Why is out-of-competition (OOC) testing in tennis so inadequate? Here is some more insight into the views of Dr. Stuart Miller that may helps explain things: "[Dr. Stuart] Miller believes that the policy is unworkable in tennis because of the peripatetic nature of competitors [...] and that it could lead to a surge in bans." (The Guardian, Wednesday 18 June 2008)
Well, we certainly haven't seen a "surge in bans," have we? It's hard to have bans when you rarely test player out of competition.
Here's the full Miller statement on OOC from the 2008 Guardian article:
"Tennis is not like athletics in the sense that those taking part do not map out their training programme and the two or three events they are going to take part in at the start of the year...Tennis players take part in single-elimination competitions and if they get knocked out on day one of an event they'll simply move on to another one, go home or go on holiday...The most important thing from the point of view of the whereabouts provision is that they are not going to be where they said they would be and if you imagine all the players in our pool having to provide us with constantly updated information and us having to keep track of that, it's fair to say there are going to be significant problems going forward. Many players could easily fall foul to a series of missed tests or filing failures quite quickly."With this view, is it any surprise why the tennis anti-doping program has shown such little progress on OOC testing? Why does Dr. Miller continue to manage the tennis anti-doping program?
Time for a change.