Thursday, March 7, 2013

2012 ITF Anti-doping Statistics (Update #2)

The 2012 statistics have been published. Overall, there was a minor increase in the number of tests conducted compared to 2011.

Also, there was an increase in total blood and out-of-competition (OOC) testing; however, most of this increase came at the expense of in-competition (IC) urine testing.
2012
2011
Total Male Female Total Male Female
In-competition (Urine) 1727 977 750 1824 1023 801
In-competition (Blood) 124 81 43 110 58 52
Out-of-Competition  (Urine) 271 143 128 195 107 88
Out-of-Competition  (Blood) 63 34 29 21 18 3
Total 2185 1235 950 2150 1206 944


Here are the test ranges for the year-end 2012 rankings for the men:

2012 Year End Rank Name IC OOC
1 Novak Djokovic 7+ 1-3
2 Roger Federer 4-6 1-3
3 Andy Murray 7+ 1-3
4 Rafael Nadal 1-3 7+
5 David Ferrer 7+ 4-6
6 Tomas Berdych 7+ 4-6
7 Juan Martin Del Potro 7+ 1-3
8 Jo-Wilfried Tsonga 7+ 1-3
9 Janko Tipsarevic 7+ 1-3
10 Richard Gasquet 7+ 1-3

Here are the test ranges for the year-end 2012 rankings for the women.

2012 Year End Rank Name IC OOC
1 Victoria Azarenka 4-6 1-3
2 Maria Sharapova 4-6 1-3
3 Serena Williams 1-3 1-3
4 Agnieszka Radwanska 7+ 1-3
5 Angelique Kerber 7+ 1-3
6 Sara Errani 7+ 1-3
7 Na Li 4-6 1-3
8 Petra Kvitova 7+ 1-3
9 Samantha Stosur 4-6 1-3
10 Caroline Wozniacki 1-3 1-3

One comment: Compare the number of times Nadal was tested out of competition in 2012 by the ITF to the total number of times Serena Williams was tested out of competition by the ITF from 2009 through 2012.

Update #2: Below is the distribution of test ranges. A total of 656 players were tested in 2012. A total of 154 players were tested out-of-competition from which 334 samples were collected. The distributions for 2011 and 2010 are here.

Range IC OOC
0 14 502
1-3 449 138
4-6 135 15
7+ 58 1

Update #1: Below is a table listing all the players in the ITF's 2012 International Registered Testing Pool (IRTP). These are the players that were required to provide "Whereabouts" information to the ITF during 2012.


