Now for some fun. We've looked at the testing for a Grand Slam event, but what about the rest? Do the smaller tournaments use the same testing distribution? To start, I decided to take a look at a 250-series event: 2009 Buenos Aires. The tournament ran from February 16 through February 22, 2009. Winners were actually tested! However, I quickly realized that there was something amiss.
Isolated incident? No. What about the 2009 Indian Wells draw? Indian Wells (or BNP Paribas Open) It's a Masters 1000 Series event for the men and a Premier Mandatory on the women's tour. It ran from March 9 through March 22, 2009. The last doping control was on March 16.
Here's what the entire 2009 tournament testing schedule looked like (excluding Grand Slam events, Fed and Davis Cup, and Wheelchair events):
The weighting should placed on the later rounds when player fatigue would be a factor. Instead, it seems that the plan is to get the doping controls done quickly (which, at least, means some winners get tested). Do you think players wouldn't be aware of what was going on? "Hey, where did the doping control officers go? No one got tested today." And "I got tested after my first round match. I know that means that I won't get tested again even, if I win the tournament."
With such a testing protocol would it be of any surprise to see players recover miraculously from brutal matches in the late rounds of tournaments?
Also, keep in mind that there were tournaments where there were no doping controls at all. For example, there were no tests done for the men's or woman's draws at the 2009 Rogers Cup (a Masters/Premier event) held in Montreal (men) and Toronto (women).
Is there anything left to say about doping control in tennis?
As always, I encourage you to check the stats yourself to verify my results. Let me know if you find any errors.
Data Sources:
ITF 2009 Testing Statistics
ATP 2009 Main Tour Schedule
ATP 2009 Challenger Schedule
WTA 2009 Schedule
Excellent post again Sen. This is almost laughable. Players are literally as-good-as guaranteed not to be tested in the last few days. Even in those clay court Masters they stopped testing 3, 5, and 2 days before the end. That's BEFORE the semis! This probably happens every year too. A virtual *invitation* to dope in later rounds.
ReplyDeletewhat a wonderful post. so it appears that for non gs, all the testing is occurring conveniently and regularly prior to the later rounds, and for the GS (mainly AO) the testing is occurring for the winners only (singles and doubles).
ReplyDeleteThe pattern is so regular that anyone with half an inkling about the comings and goings on the pro tennis tour can match their cycles to as to avoid doping.
Wonderful stuff Sen; you are doing a fine job of exposing the pathetic nature of investigative journalism in the "professional world", making them look bad by doing the real work.
i made a slight error..for GS it appears you get tested once and that is it, unless you win the tournament
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z9zI79P8X0
ReplyDeleteEither Nadal is the greatest athlete in the history of the world, or he's getting "a little help"...
Have to almost feel sorry for Berdych. Although with his Tipsarevic-looking quad muscles, I don't know if I do really.
*Sigh*
ReplyDeleteThe question now is: Can Federer beat Nadal, in his current state? Sadly, for me anyway, I feel the answer is no. Which depresses me to no end because it's beauty and the beast and I prefer the beauty....
I think Federer can win, but Nadal probably will. Nadal was very nervous early on against Berdych, but by the 3rd set he was in his element running around like an energizer bunny, as per usual. Fed will choke against him in either the 4th of 5th set.
DeleteEither way, Djok will win the title. He is unstoppable!
Especially now, since Djopervik, "overcame" an "injury." Will wonders never cease?
Deletebtw...
ReplyDeleteSNR you are doing awesome reporting! Thanks!
Keep the faith!
As the old saying goes: The truth will out!
A couple of observations regarding the ongoing Australian Open:
ReplyDelete1. Those interested in the cutting-edge live TV-coverage should not miss the amazing work of the Australian TV crews in exploring, between each point, how slow the slowmo can get before there's nomo - adding, no end, to the epic glory of the game.
2. Those who think that the screaming female players are (alongside the false MTA-takers, intimidators of opponents and umpires, extenders of the time allotted between the last point and serve, etc.) the worst perpetrators of gamesmanship (not to mention their being a royal pain in the ear and the arse for us audiences!), should rest assured: the WTA is going to "take measures", consisting of working with the coaches who work with children to try and discourage the behaviour - while the present screamers (why do I find such a strong/loud word to be too weak/quiet?), such as Sharapova and Azarenka, shall be granted a bypass, since they, poor darlings, would be put at disadvantage, given their history of wrong upbringing, of which one of the fundamentals was "hit as hard as you can, but, by God, scream harder". Never mind those better/finer players who possibly lost to the screeching owls because of the screeching! And so: all hail Dame Mo Seles, the introducer of the practice, who "never won Wimbledon because she (to her credit, heeded the criticism of the colleagues and) stopped screaming". And all hail the WTA for the firm stance in this, as any other, sensitive ethical matter! But, most of all, all hail the Australian audience laughing out Sharapova for her ridiculously raised volume of her ridiculous volume of screaming, after the lost first set in the match against Sabine Lisicki, who, curiously enough, subsequently lost the match!
Just imagine a Sharapova-Azarenka Final! Someone's gonna get hurt.
DeleteThe solution to the grunting/screaming problem is simple. The opponents need to make an official complaint. If I remember correctly this is what silenced Seles in Wimbledon.
DeleteSimple Simon says: "Slowmo camera has provided some really wonderful pictures throughout this tournament!" (That is, Simon Reed, of the Eurosport fame, proving, though most probably unconscious of my post above, that I am too complicated to experience the wonderfulness of a minute-long, zoomed, slomo rising of the ball into the air, or, just as long or longer, epic fist-clenching of an Azarenka - even at the cost of missing half or more of the next point). (Then he galloped off track, riding his hobby-horse, to convert them Aussie $ to US $, just to give us a clear picture of how much the prizes for superiorly getting the ball over the net and within the confines of the opponent's field are really worth.) Well, dear Simon, I know you probably do not read seditious sites, but all the same, I feel humbly corrected and solemnly promise to do my best and become just as wonderfully simple as you are. I'll boil up some coffee, roll a fag, relax and still be in time to enjoy the spectacle - calculator in hand. For I love sports, and most of all sports I love tennis - therefore, I am ready to do anything just to keep tennis loving me.
DeleteWhat do you guys think about Clijsters? She is not muscled up like some of the other suspects. Her arms are bulky but looks to me more fat than muscle. But she's playing and moving amazingly for someone who is injured.
ReplyDeleteBesides, all comebacks are suspect to me anyway. She was an underachiever and then she comes back after a few years and is now winning in an almost unstoppable manner.
A difficult question. Kim is a perfect example of a mesomorph verging on the endomorphic constitution - and as such just keeps on growing with age; she will probably become even larger (with more fatty tissue) when she ends her professional run. Such a type, besides of naturally having a broad frame and a large muscle mass, also tends to be psychologically very stable, calm and self-assured. And then: in the midst of her career, she gave birth to a perfectly healthy child. Having said that, I do not maintain that she does/did not use any PEDs, but, based on the above observations, she is surely not on my list of obvious suspects.
DeleteMust say Kim isn't #1 on my hitlist either. She has come back and won a few slams, but did it against little competition. And she did retire to have a baby, unlike Henin who retired suddenly for no good reason. Obviously Henin is far more suspicious than Cleisters. For me, Kim might be as suspect as anyone else, but not really more so. It's not like she won more than about 1 slam a year any way.
Delete