Tennis to step up drug fight in light of Lance Armstrong scandal

First topic message reminder :

Lance Armstrong's admission that he took drugs to help him win all seven of his Tour de France titles has put performance enhancing substances in the spotlight.
Now tennis has been brought into the debate with former world number four Guy Forget claiming he was beaten by rivals who took drugs.
Three players - Ryan Newport from the United States, Bulgarian Dimitar Kutrovsky and Italian Filippo Calorosi - are currently suspended from playing for taking drugs and Forget believes they are not the only men on the circuit guilty of doping.
BBC Sport speaks to current and ex players, coaches and officials in charge of testing to try and discover if tennis has a drug problem.

Drugs in tennis

The Men's Tennis Council began drug testing in the late 1980s with the focus mainly on recreational drugs. The testing was extended to include performance-enhancing drugs when the ATP Tour was formed in 1990.

Guy Forget claims he played against rivals who had taken drugs
But Guy Forget, who was ranked the fourth best player in the world in 1991, is convinced he played against players who were doping.
He says: "I have lost matches against guys who beat me with an unfair advantage because they were taking drugs.
"For sure, it has happened. I can look at myself in the mirror knowing I have never taken anything.
"When I played there were no controls at all so why wouldn't you cheat the system."

The situation now

The International Tennis Federation (ITF) now leads a unified Tennis Anti-Doping Programme applying across all tennis events.
The ITF carried out 131 blood tests both in and out of competition in 2011, the last year for which figures are available. That was alongside 2,019 urine tests.
Now the ITF are planning to introduce an athlete biological passport (ABP) which allows officials to collect and compare biological data and spot variances that suggest doping.
“
I feel tennis is clean, I do very much. For the amount of times that we get tested throughout the year and as random as they are, definitely
”
Maria Sharapova
It is an improvement many in the game believe is needed.
Forget added: "I don't feel our sport is clean. I am sure now as we speak there are some guys that are cheating. You cannot say tennis is not touched by this poisonous thing.
"I think it is a minority probably, but that is why Roger Federer and the other guys says we should put more money into blood test and controls because we should fight this any way we can."
Australian coach Darren Cahill, who has coached Lleyton Hewitt and Andre Agassi in the past, says on Twitter: "Our testing program is inadequate. That's why no-one can stand up and speak out. It's gone backwards in recent years."
Current world number one Novak Djokovic recently complained the number of blood tests he has undergone has dropped in the last year.
He said: "I wasn't tested with blood for last six, seven months. It was more regularly in last two, three years ago. I don't know the reason why they stopped it."

Fighting back

Dr. Stuart Miller, who oversees the ITF's anti-doping programme, claims education as much as detection is the best way to cure the problems of drugs in sport.
But he is an advocate of plans to bring in an ABP to make it easier to find the drug cheats.
Miller says: "We think we can improve by introducing what is known as the athlete biological passport, which is a blood-based testing programme which allows you to establish individual baseline parameters.
"That is not in operation at the moment. But we're looking very, very closely at it and I think that there's a reasonably good chance that that will be operational probably towards the end of 2013.
"It takes a long time to set up. There's a number of constraints and conditions that you have to satisfy, you can't just turn a switch."
What is a athlete biological passport
An ABP is an electronic document about the athlete that contains certain biomarkers from through his career.

If these markers change dramatically from the historic levels it alerts officials that the athlete might be doping.

Miller went on to answer Forget's complaints.
"I think we need to put a couple of things into context," he said. "Firstly I think Forget answered his own question when he said back at the time when he was playing, anti-doping was very different.
"There was no such thing as the World Anti-Doping Agency, there was no list of prohibited substances that all the sports signed up to and actually tennis was one of the pioneering sports in introducing anti-doping testing back in Forget's time.
"Granted, it was for a different list of prohibited substances - it was mainly recreational substances - and he's right, there wasn't as much testing, but tennis was pioneering at that particular time. And it's come a long way since that time, when he was playing."

Is tennis clean?

The leading players have thrown their support behind initiatives to weed out rivals who use drugs to enhance their performance but many are content that the sport is not on a par with the level of doping that has been uncovered in cycling.
World number three Andy Murray says: "I think all sports are trying to improve their doping controls.
"If that's more blood testing or the biological passports, that's something we need to do and improve in tennis, as well.

