Tuesday, September 18, 2012


What's that Brad?

Show me the data, Brad (or Alix Ramsay). Actually, let me help you by presenting the ITF's 2011 testing statistics. The two tables below show the 2011 ITF testing data for the top-20 ATP and WTA players based on the 2011 year-end tour rankings. The tables contain the ranges for in-competition (IC) and out-of-competition (OOC) testing. The "Min" and "Max" columns show the minimum and maximum number of doping controls possible given a player's testing ranges.

The tables show that for 2011:

  1. The ITF did not conduct a single OOC test for 5 of the top-20 WTA players.
  2. The ITF did not conduct more than 3 OOC tests on any top-20 WTA (or ATP) player. In many cases, while the range indicates 1-3 tests, it is likely that only 1 OOC was conducted (find out why here).
  3. The ITF conducted fewer than 10 total doping controls (OOC and IC) for at least 9 of the top-20 ranked WTA players (at a maximum, it's possible the entire top-20 had fewer than 10 controls). The same holds true for the ATP.
  4. Given the number of players with less than 10 doping tests, there is no basis for claiming that any of the remaining top-20 players were tested 30 (or even 20) times a year by the ITF.
Can we now all agree that the "tested all the time" claim is officially busted?

Table 1. ITF Doping Controls, WTA Year-end Top-20, 2011

Rank Name IC OOC Min # of Tests Max # of Tests
1 Caroline Wozniacki  4-6 1-3 5 9
2 Petra Kvitová  7+ 1-3 8 10+
3 Victoria Azarenka  7+ 1-3 8 10+
4 Maria Sharapova  4-6 1-3 5 9
5 Na Li 4-6 0 4 6
6 Samantha Stosur  7+ 1-3 8 10+
7 Vera Zvonareva  7+ 1-3 8 10+
8 Agnieszka Radwańska  7+ 1-3 8 10+
9 Marion Bartoli  4-6 1-3 5 9
10 Andrea Petkovic  7+ 1-3 8 10+
11 Francesca Schiavone  4-6 1-3 5 9
12 Serena Williams  1-3 0 1 3
13 Kim Clijsters  1-3 1-3 2 6
14 Jelena Janković  1-3 1-3 2 6
15 Sabine Lisicki  4-6 0 4 6
16 Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova  7+ 1-3 8 10+
17 Peng Shuai  7+ 0 7 7+
18 Dominika Cibulkova  7+ 0 7 7+
19 Svetlana Kuznetsova  7+ 1-3 8 10+
20 Flavia Pennetta  7+ 1-3 8 10+

Table 2. ITF Doping Controls, ATP Year-end Top-20, 2011

Rank Name IC OOC Min # of Tests Max # of Tests
1 Novak Djokovic 7+ 1-3 8 10+
2 Rafael Nadal 7+ 1-3 8 10+
3 Roger Federer 4-6 1-3 5 9
4 Andy Murray 7+ 1-3 8 10+
5 David Ferrer 7+ 1-3 8 10+
6 Jo-Wilfried Tsonga  7+ 1-3 8 10+
7 Tomáš Berdych 7+ 1-3 8 10+
8 Mardy Fish 4-6 1-3 5 9
9 Janko Tipsarević 7+ 1-3 8 10+
10 Nicolás Almagro 7+ 1-3 8 10+
11 Juan Martín del Potro  4-6 1-3 5 9
12 Gilles Simon  4-6 1-3 5 9
13 Robin Söderling  1-3 1-3 2 6
14 Andy Roddick  4-6 1-3 5 9
15 Alexandr Dolgopolov  7+ 1-3 8 10+
16 Gaël Monfils  4-6 1-3 5 9
17 Stanislas Wawrinka  4-6 1-3 5 9
18 John Isner  4-6 1-3 5 9
19 Richard Gasquet  7+ 1-3 8 10+
20 Feliciano López  7+ 1-3 8 10+


  1. The thing is, Brad Gilbert certainly knows that a lot of the players are juiced.

    1. Well considering he coached Andre Agassi who we KNOW had at least one positive drug test (yes it was meth, but still it's illegal drugs) doesn't surprise me. And we all know what happened when the ATP/ITF found out he tested positive.

