Wednesday, February 6, 2013

More from Wayne's World

Good to see ESPN is following-up on things:
The International Tennis Federation suspended Odesnik for two years, but that sanction was later reduced to one year in exchange for providing unspecified "substantial assistance" as permitted under the World Anti-Doping Agency code, and Odesnik played a full season in 2011. Lyons represented Odesnik in that doping case.
The Miami New Times posted documents that show Odesnik's name in notebooks dated from 2009 through 2011. In an emailed response to the New Times, Odesnik, currently ranked No. 154 on the ATP Tour, denied ever having been a client of Bosch's or purchasing any performance-enhancing drugs from "any person."
ITF anti-doping manager Stuart Miller told that the federation, which oversees testing and sanctioning procedures for the men's and women's tours, is following up on the new information regarding Odesnik.
Also from ESPN, see Howard Bryant's piece: "The fix is in: Does tennis have a PED problem?"


  1. Real Sociedad and AC Milan are suspected of having links with Dr. Fuentes in 2005

  2. here is an other link... it's in spanish! All is explained...

    So Real Sociedad is suspected of having links with Fuentes between 2000 and 2005.

    They found an accounting B in Real Sociedad, who was used to paid the costs of "special treatments" for players.

    Drugs were ordered in Germany to "Dr. Markus Choina".

    In 2003: Thioctacid tablets, Thym-Uvocal (Timo, used to strengthen the immune system and defenses) in injectable ampoules and vials product also prohibited by the Anti-Doping Rules Actovegyn, known as gas-bus EPO were ordered by Fuentes.
    in 2005: Fuentes ordered IG (as usual terminology refers to Igf1 Fuentes, a growth factor prohibited and undetectable in doping controls). IG would be imported illegally from Australia. The IG were for the AC Milan.

    Sorry for my english... hope you have been interested by these informations.

  3. Have you seen this?
    Sports manager talks about Croatian female tennis player who had a silent ban six years ago for steroids after training at TenisVal!

  4. I think that all sportsman must have to know that this type of work is banned for their game in future so never try to get this.

  5. Nadal interview for L'Equipe:
    Read the last questions.

    1. Q: Avez-vous subi des contrôles antidopage pendant votre arrêt ?

      A: ***Neuf. Trois sanguins et six urinaires***. Pour quelqu’un qui est coincé à la maison et qui ne peut plus jouer, c’est beaucoup. Les deux dernières semaines, j’ai été contrôlé quatre fois, dont deux jours de suite.

      (nine tests, 3 blood and 6 urine ... last two weeks tested 4 times, inc 2 days consecutive)

      The actual interview was conducted a while back?

    2. So we've got to believe he is clean and he wasn't doing silent ban.

    3. So we've got to believe he is clean and he wasn't doing silent ban.

    4. why do we have to believe this? If it was a silent ban surely he knew he'd be tested during the ban so would be careful.

  6. So Australia is revealed as rife with sports doping. The "blackest day in Australian sport", according to one Richard Ings.

    If this is so for Australia, who can believe Spain would be any different?

    1. Looking forward to some "lists"

    2. Crime commission's report no shock - there had been ample warnings
      BY:GIDEON HAIGH From: The Australian February 09, 2013 12:00AM

      IT was like Captain Renault's raid on Rick's in Casablanca. Everyone at the launch of the Australian Crime Commission's sport report was shocked - shocked! - to find gambling/doping/organised crime/disorganised sleaze going on under their noses. Integrity? Why, they had departments for that, didn't they? Down the corridor, first on the left, ignore the snoring.

      Of course, it was no shock whatsoever. There had been ample warnings. Three years ago, for example, the Australian and New Zealand Sports Law Association hosted Declan Hill, whose The Fix (2009) is the definitive source on the corruption of soccer in Asia and Europe. "The people who are doing this have targeted your country and will be destroying your sports within three to five years," Hill told his audience.

