• Here’s this week’s Served podcast.
• A few of you asked: Here’s a wild story about an Afghan rescue.
• A tennis fundraiser for a worthy cause in Southern California. (Big props to James Blake and Brandon Nakashima here.)
• While pondering whether the Australian Open per diem of $350 ($225 U.S.) can be adopted by Sports Illustrated’s T/E department?
Onward …
Jon,
Enough already. Another failed test with more nonsense about how the amount was too small to matter, about how it was unintentional. I don’t even care anymore. I can’t anymore with this. I think I’ll pass on tennis for now.
P.
• Unsurprisingly, most of the questions this week pertained to the Thanksgiving bombshell announcement that Iga Świątek had failed a doping test, provided an explanation that was accepted and effectively freed her from fault, yet accepted a 30-day suspension.
I’m not entirely sure where to begin here but I included this question because, sadly, it's illustrative. To casual fans and nonfans scrolling social media, the optics are terrible. Other sports have headlines about awards, feats and trades. Too often, tennis’s headlines are about doping, match-fixing, discipline and injuries. Because we live in a TLDR world—and because social media is poison—there is little room for nuance or real discussion. Every athlete is corrupt, rotten and immoral. Or every athlete is flawless and the system is corrupt, rotten and immoral.
But the facts: For the second time in 100 days, we have learned that a top, young player has tested positive for a trace amount of a banned substance. Either the sport has a serious doping problem, so much so that top players—totally inconsistent with the most basic risk/reward analysis—would jeopardize their reputations, careers and mental health, seeking a vanishingly small advantage in the middle of the season. Or, tennis has a serious doping protocol problem, whereby the most trace amounts of banned substances—accompanied by accepted explanations—trigger positive results that stain reputations, necessitate seven-figure legal bills and create a climate of skepticism.
Here are some scattered thoughts:
A) Rigorous anti-doping is essential in sports. The idea that competition isn’t legit turns sports into professional wrestling. What’s more, strict liability—if you test positive, you’re guilty—is probably the right standard. A few of you asked about due process and being innocent until proven guilty. But—unlike the view most of us have about criminal justice—a world in which an athlete testing positive can continue competing in hopes of exoneration is a worse scenario than an athlete testing positive and serving a suspension only to be exonerated later.
B) This has to be balanced with common sense and some grace. The current policy is unreasonably draconian. Look objectively at the facts of Świątek’s case. She tested negative at the Olympics. A month later, she tested negative at the U.S. Open. In between, she flew from Europe to Cincinnati—tennis’s global nature and relentless schedule is a proximate cause in many of these cases—and she was, understandably, jet-lagged. She took a Polish brand of melatonin. A few hours later she got a knock on the door from anti-doping. From this out-of-competition test, she tested positive for trace amounts of trimetazidine (TMZ). Most people looking at this clear-headedly would realize this was, at worst, a case of sloppiness. There must be a mechanism for common sense to prevail.
C) In so many sports, the anti-doping policy is collectively bargained. With no union-management dynamic in tennis, the tours are signatories of the code, the players are bound by the strict WADA code and they have virtually no input.
D) I talked about this on Served, and I was happy to see Matthew Futterman seize on the same issue, but public trust goes beyond clean vs. dirty. When athletes are vague about their scheduling and we later learn that they are not simply fatigued or dealing with vague personal issues or a phantom knee injury but, in fact, are serving a ban, it erodes trust. A policy where athletes and their team members aren’t transparent must be reconsidered.
E) The notion that the wealthy can buy justice (and their way out of legal trouble) is, of course, not specific to tennis. But spare a thought for the athletes who do not have the financial means to confront their allegations as aggressively as, say, Jannik Sinner and Świątek. The stars can hire renowned sports lawyer Howard Jacobs and let the meter run. They know to send any supplement to a WADA lab in hopes of finding mislabeling or evidence of contamination. They can fly in witnesses and experts and hire a pro team. Every player must abide by the anti-doping code. How many get caught in the gears because they don’t have the means to fight?
F) Though surprised by the positive test result, Świątek seemed to suspect the source immediately, though the result came four weeks after the fact. What happens to the tennis players who say, Hell if I know what triggered this positive. Could have been Argentine beef. Could have my anti-jet lag medication. Could have been some goop my trainer had on his finger. As it stands, the athlete who can’t immediately furnish a “theory of the case” is in a much different lane. Is it not counterintuitive that the athletes who can source the positive result are immeasurably better off than the athlete who says, I thought I did everything right and have no earthly idea why I tested positive?
