Doping, Tennis, Nadal: A Connection?
Rafael Nadal’s prolonged absence
from the tour has raised suspicions, and the ITF's anti-doping program
does little to reassure, writes Blair Henley.
By Blair Henley
Rafael Nadal at the 2008 Australian Open
(October 5, 2012) -- Baseball
players testifying in front of Congress. Sprinters
banned from Olympic competition.
Accusations against cyclist after cyclist.
The recent revelations all but confirming Lance Armstrong’s doping
history should have come as no surprise. Now that the sports superstar
has officially
stopped fighting the doping allegations
and has been stripped of his seven Tour de France titles, it may be
time to start looking at athletes’ claims of innocence with a touch more
cynicism.
That brings us to the case of
Rafael Nadal.
Rumblings within the tennis industry suggest his prolonged injury
layoff may not be what it seems. Is it possible that Rafa is, in fact,
serving a so-called “silent” doping ban?
We’re all familiar with the knee issues that have plagued the King of
Clay throughout his career. In fact, in four of the last five years,
Nadal has missed at least one tournament due to pain in that pesky left
knee. We also know that the Spaniard has been dogged by doping rumors
since his bulging biceps burst on the scene in 2001.
Just last year, former French Open champ
Yannick Noah
penned
a French newspaper column alleging widespread doping among Spanish
athletes. Not surprisingly, Nadal, who has also spoken out in defense of
Tour de France-
stripped
Spanish cyclist Alberto Contador, called Noah’s comments “totally
stupid,” citing the comprehensive drug testing in professional tennis.
And Nadal’s right, of course (about the testing part, anyway). The
International Tennis Federation (ITF), which oversees anti-doping
efforts for both the WTA and the ATP tours, is intent on creating the
deterrents necessary to avoid a Major League Baseball-esque public
shaming.
Like all signatories under the World Anti-Doping (WADA) umbrella, the
ITF testing program “operates throughout the year, both in and out of
competition,” said ITF anti-doping manager
Dr. Stuart Miller.
Players have no advance notice before testing, and a select group known
as the “international registered testing pool” must provide their
whereabouts year-round. That group is comprised of, but not limited to,
athletes ranked inside the top 50 and those returning from a retirement
or extended absence.
World No. 4
Andy Murray has commented multiple times regarding the
inconveniences
of life swimming in the registered testing pool. More than once he’s
been awakened by an early morning visit from ITF-contracted testers.
"When you're going to the toilet and they're staring at you, in your own home, it's just quite a strange feeling,” he said.
The element of surprise is the most effective weapon the ITF has working in its favor. According to ITF website, Nadal was
tested
at least seven times in competition and between one and three times out
of competition (ITF statistics only give testing ranges) in 2011. He
would not have known the timing of the test or whether testers were
collecting a blood or urine sample.
Though Miller maintains that the ITF maximizes its resources, he also
admits there are limitations on the anti-doping program’s reach.
“[To] the extent that the system allows, we are definitely on the
cutting edge,” he said. “If the argument is being made that we’re not
collecting enough samples, well everybody would always want to collect
more. There’s always going to be a financial constraint that exists, and
it depends on that constraint to determine how much you can do. It
would be great to test every player, every day, but that’s simply not
feasible.”
So the question becomes, do those limitations open the door wide enough for a top player to slip through?
Consider the fact that Nadal made no mention of his bum knee before or
after his shocking second-round loss to 100th-ranked Lukas Rosol at
Wimbledon. Though the omission could have certainly been an act of
sportsmanship, he has not hesitated to disclose his condition in the
past. In a September interview with the
Daily Mail, Nadal revealed
a very different story regarding the state of his knee in London.
“My practice before Wimbledon was terrible. I played the first round
with injections; otherwise it would have been impossible. That doesn’t
help the knee.”
On July 4th, six days after the Wimbledon loss, Nadal’s camp announced
he would be out for 15 days due to tendinitis in his left knee. The pain
forced him to withdraw from the Olympics, but according to his Facebook
page, Rafa was back on the court in early August. Things were looking
promising for his appearance at the U.S. Open until he announced the he
was suffering from Hoffa’s syndrome (an impingement of the fat pad
beneath the patella).
The diagnosis changed once again in early September. Now he’s rehabbing a
partial tear in his patella tendon. Despite committing to play an
exhibition tournament in late December, Nadal seemingly quashed any hope
of a year-end Tour Championships appearance.
“I hope you see me in Australia,” he said in his
Daily Mail interview.
“That is the biggest goal for me, to come back just before then in
Qatar, but I cannot say for sure it is going to happen.”