      "You have a brief window of opportunity to stop them coming in or they will wreak havoc here."

      The ACC's Project Aperio amounts to a closing of the window.

      Read more:

    3. Organised crime and drugs in sport
      February 7, 2013


      The Australian Crime Commission today released the findings of a 12-month investigation into the integrity of Australian sport and the relationship between professional sporting bodies, prohibited substances and organised crime.

      Key findings

      The investigation identified widespread use of prohibited substances including peptides, hormones and illicit drugs in professional sport.

      It also found that this use has been facilitated by sports scientists, high-performance coaches and sports staff.

      The ACC also identified organised crime identities and groups that are involved in the distribution of PIEDs to athletes and professional sports staff.

      The ACC report notes increasing evidence of personal relationships of concern between professional athletes and organised criminal identities and groups. This may have resulted in match fixing and the fraudulent manipulation of betting markets.

      The Australian Crime Commission also found that illicit drug use by professional athletes is more prevalent than previously indicated in official sports drug testing program statistics.

      READ MORE:

    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    5. Organised Crime and Drugs in Sport is available for download [PDF, 926 KB] at:

  7. Wow.

    Rafa calling for names to be released on Fuentes doping list.
    He is either clean(doubtful) or has been assured any evidence linking him to Fuentes has been destroyed.

    1. The latter, I guess.

      "I believe this doctor has worked with foreign athletes but because he is Spanish it is Spanish sport that is being prejudiced."

      The initials "A.C.", from his buddy, were found on a couple of documents during Operacion Puerto. And on a later published list his name disappered. There might be a spanish cartel of silence. Maybe that's why he goes so far with his statement.

  8. It could mean that he is a client of some other doctor.

  9. I doubt it means much either way. Fuentes isn't going to divulge anything regardless of what anyone says, that much is clear. He's had years to do so.

  10. Wasn't it Andy Murray himself who called out Wayne Odesnik as a 'snitcher', basically saying players shouldn't act as whistleblowers?

    1. I'd say he's right.

      Doping controls should dissuade players from doping not snitching.

    2. That's a dumb comment if you don't mind me saying. Players ought to have as much a duty of candour towards doping as they are currently required to have vis-a-vis throwing matches for money.

      The USADA investigation got its legs from the whistleblowers who decided to speak out.

  11. Holly cow, I'm at a loss, trying to decide who's ever-thickening fervent statements about the need for more anti-doping actions, so as to clean up (the image of) tennis, are the most pathetic: Nadal's, Djokovic's, or Murray's... While I'd much rather deliberate on who's going to be caught (that is, offered) first: Sophie's choice, in reverse.

  12. If Nadal was really being honest in his post-Armstrong change of heart, he would have shown more understanding of why players like Rochus and the sceptical tennis public generally, think as they do, rather than disparage him, and us, with yet another put down remark. The dark hinterland of these players always shows through when they open their mouths.

  13. Glad to hear this comment from Nadal, as the previous absence of this comment was casting suspicion.

  14. PS I know you're semi retired and all that but surely these Nadal comments are worthy of a separate article for discussion.
    1 Wanting to see the Fuentes list.
    2 The tests he had.
    3 Saying he is happy to do 1 a week if necessary.


    Would be nice if someone confirms if this is genuine, just felt a little off to me.

  16. Nadal must be protected if he is being so bold as to say expose the names on Fuentes list.
    Now that Lance Armstrong has been exposed as a cheat, i think we are going to start hearing about more & more famous athletes and their cheating ways. As richard mentioned above, The article from Sydney gives some air of hope---"Doping widespread in Oz, gangs at work" Particularly significant are these quotes from: WADA president John Fahey, "It's a very black day for sport." Home affairs minister John Clare, "The enormity of what we're hearing, that surprises me. The findings are shocking & will disgust Australian sports fans." Sports minister Kate Lundy says the government will introduce tough measures to combat doping in sports & "if you want to dope & cheat, we will catch you...we are well on our way to seeking out & hunting down those who will dope & cheat." We need this to translate to all countries rather than just one or two targeted countries. Letz keep our fingers crossed as it looks like athletes will soon have reason to fear cheating...

