Retirement - The bringer of uncertain reactions

When a tennis player decides he or she has had enough and knows that mentally and physically that facing the prospect of training and matches and flying and driving, retirement is the only escape from such a life. Some can do it willingly, others not so willingly. When players retire, it is only then that natural reflection of their accomplishments in the game and much about what they have contributed to the game becomes the centre of focus. Greatness can be defined or simply a care-free sentence as 'Geee wasn't he good, could've done better'

Once the decision is made and retirement is officially on the cards, we wonder, 'How are they going to do it?'

Fairytale ending - Pete Sampras at the US Open in 2002 chose to end his career in the most amazing way possible. Sign off as a champion. Win one last title. Go for the big one. Prove doubters wrong, like a certain Greg Rusedski who before the tournament said that Pete couldn't win another tournament and Greg was dispatched un-mercifully by the man himself. For me only Federer has the ability to end his career in such a way.

Emotional ending - The last hurrah. Jimmy Connors made that amazing run at the US Open in 1991 at the age of 39 reaching the Semi Finals and everyone thought Jimbo was going to do it. Emotions run high. Storybook stuff. No-one told that to Jim Courier who ended his amazing run during that tournament. Andre Agassi at the US Open 2005 lost to a Roger Federer, who to this day recognises his performance as one that he played his 'best' tennis. I thought Andre would retire on a high, but decided he had a last chance in him. He reached the final and he could do it again and even go one better. At the US Open in 2006, Unfortunately he lost in the 3rd round to Benjamin Becker. What then followed was pure and utter emotion and outpour for a guy that was one of the people. Who gave his all, despite the hatred for the game that lurked inside of him. Gustavo Kuerten retired after the French Open 2008 after vowing to only play tournaments that had sentimental value to him. 15,000 people watched him go down to Paul-Henri Mathieu.

I can't fight on anymore ending - Bjorn Borg was one of the first players to speak out against the 'brutal' schedule at the time. The Australian Open at the time was held in December and many top players decided to skip the tournament to recover. In 1981 at Wimbledon he lost to John McEnroe and stormed off before the presentations. He then lost to Big Mac again at the US Open that year in the final and announced his retirement at the age of 26. He made an attempted comeback, but I shall remember him like so many at his peak. Boris Becker decided not to play Wimbledon again after his 1997 Quarter Final defeat to Sampras. He retired in 1999.

Injury ending - So many players have succumb to retiring through injury. Ivan Lendl, Steffi Graff, Justine Henin, Carlos Moya, Mario Ancic, Monica Seles. It is not one through choice and is one that is not pleasent.

Forgotten ending - Marat Safin made it no secret of his desire to retire from the game at the age of 29. Disillusioned with his game and how he was eliminated from tournaments symbolised that he no longer enjoyed the game. His last match was during the Paris Masters when he lost to US Open champion Juan Martin Del Potro.

Disgraced ending - Martina Hingis a 9 time Slam Champion achieving the Career Grand Slam ended her career in disgrace when she tested positive for Cocaine in 2007 after her third round exit at Wimbledon. She retired declaring she had never taken drugs, though she made no fight to clear her name.

How would you like to see your favourite player retire?

Cocaine? The 'disgrace' there is only simulated due to peer pressure amongst anyone in the public eye. It's not performance enhancing so it has nothing to do with the sport. Recreational drugs have to be condemned because not condemning amounts to expressing liberal views which elicits condemnation from peers who are scared to express liberal views because they'll be condemned etc.. A self-sustaing feedback loop.

Apologies for going OT, I just wanted to take issue with the way you refer to Hingis' career ending.

Is taking Cocaine not illegal??

So breaking the law is not a disgrace?

I am find it amusing that you think that a recreational drug that is illegal to take is not a disgrace.

well if the cocaine was only a minor amount then I think it is silly, gasquet himself was let off for it

Define a minor amount JM, because any amount is illegal.

would be nice to retire by beating the world number 1 in their backyard, the ultimate insult

I ride my bike on the pavement sometimes because the laws regarding cycling don't fully account for the realities of riding a bike. They're abstractions, often out of date, ill-conceived, insufficient. Sure enough I don't agree with all laws.

Riding a bike and taking drugs are 2 different things. Regarding the bike, as my friend says, If you don't want to ride a bike in the road becuase it is not safe, get the bus.

Anyhow, on with the thread as it was intended.

The big question is whether Federer gets the fairytale/hollywood style end. . . it seems unlikely if he's really going to keep playing for several more years as he tends to imply in interviews.

Agree with you LK,

Cocaine may not be performance enhancing, but it is nevertheless illegal and it is also a multi million dollar industry which causes a lot of harm to society. Hingis certainly ended her career in disgrace.

nah that is overcritical of hingis she only did it once.. anyway many people think she was 'stitched' up me included.

