Pat Cash on drug testing in tennis in Sunday Times 27th January

I have bolded certain parts that are the most commonly used arguments about the lack of faith that spectators have in the ITF, ATP and WADA to vigilantly and properly ensure their sport is clean. Cash cites the performance of Djokovic in AO 2011 as superhuman but goes on to say that credit must be given to him for really stepping up his fitness regime. However, despite the disclaimer by Cash, it is fairly obvious that a sportsman who has competed in the top echelons of tennis is slightly incredulous when witnessing such powers of recovery, not only from a competitive and gruelling semi but during the final itself. I would add that, imo, by this token, Nadal's 2009 AO title should be viewed with the same incredulity. The probability is that we are witnessing two exceptional athletes, though Nadal is not built for marathons but for sprints. However, human endurance in tennis has clearly reached a point where, for the sake of others to come, testing should be rigorous, inquiry processes should be open and then when all doubts have been answered, we can sit and wonder at the astonishing feats of modern tennis:

Sunday Times 27th January 2013 by Pat Cash
[b][iI have no evidence tennis is facing a crisis in which drugs could tarnish the sport and champions become discredited in the manner of Lance Armstrong. Yet do I suspect players might be tempted into taking something illegal to aid recovery, promote endurance and give themselves a massive boost for the big prizes? Only the most naïve would think otherwise.
[/b]
I remember years ago, not that long after winning Wimbledon, being in a gym here in Melbourne doing some physical training. Sitting in the locker room, I was chatting to this guy who wondered why I hadn't tried any performance-enhancing drugs, because the need to recover from long matches was crucial.

At the time I was working with Dr Ann Quinn, one of the world's top sports scientists. I was confident Ann and I were on the cutting edge of legal sports science and did not want to go down the other route; how tainted would it be to win that way? But the reality was that after playing five tough sets in the heat, I felt good for nothing the next day.

Recovery is the key word today; it’s such an important process in winning the big titles and believe me, the body feels dreadful after contesting a long match in excruciating heat. Things have changed since my day; we never went into ice baths, for example, but I’m amazed by the way top guys recover now. They pay more than $30,000 a year for specific blood tests to see what’s going on, what’s deficient and what legally needs to be put back. But, of course, they are the privileged few.

Ivan Lendl and I pushed the boundaries in terms of bringing science to our preparation. We had specific diets; I paid for a lot of tests to determine what was going on in my body; I took specially prescribed amounts of what was then a new science of supplementing amino acids to aid recovery. Let me tell you, they tasted so bad in the form of this horrible yellow liquid that I wouldn’t wish them on my worst enemy.

Yet knowing what we now know about other sports and because top-flight tennis has become more of an endurance game in the past 25 years, I'm sure temptation is still there today. Given that training camp urine tests are not widely run, blood testing of players is infrequent and there are no biological passports, it stands to reason that some players will take the risks.

In the locker room the general mood is still fiercely against anyone who resorts to doping. Wayne Odesnik, the player who got caught taking human growth hormone into Australia a couple of years ago and Petr Korda, the 1998 Australian Open champion who tested positive for the banned steroid nandrolone, as well as several others were vilified by fellow professionals to the extent that no one would even practise with them.

Back in my day, there were suspicions in the locker room that certain players were up to no good. Some went public, such as Boris Becker, who as good as alleged that Thomas Muster was on something after recovering from severe dehydration in a Monte Carlo semi-final to win the final in five sets the next day. Muster took a drug test, was declared clean and Becker was fined $20,000 for his unsubstantiated claim.

A couple of years earlier Steffi Graf announced she had never been drug tested but suspected some of the other players on the women’s tour were beefing up with steroids.

These days leading players don’t try to be so muscle bound. Look at Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer; they are quite slight and are almost built to run 10,000m races. The rackets and strings can produce the velocity nowadays. The most important thing for players is resilience, combining amazing endurance and powers of recovery.

The change in Djokovic has been astonishing. He has literally gone from being a player who had no staying power - he once pulled out of a Wimbledon semi-final because he had a blistered toe - to being superhuman. Just look how he pulled up from that near five-hour match with Stanislas Wawrinka the other night and looked absolutely fine less than 48 hours later. It was the same story last year, beating Andy Murray in the semi-final that lasted close to five hours and then winning a six-hour battle against Rafa Nadal in the final.