2012 ITF International Registered Testing Pool
ARGENTINA Out-of-Competition
1 CHELA, JUAN IGNACIO 1-3
2 DEL POTRO, JUAN MARTIN 1-3
3 DULKO, GISELA 1-3
4 MONACO, JUAN 1-3
AUSTRALIA
5 DI TORO, DANIELA 1-3
6 GAJDOSOVA, JARMILA 1-3
7 STOSUR, SAMANTHA 1-3
8 TOMIC, BERNARD 1-3
AUSTRIA
9 MELZER, JURGEN 0
10 PASZEK, TAMIRA 1-3
BELARUS
11 AZARENKA, VICTORIA 1-3
12 MIRNYI,MAX 1-3
BELGIUM
13 CLIJSTERS, KIM 1-3
14 MALISSE, XAVIER 1-3
15 WICKMAYER, YANINA 1-3
BRAZIL
16 BELLUCCI, THOMAZ 1-3
BULGARIA
17 PIRONKOVA, TSVETANA 1-3
CANADA
18 NESTOR, DANIEL 1-3
19 RAONIC, MILOS 1-3
CHINA
20 LI, NA 1-3
21 PENG, SHUAI 1-3
22 ZHENG, JIE 4-6
COLOMBIA
23 GIRALDO, SANTIAGO 1-3
CROATIA
24 CILIC, MARIN 4-6
25 DODIG, IVAN 1-3
26 KARLOVIC, IVO 1-3
27 LJUBICIC, IVAN 0
28 MARTIC, PETRA 1-3
CYPRUS
29 BAGHDATIS, MARCOS 1-3
CZECH REPUBLIC
30 BENESOVA, IVETA 1-3
31 BERDYCH, TOMAS 4-6
32 CETKOVSKA, PETRA 1-3
33 HRADECKA, LUCIE 4-6
34 KVITOVA, PETRA 1-3
35 PESCHKE, KVETA 1-3
36 SAFAROVA, LUCIE 1-3
37 STEPANEK, RADEK 4-6
38 ZAHLAVOVA STRYCOVA, BARBORA 4-6
39 ZAKOPALOVA, KLARA 4-6
DENMARK
40 WOZNIACKI, CAROLINE 1-3
ESTONIA
41 KANEPI, KAIA 1-3
FRANCE
42 BARTOLI, MARION 1-3
43 BENNETEAU, JULIEN 1-3
44 GASQUET, RICHARD 1-3
45 HOUDET, STEPHANE 1-3
46 LLODRA, MICHAEL 1-3
47 MONFILS, GAEL 1-3
48 PEIFER, NICOLAS 1-3
49 SIMON, GILLES 1-3
50 TSONGA, JO-WILFRIED 1-3
GREAT BRITAIN
51 BALTACHA, ELENA 1-3
52 LAPTHORNE, ANDREW 1-3
53 MURRAY, ANDY 1-3
54 NORFOLK, PETER 1-3
GERMANY
55 ELLERBROCK, SABINE 1-3
56 GOERGES, JULIA 1-3
57 KERBER, ANGELIQUE 1-3
58 KOHLSCHREIBER, PHILIPP 1-3
59 LISICKI, SABINE 1-3
60 MAYER, FLORIAN 1-3
61 PETKOVIC, ANDREA 1-3
62 PETZSCHNER, PHILIPP 1-3
INDIA
63 BHUPATHI, MAHESH 1-3
64 PAES, LEANDER 1-3
ISRAEL
65 GERSHONY, NOAM 1-3
66 PEER, SHAHAR 1-3
ITALY
67 ERRANI, SARA 1-3
68 FOGNINI, FABIO 0
69 PENNETTA, FLAVIA 1-3
70 SCHIAVONE, FRANCESCA 1-3
71 SEPPI, ANDREAS 4-6
72 STARACE, POTITO 0
73 VINCI, ROBERTA 1-3
JAPAN
74 KUNIEDA, SHINGO 1-3
75 MORITA, AYUMI 1-3
76 NISHIKORI, KEI 1-3
KAZAKHSTAN
77 PERVAK, KSENIA 1-3
78 SHVEDOVA, YAROSLAVA 0
79 VOSKOBOEVA, GALINA 1-3
LATVIA
80 GULBIS, ERNESTS 4-6
LUXEMBOURG
81 MULLER, GILLES 1-3
NETHERLANDS
82 AMMERLAAN, ROBIN 1-3
83 BUIS, MARJOLEIN 1-3
84 GRIFFIOEN, JISKE 1-3
85 HAASE, ROBIN 1-3
86 SCHEFFERS, MAIKEL 1-3
87 VAN KOOT, ANIEK 1-3
88 VERGEER, ESTHER 1-3
89 VINK, RONALD 1-3
PAKISTAN
90 QURESHI, AISAM-UL-HAQ 1-3
POLAND
91 RADWANSKA, AGNIESZKA 1-3
ROMANIA
92 BEGU, IRINA-CAMELIA 1-3
93 CIRSTEA, SORANA 1-3
94 NICULESCU, MONICA 4-6
RUSSIA
95 BOGOMOLOV JR., ALEX 1-3
96 DAVYDENKO, NIKOLAY 1-3
97 KIRILENKO, MARIA 1-3
98 KUZNETSOVA, SVETLANA 1-3
99 MAKAROVA, EKATERINA 1-3
100 PAVLYUCHENKOVA, ANASTASIA 1-3
101 PETROVA, NADIA 1-3
102 PLOTNIY, ANDREI 1-3
103 SHARAPOVA, MARIA 1-3
104 TURSUNOV, DMITRY 1-3
105 VESNINA, ELENA 1-3
106 YOUZHNY, MIKHAIL 1-3
107 ZVONAREVA, VERA 1-3
SERBIA
108 DJOKOVIC, NOVAK 1-3
109 IVANOVIC, ANA 1-3
110 JANKOVIC, JELENA 0
111 TIPSAREVIC, JANKO 1-3
112 TROICKI, VIKTOR 1-3
113 ZIMONJIC, NENAD 1-3
SLOVAK REPUBLIC
114 CIBULKOVA, DOMINIKA 1-3
115 HANTUCHOVA, DANIELA 1-3
SLOVENIA
116 HERCOG, POLONA 1-3
117 SREBOTNIK, KATARINA 1-3
SOUTH AFRICA
118 ANDERSON, KEVIN 1-3
119 SCHEEPERS, CHANELLE 1-3
SPAIN
120 ALMAGRO, NICOLAS 4-6
121 ANDUJAR, PABLO 4-6
122 FERRERO, JUAN CARLOS 1-3
123 FERRER, DAVID 4-6
124 GRANOLLERS, MARCEL 4-6
125 LOPEZ, FELICIANO 1-3
126 MARTINEZ SANCHEZ, MARIA JOSE 1-3
127 MEDINA GARRIGUES, ANABEL 4-6
128 MONTANES, ALBERT 1-3
129 NADAL, RAFAEL 7+
130 ROBREDO, TOMMY 1-3
131 SUAREZ NAVARRO, CARLA 1-3
132 VERDASCO, FERNANDO 1-3
SWEDEN
133 LARSSON, JOHANNA 1-3
134 SODERLING, ROBIN 1-3
SWITZERLAND
135 FEDERER, ROGER 1-3
136 WAWRINKA, STANISLAS 1-3
UKRAINE
137 DOLGOPOLOV, ALEXANDR 1-3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
138 BLAKE, JAMES 1-3
139 BRYAN, BOB 1-3
140 BRYAN, MIKE 1-3
141 FISH, MARDY 1-3
142 HUBER, LIEZEL 1-3
143 ISNER, JOHN 1-3
144 KING, VANIA 1-3
145 MATTEK-SANDS, BETHANIE 1-3
146 McHALE, CHRISTINA 1-3
147 ODESNIK, WAYNE 1-3
148 RAYMOND, LISA 0
149 RODDICK, ANDY 1-3
150 TAYLOR, NICHOLAS 1-3
151 WAGNER, DAVID 1-3
152 WILLIAMS, SERENA 1-3
153 WILLIAMS, VENUS 1-3
154 YOUNG, DONALD 1-3