The three men currently banned for drug taking
Filippo Calorosi (Ita)
Dimitar Kutrovsky (Bul)
Ryan Newport (USA)

Four time grand slam winner Maria Sharapova is confident she is competing on a level playing field.
The Russian says: "I feel tennis is clean, I do very much. For the amount of times that we get tested throughout the year and as random as they are, definitely."
Tennis great Martina Navratilova, who won 18 Grand Slam titles, accepts doping has taken place in tennis but not a large degree.
She says: "There is very stringent drug testing going on and it has to be done, because there obviously has been some cheating going on as a few people have been caught.
"But overall, I think we have a pretty clean sport. You know that Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal or any of those guys wouldn't do anything like what Lance Armstrong was doing.
"I think tennis is doing a pretty good job, at least from what I see."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/21139622

not sure about this one. thoughts?

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:The way to stop the horror of drug fuelled crime is to legalise it all. Same result, just minus the damage to everyone else.

No it's not.

Yes, it really is.

Prohibition is idiocy. Talk about a futile gesture that fails to address the causes, and which causes loads of damage.

Separately, if I want to fry my brain with narcotics that's none of your business. Any damage I do, I'm at fault for.

Haddie-nuff wrote:

bogbrush wrote:The way to stop the horror of drug fuelled crime is to legalise it all. Same result, just minus the damage to everyone else.

That is a somewhat different scenario and the subject of another thread I would suggest.

Laverfan raised the topic, it was a reply to her.

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:The way to stop the horror of drug fuelled crime is to legalise it all. Same result, just minus the damage to everyone else.

No it's not.

Yes, it really is.

Prohibition is idiocy. Talk about a futile gesture that fails to address the causes, and which causes loads of damage.

Separately, if I want to fry my brain with narcotics that's none of your business. Any damage I do, I'm at fault for.

Yes it is because the taxpayer will have to pay for your treatment.

bogbrush wrote:HE, the premise is that you are already implicated by rumour.

Demanding the list makes an impression regardless of outcome. There's no downside.

God help us all then BB if we are implicated by rumour...
Of course there is a downside... those who want to find the athlete guilty will do so .. the implication then would be "who did he bribe to leave his name off" "who has a vested interest in seeing that his name does not appear on the list" and so on and so on... let it be.. ..... and if there is guilt there it will come out all in due course. This is a total non win situation for any athlete who is the subject of speculation and rumour... those who want to find him guilty will do so no matter if the proof was written in blood.

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:The way to stop the horror of drug fuelled crime is to legalise it all. Same result, just minus the damage to everyone else.

No it's not.

Yes, it really is.

Prohibition is idiocy. Talk about a futile gesture that fails to address the causes, and which causes loads of damage.

Separately, if I want to fry my brain with narcotics that's none of your business. Any damage I do, I'm at fault for.

Yes it is because the taxpayer will have to pay for your treatment.

Whereas the taxpayer doesn't suffer any cost right now for the crime, sickness, failed efforts to prevent drug trafficking, funding of organised crime.
Meanwhile we pretend people fill their heads with drugs because they are criminals.

Haddie-nuff wrote:

bogbrush wrote:HE, the premise is that you are already implicated by rumour.

Demanding the list makes an impression regardless of outcome. There's no downside.

God help us all then BB if we are implicated by rumour...
Of course there is a downside... those who want to find the athlete guilty will do so .. the implication then would be "who did he bribe to leave his name off" "who has a vested interest in seeing that his name does not appear on the list" and so on and so on... let it be.. ..... and if there is guilt there it will come out all in due course. This is a total non win situation for any athlete who is the subject of speculation and rumour... those who want to find him guilty will do so no matter if the proof was written in blood.

"You" as in an athlete being rumoured.

I deffo wouldn't watch that sport then BB.
I would disgust me if it went down the weightlifting route.

"You" as in an athlete being rumoured..


Is that a question ? dont be so obtuse

Haddie-nuff wrote:"You" as in an athlete being rumoured..


Is that a question ? dont be so obtuse

It'd have a "?" If it were. I mean the "you" doesn't mean any of us, just a hypothetical implicated but innocent athlete.

LuvSports! wrote:I deffo wouldn't watch that sport then BB.
I would disgust me if it went down the weightlifting route.

Me neither.

I'm talking about all social drugs, not PEDs

bogbrush wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:"You" as in an athlete being rumoured..


