Chris Kermode - Can He Improve Drug Testing In Tennis?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/25109296

I thought it was an interesting read.

How well do people see Kermode doing as ATP new head honcho?

Is it much of an achievement to improve something that is absolutely woeful?

As long as there are influential people in tennis who seriously think that one of the biggest current problems is a Doctor on duty failing to be sufficiently persuasive to make a 27-yr old man with 7 years on tour take a mandatory drug test you've got to wonder about Kermode's chances of changing anything.
 
My view is that there are two camps in operation: (a) those who want the testing regime to be strong enough for any cheats to be caught; and, (b) "three wise monkey" types who want the testing regime to pass sufficient muster for sponsors and the paying public to accept that tennis is "clean" but prefer a quiet life and once that low threshold is achieved do not encourage further scrutiny or inconvenience - or at least not on their watch.
 
Were I a sponsor there's no way I'd sponsor tennis right now without concrete assurances from the powers that be that the sport is going to up its game for fear of looking like a mug.
 
I'd like to hear a lot more noise from players, administrators, coaches, national associations, and so-on that they are in the (a) camp, because without that Kermode is going to struggle to take the necessary action.

It is not the responsibility of a doctor or anyone else who has the task of taking samples to be tested to "persuade" anyone to give a sample. They are just there to do a service for the athlete it is the athletes responsibility to cooperate if they want to continue to compete. They don't have to cooperate if they don't want to but the rules are clear enough that most children let alone 27 year old men would understand the consequences of not doing so. What was the doctor supposed to do tie Troiki down and steal his blood? Of course not. If he refused whatever reason he gave it was not the doctors job to argue. Troiki deserves his punishment and in the circumstances he's got off very lightly especially if he had something to hide and isn't an idiot.

barrystar. I suspect you are in the camp that thinks pro tennis is full of drug cheats? There is another camp with suspicions but they don't think pro tennis is full of drug cheats they just think that there is one drug cheat who just happens to be their least favorite player.

I disagree HE.

I think Troicki is an idiot!

hawkeye wrote: barrystar. I suspect you are in the camp that thinks pro tennis is full of drug cheats? There is another camp with suspicions but they don't think pro tennis is full of drug cheats they just think that there is one drug cheat who just happens to be their least favorite player.

 
 
I don't think it's full of drug cheats - I give people the benefit of the doubt unless there's strong evidence.  I accept the statistical likelihood that like any sport there's got to be a few cheats going undetected, but I don't think it's "full" of cheats and I even give the benefit of the doubt to my least favourite player(s).  
 
However, were I to be heaving large amounts of sponsorship money at the sport I'd need to go on more than giving the players the benefit of my doubts - I'd insist on definite action to step up the lax drug-testing regime to reduce the risk of my investment blowing up in my face.

I do think that tennis is full of people who are complacent, lazy, or frightened about a setting up a proper drug testing regime, and too many of them don't make the right noises or take the right actions about accepting the necessary restrictions of a proper regime.

Unfortunately, two of the most prominent players, Djokovic and Nadal, have from time to time said stupid things about drugs and drug testing, such as complaining about the intrusiveness of the pathetic drug-testing regime, supporting Troicki whilst failing to acknowledge his massive personal responsibility for the disaster that befell him, or tweeting 'my champion' when obvious drug-cheat Contador was nailed.

I would stress that such stupid behaviour doesn't of itself make them drug cheats, or even suspected drug cheats, but it's hardly helpful to their sport or to their position and such nonsense should really stop if they don't want to build up long-term problems for their sport.
 
Thankfully Murray has started to talk sense after some silly early stuff, and Federer does too (that doesn't make them 100% clean any more than stupid words make people cheats, but it's at least helpful to the desirable end of a proper regime).

And re Troicki, it would seem that the Doctor should have been a bit more assertive, but in my book Troicki is pathetic for not accepting his own responsibility.

barrystar. I don't agree. Why should the doctor have been assertive? I reckon the doctor just has to turn up. It is not their job to make threats or persuade. Being tested is something that athletes do voluntarily. They can refuse for whatever reason as they are under no legal obligation to submit to any testing. But of course being tested is necessary if they want to participate. If Troiki had something to hide of course he should be punished. If Troiki is so stupid that he doesn't understand the rules that is no defense. Ha ha! "Those pills are perfectly legal and I was feeling a bit run down. That man in the chemist didn't tell me they would show up on a drugs test. It was his fault".

barrystar. It makes no difference whatsoever what the players say. You said yourself if you were putting sponsorship money in you would want the player receiving it to be squeaky clean? You would probably want them to say the right things about drugs and testing wouldn't you?

I agree with you in that I don't think tennis is full of cheats. Looking at it statistically I would be surprised if it is completely "clean". There is too much money involved for no one to try and gain an edge in this way. But I'm not convinced that the sort of edge that is required in tennis can be acquired with drugs.

Oh my God... I completely agree with Hawkeye!

Help!!  

hawkeye wrote:But I'm not convinced that the sort of edge that is required in tennis can be acquired with drugs.