26 comments:

  1. wow that 7+ for Nadal sticks out like a sore thumb. I'd say that's conclusive evidence not only that he was doping but that he was serving a silent ban.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you stupid? He was tested more times out of competition because he didn't play for a large period of time. He didn't get tested more than Murray or others.
      They tried to balance it out.

      Delete
    2. No. Are you stupid? Robin Soderling was out all year and was only tested 1-3 times. It looks like targeted testing to me. I suppose you also thought Lance was clean?

      Delete
    3. And if they targeted Nadal, what? The fact that he was tested many times can only be a good thing. And it's not even news because he already said how many times he was tested in the interviews from the end of the year.
      Of course many thought he was lying. I guess finding out he told the truth didn't make you very happy.
      Lance doesn't play tennis, so I don't care about him.

      Delete
    4. Obviously the target for the top 10 was ~8-10 tests for the year total. None of them stick out as unusual. The only thing that can be gleaned from this is that they set a value and arrive at it via mostly in competition testing, probably because that is cheapest and easiest for them, but when they can't do that they make it up via OOC tests. The amount of testing Soderling received was in line with the rate for his ranking as well.

      Delete
    5. John Doe... I think your intentionally missing the point Lopi was making...

      The fact that Nadal was so often tested OOC ( and most of the heavy doping happen OOC ) does make me also think it's possible he was caught ...
      And that strange break with all the coming back/not, knee/not knee something else Craziness , was about him having legal battles behind the curtain ... Was there a silent ban / deal reached , hopefully one day we know for sure ...

      I have no doubt Nadal's been using this and that , Spain has a lot of that going on ... This silent ban , not sure , but I think it's very likely, considering how he stormed back to scene . . .

      Delete
  2. 2Lopi
    it's just because he didn't take part in tournaments

    ReplyDelete
  3. Would have been interesting to see the dates on these tests, pre and post Armstrong.

    In particular, did the players who train at Del Moral's academy get a lot more tests post-Armstrong? I see Ferrer was 7+ and 4-6, which is rather a lot. Errani 7+ and 1-3.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Here are a few points I want to underline:

    1/ Spanish and Czech are under bigger scrutiny. Main reason is of course because majority is within the top25 (singles or doubles) but some of them were definitely more targeted: Granollers +7 and 4-6, same for Medina Garrigues, Ferrer, Berdych, Stepanek, Hradecka, Zhalavova Strycova (which was suspended last month), Andujar 4-6 and 4-6, same for Almagro and Zakopalova.
    Italians too were tested more than others (Errani, Vinci, Seppi).