      Do these guys just pull numbers out of a hat to make the drug testing seem more impressive than it actually is? First 20, then 30, some guys (like Robin Haase) even go so far as to say 40 times a year they're tested. I'm waiting for the first journalist to say with a straight face that they're tested 50 times a year.

      We can tweet them the stats all they like, they don't give a crap because it doesn't fit the perception they want to project to the public about tennis players being "stringently tested."

  2. You have to differentiate between the dumb fools from the LIARS.

    Gilbert, and Cahill are LIARS.

    These guys always recommend that players get "fitter" (the language used in public). It doesn't take a genius to figure out what they are recommending to the players privately.

    If you take their praise for the obvious dopers (Nadal, Serena, Murray, Agassi,...), along with their inside knowledge as coaches (no way they don't know what's going on), it is extremely obvious that they know what is going on. Their defences of the ITF are cold, calculating LIES !

    1. 'Obvious dopers'....based on what? Your perception as the world expert on what players' characteristics prove 100% that they are dopers?
      Agassi had a positive test, that's clear. The other names you mention seem to be based on either their muscular physiques or physical improvement over time (Murray). Hardly proof enough to be called 'obvious'...

      I don't deny that some players are likely doping, but don't write down baseless allegations pointing at specific players, merely based on your preconceptions.

  3. The problem is, that any idiot can claim what he/she wants due to media-mass-shit in the internet without delivering any signs of proof. Some think, the twin towers collapsed because of alien- influence, others think, all people who are part of new physical development in some sports (not only in tennis; this phenomenon is rather connected to development of society concerning meaning of fitness as an important ressource of an individual) are simply doped. This must be an american webpage, because its obvious, that you guys tend to find easy explanations for things, you dont understand. What do you have? Assumptions without any proof. This seems to be enough for you to convict some of the greatest sportsmen and women ever. Poor fools.....

    1. @Enlightenment

      "Assumptions without any proof" :

      They are tested like 30 times a year. (Brad Gilbert)

  4. I have a question. Does the ITF numbers include all doping controls done by all institutions in tennis?

    1. The ITF numbers include WADA OOC tests, but do not include samples collected by National Anti-Doping Organisations.

      I did a survey of some of the NADO's numbers for tennis in 2011 (or the most recent complete year):

      USA: USADA conducted 11 tests for tennis (all OOC)

      Russia: Conducted 8 tests for tennis (all OOC)

      UK (for year ended March 31, 2012): Conducted 22 for the ITF (all in comp). And 15 for the Lawn Tennis Association (10 IC; 5 OOC).

      Canada: 6 for tennis (all IC)

      Ireland (only 2010 available): 12 tests for Tennis Ireland (4 IC; 8 OOC)

      Serbia (only 2010 avilable): 8 tests (7 IC; 1 OOC). All the IC were for a Futures tournament.

      NADOs numbers like these don't get you close to 20 tests per player. And, in cases like Serbia, they're testing lower tier rather than top players.

    2. Thanks for the info. But altogether I think it is still much higher than the ITF numbers alone

    3. Eric Ed: On what basis are you making your claim? Who else is testing US tennis players aside from the ITF and USADA? What about Russian players? The data are right there for you to see. And yet here you are claiming that you "think it is still much higher than the ITF numbers alone."

      I would have expected more logic and rigor from you. You have demanded no less from others.

      If you have other sources of testing data that support your claim, make it available.

    4. Here's another one.

      French anti-doping authority for 2011: 6 controls for tennis.

    5. I may visit Mister Nadal every week for a private doping control, including the subjective examination of his biceps and his stamina.
      We surely get over 30 overall then, don't we?

    6. Sen: That is why I said "I think" because we don't have all the numbers from all competitions to come to a final conclusion. The french one is 12 instead of 6 (6 for urine and 6 for blood) " but till this point, it is just a little higher than the ITF numbers alone.
      From some of the stats I've seen, I can see that doping controls tend to be more focused on other disciplines like track and field and stuff and don't allocate enough resources to tennis either by lack of means or because they think doping doesn't increase performances as much in tennis as it happens in other sports.

    7. Eric Ed: Looks to me that the French took 12 samples from 6 missions (see Table 14 on page 39). So, it seems to be a matter of art on whether one considers the French to have conducted 6 or 12 tests.