    1. slim chance mate,
      we all were sure that Australian Open was/is dopers heaven last few years but this year we finally have learned:

      "there is no EPO or HGH at AO just super secret weapon - ICE BATH"

    2. Nadal, Murray and Djoker have all seen which way the wind in blowing. They know that saying the right things doesn't actually mean that it will happen.

      They know the value of PR. They've learnt well from Armstrong.

      Good article by Bryant - the comments underneath are depressing though.

    3. Yes, Nadal, Murray and Djoker have learnt a lot from Armstrong - but not the final lesson... And, hopefully, they won't - until the bitter end.

    4. Fuentes has had years to destroy (or cleverly hide in case he needs it for bargaining power) any evidence of top players doping. Nadal knows this I'm sure. Whatever names are on the list are probably D-list players.

  17. Blood transfusions, EPO, steroids. Retired Italian cycling star Mario Cipollini would be on Fuentes' list, according to la Gazzetta dello Sport :

    ... will the other names come to disclosure ?...

  18. It seems WTA has control over blood and takes blood samples more often than we might have thought.


    1. Her statements do not make any sense. The WTA is part of the same program as the ATP and it is administered by the ITF.

      There is no provision to inform an athlete that they have "anemia" nor would such a diagnosis be "scary" without knowing the type of anemia. Here, she claims to have nutritional anemia and simply needs to take iron supplements, which she states the WTA tells her how many to take. This is a ridiculous statement. The WTA does not provide medical advice and she would have to go for additional testing to determine the cause of the anemia. It is simply impossible to believe that any doctor would say, "Hmmm, your hemoglobin is way too low and you have some unknown form of anemia, take these iron pills and check back with me in a couple of months." See for a typical process of an anemia diagnosis.

      In addition, there is no known program offered by the WTA whereby the WTA monitors the general health of an athlete. In addition, the interview was done in Jan 2012, referring to the blood test that took place in 2011. The 2011 statistics for the ITF do not list Jamie Hampton as having any type of test. .

      I suspect Ms. Hampton is either mistaken or lying about her treatment. What makes sense is that she was diagnosed with anemia by her own doctor and received a TUE for a banned substance -- probably EPO. As part of the TUE, the WTA/ITF monitors her hemoglobin levels to insure compliance with the TUE. This is the only known permissible way that the anti-doping agency would monitor her blood for general levels of hemoglobin. These TUE tests would not be reported as part of the testing statistics because all TUE evaluations are confidential. Obviously, she would have to take iron supplements because EPO cannot magically create iron. She is simply leaving off the part about taking EPO.


    Nadal says testing hasn't always respected the players. How so? He doesn't elaborate.

    He also says he was tested many times while he was away. So let's see just how many OOC tests he was subjected to in the last 8 months, when the stats are available (if anyone has them for the second half of last year.)

    1. They'll be released in a couple of months. He would have to be in the 7+ bracket.

  20. No one who thinks it's strange that Nadal had 9 Out of competition tests during his 8 month absence, with 3 blood tests? I mean that's a lot of tests in general and blood tests in particular.

    And why is Nadal so positive about testing all of a sudden? He used to complain 24/7 about the testing but now it's all good and necessary and so on.

    Something smells here.

    1. 9 OOC tests in 8 months? Can you source that? That's more OOC tests than he would have had in the previous 8 years, if previous figures are any indication. So is he being especially targeted since he lost to Rosol in July last year, and if so why?

    2. Probably to make up for the testing that would have been done at tournaments during the time he was off. Sadly I think they value the in competition testing the same as the out of competition ones, when it's obvious that it's the OOC testing that is more likely to catch players.