    2/ Nadal being tested +7 OOC is normal as he was sidelined for half of the 2012 season. However him being only tested 1-3 IC is just way too low considering he entered 11 tournaments of which he won 4 and made 2 finals. That's just crazy poor. In a lesser extent, same could be said for Federer, being the only one being tested less than 7 times IC compared to the rest of the top 10. Again, way too low.
    But then the question is more about qualitative testing: better timing and blood.

    3/ Funny is WTA player Niculescu (current ranking 58, highest 28 last year), tested +7 and 4-6. Any particular reason? I just read on Wikipedia that her mother is pharmaceutical sales rep :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For spanish male players and Czech players, I guess Davis cup and Fed cup are a part of the explanation for such numbers.

      Delete
  5. It appears that the ITF anti-doping programme last year was to test players approximately 10-12 times over the year. For most these tests were IC, as would be expected by past practice. However the great majority of Nadal's tests came OOC. As a commenter above noted, Nadal was tested only 1-3 times IC. This is remarkably low, as it covered the period through to the second half of the season, including Wimbledon in July. He was then tested over 7 times OOC while he convalesced in Mallorca. Compare that with the 1-3 tests OOC he incurred for the previous year.

    Why would the ITF test him over twice as much OOC than IC, at a time when he says he is also injured? This seems rather unusual given that in previous years the ITF has devoted only 7-8% of its testing programme to OOC tests - a very low figure. Compare also the ITF conducting only 21 blood tests last year against over 3000 for cycling.

    I might draw two inferences: the ITF has adopted a policy last year of testing the top players at least ten to a dozen times in the year - whether IC or OOC, presumably to show that it has a consistent testing programme (although it is overall pathetically weak compared to cycling), and also by testing Nadal the same number of times as other players by upping his OOC tests they are showing there is no favoritism. If he had been test only 1-3 times OOC as in previous years his lack of total tests last year would have stood out like a sore thumb.

    So, in response to increased public concern, is the ITF working harder to catch the cheats, or are we still seeing efforts that are largely token? Same old game I think. The chances of the cheats being caught are still pretty small, even though Nadal has felt unfairly (or "disrespectfully", he says) singled out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Any of the "Why was Nadal tested so much?" theories needs to account for the fact that his camp claims he was tested "four time in a week." http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/tennis/news/20130102/mailbag-rafael-nadal-2013/

      Assuming that this fact is remotely true (maybe 2, 3 or 4 times), it would only fit with a targeted testing plan. That is, if the ITF "adopted a policy last year of testing the top players at least ten to a dozen times in the year - whether IC or OOC," it would have known that such a policy would immediately target Nadal.

      That is, when there is only 3 months left in the year and you come up with an "unbiased" policy of testing all athletes 10 times a year, what you really have is a biased policy that will test athletes who have been injured a significant portion of the year yet still retain a top 50 ranking -- and how many of those are there?

      If this "unbiased" policy was come up with before the year started, or earlier in the year, then Nadal would have been tested about once a month regardless of when he competed. So, by July (which is 7/12 of the year, he would have had 7/12 of his testing completed or between 5 or 6 tests. Then a test every 1.2 months after that and they have the magic number -- no need for "four times in a week."

      Delete
    2. This is a cynical policy. Its aim is only to look good - not catch anyone.

      Last year the ITF conducted only 21 OOC blood tests - it has increased that to 63 in 2012. Wow! A three-fold increase! But wait a minute, cycling carried out more than 3,314 out-of-competition blood tests in 2011. And cycling has a doping problem, right? So I guess the ITF thinks tennis doesn't.

      We know IC testing will likely catch no one, as masking of drugs makes doping nigh impossible to pick up, bar one or two careless exceptions. OOC testing, and targeted testing, is more important. But outside the curious case of Rafael Nadal last year, do we see any evidence of that? I think not.

      What we have is the fulfillment of minimum quotas, of about ten tests (combining both IC and OOC) per annum per player, that serves only as window-dressing to fool a gullible (or should I say after Armstrong, increasingly sceptical?) public.

      Until there is concerted independent investigation of doping and individual players in tennis we will be going nowhere: the interminable rallies, impossible gets, rising power and bulging quadriceps will be with us for a long time to come.

      Delete
  6. The player that I find odd is Barbora Zahlavova Strycova. Yes, she was just busted for sibutramine and is currently serving a ban. However, she was still tested "7+" times in the year IC -- all of which would have been prior to her October 16, 2012 positive test. In addition, she had "4-6" OOC tests. Perhaps all of these were post October 16, but that seems unlikely given that the ban was not confirmed until February 2013.

    So, the question is, why was Strycova tested so much? In addition, does it come as a surprise that the athlete that was tested the most came up with a positive test?

