"The deluge of rumors swirling around the web" swirled into my inbox. Usually this is the equivalent of a no-fly zone for me. Fans can speculate wildly. Us media types cannot. In this case, though, the insinuations were severe enough that the Nadal camp responded. Benito Barbadillo, Nadal's media manager, engaged in a live chat with readers on the UbiTennis site and said, "Nadal has been tested even four times in a week during these six months."
If there's a takeaway for me, it's this: there is no such thing as too much transparency or too much out-of-competition testing. Blame the media. Blame Lance Armstrong and the other cyclists. Blame spineless federations. Point fingers at any vector. But in the absence of full-bore OOC testing, every absence, retirement, withdrawal triggers ugly allegations. At this point, yes, it's about catching cheaters. But it's also about reassuring the fans (i.e. the customers), a very skeptical cohort these days.
Update
Here's the interview with Barbadillo. It switches to English near the very end. From what I can make out, Barbadillo seems to say that Nadal was tested four times over a two week period in December.
While I appreciate the sentiment I wish Wertheim, or any other journalist for that matter, would have simply asked Barbadillo to cite facts regarding the "four times in a week." At that point Barbadillo would have gone into a self-induced tailspin that would have made the Tasmanian Devil look like he was standing still. The point of Wertheim's article then could have been something to the effect of "why did Barbadillo lie about Nadal's being tested?" That's a whole new can of incriminating worms. If his only real "proof" that Nadal is clean (which as we've learned from Armstrong isn't even proof anyway - passing a drug test isn't proof that one isn't doping) turns out to be a lie then a reporter should behave like a shark sensing blood in the water.
ReplyDeleteThere can't be a reasonable, even semi-informed person that believes that Nadal was given 4 OOC tests in a week.
The irony is that the article mentions skepticism but fails to identify or recognize the part of the story that should draw the MOST skepticism.
Going to be interesting when the 2012 stats come out, and show Nadal had the same old "1-3" ooc tests (which usually means 1).
ReplyDeleteI'm assuming that the "four times in a week" claim is crap. But assuming it is true, since I don't think any tennis player has ever been documented as having 4 tests in a week, one has to ask why he would be tested with that frequency?
ReplyDeleteIf it's true, I don't see how it could be interpreted as anything other than targeted testing. And that, as you indicate, raises questions as to why.
DeleteHave others have experienced the same testing frequency? Will we ever know?
DeleteThere will never be transparency while the controlling body has a conflict of interest.
Well, you reported on surprise testing of Spanish players recently, cue to "antidoping, antidoping antidoping". I forgot if Nadal was in that bag of those who got tested as well. But 4 tests in two weeks sounds like a gross exaggeration to me.
DeleteOn the other hand, if we were to believe that, we would know where the virus is really coming from ... ;) And that it is here to stay.
In general, looks like they are at least trying to enforce certain rules now, what's with the enforcing of the time rule all of a sudden?
I tried to participate in that rather messy live-chat thing in Italian and pushed for some questions that debunked that spent Nadal-gets-tested-a lot-myth by mentioning the 2011 stats, the only one's available so far. Also mentioned that there was no bloodtesting. They did not go into that, obvs. When I raised the fact that Spanish anti-doping is notoriously weak, Barbadillo simply denied that and put the blame with WADA and ITF, citing that they are in charge to decide how much and how often controls should take place. He also said he would have advised Nadal to not support Contador, when I raised that dubious lipservice of Nadal in one of my comments, he also stressed that Nadal is free to speak his mind.
Then he was asked why Djoker, Murray and Nadal did not insist on more clarity with testing while they were on the player's council, to which he answered by pointing out that the player's council holds no power over the ITF.
To which I would have retorted with the fact that players can put pressure up when asking for an increase of prize money when they are really serious about something...