    3. That is precisely the point: the ITF doesn't value OOC tests the same as IC tests, or it would devote more than 7-8% of its testing programme to OOC tests. It is therefore highly unusual if the ITF has tested Nadal 8 times OOC in 9 months. That appears to be targeted testing - and may explain why he feels it is "disrespectful", as he says.

    4. Correction: that should be 9 tests in 8 months.

    5. It might have been 6, one where they collected both blood/urine. Wasn't clear.

    6. It would be interesting to compare with other top players - Djokovic, Federer, and Murray - over the same period, and whether they were tested OOC.

    7. I expect we'll all find out from the ITF's published statistics in two or three years time, when the information is neither any longer relevant nor topical.

  21. Nadal when asked about the Australian Open said something to the effect that Djokovic proved he is a player who doesn't get injured and can do anything he wants without having to worry about injury.

    I'm starting to wonder if he's beginning to play victim now.

  22. I suspect the players are now "pro-testing" for public relations reasons only. The ITF will not feel pressured into increasing testing because of the statements from these obvious dopers. The ITF does NOT want the embarassment of catching one of their "heroes".

    Nadal may not actually be on the Fuentes list, hence his request for transparency in this case (I suspect some of the earlier players are on this list however - Brugerra, Costa, JCF, Moya, Corretja, ...). I would like to see Doctor Cotorro, and Doctor Sanchez investigated however.

  23. Federer calls for biological passport.

    I mean, Fed has always been pro testing but was there a memo sent out to the top players or what?

    This armstrong thing has really shaken the fruit from the trees.;_ylt=Agg1Qb_bRZ2wqCmKNeAbJag4v7YF;_ylu=X3oDMTQxOG52MzIwBG1pdANGRUFUVVJFRCBNZWdhdHJvbiBURU5OSVMEcGtnAzI3OThkMjkwLTU4ODUtMzg0YS05MmQ2LTllNTM2NWZjMTBjMwRwb3MDMQRzZWMDbWVnYXRyb24EdmVyAzA2ZTExNmExLTc0OTUtMTFlMi1iNmVkLTUyZDU4Zjk1NzRhYw--;_ylg=X3oDMTFra2dhYTdpBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdAN0ZW5uaXMEcHQDc2VjdGlvbnM-;_ylv=3

    1. You can also use this shortened version of the URL:

      Thanks for posting.

      In any case, Federer notes: "A blood passport will be necessary as some substances can't be discovered right now but might in the future, and that risk of discovery can chase cheaters away,"

      What substances are those? Testosterone, EPO, and HGH are detectible by current tests. Federer seems to know about what drugs are not detectible, which seems strange for a "clean" player. He also basis his belief that the sport is "clean" on the lack of positive tests, but claims to know of substances that would not show up on tests currently. As a lesser ranked player might say, "This is strange, no?"

      Also, how does a blood passport allow future re-tests? A blood sample is destroyed when the data necessary for the blood passport is extracted, thus making future retesting of that sample impossible.

      Also, "But there also will be more funding needed to make all the tests possible and the Grand Slam tournaments should help to finance that as it is in their best interest to keep the sport clean and credible."

      Why is more funding needed when the ITF keeps coming in under budget by several hundred thousand dollars?

      "The past years we had something like one case a year and often it had to do with unintentional mistakes made by players,"

      Really? What about all the positive tests that do not result in doping violations -- either because of contaminated samples or TUEs. How can a sport be "clean" if that many people are using TUEs? (As a note to readers, about 1/2 of all positive tests do not result in doping violations. There are dozens of positive tests do not result in any ban. The most likely explanation is that the player has a TUE and thus is not "doping" even though taking banned substances.)

    2. More funding is required because the current underspend, at $300,000 dollars p.a. or thereabouts, is way insufficient to make up for the cost of a programme of the kind they now have in mind. I believe the ITF anti-doping budget is around $1.6 million per annum. To run a half-decent detection/deterrent programme including a blood passport, would require the ITF to at least triple its present budget judging from the $5 million or so that cycling now spends annually on testing. Spending the underspend would achieve little or nothing in other words.