So is advertising.

I want to know why Hingis has never fought to proven her innocence. Gasquet made a stupid mistake and fought tooth and nail to clear his name and did.

If I tested positive for a banned or illegal substance and knew I had never taken them, I would fight to clear my name. I just think it is sad she has never tried to do that.

droogle wrote:Anyhow, on with the thread as it was intended.

The big question is whether Federer gets the fairytale/hollywood style end. . . it seems unlikely if he's really going to keep playing for several more years as he tends to imply in interviews.

"The spirit is willing, the flesh is weak."

Ljubicic, Schuettler, Chela, Nalbandian, Llodra, Ferrero, ... love their drug of choice, aka, Tennis. So does Federer. Long may they continue to pursue their love.

They do not have to be in the court holding a racquet and hitting a ball, but can continue their association.

McEnroe, Cahill, Annacone, Brad Gilbert, Peter Fleming, Frew McMillan, Cliff Drysdale, ... a cast of thousands.

Similarly on the Women's side.

What a fantastic journey the players are on.

LK and Socal are nitwits. This blog is a joke when these two guys are dominating almost all the play. Are you serious LK? Is life that black and white? Are you 7 or 70?

In my philosophy the law is irrelevent. Doing no harm to another is all that matters and if you want to put narcotics in your own body then that's nobodies business than your own.

Personally the law only matters to me because enough people sign onto it to make life difficult for me if I break it seriously. My own mentality means I will not hurt or steal from another.

Recreational drugs cause no harm. Prohibiting them is what makes all the harm, creates all the criminal profit margin, causes people to rob and hurt others and is pointless and ineffective. You'd have thought they'd have learned after the trial run on alcohol in the '30's. The sooner we grow up and let people alone the better.

In Hingis' case, she was working (tennis was her job, after all) whilst under the influence of cocaine. (I'm assuming it was true). Is that not cheating the paying public and the people who pay the prize money?
What professions is it OK to be under the influence? Surgeon, no. Policeman, no. Accountant, maybe? Tennis player, yeah, why not, it's only a recreational drug? Would it be OK if a player turned up drunk for a match and smoked a quick ciggy during the change-over?

They'd lose. Alcohol is socially sanctioned, tobacco less so these days.

I think the problem is to do with the tennis regulatory bodies testing for substances which aren't to do with performance enhancement; it's beyond their remit or at least should be.

Of course a player is free to consume alchohol away from the court as the societal/legal attitude to that drug is entirely different, at least in certain countries.

My point is that if you turned up half-drunk, you'd be cheating the public, who have paid good money to see you play your best possible tennis on the day.
If I'd paid to see Hingis and she performed below par because she'd been out snorting coke the night before, I'd want a refund, including travelling expenses.

I don't see why the authorities shouldn't test for all performance affecting drugs (not just the ones that enhance performance).

JuliusHMarx wrote:My point is that if you turned up half-drunk, you'd be cheating the public, who have paid good money to see you play your best possible tennis on the day.

A player's popularity is a measure, to a large extent, of the ticket prizing. During the ProAm divide, in the Pro circuit, there was a percentage of gate receipts which were reflected in the player's take home gross. Now the prize money drives the participation. The player's human roots should have an impact on their performance, for example injuries, well-being, general health, etc.

JuliusHMarx wrote:If I'd paid to see Hingis and she performed below par because she'd been out snorting coke the night before, I'd want a refund, including travelling expenses.

There is quite a bit of subjectivity in such an observation. Did Nadal perform below par in losing to Djokovic? Should their past h2h be used from your perspective to predict their future matches?

JuliusHMarx wrote:I don't see why the authorities shouldn't test for all performance affecting drugs (not just the ones that enhance performance).

That raises the question, at least for me, should an analgesic be also considered a performance enhancing drug? Should an Oxygen Tent come under such purview as well? The question of socially-sanctioned substances was raised by DrOogle and BogBrush. Some responsibility should be on the player as well.

Just as an aside, consuming drugs is NOT illegal, consumption of cocaine, cannabis etc, what is illegal is POSSESSION of those drugs (for obvious reasons, if you have consumed the drugs, the police/relevant authorities do not have evidence for a court case). So Hingis did not break the law in consuming it, it's never been illegal to consume, only to possess. This is law in the UK. Don't ask me why it's like this, it just is. So you're allowed to take drugs (a common misconception that you can't), just don't get caught with them on you!

Sheeesh

NEVER taken Drugs - NEVER will !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That way lies MADNESS - Look at Pete Doherty !!!!!!!!1

Sure. And prohibiting them does nothing to stop that and makes the consequences of taking them far greater.

Plus it's nobody else's business if you want to do something foolish.