I'd disagree with that. As the fitness levels required to compete at the very top have increased, so have the advantages that doping can provide in that area increased.

Improved recovery and fitness are essential nowadays, so drugs could easily help here.

I think the truth lies somewhere between Barrystar and Hawkeye views. But I would lean more towards the Barrystar view. Takes rather a hard line but it is a pretty sound argument.

Funny thing is, a couple of years ago, I regularly tried to discuss drugs in tennis on forums and you would be either criticised for daring to broach the subject, or moderated, or ignored. At least people have woken up to the fact that is a fair topic for discussion.

hawkeye wrote:barrystar. I don't agree. Why should the doctor have been assertive? I reckon the doctor just has to turn up. It is not their job to make threats or persuade. Being tested is something that athletes do voluntarily. They can refuse for whatever reason as they are under no legal obligation to submit to any testing. But of course being tested is necessary if they want to participate. If Troiki had something to hide of course he should be punished. If Troiki is so stupid that he doesn't understand the rules that is no defense. Ha ha! "Those pills are perfectly legal and I was feeling a bit run down. That man in the chemist didn't tell me they would show up on a drugs test. It was his fault".

barrystar. It makes no difference whatsoever what the players say. You said yourself if you were putting sponsorship money in you would want the player receiving it to be squeaky clean? You would probably want them to say the right things about drugs and testing wouldn't you?

I agree with you in that I don't think tennis is full of cheats. Looking at it statistically I would be surprised if it is completely "clean". There is too much money involved for no one to try and gain an edge in this way. But I'm not convinced that the sort of edge that is required in tennis can be acquired with drugs.

Hmm

a. I am critical of Troicki, very critical in case you had not noticed. Ultimately the responsibility lies with him, but the Doctor's role is not above criticism. Were I that Doctor I'd like to think that the Tribunal would have no hesitation in believing that I had told Troicki in no uncertain terms not to be such a putz because there would be a contemporaneous written record and my conduct at the time would have been so unambiguous that he wouldn't get away with creating a factual dispute that is difficult to resolve. It's not much good doing the right thing if you don't have a clear record of it in some situations - and that was one of them.

b. Of course what the players say about drug testing makes a difference - if Nadal and Djokovic are slagging off the testing regime and making noises which suggest that they are not 100% behind efforts to catch cheats, they do not sound like they accept that players have an over-arching personal responsibility, and fail to criticise drug taking in others it can only harm efforts to combat PED's. Sensible talk doesn't solve the problem, but silly talk helps perpetuate it.

c. Tennis is increasingly a sport where drug cheats stand to reap huge rewards for taking drugs - sure you need to know how to hit a ball, but if you are always arriving late or not placing your feet properly because you aren't fit enough all the hand-eye co-ordination in the world is wasted on you.

One aspect that gets ignored in this desire to maker drug regimes stricter is that there is no universal drug policy and NADOs are responsible locally but have to contend with differences in Laws of the Specific Nation and it's interpretations.

Operacion Puerto and Spanish Laws are prime examples of such variations.

The other side that is ignored is the conflict of interest between winning (think of Olympics medals) and unfair competition (China, East Germany,…).

Winning, by any legal means, possibly stretches of the meaning of word itself.

Oxygen tents, hyperbaric chambers, etc., come to mind.

Borg would possibly have won 5 Grand Slams, if such devices were available, IMHO, while McEnroe was busy playing doubles.

National rivalries can also produce cross-country stereo-types.

But the same rules apply to all professional tennis players so national laws shouldn't make a difference. What difference would it have made were Troicki English or Spanish?

The difference, IMO, is the levity allowed in national laws, vs rules for ATP professionals. If I was training for Barcelona 1992 and had Fuentes as a doctor, Olympics, still being governed by IOC/WADA, turned a blind eye.

ATP/WADA has rules but it relies on NADOs to enforce them.

In Troicki's case, nationality was irrelevant due to individual irresponsibility.

This may be an extreme example, but some countries have death penalty for murders, even some states in US do, while others do not. There is no universal punishment for murder, but yet there are universal rules of WADA. Countries are signatories to WADA code, but yet punishments are different.

Barrystar's Contador example is quite poignant.

The enforcement of WADA code is sub-contracted, and testing varies by country. I recall a very famous biography which mentions that the player(s) knew at what time/days the testers would show up.

@HE.. Cycling also has a lot of money and sponsorships, but yet see what depths it has been to.

My adopted country, US, was a sponsor of cyclists, including an organization called US Postal Service (and the Discovery TV Channel was also involved).

Look at these (hindsight is always 20/20 - and yes, I have dragged LA into this discussion, a favorite of LS on the Other Tennis Forum).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Postal_Service_Pro_Cycling_Team

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cycling/2013/07/23/lance-armstrong-postal-service-lawsuit/2581439/

Cycling doesn't have nearly as much money as other sports.
It isn't a profitable sport, hence why many pull out from financial issues on top of doping issues.