Give credit where it is due. Djokovic being the consummate professional he is has brought all kinds of legal high technology into his preparation. He has in the past used hyperbaric oxygen chambers, he was one of the first after me to experiment with a gluten-free diet, subsequently losing weight but feeling much sharper. He underwent nasal surgery to correct a long-standing sinus condition. However, it’s interesting that the change in Djokovic really came after he employed somebody called Gebhard Phil-Gritsch as his physical trainer. He’s the shaven-headed guy who sits next to Djokovic’s coach Marian Vajda at every match.

History shows there are plenty of players who have received lengthy suspensions from the ATP for the use of illegal substances. One of them, the Argentinian Mariano Puerta, who reached the 2005 French Open final, failed to learn his lesson and got caught again, earning himself a life-long ban. For some the temptation never goes away.

The Lance Armstrong case tells everyone that whatever the sport, drug cheats can go undetected and end up winning the big events. Getting on for 100 years ago Suzanne Lenglen always used to have a nip of cognac to boost herself when things got tight. There is potentially a far more sinister side to things now and tennis is a very rich game. So let’s see the authorities be mindful of what has happened elsewhere, realise their responsibilities and spend some serious money to increase and improve drug testing. [b]

Supber piece. Thanks for posting it TP.

Despite such more detailed insight Pat, some out there will still profess to know more than you and discredit this piece as being anything but insightful.

Where do you draw the boundaries though? Does what was legal in his day which may be illegal in this day diminsh any of the achievements made by that player? It is such a fine line.

I do hope the ATP and ITF step up their efforts to ensure rigourous testing is mandatory and that also maybe gain insightful information from those players who have attemtped to cheat and have tested positive. Pat is right, yes many players might raise suspicions, but really and truthfully people need to distinguish between what is myth and what is fact.

No probs legend, and thanks

My take on it is that drug testing should try and stay ahead on research rather than flaying about in the distance, as it did on EPO.

That if a substance is legal in the 1920s, ie Lenglen's swig of cognac, then of course it does not subsequently diminish her achievements if alcohol is on a banned list now (is it?). In any case, double, treble respect for her, the stuff goes straight to my knees and renders them numb! However, of course if we discovered that a player in the 1980s was competing on steroids then the achievements would be called into question, regardless of who else was doing it because the standard reached by a player or players would be aided by peds and therefore against the spirit of sport and we would not be awed by the 'superhuman' achieved solely through excellence and endeavour.

The increased endurance we are witnessing in sports persons, across all disciplines, should mean that we as spectators are confident that sporting bodies are vigorous and open in their testing procedures and that they have a commitment to staying ahead of new drugs or means or administering them or disguising their use.

I understand what you mean about people needing to distinguish between myth and fact and that is why it is in sport's interest to be much more proactive in having blood profiles of all athletes. It is sad that the public now longer take great victories on trust, but innocence and incredulity have been knocked a few times now and there is no excuse for any sporting body to be nonchalant about their testing regimes.

I understand that athletes now are showing breath taking amounts of endurance and skill, but stands the reason that if advances in medicine and science have stretched the boundaries then hence the body can adjust to the demands required by the sport.

Question is has anyone spectator wise 'doped' that can really testify that the standards reached by today's athletes can only be done so through consistent doping? As lydian pointed out on another thread, the inherent risks it may pose to different athletes through genetics doesn not guarantee that every athlete is in a position of safe health to dope.

I agree that WADA need to wake up and get with the program and stay ahead of the field in every technological aspect. Sport across the board needs to invest more into WADA and their fight against doping. Also sporting bodies in wake of the LA scandal should not accept any donations of any kind from athletes.

I think we have to marvel at the achievements in modern sport, but we have to ask ourselves - is there a limit to human speed and endurance or have we just not witnessed the best of them all yet.

If we think that some feats cannot be bettered without evolution speeding up dramatically, then it is right to look further.

I am not advocating casting suspicions left, right and centre - in fact I studiously tend to avoid all the 'drug debates'. However, I have posted this because a former player is stating that in his opinion, testing is not rigorous enough and therefore we cannot be 100% confident that there are no drugs in tennis.

Up the testing, create a blood profile for each player, be open about who is tested and when and the argument ceases immediately. It is sad that testing has to be a part of modern sport but is foolish to think it can be otherwise.

Heavy hint about Djokovic. That'll not go down well on here.....

bogbrush wrote:Heavy hint about Djokovic. That'll not go down well on here.....

The article by Pat Cash wasn't in yesterdays Sunday Times but the previous weeks edition (27th January). This was the same time as one of Cash's writing colleagues was also throwing a little mud at Novak.

https://www.606v2.com/t39894-british-press-now-throw-mud-at-novak

That didn't go down well either.

bogbrush wrote:Heavy hint about Djokovic. That'll not go down well on here.....

