Thursday, March 1, 2012

2011 ITF Anti-Doping Statistics: What the...?!? (Updated #6)

Update #6


 
Update #5 (Corrected)

Slight correction to the data: There were some players that only had out of competition tests, but their entries were getting incorrectly put into the in-competition category when I was copying and pasting from the ITF file into Excel. I think I've corrected them all now. Here are the revised results:



2011: 1934 In-competition specimens; 216 Out-of-Competition; 2150 Total
2010: 1846 In-competition specimens; 229 Out-of-Competition; 2075 Total

One observation: Fewer players were tested in 2011 (642) compared to 2010 (666).


Original Posts
The ITF's anti-doping statistics for 2011 are up. They give "Tests per player" stats, which give ranges for the number of tests a player was given. They also provide tests per player for 2010. I need to look at this more closely...

Update:

Some observations. As noted in the comments, Serena Williams is listed as not having any out-of-competition tests in 2011. We now have proof that no sample was given during the panic room incident. Under normal conditions, refusing to give a sample once the identity of the doping control officer is established is an anti-doping violation. Clearly, there was no finding of an anti-doping violation in this case. Why?

Second, below are the four players that faced the most out-of-competition tests in 2011.
Interesting group of players.
 Name  Nationality  In-Competition  Out-of-Competition 
 Dlouhy, Lukas  CZE  4-6  4-6 
 Dulgheru, Alexandra  ROU  1-3  4-6 
 Kanepi, Kaia  EST  1-3  4-6 
 Pironkova, Tsvetana  BUL  1-3  4-6 


Third, there were a total of 131 blood tests in 2011 (down from 150 in 2010). Of those tests, 110 were in-competition (140 in 2010) with the remaining 21 out-of-competition (10 in 2010). Why the decrease?

Update #2

From the 2010, tests per player statistics it is indicated that Andy Murray did not face an ITF out-of-competition test that year. Also, neither Williams sister received an OOC test in 2010 (just like in 2011). However, here are the players that faced the most out-of-competition tests in 2010. It's another interesting list of names (and Kaia Kanepi is on the list again):

 Name  Nationality  In-Competition  Out-of-Competition 
 Berdych, Tomas  CZE  7+  4-6 
 Ferrer, David  ESP  7+  4-6 
 Ferrero, Juan Carlos  ESP  1-3  4-6 
 Isner, John  USA  4-6  4-6 
 Ivanovic, Ana  SRB  7+  4-6 
 Kanepi, Kaia  EST  7+  4-6 
 Kirilenko, Maria  RUS  4-6  4-6 
 Medina Garrigues, Anabel  ESP  4-6  4-6 

Update #3

According to the ITF: "The WADA Code requires the TADP [Tennis Anti-Doping Programme] to establish an International Registered Testing Pool (IRTP) of players, each member of which must provide whereabouts information for every day of the year. The IRTP includes (but is not limited to) the ATP top 50, WTA top 50, top 10 doubles players and top 5 men, women and quad wheelchair players."

The above implies that the IRTP will have, at least, somewhere around 145 players. However, from the data posted, only 123 132 players received an out-of-competition test in 2011. Only 118 129 players received an OOC in 2010. Thus, many IRTP players do not get (or "missed") an OOC test (e.g., both Williams sisters (2010 & 2011), Murray (2010), Roddick (2010), Na (2010 & 2011), Nestor (2011), Wozniacki (2010)).

Update #4

Stringent testing? Tested "all the time"? In 2011, here are some top players that the ITF tested less than 10 times:
  
 Name  Nationality  In-Competition  Out-of-Competition 
 Bartoli, Marion  FRA  4-6  1-3 
 Federer, Roger  SUI  4-6  1-3 
 Fish, Mardy  USA  4-6  1-3 
 Isner, John  USA  4-6  1-3 
 Monfils, Gael  FRA  4-6  1-3 
 Roddick, Andy  USA  4-6  1-3 
 Schiavone, Francesca  ITA  4-6  1-3 
 Sharapova, Maria  RUS  4-6  1-3 
 Wozniacki, Caroline  DEN  4-6  1-3 

38 comments:

  1. seems those links under their charts do not work....temporary server load perhaps?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just tried the links. They work for me.