He also offered yet another story to how the knee injury went down. According to him, Nadal was already under the influence of painkillers during his last two matches at Roland Garros. (Hope he had a valid or backdated TUE for that). So that would be the semi against Ferrer as well as in the final against Djoker. Barbadillo says that Nadal, like all players, feels a certain amount of pain when playing. So apparently he was training in Mallorca prior to Wimby when he felt pain again...Hoffa's had been diagnosed already before the US Open. In a previous meeting with the entire team and doctors they have opted for a non-intrusive, conservative method, according to him. And then he caught the flu after a cold yet beautiful day of golfing on the island of Mallorca, which left him in bed with a fever for three days... Barbadillo says he has had stomach problems before but was able to play tournaments. All very contradictory to me tbh. He mentions Nadal took up training on the 31st again.
And I am not sure about this bit, my Italian is rather weak, but it seems to be defending the Spanish while putting the blame on WADA being in charge of the enforcement of rules:
Q: "Si dice però che la legge spagnola sia più permissiva rispetto ad altri Paesi.
Barbadillo: "Vorrei sapere quanti di questi che lo scrivono hanno letto le normative antidoping di tutti i Paesi del mondo. Comunque noi siamo controllati dalla WADA, quindi basta dire spagnolo o non spagnolo."
Anyway, you can read the whole thing here, that is if your Italian is polished enough. It's another example of a painfully subservient and ill-informed type of lipservice that some journalists dare to pay these days, as swisscheese pointed out before.
http://www.ubitennis.com/sport/tennis/2013/01/01/823877-barbadillo_nadal_vuole_tornare_quando_giocare_bene.shtml
It is interesting to see that the main point of this blog, that tennis testing and anti-doping are inadequate, is now being expressed as a given by a mainstream tennis commentator in Wertheim, and is not being dismissed as the mere rantings of conspiracy theorists. Progress.
ReplyDeleteFacts are rather relentless little things aren't they.
DeleteIt is interesting that journalists are beginning to even mention Nadal and doping in the same article. Oh the times they are a changing. It seems everyone is talking about this. If he isn't serving a silent ban it's the strangest case of injury/illness I've ever seen. What kind of professional tennis player doesn't try his best to get back on the tennis court? It seems Nadal is doing everything to avoid getting back on the court. If it isn't a ban then the guy must have some kind of psychological problem stemming back to that Rosol defeat. Let's face it, he's OCD to start with. Maybe that really messed him up.
ReplyDeleteHave we forgotten Robin Soderling? In 2011 he was ill with a stomach virus when he was humiliated by Tomic. He then took time off from playing due to a wrist injury which then was superceded by mononucleosis. Hasn't played since.
ReplyDeleteSoderling is through. I would be VERY surprised if he returned to the circuit.
DeleteLooks like Fish is a goner too, just withdrew from the Aus Open.
DeleteQuite a few strange longterm health problems at the top of tennis lately.
I am tired of "journalist" refusing to say anything about doping because they claim "journalist" cannot speculate. Here, Wertheim states, " Fans can speculate wildly. Us media types cannot."
ReplyDeleteFirst, many respected journalist speculated about Lance Armstrong's use of PEDs for years.
Second, you, Mr. Wertheim, and every other sports journalist routinely engage in wild speculation. Just turning a couple paragraphs down, you write, "sure it helps Federer that another top player (and the guy who beat him last year in Melbourne) is out of the draw. But I still think Federer is the third pick behind Djokovic, the two-time champ, and Murray, winner of the last major."
So, it is a "fact" that Federer is better off without Nadal in the draw? Or is this wild speculation on your part. You have no idea what Nadal's current condition is. If he did show up and was indeed hobbled by injury, this would be an easy win for Federer or anyone else who faced him in the draw. Indeed, as the draw is not announced yet, it is pure speculation what Nadal's impact on the draw would be. But, you don't stop there. You then speculate that Federer is behind Djokovic and Murray. Could you please cite the scientific and indisputable facts that support this?
