Thursday, June 28, 2012

Odesnik Transcript

The complete transcript is now posted on Wimbledon's website. Here are some excerpts:

Q. Why was your ban halved?
WAYNE ODESNIK: Yeah, I heard today that there was a pretty harsh article that I think is a little bit unfair for the media to write something that is completely and utterly 100% false.
As the ITF said and what I had with them, which is obviously medical records that I was able to show them to substantiate the reasoning of why that medication was recommended to me by medical doctors. Obviously there is information there that cannot be ‑‑ it's medical information, which with the ITF, that is private information, just as if you go to the doctor. It's private.
I think one thing I would like each and every single one of you to jot this down in capital letters, I would 100% never say anything bad about a player or do something that I was a spy or something of that sort. That is utterly 100% false. I don't know where you guys started this rumor or where you heard it from, but I think that needs to be clarified.

Q. So why was it halved? Did you offer substantial assistance to the authorities?
WAYNE ODESNIK: Yeah, I explained to them why I had the medication. I proved to them medical information of why I had it, and for that I was 100% honest with them.
I never tried to lie to them. I was completely honest with them, and therefore, they understood the reasoning why I had it and they reduced my sentence.

Q. You have never given any information about other players to the authorities?


Q. Do you think what you said today will clear the air in the locker room?
WAYNE ODESNIK: I don't know. I mean, I am telling you guys ‑‑ you asked why my sentence was half. I'm telling you the information I gave to the ITF and the reasoning behind it, what the substantial assistance was was that I was completely honest with them, gave them all the information and four months of records, of everything.
They seemed fit to let me play. So what do you want from me? I'm here, I'm doing the best that I can, I'm playing, I'm proving that I belong here.
You know, I'm trying to keep to myself the best that I can, be friendly with people if they're friendly with me. That's it.

Q. Why did you have HGH in the first place?
WAYNE ODESNIK: Well, obviously you, in the last two years, you didn't read the papers?

Q. No, just to finish off what you said.
WAYNE ODESNIK: I have already stated that two years ago. I don't need to get into that now.

Q. The treatment you had the last two years, media and other players, do you think it's really unfair for you?
WAYNE ODESNIK: Yeah. I mean, you know, another thing with the ITF was that if I kept everything private with them and if I didn't talk to the media, if I just kind of went about my business, that was another ‑‑ and gave them the information and that, you know, the medical information that I had given them and things like that, that's what they had requested on my behalf.
So obviously there were things in the media which I could have been able to speak out on, but, you know, it's not going to change anything. Just trying to, you know, use it as motivation to come back and let my racquet do the talking.


  1. Question for Richard Ings:

    Taking Odesnik's statements above at face value indicate that the information he furnished did not lead to any investigations nor did they implicate any individual in anti-doping violations.

    The information appears to be solely related to medical information justifying his possession of HGh. He states the information was used to "substantiate the reasoning of why that medication was recommended to me by medical doctors."

    The ITF has not many any statement contradicting Odesnik's story.

    If this is all true, isn't the ITF's deal with Odesnik out of compliance with the WADA Code?

    Second, does Odesnik's explanation make sense? I don't think it does. Medical information should have been provided during the anti-doping tribunal hearing. This isn't what happened with Odesnik. The information was provided ex post, after he had already been suspended.

  2. According to the ITF press release that went out in December of 2010

    Wayne Odesnik "...has had the remaining twelve months of his ineligibility suspended pursuant to Article M.5.3 of the Programme, on account of ongoing Substantial Assistance provided by Mr Odesnik in relation to the enforcement of professional rules of conduct." I tried to find what Article M.5.3 said specifically but I couldn't find it when I googled it. It might give clarity as to what is considered "substantial assistance."


      10.5.3 In any individual case where a period of Ineligibility has been imposed, the ITF may suspend a part of that period of Ineligibility where the Participant has provided Substantial Assistance to the ITF or other Anti-Doping Organisation, a criminal authority or a professional disciplinary body that results in the ITF or other Anti-Doping Organisation discovering or establishing an Anti-Doping
      Rule Violation by another Person or that results in a criminal
      authority or disciplinary body discovering or establishing a criminal offence or the breach of professional rules by another Person; provided that if the decision to suspend a part of the period of Ineligibility is made after a final appellate decision under Article 12 or the expiration of time to appeal, then WADA’s approval is required for such suspension. The extent to which the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be suspended shall be based on
      the seriousness of the Anti-Doping Rule Violation committed by the Participant and the significance of the Substantial Assistance provided by the Participant to the effort to eliminate doping in sport. No more than three quarters (¾) of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be suspended. If the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is a lifetime, the non-suspended period under this Article must be no less than 8 years. If the ITF suspends any part of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility under this Article, it shall promptly provide a written justification for its decision to each Anti-Doping Organisation having a right to appeal the decision under Article 12. If the ITF subsequently reinstates any part of the
      suspended period of Ineligibility because the Participant has failed to provide the Substantial Assistance that was anticipated, the Participant may appeal the reinstatement pursuant to Article 12.2.

