Great Britain?

.... Yet your comment is allowed to stand. . There is whole history behind the Exodus and has been discussed at length. JHM would have had very valid reasons (libel being primary) to delete posts.

Free discussion within house rules is allowed.

I'm very interested in what Socal had to say and what made it unacceptable for the moderators.

Chydremion wrote:I'm very interested in what Socal had to say and what made it unacceptable for the moderators.

PM JHM. If he is allowed to discuss the subject, he will respond.

Tenez/NITB bans have been covered before. They brought bans on themselves, and not for the first time. As website owners 606V2 are responsible for allowing content to stay up on their site, or not. If they allow posts to stay up that clearly accuse slam committees of fixing draws with no evidence then that is a potentially libellous allegation the site could be held responsible for. Freedom (of speech) comes with responsibility.

laverfan wrote:

Chydremion wrote:I'm very interested in what Socal had to say and what made it unacceptable for the moderators.

PM JHM. If he is allowed to discuss the subject, he will respond.

???????

If your going to make accusations about draw rigging without the proof, that is libel. Even in my days as a mod I told everyone the same thing when it was discussed last year and even the accusation of drug taking.

Please remember that even though the ITF/ATP/Players themselves may not troll through this website, they can bring legal action if they wish to if there are unsubstantional claims made about their integrity or conduct of business.

Will the ITF/ATP really be staying up and joining 606v2 to check for any articles that they don't like.

I'm not being sarcastic I'm just admitting I'm baffled by this. Even the head of the ATP does go on his laptop and find the tennis section on this site will he really start searching the comments to find one he thinks are illegal. Then waste his precious time by chasing 'Socal' or the 606v2 admins and trying to sue them.

IIRC the Eastern European journalists who actually did a whole investigation in front of the audience has not been sued (not that anyone knows of anyway).

I totally accept the admin has authority and can do what they want (after all this is their site) but I'm still a bit confused.
Apologies if my confusion is seen as silly.

It Must Be Love
P.S. for the record I agree with Lydian in this argument.

Thanks

Adam D wrote:I would like to remind everyone that draw fixing has never been proved and until it is, all accusations of it are pure speculation.

As a founder of this site, I have a care of duty to remind you not to post libelous statements that could result in legal action against the site.

So to clarify, you may offer up potential reasoning as to why you may suspect draw rigging has taken place but any comments delivered as fact, will be removed.

The only fact is that it has never been proven in a court of law.

Therefore, please respect the hard work that the founders. admin and moderators have put in to this site by not posting statements that could get the site shut down.

You all have a care of duty in this matter - if you suspect a post of being libelous, please report it.

I didn't see this, sorry.
Edit: I accept as you are admin you get the final say, simple as.

IIRC the Eastern European journalists who actually did a whole investigation in front of the audience has not been sued (not that anyone knows of anyway).

That doesn't mean that they weren't forced to make an apology on air or via statement. Tabloids do the same thing when the report stories of pure fabrication.

IMBL, just to reply to your previous post - if you had a web-site, which you'd put a huge amount of time and effort into, and someone posted something that could potentially get you shut down, however remote the possibility - would you just leave the post up, or would you delete it? That's pretty much what it comes down to with libellous statements. I hope everyone can appreciate that.

Yes and its a shame that socal doesnt appreciate that.

Alright Legendkiller, I was just wondering
Of course you are probably right, I didn't know that though.

Was just wondering what is the admin stance on this, to clarify? Is this discussion not allowed to continue, or can we debate, but in a restrained way?

Apologies if my questions seem silly.

JuliusHMarx wrote:IMBL, just to reply to your previous post - if you had a web-site, which you'd put a huge amount of time and effort into, and someone posted something that could potentially get you shut down, however remote the possibility - would you just leave the post up, or would you delete it? That's pretty much what it comes down to with libellous statements. I hope everyone can appreciate that.

Yes I said I appreciated that.

Look at my post at 9:01 PM

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:IMBL, just to reply to your previous post - if you had a web-site, which you'd put a huge amount of time and effort into, and someone posted something that could potentially get you shut down, however remote the possibility - would you just leave the post up, or would you delete it? That's pretty much what it comes down to with libellous statements. I hope everyone can appreciate that.

Yes I said I appreciated that.

Look at my post at 9:01 PM

Yes, I realise that I just still wanted to re-iterate to everyone, via my reply to your post

Sure

The mods have still not replied to my question at 9:11 though

The Admins haven't locked it, so I guess discussion can continue.

ok.