In another article, entitled "My tennis predictions for 2013," you write exclusively about what will happen in 2013. Do you have some unknown time machine that allows you to see the future, or are you engaging in "wild speculation?" Curiously, you speculate in this same article that "Tennis authorities will finally address .. out-of-competition drug testing." So, I guess it is ok for "media types" to speculate about doping -- you have me confused. Given that you have said that tennis does not have a steroid problem and that this is a "seditious site," please explain exactly what needs to be fixed with out-of competition testing. If there are no dopers, then additional testing is just a waste of money, or are you proposing a stimulus package for drug testing labs?
Given that virtually everything Mr. Wertheim says is pure speculation, and we know that journalist can not speculate, then it must be that Mr. Wertheim is not a journalist -- but I knew this already because he refuses pursue obvious questions regarding doping.
Now, don't get me wrong. I have no problem with sports journalist speculating. Indeed, this is what 99% of sports journalism is -- who will win next week and why. But, please don't spout self-pious nonsense that "journalist can't speculate" to justify your refusal to ask even basic questions regarding doping.
I very much agree with you - you should post that over on SI as well - might be some helpful advise for the future...
DeleteTo add some more spin to it, if I may, not that it needs more, one could also point out that when it comes to doping, he absolutely refuses to use available facts - if only facts is what he claims he is after.
He miserably fails to deliver facts when it comes to talk about actual testing figures and patterns when players start whining about early morning controls or tweet crap like they get tested 30 times a year and get away with it. In those cases, facts surely would come in handy.
He also refuses to supply facts when it comes to investigate del Moral and that ominous TenisVal with its blatantly obvious connection to Ferrer and Errani et. al. I bet, if he would REALLY wish to present us with some facts, a couple simple phonecalls would do, I am sure the SI investigative budget is able to handle that...
However no such facts ever appeared on Sports Illustrated.
So if it's really facts he is after, how come he enages in all that constant wanking and speculation, I wonder? Seriously, if he would only put more effort and energy in digging out facts instead of going on. And on. And on about what-if-scenarios (which bore me to death as a reader, tbh) in some not even made public quarter of some draw, he could actually become an influential, daring journalist. A journalist he maybe dreamed he would become some day when he started college or began his career. Not necessarily a mudracker, but someone with a backbone. Someone with a certain critical distance to the subject he is covering...
I wish there would be a way to encourage journalists to pursue that more difficult path and be proud of it. Or at least have them talk about their constraints. Which might be related to the omerta in tennis.
Instead, they have become either fanboys or fangirls turning a sport into some kitschy soap opera or they have resigned themself to mostly present us with match analysis or conformist stuff directly from the ITF's press releases and players pressers instead of using their given smarts to comment and question that blabla and come up with an opinionated piece on the ITF's shambolic anti-doping efforts. They can comment on rule changes and knees in great length. Specualte about players performances. Without ever questioning the basis for such "unbelievable" performances. But never hear them talk about the darker chapters, like doping.
Am I wrong, but THIS is actually what we need journalists for - or else they turn into pr people and can be paid directly by the ITF/ATP/IMG/WTA...
I wonder, if Wertheim, Cronin, Harman or Nguyen ever bothered to read any of Hamilton's or Kimmage's or Walsh's books? Did they even touch the USADA report? I doubt it, and that is sad.
One last comment, it appears as if the ITF is slightly changing its window dressing these days. First Spain gets a plethora of unwelcome off-season OOC testing in November (=antidoping, antidoping antidoping) and then they annouced the possibility of blood testing. Hark, hark! And the latest, now they are enforcing the 25sec rule - which is good, for it will make for a quicker, more aggressive play where players might want to finish a point early instead of yet surviving another gruelling rally?
What are your thoughts?
It is good to see some positive movement as you mention above. If they are actually doing 4 OOC test a week on Nadal, then I think that is a little much -- unless it is part of a TUE compliance test. Or maybe the ITF just wanted to burn through their 2012 anti-doping budget.