    2. Time to reinstate the suspension, I suppose?

  3. Nadal loses to the number 100 player.

    I guess that strategy of waiting for the final week to top up on testosterone worked against him today.

    1. Or was it the visit of the testers the other day that made him nervous. Sorry, affected his confidence.
      Hasta luego, I won't miss you 'cause you're a cheat.

    2. His opponent decimated Nadal today and made him look ordinary. Nadal played poorly but perhaps because he wasn't "confident"? The early upset I had hoped for has happened. Kudos to the testers if they scared off the juicers.

    3. Sorry, I just checked his serve speeds.

      119 mph in his first match (I believe that this is the fastest he has ever served at Wimbledon).
      118 Mph in his second match (matching his fastest ever before at Wimbledon).

      I can't explain this loss, unless it was intentional. Next to Federer, Nadal has had the most success here for the last 7 years, then he loses to the number 100 player ?

      I am starting to suspect a predetermined result (one last championship for Federer ? That just seems like the Cinderella story to me) If Federer now wins (after going 2 1/2 years without a slam), tennis has become the new pro wrestling.

    4. I think it's fairly easily explained. Stamina played zero role in this match because his opponent, purposely or not, never let a rally go more than a few shots. Take away Nadal's stamina edge and he's 75%-85% of the player we see on clay and on slower hard courts. Take away the bounce his spin produces on clay and a lot of the hardcourts and you end up with his balls bouncing slightly higher than the average players balls, which on grass against a tall player puts the ball squarely in the strike zone. Most tall players struggle on grass because of the low bounce. So take that away from the 75%-85% Nadal and now you have about a 70% Nadal and he loses to an average player. What I think it shows is why PED's wouldn't help tennis players much in a faster-paced game. Though the grass may be slower than in the past the ability of 6'5" guys to rip the ball balances it out so that today was essentially fast tennis. Not enough reaction time to muscle that ball all over the court and too short of points to allow EPO-fueled stamina to be effective. Take those advantages away from Nadal and he's human. Oh,yeah, and add to that this guy hadn't taken muscle-ball, EPO-fueled beatings from Nadal over the course of a few years so he didn't choke. Two weeks ago at RG this would have been Nadal 6-2, 6-1, 6-1 because the only points he would have won were aces and service winners. Nadal would have run everything else down and would have putting balls up at the guys shoulders for 12-shot rallies and the guy would have been gassed. That's my opinion and it's worth about a peso.

    5. This almost happened two years back for Nadal vs Robin Haase - who's also 6'5 with a gigantic serve. Difference is Haase is a massive choker, and not fit to play best of five. Rosol has played and and won a few.

      For those who haven't seen Rosol before, he often hits this many winners. He just usually fires a breathtakingly idiotic number of errors along with it, and they cancel each other out. See his match vs Berlocq at Roland Garros:

      A year before he beat Melzer in five sets at the French, with 100 unforced errors - the largest number I've ever seen in a single match.

      The only faint sign of this was beating Baghdatis at Queens, which was only really notable due to the fact it was only Rosol's 2nd ever main draw grass match (all his other matches were losses in R1 of Wimb qualifying)

    6. @OliverKlothesOff you're joking of course. You think the organizers of Wimby, the ITF and all the powers that be have convinced Nadal to throw a match so that Federer can win his last major? What are you are smoking? You' must be one of those Rafatards like Chris Fowler who thinks Nadal can't ever lose unless there's something fishy, like tendonitis in the knees or his parents divorcing or something in the water! He's a doper. The real truth we'll never know but I suspect this is 2009 all over again. Silent ban maybe? Because yes, I do believe it's unlikely that a doper of Nadal's magnitude would lose in the 2nd round of a major to #100 in the world, especially without a couple of MTO's and the injury excuse waiting to go.

      BTW don't insult Federer with your ridiculous insinuations. he's playing amazingly. If he wins Wimby it's because he's earned it. He's now #2 two in the world. If he wins Wimby he won't be the first player to win a major in his 30's and I'm sure he won't be the last.

    7. Would be this much sheer speculation if tennis didn't have a culture of secrecy? Was Nadal tested after losing? Why won't journalists ask this question?

    8. As Federer mentioned yesterday, and I am trying to elaborate, the covered roof creates a completely different environment for the favourite who is behind. You hear the sighs and the disappointed 'Ooohs' of your fans and of your team and family much more than usually and the pressure builds up in you. At the same time, this atmosphere may give a boost to the underdog. Especially in Nadal's case, it seems the public was very much behind the Czech player.
      Also interesting that Federer mentioned Rosol played so unbelievably well that he (Fed) couldn't stop laughing for ten minutes. Any pretense of friendship with the Spaniard is definitely gone.

    9. It also changes the conditions, heavier atmosphere a lot of them have said.

      A lot of players have really struggled with the roof closed, Nadal vs Rosol, Federer vs Benneteau, and Murray all three times.

  4. To put it into perspective, at 26 Rasol has never made it past the FIRST ROUND OF QUALIFYING BEFORE, and today he just beat the guy who has made the final of the last 5 grand slams ?