BB the heavy hints that have been made about Nadal have not gone down well either but he and his fans have had to rise above it ..Pat Cash´s article is interesting indeed and much of what he says no doubt is true however he has had the habit of letting his mouth run away with him at times this could well be one of them.

hawkeye wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Heavy hint about Djokovic. That'll not go down well on here.....

The article by Pat Cash wasn't in yesterdays Sunday Times but the previous weeks edition (27th January). This was the same time as one of Cash's writing colleagues was also throwing a little mud at Novak.

https://www.606v2.com/t39894-british-press-now-throw-mud-at-novak

That didn't go down well either.

well spotted HE and thanks for the correction. I will change the heading

The worry for anyone connected with tennis is that the more physical demanding the game becomes the greater the need for quick recovery especially in the slam events. It would take an ostrich with his head buried in the sand not to question then if drug taking in tennis is currently a problem swept under the carpet or, as in the wake of the Armstrong cycling scandal, a potential ticking time bomb going to blow up in the faces of the authorities some time soon.

Tennis can't really pretend that it's so different form other sports. All endurance athletes are potential drug cheats. Sorry but that's the way it is although I certainly would be loathe to point the finger at any particular player until there is a clear evidence of wrong doing.

Absolutely I agree... the finger of suspicion should not be directed at single players.. I cannot believe that "dressing room gossip" or a "traitor in the camp" would not have leaked something substantial by now... if the temptation was great enough. And I dont think that is being naive.

Haddie-nuff wrote:Absolutely I agree... the finger of suspicion should not be directed at single players.. I cannot believe that "dressing room gossip" or a "traitor in the camp" would not have leaked something substantial by now... if the temptation was great enough. And I dont think that is being naive.

It didnt really happen in cycling until many years down the line, despite whole teams being involved. In tennis, it would presumably be easier to keep the number of people privy to the information extremely small.

BS Im more of a realist than that Im afraid.. of course one could say cynical.. fine line divides the two so take your pick

the omerta is everywhere!!

As I recall the press coverage last year, lots of former pro's were doubting what they had seen relating to the Djoko/Nadal final in Australia 2012.

For me it's simple - there has been huge temptation for anyone to dope in tennis for years. Lendl was, perhaps, the first to turn it into a really physical game (although Borg before him used to run and run and run). Once you could see what Lendl was able to do with hard work why not seek to emulate that and cut a few corners?

Tennis has gotten and given itself a far too easy ride in this respect - it passed the buck big time on the nandrolone mess that Rusdedski was involved in and Agassi's crystal meths positive was brushed under the carpet.

The real calculation for any sport is whether it has credibility with sponsors and the public. Cycling has a lot of trouble, athletics too, which means they have to get tougher on cheating. We tend to give sports which depend largely on co-ordination a greater amount of slack - drugs won't make you hit a half-volley like Fed or dribble like Messi. Tennis is currently keeping its head above water - but I doubt it for much longer as marathon slam matches and amazing recoveries become more usual.

Four of the top 5 play a very attritional style, and Fed has always been a baseliner with a fantastic ability to defend and run balls down. Every single one of the top 5, and the top 50, could benefit from an illegal doping regime. At the moment the feebleness of the testing regime means we are taking them on trust and forming our own view. If past history has taught us anything it is that cheats have no shame until they are caught - taking anyone on trust is liable to end in disappointment. The consequences for tennis would be nightmarish if one of the top 4 were busted because its gladiatorial nature means that the sport gains much of its popularity from spectators really wanting to get behnd one of the participants - not so easy when you don't know who is drugged up and who is not. The personal element in following tennis is a strength, but it also demands integrity of the participants to be accepted for it to work as a spectator sport - the time has come to do a lot more to safeguard that strength.

Haddie-nuff wrote:Absolutely I agree... the finger of suspicion should not be directed at single players.. I cannot believe that "dressing room gossip" or a "traitor in the camp" would not have leaked something substantial by now... if the temptation was great enough. And I dont think that is being naive.

Can I just draw your attention to the following extract from Cash's article: 'Back in my day, there were suspicions in the locker room that certain players were up to no good. Some went public, such as Boris Becker, who as good as alleged that Thomas Muster was on something after recovering from severe dehydration in a Monte Carlo semi-final to win the final in five sets the next day. Muster took a drug test, was declared clean and Becker was fined $20,000 for his unsubstantiated claim.