G) I don’t think there is rampant bad faith here. I don’t think the ITIA is “corrupt.” Policing anything is exceedingly difficult; running a flawless investigation is exceedingly difficult; and the balance between overreach and under-policing is difficult and delicate. Neither do I think tennis is awash in doping. In the most transactional terms, the recent doping cases make no sense. (Świątek, the highest earning female athlete last year, is jeopardizing it all to dope with trace amounts of an angina drug on the eve of Cincinnati? Come on.)
H) That said, reasonable people need to revisit the code and the processes, apply some common sense principles, and realize the harm being done to the sport’s credibility here. Maybe, the threshold amounts that trigger positive tests need to change. Maybe, the tours need to dispense supplements and melatonin so they source the material and bear responsibility for contamination. It’s necessary to have rigorous anti-doping. It’s also necessary to have a sports ecosystem where trust is not eroded.
[Awkward segue to prosaic tennis talk goes here]
Off the top of your head in no order, best five forehands.
James, PDX
• I like this question in part because it gives us an opportunity to apply some shine to Juan Martín del Potro who, as he revealed again last week, is going through some tough times. (Side note: let’s underscore that in his offseason, Novak Djokovic traveled to Argentina to send del Potro out in style.) Let’s do the women’s division next week.
Anyway, I’ll go:
1) del Potro
2) Rafael Nadal
3) Pete Sampras
4) Roger Federer
5) Fernando González?
Jon, picking up on the thread of what type of former player makes the best coach, I agree with the notion that natural greats don't generally make the best coaches (see Wayne Gretzky's stint with the Arizona Coyotes). If I was a player who wanted a coach that would help me fully maximize my talents, improve my mental toughness, increase my resilience and never lose because I beat myself, my top pick would be David Ferrer. I wish a guy like [Félix Auger-Aliassime] would hire him because if he had all the Ferrer attributes to augment his natural skill, he'd legitimately contend more consistently for Grand Slams. I know you're a big Ferrer fan, so go pitch him to start coaching!
Neil Grammer
Toronto
• Ferrer is one of those guys who A) maxed out his talent and B) maxed out respect from his peers. Last month, I complained about Daniel Nestor not making the Hall of Fame. A former No. 1 player noted to me, “You know who really belongs in the Hall of Fame? David Ferrer.”
I don’t have a great sense of whether he wants to coach a single player or whether he would excel in that intense one-on-one environment. My suspicion, too, is he would be an excellent coach. And I also suspect he would be just as good a candidate for the right female player. Here’s a guy known not only for his work ethic and his resistance to fatigue, but also his ability to build a top-five career without the benefit of a hulking physique or a devastating kill shot. (You’re tempted to say he had few weapons. Then you stop yourself because his organizing principles—outwork everyone; never quit; pack a lunch—could be devastating to the opposition.)
Indulge this other point. Some of it, yes, is situational. But it’s really remarkable how often the best athletes in their sport make for not-the-best coaches. Here’s Ted Williams’s winning percentage as a Major League manager. Magic Johnson did not distinguish himself as an NBA coach. Years ago I covered Michael Jordan’s stint as a Washington Wizards exec. The players were remarkably muted in their praise. You expected awe—the GOAT, the player they grew up idolizing, was traipsing through the locker room. Instead, they effectively rolled their eyes at this grouchy middle-aged guy. I was finally able to drill down with a player. He essentially said: Instead of teaching us, he basically says, why can’t you guys do the things I did?
Jon, you were talking about Celebrity Coaches last week. I still want to know why there are not more women coaches. The reader asked you about Martina Hingis. She would be great! And she’s not the only one.
J.T., New York
• The old fallback was: She needs a male coach because she needs a sparring partner and there are no women who can replicate the pace and power of Aryna Sabalenka/Serena Williams/Naomi Osaka.
I’m not sure I buy that. There are hitting partners for hire. Today, a coach seldom stands on the other side of the net and bats the ball around to the player.
There’s also a question of time and scheduling. This isn’t gender-specific but it’s a real commitment. I love the idea of Martina Hingis as a coach. But does she want to spend the bulk of the year traveling, displaced and dealing with hotels and tournament transport? I don’t know. But it takes a certain person—and a certain set of circumstances—to agree to the job.
Your overall point is well-taken. There’s no good reason there are not more female coaches.
As long as we are here: Why are there not more female agents? Finding endorsement opportunities and revenue streams … spotting and mining promising talent? .... managing a career … helping with scheduling, personal moves and travel details? Stop me when I get to a task that is gender-specific ….
Shots
- The USTA Foundation, the charitable arm of the USTA, announced its newest Advisory Board members. (Alice Lin Fabiano, Chris Granger, Christopher Kennedy, Jonathan Klein, Zach Stafford, Scott Wapner, Mary Harden Weiser.)
This article was originally published on www.si.com as Tennis Mailbag: Iga Świątek’s Case and the Sport’s Anti-Doping Problem .