Rafael Nadal with his coach and uncle Toni
But confusion ensued once again when his coach and uncle,
Toni Nadal,
spoke to Fox Sports.
“In 15 days, Rafa will resume training in time for him to aim to play in the Masters and the final of the Davis Cup.”
Nadal’s knee-injury timeline has been a head-scratcher if nothing else.
Is a Cover-Up Conceivable?
If a player tests positive for a banned substance (and does not qualify for a
Therapeutic Use Exemption),
the ITF sends the individual a letter detailing the offense, explaining
where and when the sample was collected, and listing the potential
consequences. At that time, the player can choose to admit the charge or
contest it in front of an independent tribunal (usually chaired by a
lawyer and made up of experts in medicine and/or science). If a player
is then found to be at fault following tribunal hearings, a suspension
would be issued based on the evidence a player provides in his or her
defense. It’s also important to note that a player can be barred from
play pending a decision by the tribunal. This is known as a provisional
suspension.
The standard doping sanction is two years; a time period that can, and
often is, adjusted on a case-by-case basis. A positive test is only
made public if and when a ban is handed down. The ITF strives to reach a
decision within 60 days of notifying a player of a positive test,
though that time period can vary.
Peter Korda
For instance,
Petr Korda
famously won the Australian Open in 1998 only to test positive for
nandrolone (an anabolic steroid) at Wimbledon of that year. The news was
not made public until nearly six months later.
In the case of a
“guilty verdict,” the charges go public whether the accused is Rafael
Nadal or an unknown player ranked 500th in the world according to
Miller, who has
headed the ITF anti-doping arm since 2006.
“There are no circumstances at any time that any favoritism, special
treatment, discretion has been exercised as far as I’m aware since I’ve
been involved, though I can only speak for myself,” he said. “As
evidence of that, I’ll point to [the banning of]
Martina Hingis,
Mariano Puerta, and
Richard Gasquet, all of whom have been ranked in the top 10 in singles.”
If, however, a player is found to have no fault or negligence after a
positive test, he or she is effectively exonerated. This means a player
could test positive, fight the charges, and have them dropped all
without the public’s knowledge. If he or she is placed on a provisional
suspension during that time but is then exonerated, the break from play
could be explained any way the player chooses.
American
Robert Kendrick’s positive test on May 22,
2011, was not made public until two months later on July 29th when the
ITF released news of his one-year suspension. ITF documents indicate he
volunteered to be placed on a provisional suspension that took effect on
June 17th.
If the tribunal cleared Kendrick of all charges, he would have returned
to the tour with a clean slate (and no announcement made). But based on
the current anti-doping rules and regulations carried out by the ITF,
there is no way an actual doping ban be could be handed down and served
without the public’s knowledge.
“There’s no such thing as a ‘silent ban’ as far as I’m concerned,” Miller confirmed.
So a silent ban may be an impossibility. Unannounced provisional
suspensions, however, happen all the time. Though unlikely, Rafael Nadal
could conceivably be serving such a suspension.
Asking Unpopular Questions
It's understandable that Nadal fans want to take his knee issues at face
value. (Especially when he says heartwarming things like: “I always
want to be honest with myself and to those who have faith in me.”) But
observers with knowledge of systematic doping in several other sports
find it prudent to ask the difficult, and in this case unpopular,
questions. And yes, the questions could easily be asked regarding several other top players on the ATP and WTA tours in addition to Nadal.
Given that WADA Code
allows signatories to make their own decision on whether or not to
announce positive tests when they occur, it seems the ITF could halt the
rumor mill for good by agreeing to make all positive tests public
whether they result in a suspension or not. Miller says they have
decided against taking that route “because ‘positive tests’ are subject
to an initial review which may reveal reasons why it should not be taken
forward, such as the existence of a valid Therapeutic Use Exemption.”
Regardless, a look at the WADA
statistics
between 2007 and 2011 paints a puzzling picture. The ITF reported 53
positive tests (or Adverse Analytical Findings) but only 21 Anti-Doping
Rule Violations during that time. As the anonymous writer and curator of
the widely read blog
Tennis Has a Steroid Problem points out, this raises a number of questions.
Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal at the 2005 French Open
“What accounts for the
difference between positive tests and violations? Did players have
Therapeutic Use Exemptions allowing them to use a banned substance? Did
their 'B' Sample test negative? Did a tribunal find that the players did
not commit a violation? If so, what was the reason for their finding?”
Described by
Sports Illustrated’s Jon Wertheim as “seditious,” the
Steroid Problem
blog receives an average of 30,000 page views per month and plays host
to many tennis fans looking to discuss their own conspiracy theories
with like-minded individuals. The blog’s writer, however, sticks to the
facts, lobbying only for greater transparency from the ITF.
