"[Odesnik] gave video link evidence from Florida in April 2011 to a corruption hearing in Britain. Here, Odesnik is being quizzed on his whistle-blowing:
Q: “Did you give them [the authorities] information about anyone apart from Mr Kollerer?”
Odesnik: “I had given information on a few other players.”
Q: “About what subjects? Match fixing, doping or what?”
Odesnik: “I had given information on both matters.”
Q: “What proportion was about Mr Kollerer? Just a little part or was it mainly him?”
Odesnik: “He was a small part of it.”
Q: “So the reduction that you got from two years to one year was not just in return for information about Mr Kollerer?”
Odesnik: “Correct. It was not just about Kollerer.”So, where does this leave us? Where are the results from the rest of the information provided by Odesnik? How did this information result in his suspension being cut in half?
In a piece called "Does Tennis Have a Gambling Problem?", Patrick Hruby picks up on Nick Harris's reporting on match-fixing and the latest Odesnik revelations, making the following observation:
"Match-fixing is a real threat -- extremely hard to spot, and harder still to stop. Only nobody seems particularly concerned. The Daily Mail story created significantly less consternation than Rafael Nadal's Wimbledon seeding and a verbal spat between Maria Sharapova and Serena Williams. Which is to say: It was published without a ripple. Would a similar report about college basketball be equally ignored? Of course, maybe that's the point of tennis' zip-lipped approach to corruption. Provide too many answers, and pretty soon people start asking uncomfortable questions."This is the thing: people should be asking the uncomfortable questions, but they're aren't. That's the problem.