    3. More funding is worthless because the ITF is not the organization to handle testing properly and it has already demonstrated this. The ITF has already said the sport is "clean" and that there is minimal drug use in the sport. Why would you then want to give that same organization additional money that it claims that it does not need to conduct testing that it has demonstrated that it does not want?

      It is easy to say, "Money is the issue." But money has never been the issue. Testing a player after a loss costs the exact same as testing a winning player on that player's day off in a tournament, but the loser was the only one tested -- ever, why? There are minimal blood tests in a year the anti-doping budget comes in $300,000 under budget, why? Stuart Miller explains this as "resource constraints." What "resource" was constrained? The ITF does not test for EPO because it claims it is too expensive, but then claims that the sport is clean because no one tests positive for EPO. "This is strange, no?"

      Now, the ITF wants to put together some unknown "blood passport" that Stuart Miller refuses to disclose or otherwise discuss because this would somehow tip off the cheaters. However, cycling's "blood passport" is fully disclosed, well documented, and anyone can get full information on how it works. Surprisingly, the UCI actually catches cheats with its fully disclosed blood passport. So, what exactly is the ITF worried about? Why will $5 million dollars, or any amount for that matter, fix the fundamental problem that the ITF does not want to catch cheaters?

      Currently, the ITF has a $1.6 million dollar worthless system. Given them $5 million and you will have a $5 million dollar worthless system.

      In terms of the underspent, let's say a blood test costs $300 -- which seems high. (A site offers HGH testing for $79 That is 1000 blood tests that could have been conducted -- Out of competition. So each of the top 50 players (50 men and 50 women) receive an additional 10 blood tests -- about one a month. And you think this would do nothing? Alternately, you could mix it up with urine tests which are much cheaper than blood tests. So you think 500 OOC blood test and 1000 OOC urine tests on the top 100 tennis players will not do anything? That would be 15 tests per player per year -- more than 1 a month.

      Sorry, money is just not the problem.

    4. The UCI only has double the drugtesting budget of tennis, but manages to do 15-30x more OOC tests with it.

      Something not right here......

      As for comments of Federer and the rest, remember what we see are answers ...... but the journalists choose the questions, and thus direct the debate. Lots of questions about dopetesting lately, and the Armstrong/Del Moral plus Fuentes links to tennis have opened a lot of eyes (of journos at least, maybe some players if they're not already all personally aware of it!).


    5. What substances are those? Testosterone, EPO, and HGH are detectible by current tests. Federer seems to know about what drugs are not detectible, which seems strange for a "clean" player. He also basis his belief that the sport is "clean" on the lack of positive tests, but claims to know of substances that would not show up on tests currently. As a lesser ranked player might say, "This is strange, no?"

      You really are an imbecile.

      Anyone who has a cursory interest in sports knows about designer drugs. Many people have read Angel Heredia's interview where he mentioned drugs where you only change a molecule or two and thereby make it undetectable without actually reducing it's effects. Anti-Doping authorities have been talking about undetectable drugs for a while now, to prove that clean tests mean nothing.

      You are an embarrassment for everyone who wants to remain credible while trying to convince people that Santa doesn't exist.


      Go choke yourself, seriously.

    6. Btw, this was a response to Sherlock Ho- I meant MTracy just in case you wonder.

    7. MTracy, you queried yourself why more funding was required and I answered your question. What you raise subsequently are different issues that do not relate to your point about the ITF's budgetary underspend on anti-doping.

      Your general point about the ITF's competence raises an arguable issue as to whether they should spend any money at all. I expect they do this so as not to be considered a complete laughing stock.
      The Italians attach particular importance to creating a 'bella figura' and it would seem the ITF does too.