    Note, Strycova had 7+ IC and 4-6 OOC. Compare to Nadals 1-3 IC and 7+ OOC -- Yes, I am aware that the "7+" could mean any number, but to have a guarantee of more tests than Strycova, you would have to have 7+ IC and 7+ OOC, and there are no such athletes -- though a couple others have the same 7+/4-6).

    ReplyDelete
  7. Rafael Nadal's case is very surprising to me (well, a lot of things are surprising with ITF's antidoping policy !).
    He was injuried during several months, wasn't he ?
    If so, can we consider he was "out of competition" ? (which, to me means training, practising...)
    Personally, I would answer "no" - except perhaps the 2 last months before he began to compete again.
    So, I cannot understand why he was tested during the rest of his "injury time". Wouldn't this be what richard march said "Its aim is only to look good - not to catch anyone" ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thing is you cannot know how long his injury timeout will last. Now we know it lasted 7 months. But at the time, how do we know he's not coming back after 2 or 3 months? Either way, OOC testing is definitely needed whether during "injury time" or training time.

      What is most surprising is the 1-3 IC figure while he won 4 tournaments and made 2 finals. In the worst case scenario that could mean he was only tested once in 6 final appearances! Freaking crazy! I think winners & finalists of each ATP/WTA tournament should be tested no matter what (in addition to normal IC & OOC tests).

      Delete
  8. An interesting development. Everyone's favorite Olympic athlete, the now disgraced Belarusian shotputter Nadzeya Ostapchuk has been found guilty of further doping. Samples from 2005 (8 years ago!) have been retested and determined positive.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/8402880/Ostapchuk-caught-doping-again

    Richard Ings will be pleased (but not that she is cheating!)Proof of the value of freezing samples and retesting them as technology improves. I hope a few big name tennis cheats will be getting nervous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, great news that they double caught one athlete.

      The story only lists generic "steroids" as the drug found in 2005. So, now drugs undetectable in 2005 are now detectible. Great. Has the ITF gone back and retested anyone? What about the IOC? Other than this one athlete?

      Samples can only be held for 8 years (that WADA statute of limitations), so why not re-test a significant number of samples shortly before they need to be discarded anyway?

      This is just another example of the anti-doping authorities touting a policy that sounds good but is simply never used. Are we supposed to believe that Ostapchuk was the only person using "steroids" that were undetectable in 2005?

      Delete
  9. While there is a bit more testing than years past, it is still not much. The data isn't going to be that useful anyway without the stuff they leave out. We don't know how many tests were missed. We don't know how many tests turned up positive. With a range of "1-3", they are still probably hiding the fact that they are really only giving many of them 1 test (which also likely still means that they missed one of their tests). And Serena with likely only 1 OOC test and 1 in competition for the whole year when we know she hid in a saferoom to ditch one OOC test. Why wasn't she given as many as Nadal, for example?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I looked at some of the more detailed numbers last year. I don't have the time to do it now, but it would be nice if somebody sorted through the detailed per-player ranges. We could get a feel statistically for where the average "1-3" test player falls in that range by looking at the overall distribution of "1-3," "4-6," and "7+" for IC and OOC. I assume there's a disconnect between the number of tests (1-3, etc) and the number of samples (2185 total). For instance, if they perform blood and urine test(s) on me at the same time, I assume that's considered one test (in that stupid matrix) and TWO samples. So it's not as simple as dividing the number of samples by the number of players tested to get an average test per player (which may also be why they report the 'statistics' in the manner they do).

      That's a long-winded way of saying that it would be great for a capable person to sort through the distribution of ranges quoted for each player so we can get a feel for where the average player in the "1-3" range falls. If the vast majority of players are in the "1-3" range, which appears to be the case giving the detailed per player data a cursory glance, it's statistically likely that the average player in the "1-3" category averaged fewer than two tests. That's not necessarily true, but it's extremely statistically likely. I don't know if that puts the average at 1.3 or 1.6 for a player in the "1-3" range. You then also have to factor in that the top players are tested more IC (probably mostly because they make deep runs in events and may play more events than other players).

      However, when you look at the distribution of OOC for top ten players, only a clown would look at that data and say that the most logical conclusion from the data is that the average player with an OOC range of "1-3" was tested more than 2.0 times on average in the year. By contrast, the data we have supports a conclusion that the average is well under 2.0 (which leads one to wonder if the ITF publishes ranges that make it appear like more testing is going on than actually is; I'm just sayin'...).