Is that a question ? dont be so obtuse

It'd have a "?" If it were. I mean the "you" doesn't mean any of us, just a hypothetical implicated but innocent athlete.

Then why couldn´t you say that in the first place..

You really thought I was suggesting you personally were implicated by PEDs through being rumoured to be on the list?

Yes, "doh" pretty much says it.

bogbrush wrote:You really thought I was suggesting you personally were implicated by PEDs through being rumoured to be on the list?

Yes, "doh" pretty much says it.

No that is not what I thought... you think you are so bliddy clever that you can talk in riddles.
Believe me BB you go out of your way to be deliberately misunderstood...and you love it !!!
Try not talking in shorthand.

come on guys the war is out there! OUT THERE!
pull it together, or god forbid i will turn this thing around!

ok.

I don't, I just try to write economically. Anyway, lets not argue about prose style when there're so many other ways to fall out on here!

bogbrush wrote:The way to stop the horror of drug fuelled crime is to legalise it all. Same result, just minus the damage to everyone else.

The problem with this is at WHAT AGE does legalisation start given 16 yr olds can become tennis pros?

- Should they start doping at 14 yr old or even younger to compete with a 16 or 18 yr old doing it legally?
- Where is the safety data that doping under 18 year old couldn't significantly increase the risk of mortality?
- What happens when loads of 14-16 year olds die from blood clots that wouldn't affect a 20 year old?
- Is it fair that an under 18 with talent cant dope to compete with an adult who is already doing so?

Blanket legalisation just wouldn't work for a number of ethical, moral and medical reasons.

bogbrush wrote:I don't, I just try to write economically. Anyway, lets not argue about prose style when there're so many other ways to fall out on here!

Misunderstood again.. Im not falling out with you BB... God knows I wouldn´t dare Just banter

lydian wrote:

bogbrush wrote:The way to stop the horror of drug fuelled crime is to legalise it all. Same result, just minus the damage to everyone else.

The problem with this is at WHAT AGE does legalisation start given 16 yr olds can become tennis pros?

- Should they start doping at 14 yr old or even younger to compete with a 16 or 18 yr old doing it legally?
- Where is the safety data that doping under 18 year old couldn't significantly increase the risk of mortality?
- What happens when loads of 14-16 year olds die from blood clots that wouldn't affect a 20 year old?
- Is it fair that an under 18 with talent cant dope to compete with an adult who is already doing so?

Blanket legalisation just wouldn't work for a number of ethical, moral and medical reasons.

No, I'm not on about PEDs there, I'm 100% against them (breach of fair competition). I'm talking about all the social stuff.

109 yard kickoff return TD. Absolutely fantastic from JJ. for the digression.

Alcohol and Tobacco are prime examples of what may be the future of the acceptability of personal narcotics.

laverfan wrote:USofA with Baseball, NFL, Tennis, etc., in the grips of doping scandals, I would assume is currently worse than Spain.

For someone who thinks that there are zero dopers among top 100 ATP tennis players you sound quite gloomy. You know a lot about doping, you have followed the Fuentes case for years and know perhaps more about it than anyone else on the forum, you even throw in Tennis among the sports with doping scandals in the USA .

Mhmmm....why is it that I have this feeling that you are not as naive (optimistic?) as you sometimes make it sound?

summerblues wrote:

laverfan wrote:USofA with Baseball, NFL, Tennis, etc., in the grips of doping scandals, I would assume is currently worse than Spain.

For someone who thinks that there are zero dopers among top 100 ATP tennis players you sound quite gloomy. You know a lot about doping, you have followed the Fuentes case for years and know perhaps more about it than anyone else on the forum, you even throw in Tennis among the sports with doping scandals in the USA .

Mhmmm....why is it that I have this feeling that you are not as naive (optimistic?) as you sometimes make it sound?

I am not naive, but eternally optimistic that my favourite sport is clean.

https://www.606v2.com/t40234-pat-cash-on-drug-testing-in-tennis-in-yesterday-s-sunday-times

Pat Cash in The S Times yesterday. Sorry probably should have added here, but wondered if it was better as a stand alone??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/21330805

Bet many will be closing their wallets!

LK I agree if it is done purely on a "voluntary" basis
But in principle I agree with Andy .. I wonder if a system of PAYE could be introduced where every professional player has contributions taken from his earnings to pay into to such a "fund" the amount depending on their earnings (a percentage so to speak). Or am I being totally naive here ??? If the concensus of feeling amongst the APT players is that they want their sport to be seen to be clean then some effort should be made by them even if the Association is dragging their feet. Someone has to pick up the baton and run with it.

