There are two tables presented below regarding doping tests conducted at the 2009 Australian Open. The first breaks down the tests according to draw (e.g., singles, doubles, etc.). The second table breaks things down according to winners tested and losers tested for the main singles and doubles draws.
The table reveals that the aggregate testing statistics presented in the ITF's 2009 summary report are somewhat misleading. The summary reports states that 150 tests were carried out (74 men; 76 women). However, the ITF summary doesn't indicate that these tests were spread across not just the main singles, doubles, and mixed doubles draws, but also include the qualfying rounds as well as the juniors tournaments. Second, if you're paying attention, you'll notice that my totals differ (74 men; 75 women) from the ITF's totals. The discrepancy is due to the ITF making errors in their detailed statistics. They included a female wheechair test in the men's data, and a junior boys test in the women's data. So, I shifted the junior test into the mens numbers and dropped the wheelchair test.
The second table, of course, shows the ITF's in-competition test distribution plan for the 2009 Australian Open to be weak in the extreme. Match winners were only tested in the finals. In all other rounds only the losing player(s) was tested. This finding came from my earlier analysis of the men's and women's draws.
Does this look like a stringent testing regime? Who thinks tennis historians should place an asterik next to the 2009 Australian Open?