  5. You don't seriously think Nadal would tank it for money or, more curiously still, to please his good friend Roger, do you? Nadal would die sooner than tank a GS - unless of course, he was coerced (visits of testers, positive test even?). I suspect he was simply under-doped. Interesting, as it suggests what his real level without PEDs might have been all these years.

    1. I think you should give Rosol a little credit for playing out of his mind. Nadal has often had early struggles at Wimbledon, it was bound to catch up with him one of these times.

    2. Absolutely. Dĕkují vám mnohokrát, Pane Rosole. Výbornĕ ... a hodně stěstí! (= thanks and good luck)

  6. Quote from the Wimbledon website :

    "Lukas Rosol is playing Wimbledon for the first time. He's the world No.100. He lost 6-0, 6-0, 6-2 to Philipp Petzschner in the first round of the Australian Open in January. He didn't even qualify for Eastbourne last week. THIS IS RIDICULOUS"

    This is either a once in a lifetime performance, or a highly suspicious result. If you know tennis's history (where most players peaked before the age of 25), Rasol dosing this at 26 is EXTREMELY unusual.

  7. At 26 Rosol just won his 4th grass court match at the ATP level. Before this week, he only had two grass court match wins (both at lower level tournaments).

    And he beats the second best grass court player of this era ?

    1. Why are you so upset about this? I'm ecstatic. Finally Nadal has been put in his place. And if the kid is doping then I say Nadal was beaten at his own game. But Rosol doesn't look like a doper to me. He just played the match of his life and will probably lose to Kohlschreiber in the next round. But he did his job and deserves all the credit. Good for him!!

  8. I think swisscheese40 June 28, 2012 3:55 PM and Arf June 28, 2012 3:55 PM both hit the nail on the head. Looking at the wimbledon page stats his winners were 65, UF Errors 29.

    I have only seen highlights, but Rosol went for his winners and paid off. Clearly they went in more often than not and Nadal, not lapping up his 14 top-spin shot rallies, was left a little confused.

    Now he can go to Mallorca to prepare for the Olympics. Murray and Djokovic will be happy too.

  9. This is a huge shock too. We haven't seen stuff like this since the semi-primitive days of the 80's. (Ahh, remember those innocent times? They was fun...)

  10. I think people are reading too much into the Nadal loss, or are assuming the effects of doping can make up for a bad day at the office so to speak. Regardless of doping, the guys still have to play, and some days you don't have it. Nadal served up to 130mph and if his serve speeds really are meant to be indicative of doping as people often assert than it would seem he wasn't lacking in that department here ... the problem was the rest of his game, especially early on when he looked as though he had been out all night doing Jagerbombs.

    I did find the commentary interesting when Rosol came out for the fifth set with tons of energy and McEnroe asked if Rosol had had four espresso's during the break, and Cahill likewise tweeted "Are you kidding me! Rosol playing like he had 5 red bulls in the 40 minute break. No nerves and full of belief & bounce. 2/0 over Rafa."

    1. I agree that Rosol played probably the best match of his life and mostly took the racquet out of Nadal's hand. Despite that, Nadal looked slightly out of form (for whatever reason) throughout all of his two matches (except for the fourth set against Rosol).

  11. Well, given today's results, I'm guessing that the Odesnik story is now dead. We'll just be reading endless analysis of Rosol-Nadal for the next few days.

  12. The thing about the Odesnik Gate is that it created such a mess for the ITF and ATP that next time something like that happens, we will not even know about a deal between the ITF and the doper.

    In fact the reason we know anything at all about this is that the cheating was uncovered by the Australian customs. Had it been WADA, we may have never heard about this.

  13. Nadal has always been vulnerable in the first week of Wimbledon regardless of whether he dopes or not
    Taking PED's doesnt guarantee winning,it enhances your ability and what you achieve through taking them you would never be able to achieve naturally,so Nadal can still lose even if he is doping
    Looking back to 2010,he was clearly juicing but even then he was still very vulnerable in the first week and came close to losing in 2 different matches.I remember the match with Petzchner where Nadal had to take a MTO to cool Petzchner and steal his momentum
    Nadal was clearly still serving very well in his match with Rosol,the only difference with Rosol is that he didn't choke like the other players who came close to beating Nadal did
    He was also helped by the break when they closed the roof,the momentum was with Nadal after he won the 4th set.Rosel really benefited from that and came back playing even better
    Nadal was rattled from the beginning and when he gets stunned he loses
    The conditions also changes when the roof is used,Nadal has never been great indoors,thats why Henman favours Federer for the title if it rains and the roof has to be used
    I don't know what happened yesterday when the roof was closed for the entire match with Julian

    1. Not to mention the fact that Rosol played at his own speed unlike so many players who, I guess out of fear, play at Nadal's speed and let him take his sweet time out there. It was obvious that Nadal was rattled by the speed at which Rosol was serving. He barely had time to towel off all his limbs and touch his ears and nose and pick his butt etc. Poor thing.

  14. Heres a video,shows El Toros poor sportsmanship