I am merely pointing out that would be a factor if anyone had legitimate suspicions but no proof - after all isn't that how Armstrong kept his use under wraps - he was rich enough to, and quick to threaten to sue. There is a certain commentator who the press knew was serially unfaithful to his then wife. Said commentator's public image and marketed one was that of Mr Clean. Said commentator issued writs left right and centre because he could and was rich enough and neither that fact nor his infidelity was published by any of the press.

Of course Muster did pass a drug test. I wonder who sued Becker - the ITF or Muster? Either way it seems a counter productive thing to do unless you are warning others off, After all, passing the drugs test should be answer enough to your critics.

I agree we shouldn't wildly accuse individual players but given what has been revealed in other sports we should demand that sporting bodies look with a questioning eye at superhuman performances.

time please wrote:Up the testing, create a blood profile for each player, be open about who is tested and when and the argument ceases immediately. It is sad that testing has to be a part of modern sport but is foolish to think it can be otherwise.

Agreed. It is sad but necessary.

The testing needs to be thorough at all levels as well. I read recently that the whereabouts clause only applies to top 50? Arguably there is as much temptation at challenger level where it could make the difference between earning enough to continue playing professionally and giving up.

Currently, the recovery side is being enhanced with Oxygen Tents, BMR machines, Egg Chambers, etc. Such technology was unavailable to Cash/Becker hence a grueling 5-set match for Djokovic/Murray/Nadal/Federer is easier to take in stride today.

Djokovic and Hewitt with Courier, in their post match SF interview did hint at recovery techniques.

@TP... it is all right to keep this article separate for now. Will keep an eye on how this evolves.

laverfan wrote:Currently, the recovery side is being enhanced with Oxygen Tents, BMR machines, Egg Chambers, etc. Such technology was unavailable to Cash/Becker hence a grueling 5-set match for Djokovic/Murray/Nadal/Federer is easier to take in stride today.

And still unavailable to most players on the tour. When we talk about the amazing powers of recovery of the top players, I wonder how many lower ranked players would also be 'amazing' if they had access to the technology.

Oxygen tents, BMR machines, egg chambers...etc..etc.

Good grief whatever happened to eating a couple of bananas and having a good night's sleep?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

laverfan wrote:Currently, the recovery side is being enhanced with Oxygen Tents, BMR machines, Egg Chambers, etc. Such technology was unavailable to Cash/Becker hence a grueling 5-set match for Djokovic/Murray/Nadal/Federer is easier to take in stride today.

And still unavailable to most players on the tour. When we talk about the amazing powers of recovery of the top players, I wonder how many lower ranked players would also be 'amazing' if they had access to the technology.

It could be argued that, if they would be amazing with the technology, they would be pretty good without it. That being the case they would be successful enough to afford the technology and would then be amazing

laverfan wrote:Currently, the recovery side is being enhanced with Oxygen Tents, BMR machines, Egg Chambers, etc. Such technology was unavailable to Cash/Becker hence a grueling 5-set match for Djokovic/Murray/Nadal/Federer is easier to take in stride today.

Djokovic and Hewitt with Courier, in their post match SF interview did hint at recovery techniques.

@TP... it is all right to keep this article separate for now. Will keep an eye on how this evolves.

LF if you want to merge the thread, please do. I did wonder whether I should have tagged PC's article onto existing thread but I thought it was sufficiently interesting to hear a former player on the subject and that it would not get missed if I posted separately. I should think everyone has seen it now so fully understand if you link it on elsewhere

carrieg4 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

laverfan wrote:Currently, the recovery side is being enhanced with Oxygen Tents, BMR machines, Egg Chambers, etc. Such technology was unavailable to Cash/Becker hence a grueling 5-set match for Djokovic/Murray/Nadal/Federer is easier to take in stride today.

And still unavailable to most players on the tour. When we talk about the amazing powers of recovery of the top players, I wonder how many lower ranked players would also be 'amazing' if they had access to the technology.

It could be argued that, if they would be amazing with the technology, they would be pretty good without it. That being the case they would be successful enough to afford the technology and would then be amazing

Pretty good + tecnhology = amazing

Chicken and egg though surely? The top 4 can afford the best because of their success. Djoko was top 3 whilst looking like a strong wind would knock him over. They've all had to improve their fitness to compete with one another, not to beat the rest of the field.