    8. Czech Republic 2011: 15 controls

    9. Finland: 23 controls

    10. Sen: They didn't test the 6 blood samples. They used them as blood profiles for future comparison. I think it would help them for more efficient doping controls in the future

    11. Switzerland 2011: 16 IC and 22 OOC (urine), plus 10 OOC blood.

      Interesting that the Swiss are doing more OOC tennis controls than the USADA and Russian anti-doping.

    12. Slovakia: Zero

    13. Netherlands: 10 IC; 11 OOC


    14. It will be hard to know how these numbers are allocated to each of the players so they're not really conclusive. One thing is true and unless we don't know all information regarding the doping control occurences, it is fair to say that the maximum number of test conducted on most of the top players can't reach 20. Even though I stated that other sports have more testing, it may be due to the number of top players involved in thses sports. Team sports have more players playing at high level than individual sports. We can't have the right figures for the number of tests per indivual so it is impossible to draw a conclusion. Moreover, since a lot of tennis tournaments invite top players to boost tickets sale, I doubt they will entertain making them feeling uncomfortable by testing them. Overall I don't think they're tested too much but I don't think they're tested too little either. I also believe sports that don't require a lot of skills like cycling and track&field are tested more nad rightly so because doping can make a much bigger difference.

    15. Without getting into the philosophical discussion of what it means to be tested "too much" or "not enough," I think the point that this website makes with regards to OOC testing in tennis is simple. There is not enough OOC testing done in tennis to deter doping and detect doping at the probabilistic level that would make us comfortable. Grant whatever assumed number of tests per player you would like that is feasible based on the data we have, and it's a low enough number that the vast majority of dopers would never be detected (if there are any dopers).

    16. In fact, Eric Ed, you provide whatever parameters you would like and I'll run a simulation. Provide the number of total OOC tests in a year for a player and the % of time that they are "glowing," and I can give you a rough estimate of the probability of a positive test for that theoretical player (assuming the test always finds a positive when they're "glowing," which is doesn't).

    17. I'll save you the trouble. Let's assume you have a player with one missed test in the last six months of the previous calendar year, so they have one missed test they can use this year (and assume they will use it on the first occasion where they would otherwise test positive). Assuming that the tests are perfect at detecting substances with no mistakes, here is the probability of at least one positive test for a player who systematically dopes and is "glowing" 10% of the time. The first column is total number of test attempts (which could be one larger than the actual number of tests if the player misses the one test they're allowed to miss). The second column is the probability of at least one positive test.

      1 0.00%
      2 0.10%
      3 0.37%
      4 0.86%
      5 1.59%
      6 2.57%
      7 3.81%
      8 5.30%
      9 7.02%
      10 8.96%
      11 11.09%
      12 13.39%
      13 15.84%
      14 18.41%
      15 21.08%
      16 23.82%
      17 26.62%
      18 29.46%
      19 32.31%
      20 35.16%

    18. If you assume 20% "glowing," here are the results:

      1 0.00%
      2 0.80%
      3 2.72%
      4 5.79%
      5 9.89%
      6 14.80%
      7 20.31%
      8 26.18%
      9 32.22%
      10 38.26%
      11 44.17%
      12 49.83%
      13 55.19%
      14 60.20%
      15 64.81%
      16 69.03%
      17 72.85%
      18 76.28%
      19 79.34%
      20 82.03%

    19. If you assume 20% glowtime for EPO, and keep with the ITF policy of doing about 10% of blood tests for all OOC testing, here are the results for a positive EPO test:

      1 0.00%
      2 0.08%
      3 0.27%
      4 0.58%
      5 0.99%
      6 1.48%
      7 2.03%
      8 2.62%
      9 3.22%
      10 3.83%
      11 4.42%
      12 4.98%
      13 5.52%
      14 6.02%
      15 6.48%
      16 6.90%
      17 7.28%
      18 7.63%
      19 7.93%
      20 8.20%

    20. It's important to keep in mind that to the extent anything is detectable, it's believed that EPO would be detectable for a much longer period than other substances, so it's not as easy as saying 10% glowing or 20% glowing. If most of that percentage is made up of EPO glowtime, the 10% blood test approach of 2011 will fail to detect the substance that has the highest likelihood of being detectable.

    21. We also know that athletes would time their glowtime so that as little of it as possible overlaps with their one "wherabouts" hour. Testing can take place outside of that hour, but there is little proof in tennis that it happens often. Furthermore, there is no penalty for a "missed test" outside of the whereabouts hour unless it is deemed that a "filing failure" was committed.