DeleteNow, back to Mr. Wertheim -- he does seem to suffer from factophobia. Essentially he engages in a "don't ask, don't tell" philosophy when it comes to doping. In addition, I find him hypocritical in his recent post on the 2013 predictions. (Link here: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/tennis/news/20121227/tennis-predictions-2013/)
In particular, he lists one problem for 2013 to be "the conflicts of interest that hinder the sport and stunt its growth." What exactly are these "conflict of interest?" Why not just come out and say them. This site discusses the conflict as being that sports authorities such as the ITF and the UCI make their money on high profile athletes performing super human feats, and thus they have no financial incentive to police anti-doping activities. Ultimately, this leads to clean athletes leaving the sport and a decline in public interest after a doping scandal. This is very important in sports like cycling and tennis where many fans also play the sport.
However, I have no idea if that is what Mr. Wertheim is referring to as "conflicts of interest." I don't speak the anti-doping codespeak, so I have to use "wild speculation" to determine what he is referring to. A couple sentences later he refers to the problem of "out-of-competition drug testing," so clearly he feels there is problem there, but why not simply state what the "conflicts of interest" are? Maybe even a link to this site so people can read all about it on their own.
The 25 second rule -- now that is an interesting topic. First, the rule change is to make it less strict -- a service fault rather than a loss of point for the server. The idea is that with a lesser penalty, it can be enforced more. However, this "lesser penalty" was always in place. A player facing the 25 second clock could simply bounce the ball off his racket in the general direction of the net and it would count as a service fault and not a loss of point. So, if they simply started enforcing the old rule, I think you would see a lot more players doing this.
In any case, hopefully the new rule will be enforced. I think it varies the game up -- that is "serve and volley" may be necessary just to finish some points early and save some energy, as you mention above. It certainly will be more entertaining to watch players actually hit the ball rather than towel off for 1 minute between points. And it will be good for Federer who has the ability to finish an entire service game in the time it takes some people to finish a point. Without a "shot clock" being put in though, I doubt it will uniformly be enforced.
In terms of doping though, the 25 second rule does push the sport more in the "skill" direction rather than brute strength. The more players are forced to economize their movements and play intelligently to win points rather than simply slugging it out from the baseline, it increases the chances for non-anabolic steroid using players. Unfortunately, it also increases the chances for EPO users.
As a note, the following article lists some of the average time between points for players: http://espn.go.com/tennis/story/_/id/7528836/tennis-length-aussie-open-final-add-up
DeleteNadal: 33 seconds.
Djokovic: 30 seconds.
Federer: 15 seconds.
Note entirely 100% scientific numbers, but I think it demonstrates who will be affected by an enforcement of this new rule.
@MTracy - Although I agree with much of what you have to say, I must say a word in Mr Wertheim's defence.
DeleteThere is a fine line between speculation and defamation. It is one thing to speculate on whether or not a person will win a particular match. It is entirely another thing to speculate on whether or not someone is engaging in illegal activity. Mr Wertheim is not an anonymous poster on an internet forum.
You are entirely reasonable, however, in your expectation that journalists pursue the truth a little more aggressively. That's what I'd like to see.
I guess the problem I have is his blind belief in everything the player says. I don't expect him to come out and say -- "Yep, Player X is 100% doping." That is just pure speculation and not useful. I do expect him to say, "How exactly did removing gluten from your diet increase your aerobic capacity by 30%?" or "You changed rackets and your muscle mass increased by 10%, how does that work?"
DeleteNow, in writing, it would be perfectly responsible for a journalist to write, "I talked to doctor X and he states that some of the benefits of a gluten free diet are X,Y,Z (nothing coming close to a 30% increase in aerobic capacity -- in fact, gluten free diets can cause iron deficiency which leads to a decrease in aerobic capacity). On the other hand, I spoke with another doctor who described how various steroids including EPO could be used to dramatically increase aerobic capacity. I also spoke with a person convicted of facilitating doping who described how easy it is to beat the test. In fact, here are the problems with the 'whereabouts' system.....'
