Drugs make people think funny. Not doing drugs -- although that can have a pretty funny effect on one’s thoughts -- but just the idea of other people doing drugs that adds a certain level of warpiness to people’s thought processes. Case in point: Bill Gifford arguing at Slate that professional tennis’s drug testing program is a failure because it hasn’t found bushels of steroid-pumped athletes as professional baseball, swimming and cycling has:
Gifford also dismisses doping cases in tennis as few and far between, yet manages to completely miss some of the more recent suspensions in past years, including Guillermo Coria, Guillermo Canas and 2005 French Open finalist Mariano Puerta, all of whom led to many questions about what the heck was going on in South American tennis.
Gifford’s entire argument pretty much comes down to the idea that since tennis isn’t bursting at the seams with dopers like baseball is, then the sport must be horribly corrupt -- that the absence of malfeasance is proof of malfeasance. Absent some proof -- even, say, a once scrawny player suddenly bulging with Bonds-like muscle mass -- the whole column is another extension of the drug war logic that the appearance of innocence is merely the proof of guilt.
While the rest of the sporting world morphs into something resembling pro wrestling, tennis upholds the gentlemanly image of a game untouched by the steroids, blood-boosters, stimulants, and other doping practices that have become almost universal in athletics. How has tennis maintained its pristine reputation? Because the sport's anti-doping program is a joke.Or, maybe, because tennis players aren’t as likely to use steroids because they fear getting caught? Gifford dismisses the tennis anti-doping program as ineffective because it tests only “in competition.” That might be a valid concern if you’re looking at a seasonal sport like football or baseball that have significant off-seasons. But tennis pros, especially those outside of the top echelon who grind their way to a living playing tournaments week-in, week-out, have a minimal “off season”: basically December.
Gifford also dismisses doping cases in tennis as few and far between, yet manages to completely miss some of the more recent suspensions in past years, including Guillermo Coria, Guillermo Canas and 2005 French Open finalist Mariano Puerta, all of whom led to many questions about what the heck was going on in South American tennis.
Gifford’s entire argument pretty much comes down to the idea that since tennis isn’t bursting at the seams with dopers like baseball is, then the sport must be horribly corrupt -- that the absence of malfeasance is proof of malfeasance. Absent some proof -- even, say, a once scrawny player suddenly bulging with Bonds-like muscle mass -- the whole column is another extension of the drug war logic that the appearance of innocence is merely the proof of guilt.
Two words: Serena Williams. She's huge. As in East German Womens' Swim Team huge. She's doping, I bet. HENRY.
Posted by: henry | July 08, 2009 at 02:10 PM
Or maybe tennis players don't dope as much. 'roids can develop muscles that won't perform well for the quick spurts and endurance that tennis demands. If you're too 'roided out you'll tend to cramp up or tear a muscle easily during a spurt of speed. Tennis players need to be nimble with a fast anaerobic recovery rate and I would guess 'roids isn't conducive to that kind of work.
Posted by: jimbo | July 06, 2009 at 05:08 PM