I think Djokovic has oodles of charisma and intelligence when interviewed but sadly for tennis, it doesn't translate to charisma on the court. We Brits find something appealing in Murray but I agree that neither of them have the same world wide appeal as R & R, and they are quite tedious to watch playing each other.

However while I feel that Fed is still going to be up there for a bit but that the younger guys are now reigning supreme, I can't believe that Nadal would be coming back unless he and his team really believe he can sweep all before him again - why would he otherwise? He has nothing left to prove. And while Nadal obviously loves tennis, I never feel he has the same romance with the actual game as Fed, he adores competition and he adores being a winner and I think if he didn't think he could be a champion again, then he would throw all those competitive instincts at golf a la Lendl.

As a Fed fan, I stopped enjoying the R & R contests (for fairly obvious reasons) their contrasting court personalities and styles of play made it (at first at least) compelling viewing and not least because both are huge crowd favourites. If I could be completely neutral, it is the match up I would most want to see for the above reasons. However, I find Nadal v Djokovic, after the initial novelty of Djokovic turning the tables for a while, as boring to watch as D vs Murray. Okay you still have the more vibrant court presence of Nadal to cheer up proceedings, but the tennis still becomes a game of attrition and ends with exhausted or injured players and MTOs galore.

TP - did you mean to post that on this thread?

No - I don't think I did

Not enough coffee yet this morning Julius - not sure where I meant to post it now - I'll have a look around

I meant to post it here: https://www.606v2.com/t39841p700-fisticuffs-in-the-fourth-what-did-roger-say after Haddie's comment Julius.

Could you move it for me - agree it is totally random here

Haddie-nuff wrote:LK I agree if it is done purely on a "voluntary" basis
But in principle I agree with Andy .. I wonder if a system of PAYE could be introduced where every professional player has contributions taken from his earnings to pay into to such a "fund" the amount depending on their earnings (a percentage so to speak). Or am I being totally naive here ??? If the concensus of feeling amongst the APT players is that they want their sport to be seen to be clean then some effort should be made by them even if the Association is dragging their feet. Someone has to pick up the baton and run with it.

That's not needed. You simply ask each tournament to reduce its prize money by x% and that amount goes to testing. No need to complicate this on a by player basis.

Of course, if the players want to argue for greater prize money, as a separate issue, that would be entirely logical to me although may be seen as sending contradictory messages (although it isn't).

Yes well fair enough but doing it the way I suggested would, imo, show the sporting world that tennis players under their own volition want their sport cleaned up.. the other way would appear that they had no choice in the matter and that it was something imposed on them. It was a thought no more.
There is a lot of talk amongst the players but no action.

Every player who is asked about drugs in tennis will have a stock reply. If they benefit from having any sort of PR they will have a very good stock reply or they should have anyway.

Thinking about the whole drug issue one of the many objections is that the use of drugs gives the user an unfair advantage. But most are quite happy when certain players may legally have an unfair advantage over their opponents.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130207/tennis-puerto-trial-should-name-names-says-nadal

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130207/tennis-puerto-trial-should-name-names-says-nadal

Oops LK had already posted it.

Nadal clearly reading Bogbrush's posts.

This is, allegedly, the full interview translated and it is well worth a read.

http://www.vamosbrigade.com/articles2013/lequipeinterviewfeb13.html

Feels a bit off to me though, can anyone confirm this is genuine? Don't see anything on the L'equipe website?

Here is the drug related but, but I would read the whole thing:

Q: Have you undergone anti-doping tests during your time off?
Rafa: Nine. Three blood tests and six urine tests. That’s a lot for somebody who is stuck at home without being able to play. The last two weeks, I was tested four times, two of which close together.

Q: At the end of the previous season, Murray and Federer regretted the fact that they had less doping tests in recent months, esp. out-of-competition tests. Do you agree?
Rafa: If they decide tomorrow that I’ll need to be tested weekly, that’s no problem at all. Great. Life is beautiful, perfect. I need to know that those I’m playing against are as clean as I am. So, if you say that more testing needs to be done, that’s easy. When you say a thing like that, everybody applauds and everybody would sign for it.