It is up to the individual if they want to ruin their life and
be a slave to drugs OR NOT bogbrush !

You makes your choice and you live(or die) by it !

Nole retires by winning 10th Serbian Open which has by then become a Masters 500 event.
I am in the crowd (and noone can kick me out) all in tears like the rest of the people around me.
A few rows below me is Nadal, already retired and Andy Murray, Marat Safin, Lopez, Tomic (a new world number one at that stage) and many other former players.
I then retire to a local pub, order a round of champers for everyone and start writing my first novel....

yummymummy wrote:It is up to the individual if they want to ruin their life and
be a slave to drugs OR NOT bogbrush !

You makes your choice and you live(or die) by it !

Dead right, that's exactly what I'm saying.

People are slaves to many things now anyway, such as food, rentiers, the debt based money system, you name it, that to concentrate on drugs is to miss the point.

I m not a lawyer but the Law is often based on logic and common sense. And here it's obvious. You cannot consume drug without being in possession of some at some stage. So it's illegal to consume drugs too...unless you consume drug unwillingly, like having your drink spiked for instance. This is why the law says it's illegal to be in "possession" cause it covers the willing and unwilling consumption.

But can anyone explain why it's illegal for an adult to consume drugs?

But can anyone explain why it's illegal for an adult to consume drugs?.
--------------------------------------

I can easily see why it's illegal for an adult to consume drugs. We simply are not aware and therefore "in control" of all the forces and entities in our minds despite thinking we are. Taking drugs affects our consciousness and that can be very bad as it is our consciousnes that control those forces.

Like we can't drink and drive cause we might hurt ourselves and others. While taking drugs might not require driving to hurt ourselves and others.

Sheeeesh, some of these posts are melo-dramatic.

Near all drugs law was passed in the 1970s when hysterical politicians with absolutely no knowledge of the effects of the particular drugs simply decided to ban most of the apparently 'harmful' ones, because that's the instinct of politicians, some people are dying, oh, let's ban it, that will solve the problem (it never does and never has solved the problem).

If you want to know the ACTUAL harm of these drugs, instead of relying on the speculation of the ignorant, you might wish to recall the controversy that surrounded the sacking of the chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in 2009. Professor Nut made an accurate and factual statement that you got more chance of dying riding a horse (a fact) than of taking ecstasy. Yet one of these activities is banned, without reference to the harm. The madness of the situation is in allowing hysterical tabloid newspapers dictate drugs policy when, as we seen, many of these journalists are self interested in nothing but hysteria and their own self important (look @ phone hacking).

Funnily enough, he was the chief adviser to the government on drugs policy because according to the 1971 misuse of drugs act, the government must classify drugs on their actual harm, on the basis of scientific evidence. The government didn't like hearing the truth and under pressure from hysterical tabloids, sacked him, that's the madness.

Taking any drugs is not 'ruining' you're life yummymummy, by any stretch of the imagination. It's the excessive taking of drugs, but this holds true for a range of things, look at alcohol and tobacco. The line of which drugs are legal and illegal is an artificial line which any educated person on this matter will know was drawn by politicians with no reference to actual harm. A Parliamentary report on this same matter concluded that drugs law is rather out of date and rated the most harmful substance as alcohol, in terms of harms and deaths.

Maybe because I'm a younger poster on this forum I approach this issue with a more open mind, but honestly, if you want to debate the matter, get you're information right! Hingis's mistake was getting caught, not taking it, because it's not illegal to consume (if she got caught in the UK), only to possess!

I've explained above why it's illegal Bogbrush, simply hysterical politicians and hysterical tabloid headlines who don't want to look at the scientific evidence but rather look to the emotional relatives of unlucky victims. I never seen these same newspapers go to the relatives of alcoholics and ask them how they feel when their loved ones die. Instead they seek out emotionally fragile relatives/parents who obviously will blame the government for their child's death but the truth is, banning things rarely works, so if they want to get upset, get upset at the failure of drugs policy.

Bogbrush,

my "little" brother died from heroine overdose. As an adult. Nole's present age, in fact, 24, and we suspect he started taking drugs before he became an adult.

It's the choice of the stupid, but often young people are vulnerable and succumb to pressures where you and I wouldn't and didn't.

Making drugs illegal is one way of controlling the damage. I often think if they were legal, the problem would very possibly disappear, at least there would not be any drug related crimes such as burglaries, muggings etc.
Then again, you'd have poeple driving drugged and where could that end...
So, it's probably better they stay illegal.

The bottom line is that in tennis it was illegal to have the substance in your body. It doesn't matter about who does what in their private lives or the impact of the drug on the user.

Hingis was caught out and it amazes me that she didn't fight to clear her name if she was that sure she didn't take it.

Well LK, it's not illegal to have it in you're body, the tennis authorities don't draft the law, just enforce the rules of the sport (which isn't the law of the land).