In terms of talking about extraordinary recoveries, arguably that's limited to Djoko and Nadal. Both Fed and Murray have shown signs of fatigue in matches after epics.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

laverfan wrote:Currently, the recovery side is being enhanced with Oxygen Tents, BMR machines, Egg Chambers, etc. Such technology was unavailable to Cash/Becker hence a grueling 5-set match for Djokovic/Murray/Nadal/Federer is easier to take in stride today.

And still unavailable to most players on the tour. When we talk about the amazing powers of recovery of the top players, I wonder how many lower ranked players would also be 'amazing' if they had access to the technology.

It could be argued that, if they would be amazing with the technology, they would be pretty good without it. That being the case they would be successful enough to afford the technology and would then be amazing

Pretty good + tecnhology = amazing

Ok pretty good is a bit of a weak term. What is one step down from amazing?

carrieg4 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

laverfan wrote:Currently, the recovery side is being enhanced with Oxygen Tents, BMR machines, Egg Chambers, etc. Such technology was unavailable to Cash/Becker hence a grueling 5-set match for Djokovic/Murray/Nadal/Federer is easier to take in stride today.

And still unavailable to most players on the tour. When we talk about the amazing powers of recovery of the top players, I wonder how many lower ranked players would also be 'amazing' if they had access to the technology.

It could be argued that, if they would be amazing with the technology, they would be pretty good without it. That being the case they would be successful enough to afford the technology and would then be amazing

Pretty good + tecnhology = amazing

Ok pretty good is a bit of a weak term. What is one step down from amazing?

Andy Murray.

No, I don't mean it! But you walked right into that one

JuliusHMarx wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

laverfan wrote:Currently, the recovery side is being enhanced with Oxygen Tents, BMR machines, Egg Chambers, etc. Such technology was unavailable to Cash/Becker hence a grueling 5-set match for Djokovic/Murray/Nadal/Federer is easier to take in stride today.

And still unavailable to most players on the tour. When we talk about the amazing powers of recovery of the top players, I wonder how many lower ranked players would also be 'amazing' if they had access to the technology.

It could be argued that, if they would be amazing with the technology, they would be pretty good without it. That being the case they would be successful enough to afford the technology and would then be amazing

Pretty good + tecnhology = amazing

Ok pretty good is a bit of a weak term. What is one step down from amazing?

Andy Murray.

No, I don't mean it! But you walked right into that one

I did walk in to it though

My point is, you can't create an exceptional player like Federer, Nadal, Djokovic or Murray (just in the current time period) without great ability no matter how many egg chambers you buy. If you have enough ability for the chamber or other legal recovery technology to make a difference then you are already successful enough to buy one.

Agreed, it just makes it a bit more difficult for the others to catch up.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Agreed, it just makes it a bit more difficult for the others to catch up.

I would argue that those with the potential to catch up will do well enough with good old fashioned hard work alone to get to the stage that they can afford the technology as well.

I don't think all of the top players use the technology anyway. I know Murray has various exercise machines and some equipment to help keep his bipartate patella as pain free as possible but I don't think he gets much flashier than an ice bath and a massage for recovery. I could be wrong....

It's an absolute science these days carrie. Nothing is left to chance.

JuliusHMarx wrote:It's an absolute science these days carrie. Nothing is left to chance.

Agreed but it isn't all necessarily high tech. I know everything Murray does is carefully planned to the last detail including food, rest, exercise etc. This is expensive in itself as you have to pay for a fitness trainer, a physio and possibly a nutritionist as well as a coach but it is not high tech as such and therefore maybe slightly more accessible to those lower down the rankings.

I could be wrong. I am yet to be convinced that flashy chambers etc. make more than a psychological difference.

JuliusHMarx wrote:It's an absolute science these days carrie. Nothing is left to chance.

Yes indeed. But don't you just yearn for the days of McEnroe? Honestly I don't believe he really trained that hard as it all came naturally. Blame his old adversary Lendl for one who overnight changed everyone's view of training and fitness.

newballs wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:It's an absolute science these days carrie. Nothing is left to chance.

Yes indeed. But don't you just yearn for the days of McEnroe? Honestly I don't believe he really trained that hard as it all came naturally. Blame his old adversary Lendl for one who overnight changed everyone's view of training and fitness.

Wow, imagine what he could have done had he really trained hard though!

He could have won the FO final vs Lendl instead of getting sunstroke.
All he had to really do was wear a baseball cap. After that final he always wore a bandana when the sun was blazing down.

JuliusHMarx wrote:He could have won the FO final vs Lendl instead of getting sunstroke.
All he had to really do was wear a baseball cap. After that final he always wore a bandana when the sun was blazing down.

Just that pesky photographer and his 'whirring' machine.