The intention of any forum is to generate debate.


I think this topic is an excellent one and should be discussed. However, we must all realise that viewpoints are pure speculation at this point.

As long as members discuss the topic sensibly and dont resort to creating potentially libelous statements, the thread can continue.

lydian wrote:Yes and its a shame that socal doesnt appreciate that.

All the more surprising, considering socal's stated qualifications and experience in Law.

One thing to point out, similar threads by various posters, without any prejudice are referenced. No specific individual has been singled with accusations in their official capacity as part of Tennis governing bodies.

As Adam D says, speculation is fine, but libel is not. The OP is similar to previous such articles and was not removed, to allow debate to continue. It references material which has been previously referenced on 606v2, for example the University of Talinn study, the ESPN study, etc.

Past and present debates are clear indications that debates are welcome.

I would like to add that at the end of the day the winner takes it all.

That is to say the cream will rise to the top and win the trophy - seven matches in two weeks. Whether you are knocked out in the quarter-final, semi-final or final is at the end of the week neither here nor there as the ultimate goal is to take home the bacon and the trophy.

The seedings themselves will ensure that the two top ranked players will only meet in the finals, while they might expect to face either the third or fourth ranked player in the semi-final.

So although I find the warm balls and draw fixing discussion intriguing, ultimately it is not really of consequence - either the player is good enough to win or he isn't.

This is my final offer on the matter and you can take it or leave it.

I'm going to bed now. I suppose tomorrow's coming out of the Wimbledon draw might ignite more discussion.

Nore Staat wrote:I would like to add that at the end of the day the winner takes it all.

Yes, but does the loser have to fall? If it's simple and it's plain, why should we complain?
(All together now...) The Gods may throw a dice....

Chydremion wrote:I'm going to bed now. I suppose tomorrow's coming out of the Wimbledon draw might ignite more discussion.

Red Pen at the ready

Nore Staat wrote:
I would like to add that at the end of the day the winner takes it all.

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Yes, but does the loser have to fall? If it's simple and it's plain, why should we complain?
(All together now...) The Gods may throw a dice....

Their minds as cold as ice
And someone way down here
Loses someone dear
The winner takes it all
The loser has to fall
It's simple and it's plain
Why should I complain.

Oh yes. The winner takes it all. Didn't one of the men in ABBA write that and get his soon to be ex wife (one of the women in ABBA) to sing it. Then he divorced her and went off with all the money... You couldn't make it up.

Tom_____ wrote:I might look at this tomorrow and show some calcs. However what i will say is that the probability of Djoko and Fed appearing in the same half is 50% except for if/when the two have ever been no.1 and no.2 in the world. This is very similar to a coin flip. It takes over 100 throws and really a few 1000 to really prove a coin is biased or not as the probability tested is 50% (very middle ground). Given that at best we have about 20 slams to test for bias, the chance that there is no bias is high, even if we witness a streak of draws one way or the other. There simply hasn't been enough draws for a mathematically high probability of rigging to exist.

Ok everyone, i've completed a significance test on using a binomial distribution and and approximated normal distribution using the 30 slams since Djokovic has been active:

Now for a start we have to think about what to acutally test for bias. Simply saying Federer and Nadal are placed to reach the final a bit rediculous when the two were 1 and 2 seeds for so long - theres simply not been a long enough time when that has not been the case to even bother with the calc. The true complaint here appears to be that Djoko and Fed are in the same half more often than a random slam draw would place them. Therefore Djoko is the one to assess

Going back thorugh time to the start of Djokovic's slam career - all draws he technically had a 50% chance of being in Feds half:

Wimbers:
2011 Fed-Djoko
2010 Fed- Djoko
2009 Fed- Djoko
2008 Fed-Djoko
2007 Nadal- Djoko
2006 Fed-Djoko
2005 Roddick-Djoko

FO
2012 Fed-Djoko
2011 Fed- Djoko
2010 Nadal - Djoko
2009 Fed- Djoko
2008 Nadal - Djoko
2007 Nadal - Djoko
2006 Nadal - Djoko
2005 Roddick-Djoko

USO
2011 Fed-Djoko
2010 Fed-Djoko
2009 Fed-Djoko
2008 Fed-Djoko
2007 Nadal-Djoko
2006 Nadal-Djoko
2005 Fed-Djoko