Of course, all of this is speculation and general theory, but at least it passes for some type of journalism. The writer is talking to doctors and other experts and exposing a possible theory. Simply writing, "Player X says he changed his diet and jumped 100 places in the rankings, so a good diet is obviously important" is not journalism. It is just being a press agent.
The above is just a simplification but it does demonstrate that you can talk responsibility without naming any names or accusing anyone of anything. Just do some investigating. Dig a little. Ask questions about "diet changes", "racket changes", and "routine cardiograms." If the player doesn't want to talk, then talk to an expert. There are no shortages of doctors who can describe how an athlete can achieve sudden success. This is not accusing the player of anything -- simply presenting facts when a player refuses to offer valid explanations.
See this article for Mr. Wertheim blindly parroting the "gluten free" myth. http://gluten-free-blog.blogspot.com/2011/07/gluten-free-diet-for-stamina-and.html. Mr. Wertheim actually says, "All the players are going to want to do this now." Well, that was over a year ago. Did Mr. Wertheim ask himself the question, "Gee, a gluten free diet makes you number one in the world, why haven't all the players gone and done this?" No. Because he knew it was crap when he said it and he knows it is crap now. And that, by any definition, makes him a poor journalist.
As a final note, my statement above "Note entirely 100%..." is a typo and should be "Not entirely 100%..."
@MTracy: You and I remember the days when journalists worked on stories for weeks, months or even years. Unfortunately, those days are gone and journalism has been replaced by something new and different: "Churnalism".
Delete"BBC journalist Waseem Zakir has been credited for coining the term churnalism. According to Zakir, the trend towards this form of journalism involves reporters becoming more reactive and less proactive in searching for news - "You get copy coming in on the wires and reporters churn it out, processing stuff and maybe adding the odd local quote. It's affecting every newsroom in the country and reporters are becoming churnalists."
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churnalism
More: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-23/green-an-allegory-of-journalistic-decline/4215850
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2012/oct/04/marketingandpr-pressandpublishing
@michlob @mTracy
DeleteI did not know a term for it already existed, but, yes, this is definitely the trend. They sit behing their screens and read twitter and news feeds or go attend a presser and simply think because some rep put it out there, it is to be considered "news". They can't be arsed into investigating matters. Sometimes they don't even bother to comment on the players PR or check facts. So basically a website like tennisdotcom is additional PR for them, donkeycheese and all that.
However, there is another alarming trend, too: Fans turn blogger and then get hired by a major journal or magazine to cover pro-sports, incidently this happened in the case of SI/Courtney Nguyen. Back then when she still had her blogg, she got criticized for masking this as journalism or rather pushing into the field of journalism albeit lacking traditional education - the rsult was she got a job offer from SI. Another result is that we get to see cutsy photos and gossip and some match analysis. The thing is, I am not against that - however it pushes aside serious journalists. Add on top that Wertheim, who should take up this role, behaves as Mtracy nicely outlined above, an ostrich. This is pretty telling when it comes to journalistic standards these days.
And it pretty much violates my intelligence. All the examples Mtracy points out above are spot on. Not only do we need better testing and independent testers, we also need independent media.
My point is, I don't mind people starting out with writing on the net on some blog. And post whatever cutsy photos you can find - it's fun and yes can be entertaining too. What I do mind is when they get hired for a crucial responsible position at a major outlet that require training and certain ethics for it holds a responsibility. The responsibility is not to avoid stepping on any players toes or knees, for that matter. All of this got pretty much disrespected when SI decided it was bloody desperate for more clicks from younger tennis fans and began hiring Nguyen.
Actually I don't want to make this about her, for it is a trend in general, she is only one symptom, not the cause.
I can not talk about the US, though I am familiar with it, but normally, here in Germany, you would get an MA degree, either in humanities/sports science or journalism before you begin a three-year training on the job as a trainee.
Which ideally teaches you all the basics of writing, the ethics of the job, etc. Of course, that has been blurred a little with the advent of the internet and many news outlets have trouble paying their journalists properly or want to cut dwon costs and instead hire free-lance writers. Some of whom have a history in PR or have been lobbyists.