Simply not true NITB, in Portugal they've decriminalized a number of drugs, one of the first countries in Europe to declassify many illegal drugs and it's been successful, how much have you heard of it?

Exactly, nothing, because of course the press, the same hysterical press responsible for these laws don't want you to know the success of a sane drugs policy. Drug usage has gone DOWN not up. Funny that, I thought banning it was meant to reduce consumption? Another myth, banning things rarely makes things unpopular, it just makes it more popular, a well observed phenomena.

If drugs were legal, presumably they would still cost money to buy? Would a herion addict who has run out of money no longer commit a crime to get some more?
Or is the argument, there would be less addicts, thus less crime?
And would the addicts still expect the taxpayer (i.e. NHS) to pay for their treatment, or would it be self-financed?

LM it is illegal in tennis. By the laws of the game. As a law whether it is illegal or not is irrelevent.

The prices would come down because the industry would be legal and you wouldn't need the black market to supply the drugs. Cheaper drugs, so that could lead to less crime, but their would be a drop in consumption for another reason, it's not banned. Banning things adds the allure of the forbidden and young people like pushing the boundaries, but as soon as it's legal, it's less of a prospect. Also, these young people won't be afraid to discuss taking these drugs because it won't be illegal and their friends have got a better chance of discouraging them instead of what currently happens which drives everything underground.

The taxpayer already pays for their treatment right now, so I doubt that would stop, why would it? The NHS has always been free at the point of use and long may it continue!

Okay LK, but it's not illegal technically, because illegal applies to the law of the land, not the laws of a sport. She broke the 'rules' of the game, not the laws of the land, that's all I want to clear up.

Personally I resent having to pay for treating people who abuse their own bodies despite clear warnings about what they're doing. Why should I pick up the tab?
If you smoke and get lung cancer, pay for your own treatment. If you're an alcoholic and need a new liver, buy one yourself. Leave me out of it.
Let the over-stretched NHS deal with people who haven't deliberately made themselves sick.
Then we could see if consumption dropped.

With regards to smokes, you DONT pick up the tab. In fact, they pick the tab up for you. You might notice smokers pay a vast amount of tax which is far more than they cost the NHS which than subsidies people like you. Maybe they should resent subsiding people like you?

Let the over-stretched NHS deal with people who haven't deliberately made themselves sick.
Then we could see if consumption dropped..
-------------------------

I guess we coudl open a whole new thread about this interesting subject cause I feel we are taking the discussion away from LK's first intention.

In response to JHM, this is the point I was making earlier. The drug addict never wanted to be a drug addict and did not do it conscioulsly...yes maybe at the begining but even though he may have had an incline to taking drug due to inner problems.

If we push your reasoning, I might say why shoudl I pay the bill for that person who got ran over by a car? Shouldn't he have paid attention before crossing? same for the builder falling of a ladder. Where do you stop?

Making the drug available more easily would certainly increase the number of people "falling off the ladder" ...I feel.

I was in all girl group and drugs were rife throughout the
music scene, you had to be STRONG to refuse to go down
that path !

Peer pressure is a hard thing to counteract and that is why a
LOT of musicions ended up raddled !

To thine Own self be true is the ONE maxim that kept
me going !

Drugs = Death !

Smokers willingly choose to pay that tax. They don't have to. If they resent it, stop buying them. You can't have personal freedom without the personal responsibility that comes with it.
If drugs were legal and taxed heavily enough to pay for all the health damage, fair enough, but would that then bring the price down?
Tenez, people have to cross the road, builders have to climb ladders - accidents happen, sometimes due to carelessness. A more interesting example would be amateur tennis players who break their ankle. No-one has to play tennis. Although most players will have paid enough tax to cover treatment for small injuries. What about skydivers who suffer serious injuries, the treatment of which outweighs any tax they might pay - although do you have to buy insurance for sky-diving? I don't know.

The range of views here is indicative of the complexity of the issue(s), there's stuff to do with freedom of choice, effects to the individual, those surrounding the individual, the taxpayer, plus the relative risks of different types of drugs and how they should be classified.

I tend to think that drugs testing in sports should be limited to performance enhancing drugs and the rest can be the remit of the police. There was no need to test Hingis for cocaine with regards to her involvement in tennis.

NITB, I'm sorry to hear that, I couldn't begin to imagine what that'd be like.

Can we try and stay on topic somehow?

legendkillar wrote:Can we try and stay on topic somehow?

I did me best...and then went to see what the others wrote only to be disappointed...maybe only I have a favourite player...

Fair enough LK. By the way, Connors farewell was not the US Open of 1991 where he reached the semis at age 39. He played on for a couple of years after that. I think his 2 matches against Sampras were in 1992 - could be wrong though.