As Clean As It Seems?
A 2009
Slate story asked this question about the game of tennis: “Can any sport possibly be that clean?”
To put it simply, no one really knows. Though Miller did have this to
say about the propensity for systematic doping in tennis: “In all of
those sports [cycling, baseball, sprinting], you are trying to maximize
some performance variable like stamina, endurance, strength, speed, or
power. In tennis that is not necessarily the case…You need great
technique, and you’ve got to understand tennis strategy over and above
the dominant component of strength, speed, and power which those other
sports have. The point being that there’s not one group of prohibited
substances that alone can guarantee success in tennis.”
Underestimating the dopers, perhaps?
Miller also has an answer for those considering the effect a five hour Grand Slam final might have on a player’s body.
“Yes, you have some long tennis matches, but if you look at how long the
ball is in play in a tennis match, it’s somewhere between 7 and 11
minutes per hour,” he said. “In grass court tennis, in a five hour
match, the ball might be in play for 35 minutes.”
It’s a baffling philosophy to some who believe enhancing even one of the
skills needed to play tennis, whether it be speed, strength, endurance,
or even recovery, is enough to create a significant advantage over an
opponent. In fact, respected coach and TV analyst
Darren Cahill voiced his opinion earlier this year in regard to similar remarks Miller made to multiple other publications.
“I believe our testing program is a good one and tough to beat…but I don’t agree with [Miller’s] assessment,” Cahill said on
Twitter.
To be fair, Miller acknowledges the possibility of doping in tennis, as evidenced by the 63 Anti-Doping Rule
Violations
the ITF has uncovered over the past 17 years. He just doesn’t believe
current evidence supports the existence of systematic abuse.
“A philosophy that there is systematic doping would be more founded on a
belief that the use of prohibited substances is necessary to reach the
top,” insists Miller.
If the ITF had unlimited funds, there would undoubtedly be an increase in
out of competition testing, (which in 2011 accounted for just 216 of the 2,150 total tests), as well as an increase in blood testing.
Blood
specimens are currently tested for hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers and
HGH, but samples of the blood variety only accounted for around six
percent of the total number of tests administered in 2011 – a
shortcoming currently being addressed by the ITF.
The Verdict
Given the current limitations of the ITF anti-doping program, it’s
impossible to prove or disprove the existence of systematic doping in
tennis. However, the circumstantial evidence reminds us to be, if not
cynical, maybe a bit more skeptical.
In his autobiography, Andre Agassi
admitted avoiding a doping suspension by falsely claiming the meth he ingested came from his assistant’s spiked drink.
Brisbane airport authorities
caught
Wayne Odesnik with medical paraphernalia and eight vials of HGH in
2010. Even after pleading guilty, the ITF deferred the second half of
the American’s two-year suspension.
With examples like these, doesn’t it also seem plausible that one of the
most recognized tennis players in history could avoid a suspension by
claiming he was injected with HGH in his sleep by a disgruntled
employee? Possible, albeit fictitious, scenarios abound.
It’s also worth considering evidence of doping outside of the sport. Are
tennis players so different from the baseball players, cyclists, and
sprinters that have considered performance enhancing drugs to be a
calculated risk?
Then you must wonder to what lengths profiting parties will go in an
attempt to cover up wrongdoing. After San Francisco Giants outfielder
Melky Cabrera
recently tested positive for a synthetic testosterone, he allegedly
enlisted help in creating a fake website that sold a fictitious product
on which he planned to pin his positive test. MLB officials quickly
exposed the desperate cover-up effort.
It would be nice to believe these are all isolated incidents, but with
mass amounts of money at stake, the odds of that are slim.
As for Nadal, there is no solid proof he is serving a provisional
suspension as he awaits news of a possible ban. As far as we know, he
spends time each day rehabbing in the pool or at the gym, enjoying time
with his family in his free time (at least that’s what his Facebook
page would suggest). Ironically, he even filmed a Spanish anti-doping ad posted on YouTube just days ago.
It is indeed unfortunate
that the current anti-doping system allows for rampant speculation
regarding players’ integrity. But it’s also unfortunate that Lance
Armstrong took over 500 drug tests without failing one. It’s no wonder
even casual observers doubt the ITF’s ability to stay ahead of the
doping technology being used throughout the sports world.
As thrilling as it is to watch the seemingly inhuman athleticism of so
many in pro tennis, it’s naïve not to ask questions of an extended
absence from the tour in a world where performance enhancing drugs and
blood doping run rampant. With wisps of smoke in the air, perhaps there
is more fire than some would like to admit.