  24. I think MTracy is referring to a problem known as "conflict of interest".

    Dr Michael Ashenden, one of the world's foremost blood doping authorities, recently had this to say about the UCI:

    "They weren't interested in catching dopers, they were interested in avoiding the scandal with comes with catching dopers.

    And so by warning the athletes and giving them an opportunity to amend how they doped and fall back below the suspicious threshold, they're protecting their sport, not the ethics of the sport."


    I see Richard Ings has slowly moved from a complete apologist of the ITF to, at least, mildly critical.

    1. A good read. I think his view on WADA amending its code is spot on.

    2. "I see Richard Ings has slowly moved from [being, I guess] a complete apologist of the ITF to, at least, mildly critical." Some heavy, heavily informed statement! You know, bullshit, as beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    4. I don't understand why Mr. Ings credits USADA with some great investigative powers. The "evidence" that USADA brought out was primarily witness testimony that had been published in books years or months prior to the USADA decision. Betsy Andreu had previously testified to that same facts back in 2005. There was really nothing new or "investigative" about the USADA decision.

      The USADA decision says this itself: "The most critical evidence assembled by USADA and discussed in this Reasoned Decision has come from Mr. Armstrong’s former teammates and former employees of the United States Postal Service (“U.S. Postal Service” or “USPS”) and Discovery Channel cycling teams who decided that it was the right thing to do for clean sport to come forward and provide evidence to USADA regarding what they knew."

      What the "knew" was published in their books, covered by reporters, and was all known about years ago. In fact, the USADA decisions dedicates a couple pages to Mr. Armstrong's "retaliation" against witnesses. So, the witnesses had come forward years ago and had been ignored by the USADA that entire time -- and this is called investigation.

    5. USADA justifiably deserves huge credit because until now, no one has ever coerced a group of omerta'-bound cyclists under penalty of perjury, to reveal the extent of what was really going on.

      The fact that the issue of sports doping generally is now so topical, why there is so much discussion here for example, and why world-wide remedies are now being aired and sought at government level, is largely down to its Reasoned Decision on Armstrong.

      The impact of the USADA case is immense and its effects long-lasting.

    6. "Coerced?" Let's see what USADA did -- it is in the report...
      "USADA discovered critical evidence relating to doping violations by Armstrong when it was contacted by
      Paul Scott, who is not a UCI license holder or in any other way associated with UCI"

      So, Paul Scott is the one who kicked off the issue by contacting the USADA with information.


      Subsequently, of his own volition, Mr. Landis sent to Mr. Steve Johnson, the President of USA Cycling, an email dated April 30, 2010, in which Mr. Landis detailed some of the admissions he had previously made to USADA during the April 20, 2010, meeting and which had also been previously disclosed to USADA in the April 12, 2010 meeting between Dr. Eichner and Mr. Scott.

      So, "of his on volition", as in not coerced. But what about the previous meetings?

      USADA came to understand that Floyd Landis might have information useful to this effort. However, before USADA communicated with Mr. Landis on this topic, Paul Scott, an
      individual residing in Southern California, provided information to USADA Science Director Dr. Daniel Eichner confirming that Mr. Landis had information relevant to USADA’s investigation..

      So, although USADA knew someone had key information, rather then "coercing" it from him, USADA did nothing. It sat and waited for a Landis to contact them.

      In terms of Betsy and Frank Andreu, they testified under oath in the 2005 case. Let's read her declatation, shall we, Paragraph 3, "I am providing this affidavit to the USADA as part of my voluntary cooperation with USADA..."

      Let's see what else she has to say, "In the arbitration proceeding captioned [Name of the proceeding], I was compelled by subpoena to attend a deposition on October 25, 2005.." Ok, so there is some "coercion," but not by USADA, and USADA knew all of this information back in 2005 or should have known it.

      Now, let's see Tyler Hamilton, Paragraph 3, "I am providing this affidavit to the USADA as part of my voluntary cooperation with USADA."

      And Jorg Jaksche, paragraph 3, "I am providing this affidavit to the USADA as part of my voluntary cooperation with USADA."