Nguyen, as I understand, has a higher ed degree; Breaking News: One doesn't have to go to J-School to be a journalist, or even have a post grand degree, or any degree at all for that matter—not in N.A. at any rate. The woman is someone who is a specialist in tennis (she made herself one) and therefore is of value and interest to SI. So Get over it.
DeleteI'm not a fan of her, her writing, or her previous blog, but to suggest she's "pushing" someone more qualified aside is baloney.
I am not saying they would have necessarily hired another more qualified person, I understand that this might not be matching their profile. So Courtney Nguyen does fit their profile.
DeleteLet me clarify this a bit, then. The space her writing takes up on SI could also be used for more proactive, ivestigative pieces is what I wanted to express.
I am not against having light entertainment in tennis, but it seems that type of coverage seems to be dominant - it more and more replace a certain type of journalism which could be helpful to treat a subject from ALL possible angles. I mean, if I look at the space devoted to Donkeycheese and whatnot I hope you might understand that this is a bit frustrating for obvs other more pressing topics could be discussed as well occasionally. In a way, such writing make itself complicit with the subject it covers - producing. I understand that it happens when you cover a subject that is very dear to you, a common sentiment I do not oppose, for it makes for passionate writing, something I do like. But this is not appropriate for all subjects in tennis. One also needs to tools and skills to go beyond that level of "journalism". Maybe I am the only one, but I feel they are lacking on SI from time to time. Hope that makes sense.
To rephrase that: I would encourage tennis writers to pursue that path (the road less taken, to quote Frost).
I think I did mention the change in profile that journalism underwent in the recent years and did make mention that sports writers not necessarily have a traditional background anymore.
I was only highlighting the fact that such an approach, turning from fan to tennis specialist for SI, could affect the type of writing we are seeing. To which I object. It surely affects one's critical distance causing a "blind eye" when it comes to tackle uncomfortable topics such as doping or commercialization. Nguyen can surely analyse tennis matches very well and is highly informed about what is going on in tennis in general, as anybody would following all players twitters 24/7 and direct access to players reps and their press releases. She definetly puts it all out there. Any commercial or moment of cute or Wozz scandal. I wasn't denying that, just when it comes to taking up a standpoint or having an opinion about something or going out to do some investigative work for, say, a piece on gluten-free dieting and its effects on tennis players, SI could actually do better with a real journalist. Being a fan tends to blind one and imo is not professional.
Selfcorrect, soz.
Delete* In a way, such writing make itself complicit with the subject it covers - producing affirmative writing.
I think that it is fair for a journalist to say that Nadal's "illness" is suspicious. I don't think it would be slanderous to at least take it to that level and try to force an explanation that is actually plausible. I'm trying to imagine a football player claiming a stomach virus weeks before a game. Imagine if Jay Cutler (Chicago Bears quarteback, for our European friends) tried to say that he wouldn't be playing in a game three weeks before the season started because he had a stomach virus that was hampering his conditioning. He would be crucified in the media. They would be talking non-stop about what a gutless coward he is.
DeleteAt least it wasn't my fault this time, no?
ReplyDeleteWhatever happened to the French t.v. network that did the cartoon of Nadal filling up his car with a syringe etc.? Did Nadal's camp ever sue them? If not, I guess they weren't far off the mark. If anything was defaming that was (for an innocent person that is).
ReplyDelete"filling up his car with a syringe" -- now that is defamation! The video is actually Nadal providing a urine sample into his car's gas tank. The car then takes off at 100mph+
Deletehttp://www.20minutos.tv/video/empBFY78-canal-francia-se-mofa-de-rafael-nadal/0/
There is another video of Nadal signing autographs with a syringe, but it seems to be removed from all the sites.
I haven't heard anything more about the "lawsuit" and not sure one was ever actually filed.
sorry I forgot. So shoot me.
Delete