      Delete
    2. I was skeptical about this myself, so I ran the numbers. I built a spreadsheet of all the OOC tests. I then excluded anything that was not 1-3 and subtracted the minimum from the total number. That is, if a player had 4-6, I removed the player and subtracted 4 tests from the total. This left a number of total tests and a number of players with 1-3 test. Averaging that number, the "average" was slightly above 2.

      Given that there are not a lot of 4-6, using 5 or 6 for that number would not significantly alter the results and using 4 gave the ITF the benefit of the doubt. Obviously this does not cover the 2 samples issues, but using the data provided above and given the total number of OOC test listed and dividing that out, you get slightly above 2.

      Delete
    3. If you assume that every time a blood sample was conducted OOC that they also got a urine sample (that is to say that there were in actuality only 271 OOC tests in total; that is the assumption I was making; maybe that's a poor assumption; if it is, maybe they should actually tell us that data), does that take your average down to about 1.63-1.65? I'm not sure what value "slightly above 2" is. I just looked at a rough cut based on the numbers you set out, and that's what I would expect it to reduce your result to if your number really was right at 2.0 (but slightly over).

      Delete
    4. If you assume that a urine sample was conducted at every OOC test, back into an average of 1.606 OOC tests per player tested in the "1-3" range (that's assuming an equal distribution of blood tests for each test conducted in each of the three ranges: "1-3," "4-6," and "7+"). It also assumes that anybody in the "4-6" range was tested ONLY four times, and it assumes that the one player in the "7+" range was only tested 7 times. There's no reasonable way to get anywhere close to an average of two tests per person in the 1-3 range when you consider the multiple sample per test variable and the fact that we're being as conservative as possible with people in the 4-6 range.

      Delete
    5. I am just getting different numbers than you. I used your list above of the 154 players. I have 0 OOC tests for the following:
      MELZER, JURGEN
      LJUBICIC, IVAN
      FOGNINI, FABIO
      STARACE, POTITO
      SHVEDOVA, YAROSLAVA
      JANKOVIC, JELENA
      RAYMOND, LISA

      That is 7 players. So if there are 154 on the list and 7 tested 0, that is 147 players that tested at least once. I get 131 testing 1-3, 15 testing 4-6 and 1 testing 7+ (also different from your summary above).

      Total OOC tests were 334 (271 Urine, 63 Blood). With 15 people at 4-6, I back out 4 x 15 test = 60. With 1 at 7+, I back out 7 tests, so total tests backed out is 67. Total people backed out is 16. So I get 267 tests for the 131 people who show a 1-3 in the list published above. This gives 2.038168.

      Now, taking 5 rather than 4 as the backout for the "4-6" range gives 1.923664. Figuring that the 7+ person (Nadal) was tested 10 times lowers it to 1.900763. To me, this is still pretty close to 2.

      Assuming that every single blood test was a duplicate of a urine test gives an average of 1.44 (assuming 5 test for each "4-5" player and that none of those were blood -- a highly unlikely set for circumstances.

      So, the very worst case scenario is an average of 1.44 with a more likely scenario being 1.9 and a favorable scenario being 2.03.

      Keep in mind that as a policy issue, I think it is better to have the 4-6 range be closer to 6 than the 1-3 range be closer to 2. The reason is that the people being tested 4-6 times are likely being targeted for some reason. As such, I don't really have a problem with the 1-3 average coming down if it means that the 4-6 average is going up. If we assuming that the 4-6 really means 6 and the 7+ really means 10, this gives a 1.786 average for the 1-3. I don't really see a problem with this because it means that 15 athletes are being target tested, especially when 5 of these athletes are from Spain and one of them is a known associate of del Moral. Personally, I don't care if Andy Roddick was tested 1, 2, or 3 times, even though he was listed as 1-3. Same with Esther Vergreer -- what is she going to do, put a motor in her wheel chair? Hopefully they only wasted one test on her and not three.

      Delete
  10. How is it decided who is on the whereabout list? Is it a function of ranking on a particular date. If so this could be used for research. I am Ph.D. economist who has experience research drug/alcohol abuse and fraud in workers compensation. I would be really interested to potentially collaborate about get some statistics together that are a little more smoking gun.

    Benjamin Hansen
    Professor of Economics
    University of Oregon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's based on year-end rankings, but that's not an iron-clad rule. You can read the details here: http://www.itftennis.com/antidoping/whereabouts/overview.aspx

      Drop me an e-mail if you wish to discuss further.

      Delete