      And .. Ok, I think you get the point. They are all voluntary. All the information was previously available.

      Now, it is possible that USADA uncovered some new information that was not previously available, but I have not been able to locate it in the rather lengthy "Reasoned Decision."

      The impact of the USADA case may be immense, but it was not because of any investigation undertaken by USADA. The information was served up on a silver platter by various witnesses who had to contact USADA on their own to get things going. I mean the decision came in 2012 -- covering doping from 1998. So, yes, I applaud the USADA for taking more than a decade to come to this conclusion. I am sure in another 10-12 years, the USADA will bust another doper. At this rate, in 10 billion years, sports will be clean.

    7. Not so. They were coerced by definition, of being under penalty of perjury when the cyclists (not Betsy Andreu) 'volunteered' their evidence under oath, the Hinchcapie evidence being particularly pivotal.

      To make the point blunt, federal investigators sat in on their USADA deposition interviews.

      The riders were also, presumably, well aware of what transpired with Marion Jones after she was found out to have perjured herself in lying in court about her doping past. That plus the shame and all the loss of her gold medals.

      Nothing happened to cyclists prior to USADA. Now their world has imploded and they are currently debating truth and reconciliation, something only a fantasist would dare to dream about prior to the USADA investigation.

    8. Ok, so when they said, under penalty of perjury, that it was voluntary, they were all lying.. Doesn't make a lot of sense.

      Also, "by definition," coerced means "to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition." So, no, penalty of perjury does not mean "coerced." They did not have to testify. They chose to testify -- they say so in their declarations. In addition, it was the witnesses who contacted USADA, not the USADA who contacted the witnesses. In addition, the information was available in book form in L.A. Confidential years ago. Presumably USADA has access to a library. In any case, if you are ever been involved in a car accident, had your credit card stolen, or something similar, you probably had to submit a declaration under penalty of perjury as to what happened. I don't think that hundreds of thousands of people each year who report credit card fraud are "coerced" into signing statements simply because the statement is under penalty of perjury. Also, if you go to court for a traffic accident, you will probably testify under oath on your own behalf. This testimony is not "coerced" simply because it is under oath.

      And yes, many things happened to cyclists prior to USADA. Tyler Hamilton was banned back in 2004. Floyd Landis was banned for doping and there was an investigation by the French regarding computer hacking related to the doping. (, noting "a French judge issued an arrest warrant for Landis last month, in connection with a computer hacking case."

      Jorg Jaksche was banned for doping in 2006 and admitted to doping in 2007.

      Jan Ulrich banned for doping from an action initiated in 2011 -- the CAS did not affirm the ban until Feb 2012.

      Also see for general list of pre-2012 bans noting a dozen or more in each of the following years 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010.

      So, over 100 dopers busted over the last 12 years. USADA takes 12 years to bust one.

  26. There's some articles in that are interesting b/c at least Nadal's integrity is being questioned as the silent ban is mentioned even though he, of course, denies it. And the complete 180 degrees of Murray's cribbing about testing is addressed. It is possible Murray does not wanna dope, but if his compadres are doing it, he has no choice if he wants to make finals which is why he is willing to fund thru player's prize money More testing in any shape or form. Also, I'm wondering if Nadal's loss at the Vina del Mar final to an unknown player has anything to do with him being tested b/c he also lost in doubles.
    Below where interesting from

    [Murray] would be happy for funds players receive to be reduced, if it meant more stringent controls. “It’s down to the governing bodies and the ATP to invest some of our own money into WADA and making sure we get more testing done....In the long term I think you save money; I think more people would come to watch sport, rather than reading all the time about these doping scandals...”

    A little prize money would go a long way. Right now each of the singles champions at the U.S. Open earn roughly the same amount of money—$2 million—that the ITF uses to run its entire worldwide anti-doping campaign.