      The numbers above are a simplistic view that skews the numbers heavily in favor of the ITF in terms of how many people they would catch in a very optimal setting. The actual numbers would be lower.

      Even so, as you can see by making assumptions that greatly favor catching people over the reality of the situation, three testing attempts (likely 2 successful OOC tests) with a 20% glowtime would catch a known, systematic doper 2.72% of the time. That is to say that out of those two tests, you would expect at least one of them to be positive 2.72% of the time.

    22. Eric Ed: It's conclusive that top tennis players are not facing adequate out of competition controls, which is key to stopping doping. The ITF stats and review of the NADO clearly show very little OOC testing.

      The in-competition tests are are largely irrelevant as IC testing is proven to be pretty ineffective (especially the regime used in tennis). That being the case, we don't need all the data to conclude that the testing regime is inadequate to stop doping.

      So, you'll need to provide some logic and rigor to support your belief that they aren't tested "too much" or "too little."

      For example, your "skill" claim needs evidence. A favourite argument of baseball players was that doping couldn't help someone become a better pitcher or hitter because so much skill and talent were requirede. We now know the truth about that.

    23. First I don't agree with your assumptions that players who missed tests are doping. Second, what do you mean by glowing?Third, what criteria ydid you base your calculations on?4th, how do you know the kinds of substances used, their characteristics and how many times they are used out of competition and in competition? Whether they are used sporadically or continuously? How can you know how long the drug will stay in the athletes system when different ones are being manufactured continuously with different features. How can you be so sure about the numbers you are giving in case I agree with them when new drugs with different features may require more testing to be effective?

    24. In my opinion, the other sports like cycling and track&field catch more athletes don't do so necessarily because they do a much better job but because the athletes need more consistent because of the excessive stamina requirements of these sports.
      In order to claim that Tenni is not doing enough, we have to compare with other sports.

    25. Eric Ed: I'm not seeing any facts being presented from you. Other sports (cycling, swimming, athletics) conduct between 40%-60% of there anti-doping control out-of-competition. Tennis conducts 10% OOC. Again, it has been established that in-competion testing is ineffective at stopping doping.

      You have yet to present evidence supporting your claims/suggestions that tennis is somehow different from other sports when it comes to the benefits/prevalance of doping.

    26. I am not saying that doping doesn't help tennis players. I am just saying that tennis requires a lot more skills than the running and the pedaling. There are more moves used in tennis overall but cycling and track and field are more about speed and stamina. The difference is huge between these sports in terms of skills. If you need further explanations I could do it but I don't think it is necessary

    27. #1: I didn't say that I assume anybody who misses a test is doping. I said that anybody who is worried that they may be in a period of detectability would make sure they are absent for the test as long as they still have a missed test at their disposal. Those are two very different statements.

      #2: "Glowing" means that an athlete is in a period where they would test positive for a banned substance. Just because you're doping, doesn't mean you'll test positive all of the time.

      #3: I stated the criteria (assumptions). I'll state them again. First off, I assume that the players have at least one missed test at their disposal. Given the low amounts of OOC tests for almost all tennis players, it's a reasonable assumption that the vast majority of tennis players will have at least one missed test at their disposal at the beginning of a calendar year. I also assume that the lab doing the testing doesn't have any "boderline" findings, which means they would be able to say without a doubt that a sample is either positive or negative. In fact, the labs don't do that. The more likely result is that there are many borderline results that can't be called positives due to established thresholds and protocols. The final assumption that directly impacts the calculations is the percentage of time that an athlete would be "glowing." I did one for 10% and one for 20%. The assumption is that it would be a straight 10% or 20% of the total time that the athlete is in an OOC period. The reality is that athletes will try to time their substances, when possible, so that the "glowtime" during the one hour of whereabouts is lower than their overall glowtime.