AUS
2012 Murray-Djoko
2011 Fed-Djoko
2010 Fed-Djoko
2009 Fed-Djoko
2008 Fed- Djoko
2007 Fed-Djoko
2006 Fed-Djoko
2005 Fed-Djoko

Total times Djoko has been in Feds half: 20 = x
Total Times Djoko has not been in Feds half: 10
Total draws 'n'=30

Assumed probability of them dropping in the same half is 0.5 (50%)

Actual recorded occurrence = 0.6667 (66.7% or 2/3rds)

Occurrence of Fed-Djoko = n.P = 30 x 0.5 = 15 = (Ux) the expected mean
expected Variance = n.P(1-P) = 15 x 0.5 = 7.50

Standard dev = Var^0.5 = 2.74

Using binomial tables the results show a 95% confidence that the draws seen so far fall within the natural variance expected for 30 events with a 50/50 chance. The approximated normal distribution agrees with this results. I.e the draws are not biased, statistically.

Nore Staat wrote:
So although I find the warm balls and draw fixing discussion intriguing, ultimately it is not really of consequence - either the player is good enough to win or he isn't.

This is my final offer on the matter and you can take it or leave it.

Nah, this isn't the case. Even as a Nadal fan I felt if Djokovic was in Nadal's side of the draw he would have won the tournament.

As for this 'debate'. Meh. We're just going in circles. People can always speculate on any draws- at the end of the day if there are 32 possibilities the chances of any of them are 1/32. So the end result will always include the figure which has 1/32 chance- whatever it is. Then a person who is aggrieved by the draw/draws will start speculating with an agenda (this does not necessarily mean they are wrong.)

We aren't getting anywhere. If you actually think about the draw authorities would be clever if they were rigging and ensure there was variety so no suspicion would be raised. So really either way (strange pattern or not) draw rigging could be suggested.

As for me, we need some sort of real evidence to say anything at all. Laverfan earlier talked in detail about how the seeds are picked by hand- anyway there didn't seem to be much room for manoeuvre. Unless we have an investigation like 'NOTW spot fixing' this is totally pointless. Let's move on.

Wow Tom - good stuff! I probably knew all that sort of stuff about 25 years ago.

Could you do it just for 2008-2011?

JuliusHMarx wrote:Wow Tom - good stuff! I probably knew all that sort of stuff about 25 years ago.

Could you do it just for 2008-2011?

I could, but why not then just do it for the french open, or a hand selected list of tournaments? At the end of the day stats have to be all inclusive, so i have to go back right through Djoko's career for them to carry any weight. Also if i lessen the number of events to calculate for, it would provide space for an even wilder run or results that would still lie within a the same confidence interval. However, as i say, picking and choosing results to consider would void such a test in my view.

Tom___ wrote:The approximated normal distribution agrees with this results. I.e the draws are not biased, statistically.

Thanks, Tom. . Good stuff. Unless the analysis takes into account every single draw (not just slams and MSEs), this should help alleviate concerns regarding draws.

Tom_____ wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Wow Tom - good stuff! I probably knew all that sort of stuff about 25 years ago.

Could you do it just for 2008-2011?

I could, but why not then just do it for the french open, or a hand selected list of tournaments? At the end of the day stats have to be all inclusive, so i have to go back right through Djoko's career for them to carry any weight. Also if i lessen the number of events to calculate for, it would provide space for an even wilder run or results that would still lie within a the same confidence interval. However, as i say, picking and choosing results to consider would void such a test in my view.

Cool. Good argument. The point about lessening the number of events is well worth noting.

Adam D wrote:I would like to remind everyone that draw fixing has never been proved and until it is, all accusations of it are pure speculation.

As a founder of this site, I have a care of duty to remind you not to post libelous statements that could result in legal action against the site.

So to clarify, you may offer up potential reasoning as to why you may suspect draw rigging has taken place but any comments delivered as fact, will be removed.

The only fact is that it has never been proven in a court of law.

Therefore, please respect the hard work that the founders. admin and moderators have put in to this site by not posting statements that could get the site shut down.

You all have a care of duty in this matter - if you suspect a post of being libelous, please report it.

Funny how you guys think you are so important ....bring me a case of a forum that was brought to justice for a thing like that and I'll say you are right....also you seem not to worry at all you stole a logo from the beebs and a good deal of its users which looks even more worrisome to me