Q: Don’t you think that the results of the doping tests need to be made public?
Rafa: That would be the best. That’s the thing! If all tests would be made public, it would calm down the rumours surrounding the sport. I’m all for it.

Q: What do you think of the possibility of introducing a biological passport in tennis?
Rafa: I don’t know what it is (laughs). Biological passport, the Puerto trial, that’s far from my world. What’s happening right now in Spain in a court of law, is something that I don’t understand. I don’t understand why doctor Fuentes doesn’t give names. I don’t understand why the judge doesn’t ask him to name them. That has disappointed me…It would be best if the doctor just tells them and those who are caught, suffer the consequences. I don’t know why they don’t go right down to the bottom of it all. We need to cleanse it properly. I have heard that this doctor has worked with foreign athletes but because the doctor is Spanish, the prejudice is mainly aimed at Spanish sports people. As a Spanish sports person, this affects me badly. Because of people like Armstrong, all our reputations are in doubt.

Q: Do you know that some people think that your 7-month absence is due to a silent doping ban?
Rafa: Yes and those rumours exist because those doping tests are not made public. The ITF needs to be transparent. Same with WADA. If not, it will continue and I will be forced to have to hear the stupid comments Christophe Rochus (*) utters without any evidence. It’s incredible to me that something like that gets published without any evidence. Give me evidence and I’ll be okay with it.

Q: The ITF says that the blood tests are too expensive and that…
Rafa: (interrupts). You know what is costly? The bad image of the sport. That’s what has a high price.

Lot's to discuss here but I'd like to see the original source first in French to confirm, but must be only print edition.

http://www.nadalnews.com/2013/02/07/lequipe-interview-no-panic/comment-page-1/


There is a bit towards the bottom that refers to some of what you quote.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1734814/Fuentes-trial-should-name-names-Nadal

This from World News

He was quoted in hte Daily Mirror (UK newspaper) with the same story a few bits. I am pretty confident it's true actually, but for the full translation we are relying on trusting that one little website.

http://www.nadalnews.com/2012/03/22/lequipe-interview-translated/

I found this apparently the interview translated.

No I dont think that was the edition was it ???

Haddie-nuff wrote:http://www.nadalnews.com/2012/03/22/lequipe-interview-translated/

I found this apparently the interview translated.

Nah, this is an old one.

I thought I had struck goold for a minute but no such luck

The one HB posted:
http://www.vamosbrigade.com/articles2013/lequipeinterviewfeb13.html
That looks correct.

He knows that he can't name names, so it's wise for him to say that he thinks that he should do it.

(At least his people know that, and they've advised him to answer in that way, as is normal for a Rafa interview.)

It's funny that he wants evidence that he's on a silent drug ban. I would imagine he would know whether he is or not, why would he need evidence?

Unless the it was an absolutely silent drug ban, where even the player doesn't know anything about it, and the tennis authorities cleverly injure the player in a way that keeps them off for the correct length of time.

It's funny that he wants evidence that he's on a silent drug ban. I would imagine he would know whether he is or not, why would he need evidence?

Where does he say that ???

My first reaction to this is that it's good from Rafa and probably makes him less suspicious.

I don't think it makes much difference though. I mean, calling for Fuentes to name his clients doesn't make a player clean as he could be getting drugs from other sources. Or, even from Fuentes, but may have made a prior agreement from Fuentes that he could say this with the agreement from Fuentes that he will never name said client, even if asked to do so, he would lie.

Likewise, calling for more drugs tests is good, but you could still be a PED cheat and say this, if you know that you are likely to beat the tests or if you only dope occassionally in the run up to slams. Also, it's worth noting that Rafa's position on doping is essentially not far short of a complete U turn of previous comments about the invasive nature of testing, as if he knows that he has to say that, having seen Federer, Murray, Djokovic saying the same thing, he would risk being isolated. Why didn't he say this earlier?

If he really was tested 9 times without even playing, that sounds pretty good.

As for slient ban, that always seemed unlikely, one for the Rafa haters and conspiracy theorists. So yes, show me some evidence of it and I might believe.

Anyway, who really knows.

From last year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjjyVzMzES8

It Must Be Love wrote:From last year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjjyVzMzES8

Quality stuff. This is final proof then.

No player would ever agree to do anything like this if they weren't 100% clean, they would always refuse to do it on the grounds that they've taken lots of PEDs and it wouldn't be right.