      #4: We don't know with certainty what substances are used, but to the extent that the substances are unknown, they won't generally be detectable. Conte has stated that EPO may be detectable for about 19 hours, and I've seen other reports also that it's a day or less. Testosterone and hGH are looking a detectability of a matter of hours (six hours or so, I believe). The new hGH test claims that it may detect substances for weeks, but it came up empty at the Olympics. Let's take the example of EPO with a 19-hour detectability window. Let's say I come test an athlete during their one hour testing window today, and they don't test positive. If they take the substance as soon as I leave, I could come back tomorrow at the same time and they would likely not test positive. Their blood profile, however, would arouse suspicion (but that's not enough to generate a positive test; barring a longitudinal case). Their are a handful of fairly high profile cases of "cycling" where you can see how the athletes have done this type of thing in the past. Maybe Sen can post a few of them.

      Ultimately, there's very little to argue about in the numbers I gave in terms of being afraid that they're understating the chance of landing a positive test. The chance of a positive test for an athlete who is detectable 10% of the time (or 20% of the time in the second example) in those numbers above is lower than the numbers there (because all the assumptions favor making a positive more likely than it actually is). The only area for argument is what proportion of the time athletes are "glowing." For EPO, hGH, and testosterone, I am very comfortable that they percentage of time wouldn't be greater than 20%.

    28. Eric Ed: You are missing the point. It doesn't matter that there is a skill difference between sports. You can look within the sport. Among elite tennis players, there is not that much difference between skill levels. They are all experts at hitting a tennis ball. Thus, doping, which improves power, speed and endurance, can have a huge impact in outcomes over the course of a very long match, or matches through a tournament, or during the course of a season.

    29. Whether tennis players would benefit from doping is completely irrelevant to this discussion. The point of the discussion is that the amount of testing going on doesn't have a chance to catch almost any sophisticated doper.

      The only way your argument holds up is to say that tennis shouldn't have any testing at all. If you think there should be testing, then the OOC system in place now should bother you (because it's likelihood of landing a positive is roughly the same as doing no testing at all). That's backed up by the anti-doping cases in tennis history.

    30. I remember baseball media telling us that doping wouldn't help baseball players because it is all down to hand-eye co-ordination.

      But lo and behold since they started testing in baseball at least semi-seriously they keep on popping players for doping, and it turned out that all the stars of the 'golden era' were dopers.

    31. No Sen I am not missing the point as I am the one who made that same argument multiple times to justify why I believe Serena doesn't dope. But my point is not that doping doesn't improve players ability. It is that the top players (may be other than Nadal) can do without it the majority of the time if they're not playing each other. Cycling and track&field are mainly based about stamina and speed and if you're not ready to perform during one step of the competition, you're not coming back. In tennis no more than 15 players have that supprime combination of strength, speed and endless stamina.
      mrn: Actually I replied to the doping effect on tennis players because you asked for it. I believe there are many more criteria you need to into consideration. We don't know how many times players train a week, how many times their glowing time overlap with the OOC testing times. How many times a doper would dope a week and nothing indicates that they dope continuously while OOC. So any doping control program that would truly work has to be able to detect the substances they are using(which is not guaranteed) but also has to be run a lot of time (too many to be affordable in my opinion).
      Personnaly I don't think doping is so widespread in tennis as I haven't seen some of criteria I use to accuse players of doping. I do believe they take approved substances that help them but not necessarily banned substances.

    32. And if after all things considered, the glowing time is aorund 10%, would that imply that they need to test 40 times just to get around 40% of chance of catching any doper. And if you apply the percentage of blood tests, would they need 20 tests to get close to 10% of chance of catching a potential doper? How practical is that if no matter how many times they test players, they can't catch any of them?

    33. @Eric Ed.

      "I am not missing the point as I am the one who made that same argument multiple times to justify why I believe Serena doesn't dope."

      Proof of missing the point.

    34. Every little thing has to be explained to you. Read the whole conversation and you will understand.

    35. You should take your own advice.

  5. "Assumptions without any proof."
    Of course there is no proof. We've had that discussion a few times already.
    For example, see here my favourite post:

    However, you have to be a real fool yourself to believe the benefits of the remarkable change in medicine and medication of the last 30 years are solely restricted to sick people, especially when there are several approvers in many popular sports such as cycling and baseball.

  6. Fake Injury Alert!

    "Turkish long jumper Karin Mey Melis was withdrawn from the London Olympic final after authorities learned of an earlier positive doping test, the IAAF said Tuesday...The South Africa-born athlete claimed she was injured after missing the Olympic final."