      Delete
  2. It seems neither Williams had an OOC test so the panic room gimmick worked.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It must have been a phoney doping inspector!

      Delete
  3. Actually, the Williams haven't had an OOC for two years. Neither has Li Na. For all the whining Murray does, he had no OOC in 2010 and neither did the other whining Andy.

    Can we assume since all the other high profile active top 20 players had submitted OOC samples, that their absence might suggest a whereabouts rule compliance failure?

    Just quick observations. But I'll wait SNR's detailed analysis of the data.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dlouhy? That's weird, he's basically retired.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He still plays a lot of doubles, which isn't to say that it's not weird that he was tested a lot.

      Delete
  5. I can't open the PDFs. It says 'page not found'?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmmm...the links seem to be inconsistent. They were working a couple of minutes ago. No doubt all tennis media trying to download the documents are crashing the site.

      Delete
    2. They're slow to download but I had no problem downloading them.

      Delete
  6. Sorry for being a noob but what does 4-6 actually mean? how many times has Bartoli been tested, 4 times, 6 times?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For OOC it's highly likely to be 4 imo, since they are really short on testing resources. Only 91 wta OOC tests for the entire year, so if they test one person 6 times ....

      Delete
  7. Other first thought: the 4-6s for OOCs are odd, given the number of tests is the same. In 2009 the max was 2, but giving some 4 now means there will also be a lot more who got none.

    They seemed to have shifted to a wider distribution, spreading it between 0 and 4 tests. In 2009 most got 1, and only a few got 0 or 2 (and of course we know who missed em back then too also).

    ReplyDelete
  8. I couldn't view the documents either. Says simply "Page not Found". But I tried now and it works for now.

    So Djokovic faced "1-3" OOC tests in 2011. Despite his huge performance increase, never been seen before, which is according to their own documents, a real signal for target testers, he still only gets a lame "1-3" OOC tests? This could well mean one single test, for what he did the whole year. Probably taken in October!

    Completely Useless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In fact, if Djokovic did only receive one test, then it surely was done in October, as we heard about it last year via twitter didn't we:

      http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.com/2011/10/tweets-keep-on-coming.html

      As Henman says below, it is strange that they use a range, and to me makes it seem the lowest possible result is likely the true one, with the others to try and save face. In this case the OOC testing for Djoker last year was as good as non existent.

      Delete
  9. Why even bother with a range? Just give the number. Why do they feel the need to hid the precise number?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They probably give a range to make it seem that they give more tests than they really do. "4-6" probably means 4. "1-3" probably means 1. Or am I just being cynical?

      Delete
  10. Ha ha, looks like the ITF was forced to put some more info up and used this bogus "range" to obfuscate. Good work, Sen. I think you shamed them (or WADA) into giving up at least some info. Of course, they don't tell us if a test was missed. I very much doubt that they never even tried to test a player in a particular year, which means a player with no OOC tests ditched at least one test (we already know that to be true for Serena). I'll speculate that Venus is using "Sjogren's Syndrome" as an excuse for being unable to urinate. I was thrown because it usually causes more frequent urination, but then she is probably claiming to be on a medication that prevents urination. This also points to the likelihood that Murray missed at least one test in 2010.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I agree with commenters who are saying the range is intended to obscure things. For example, on the OOC tests, the 2011 test summary shows that there 195 OOC urine samples and 21 blood for a total of 216 OOC samples. We know from the tests per player that 123 players recieved 1 or more OOC tests. Doing the math works out to 1.77 OOC tests per player receiving an OOC test. So, listing players with a 1-3 test range distorts the true distribution/frequency.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Another observation: Why did the ITF not report on which 2011 tournaments had testing?

    ReplyDelete
  13. How well do test stats match up with test tweets?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Sen,
    Putting a "range" of 1-3 is a way for them to avoid giving too much info to this blog. It was clear from the 2009 data, that almost every player who only had one test, had missed another one. If we know who had only one test, it would be a give away that they probably missed one. I suspect that those who had zero tests actually missed two. I think we can see why Murray is so angry about testing. It is a disgrace that they let Serena get away with 1 test in 3 years and we know that she missed at least two during that time, and probably more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The other thing is that we don't even know if the ITF is counting missed OOC tests as "missed tests" against the 18-month whereabouts rule. I'm sure they are forgiving some "missed tests" because the player came up with an excuse.