    Rumor, Milled

    Speaking of those sentiments from Nadal, they came from an interesting interview that he did with the French paper L’Equipe after his opening-round win in Viña del Mar last week (see the English translation here). In it, Nadal talks about a number of the usual subjects with a more reasoned candor than players are typically allowed in press conferences. With all of the recent doping talk, and the mystery over the Puerto/Fuentes case involving unnamed Spanish athletes, it was good to hear him say that he wanted names named, and that he wanted less secrecy in testing. The interviewer, Frédéric Bernès, even crossed into the murky world of rumors, when he asked whether Nadal was aware “that some people think your 7-month absence is due to a silent doping ban.”

    1. If Nadal was on a silent ban, why would the ITF carry on spending thousands of dollars to test him as they have done over the past few months?

      The level of debate needs to move beyond the credibility of silent bans onto the rather more relevant issues of ITF transparency and who has oversight of the overseer.

    2. Wait a minute.

      Just how do we know that the ITF has tested Nadal several times over the past few months ? Exactly, we only know it because Nadal and his uncle Toni said so.

      Now, the question is if we consider Nadal and uncle Toni as honest and their testimonies as truthful.

      Ok, has everyone stopped laughing ? Let's get serious : stats or it did not happen. If I don't see official ITF documents with Nadal's name and every single test performed on it, including dates, I will continue to assume that Toni and Nadal are making things up like the two-face whiners they have always been. Too bad that the ITF is on par with the North Korean government with regards to transparency.

      So, the silent ban hypothesis remains valid. No strong evidence, but way too many oddities. The fact that Frédéric Bernès from L'Equipe even mentioned it in the interview means that a lot of people are wondering, and probably also people that are more insiders than us. It's only a hypothesis, but which does not seem more implausible than the whole injury circus we witnessed since Wimbledon last year.

    3. I have to agree. How many times have we heard players say they have been tested several times to only find that they have been tested once or twice within that period?

    4. The 2012 statistics aren't available on the ITF website. According to the 2011 stats Nadal was tested 1-3 times OOC for the entire year. Yet he is now claiming that for only the second half of 2012 he was tested 6 times (including at least 3 blood tests, as well as urine tests). That means he would have logically been tested at least a dozen times OOC over the entire year - at least 4 times as many tests as the previous year (if not 12x.) Otherwise he received a very unusual number of OOC tests in the latter part of last year.

      So either he has been specially targeted snce Wimbledon last year, or he is bullshitting us - again. Take your pick.

    5. The players aren't stupid - they see what is going on with Armstrong and cycling. They see the outrage on how Armstrong got away with doping for years and was rarely questioned about it by a compliant, lazy media (with a few exceptions). Now the media is on alert and actually digging, and tennis players are scared.

      For crying out loud, year after year, both Nadal and Murray (to give two very prominent examples) were screaming bloody murder at the thought of more drug testing being done. All of a sudden there isn't enough drug testing and there needs to be more? Please. They've done their 180 at a very convenient time - and it just so happens when stories about the true lack of testing have finally made their way into the mainstream sports media.

      They can no longer stick to their "We all get tested 20-40 times a year!" bullshit they've been saying for years when the stats are staring people in the face and people are actually paying attention now. The stories are out there now about how little tennis spent on drug testing and how few drug tests were done.

      The sport is in full CYA mode and they are hoping that if they all call for more testing, people will get off their backs and leave them alone.

      @Beacon Tripper:

      Exactly. We routinely see players mentioning on Twitter that they were "just" tested or complaining that the tester woke them up at 6AM. Then we see the stats (if they are released) and see just how little they're actually tested.

  27. I found it very interesting.

    Modus operandi in Cycling from Operación Puerto's trial. Spanish article.

  28. So, surprise surprise, steroids found in the home of Oscar Pistorius aka The Blade. The Southafrican double amputee runner who won two golds (I believe) in the Paraolympics and won the right to race side by side with runners in the actual Olympics. Oh, and he just brutally murdered his girlfriend.