  7. I once read Gilbert's book, "Winning Ugly". He left out a chapter. On doping.

    1. To be fair, it's on a third grade reading level, so he probably wanted to keep it "PG."

    2. True, but it has a common theme of bending the rules - and the spirit of sportsmanship. Kinda fits with Brad.

  8. Here's some more numbers. In 2010, WADA labs tested 3,638 samples from tennis (2150 were from the ITF, the rest from NADOs). The NADO samples would cover both professional (ITF) and amateur (non-ITF) players: http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/Resources/Statistics/Laboratory_Statistics/WADA_2010_Laboratory_Statistics_Report.pdf

    Under what scenarios are the top ITF players getting tested 30 times a year as Brad claims? Keep in mind that the ITF alone tested over 600 different players in 2010: http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.ca/2012/03/2011-itf-anti-doping-statistics-what.html

  9. Unrelated to all this, but I know how everyone loves a good photo of a roider in full cry. I saw this the other day.


    John Cena from the 'wellness policy' WWE.

  10. Moonax: I know doping helps baseball players for reasons I would keep for myself and I never said doping doesn't help tennis players.

  11. im glad maria sharapova was tested.. her body and face never show signs of PEDs ..

  12. Of the 20 women players listed there were 5 that were not OOC tested in 2011. So there was a 25% chance a top 20 women's player would NOT be OOC tested in 2011.

    Adding 2010 and using the same list of players (except Peng Shuuai is not listed) there were 4 not tested. So again virtually the same chance to NOT be tested OOC in 2010.

    However, there were only 2 players not tested in either year - Li Na and Serena Williams. 10% chance of NOT being tested 2 years in a row.

    With a 25% chance each year the statistical chances of going 2 years in a row without being tested is .25 x .25 = 6.25%. The actual number was 10% (2 players out of 20)

    I understand the top 20 is dynamic, but the list is pretty similar.

    With such a small chance that a player would go one year, let alone two years without at least one OOC test, isn't it more likely that Serena's "panic room "incident was the result of the fact it was going to be her 3rd missed test in 18 months? Twice she just didn't answer the door (or had the maid tell them she wasn't home) and the third time she couldn't do that - automatic suspension. So she needed one hell of a reason to get out of the 3rd test - she needed a "compelling reason."

    Scenario: Skipped an OOC test some time after June in 2010. Skipped a test in early-mid 2011 and then got popped again in October (totally unexpectedly). June 2010-October 2011 - 3 tests in 18 months. Zero OOC tests in that time period, 6%-10% for that to happen.

    It's possible the ITF wouldn't respond to Sen's email because of an on-going investigation/appeal, which was the determination of whether she had a "compelling reason" to miss the Oct 2011 test. After Miami 2012 she got word that she was exonerated. A week after Miami (where she looked old, fat and slow in losing to Wozniacki) in Charleston she looked like her old self again on clay, which is her worst surface. Back on the stuff and no need to worry about the 18-month rule for several more months.

    1. You can look at all the players in the testing pool (not just the top 20), and take just those players who were in the pool both years (other than those who retired following 2010). You'll come up with about 100 players. Only a handful of those players weren't tested at least once OOC in 2010 or 2011. I've looked at it in the past. I want to say that you can add Patty Schnyder, Aravene Rezai, and Venus Williams to the list you have there (if memory serves me). Given the low number of players who received zero tests in either year, the absence of a test is strong evidence of at least one missed test in that two year span. Given the test distribution, I think it's also a reasonable assertion that a top 20 player with zero tests in a year has a missed test in that year.

      It can't be said with certainty, but the data backs up a strong possibility that Serena may have had two combined missed tests in 2010/2011 prior to the October 2011 visit by the ITF. It's also feasible that she didn't have two missed tests prior to that time. It's also possible that if she did have two prior missed tests in those two years that one of them could've been in January 2010 and already timed-out by October 2011.

      I agree with you that if you look at the data, zero conducted OOC tests in a two year span is very strong evidence of at least one missed test, and it's probably strong evidence of at least one missed test per year for a top 20 player.

  13. Sen no Rikyū : thanks for the ONAD numbers. Variable, and rather little numbers, anyway.

    I would add that the ONAD testing pools can be different than the ITF's one.

    For France, it seems that the tested players (12 tests in 2011) could be other players than Tsonga, Monfils and other players of the ITF's T.P. (like Paire, Roger-Vasselin...) ; a shame that public stats lack of precision about that.