      Delete
    2. THASP could be correct. I think this is a better idea than the theory that it's to obscure the total number of tests by 10 or 20% or whatever which is not a big deal when some of us might think the number of tests should be 3x or 10x more.

      To protect individuals who only had 1 test makes more sense. Still seems silly to me.

      Delete
  15. I can't believe no one has commented on Djokovic's poor form in Dubai. I know this is off-topic for this thread but he appeared like the Djokovic of old this past week, certainly nothing like the player who showed up at the AO or the better part of last year. What's going on? Did someone slip gluten into his diet? Has he decided all that matters now is the GS's and the Olympics? Maybe he realized last year he couldn't keep it up, as we saw after the USO how he declined so severely and is taking a different tack. I was really interested to see if he could repeat what he did last year but it looks like the answer is "no". Unless his goal is the Golden Slam, which would not surprise me and in which case he is willing to sacrifice some smaller tournaments to get the big prize. If that happens I will stop watching tennis altogether. If he is declared the GOAT it will be the biggest crime in sports history.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Watch Djokovic win 5 titles in 2012: the 4 Slams and the Olympics.

      Delete
    2. Dubai was really quick this year, that changes things a bit. Djokovic's two key exceptional elements that make him unbeatable are the return, and the ability to get to every ball - on a quick court you just can't do the latter, and the former a big server can neutralise (Murray served 71% first serve, and they were bombs too).

      We'll see in IW/Miami. I imagine certainly he'll try manage his schedule a bit better this year - last season by midyear there were far too many matches under his belt regardless of his .... "nutrition".

      Delete
    3. If anyone is tempted to make the theory that Djokovic is having periods of being doped and period of not, isn't that theory damanged a bit by his form last year from March - May, won tournament after tournament, week after week, none of them slams. IW, Miami, Rome, Madrid, and maybe the one in Serbia I think. It was a bit odd how after the tiredness from this schedule caught up with against Murray at Cincinatti or Canada he then, apart from the US Open, seemed to be tired and recovering for an excessively long time, a few months!

      Delete
    4. He also one Dubai last year and several other years so surely one bad result is not that suspicous.

      I think Serena is way more suspicious.

      Delete
    5. Maybe Djokovic is still recovering from the Australian Open final.

      Delete
    6. I still think that we are witnessing his up-and-down cycles. Constitutions differ, and his is, compared to the other doping toppers, relatively frail, as well as his health; it is, therefore, possible that he cannot handle prolonged juicing as well as some of his brothers-in-arms, so that the doctor, whoever it is, decided to use shorter cycles on him, targeting the Slam-tournaments and the Olympic Games. If so, poor darling: he'll have to temper his greed and give up a part of his beloved Übermenschheit.

      Delete
  16. Does anyone else find it so ironic that Murray tweeted this in 2010: "Drug testing regulations r beyond a joke" (posted in the right panel here). Yes, Andy, it is a joke that you had not been tested once out of competition that year!

    http://twitter.com/#!/andy_murray/status/15793981339

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On a second and less cynical thought, doesn't this sound like a veiled admission that he missed an OOC test on purpose? He complains about testing regulations during a year he had not or failed to undergo testing?

      Delete
    2. Maybe he meant it's a joke because it's so easy to evade drug testing.

      Delete
    3. In that case his silly laughter at the end of his tweet could be interpreted as "haha amazing stuff (how easy it is to avoid getting tested)"

      Delete
  17. If you want to know nothing, just ask Brad Gilbert.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The range obfuscation by the ITF is bizarre. If your statistics are between 0-4 mostly, then fair ranges would have been 0-1, 2-3, and 4-5, and 6+. Yet, they distort the results by putting 1-3, and eliminating 0. Perhaps missed tests are still counted as tests... I feel sorry for kids who watch these egotistically dopers. They are being cheated if trying to play like the dopers. What a joke. Of course the ITF doesn't care... Why should they? With "Super" Nadal, Djoker and Federer, they are making the biggest bucks...

    ReplyDelete