Dr. Stuart Miller (2009, Wall Street Journal): "The whereabouts rule is a cornerstone of our policy...The only way to have an effective anti-doping policy is to know where a player will be to conduct random testing."
Let's put that to the test. Dr. Miller assumed control of the tennis anti-doping program in 2006. For that year, the ITF collected 150 out-of-competition (OOC) samples. In 2006, a total of 1,733 samples were collected, meaning that the OOC samples accounted for 8.7 percent of samples. Fast forward to 2011: the ITF collected 216 out-of-competition samples. That year a total of 2,150 samples were collected, meaning that OOC samples accounted for 10 percent of samples. Not bad for six years on the job, no?
No ITF players have been sanctioned for a positive OOC sample during the 2006-2011 period. Also, during this period, the ITF did not on its own motion sanction any players for whereabouts failures, although it did recognize a sanction passed by the Flemish Doping Tribunal against two ITF players (Yanina Wickmayer and Xavier Malisse). These players are currently in the process of appealing their whereabouts failures.
Does this look like a "cornerstone" of testing policy in professional tennis? Testing may only catch "dopey dopers," but the effort being put forth under Dr. Miller's watch is wholly inadequate.
I found some notes on a 2010 WADA symposium at which Stuart Miller gave a presentation. According to the notes, the ITF is aiming for 3 OOC tests per 18 months per registered pool player. This is the minimum number of tests required to trigger a whereabouts violation, if a player missed all 3 tests. If accurate, these notes confirm why the ITF isn't triggering any whereabouts violations (or positive OOC results) as they're not even aiming for anything more than the bare minimum (and they're not even succeeding at hitting this low level as evidenced by the ITF's anti-doping statistics). If someone could track down a copy of Miller's presentation it would be helpful.