A personal view of tennis by Jeff Davies
Instead, having read a dozen reports, I find myself with many more questions than answers. For example:
1 How can the hearing and decision be by "an independent ATP Tribunal". ATP stands for the "Association of Tennis Professionals". Doesn't the common sense of this mean that the ATP is an association of tennis professionals? Since when does an association "independently" sit in judgment on its own activities?
2 The ATP is described as the entity "bringing the charges" against Greg R. An association dedicated to the welfare of its members is the prosecutor?
3 How independent is a tribunal to which the ATP directly appoints one of its members?. We can, of course, absolutely trust the ATP to maintain the independence of the panel by selecting someone who can be relied upon to be impartial rather than support the ATP's position... Greg R. appoints another member - who can, of course, be counted on to be equally impartial... Fortunately for fairness (?), there is a third member (although I have been unable to discover just exactly how he is 'selected') whose job is, no doubt, to find some politically acceptable middle ground between the irreconcilable (but impartial) views of his 'colleagues'.
So, having heard all the evidence and thought about it for a month, the tribunal has decided that Greg R is innocent. But innocent of what?
I thought it was not disputed that traces of nandrolone had been found in samples taken from his body. Did the panel find that none had, in fact, been found? Did they find that the tests were flawed? What was the scientific evidence that convinced the panel that the tests were unreliable? Nowhere have I read that they came to this conclusion.
The only defense hat I have heard is that Greg R believes that the nandrolone 'could' have originated from supplements that were, at one time, handed out to players by ATP trainers.
However, it was my belief that the authoritative rules of the World Anti-Doping Agency - responsible for curbing drug-abuse across all sports and geographic boundaries - state that an athlete is responsible for whatever he puts into his body and that he cannot avoid an accusation by alleging that he did not knowingly take a banned substance. This theory of absolute liability and 'zero-tolerance' forms the foundation of the world's anti-doping efforts. If someone is allowed to escape liability by a defense of "someone else must have given it to me without my knowledge" then no-one will ever be held liable. It would be like a motorist accused of drunken driving being able to escape a conviction simply by raising a defense that "someone else must have given me alcohol without my knowledge".
Did Greg R. produce evidence that an ATP trainer had given him such supplements? If such evidence was available then I am sure that Greg R would have brought it to the notice of the ATP. If he did, then I am equally sure that the ATP is not so stupid as to prosecute this matter in such a public and determined manner? I think it is also highly unlikely that, if such evidence was available, it would not have been made public by Greg R who has - against a lot of advice - been eager to air his case to the world's media. But, if such evidence was not available, then Greg R's whole 'defense' appears, at best, purely speculative. But it does appear to be the only one he had.
So, did the tribunal conclude that the ATP's trainers could have been the origin of the steroid? If it did, then I would certainly like to hear the evidence for such a conclusion. The ATP has frequently stated that its trainers were specifically instructed not to issue any such supplements well before Greg R's positive test. It also appears to be generally accepted that, if Greg R had taken the ATP supplements up to the time that they were no longer issued, there would have been no residual traces of the steroid remaining in his body at the time of the positive test.
If the tribunal did not conclude that the steroid came from an ATP trainer, what was the basis for their finding that Greg R was not responsible for it being in his body? And, if it did not come from an ATP trainer, where does Greg R allege that it did come from? Did he simply claim that he did not know? Or did he admit that he found his own source after ATP trainers were no longer permitted to supply it? In either case, why would he not be held to the same, strict level of responsibility that applies to every other athlete who chooses what to put into his body - that ignorance is no excuse?
Even if it could be proved that the steroid came from a supplement issued by an ATP trainer - and I have heard no suggestion that this actually occurred - then, no matter how unfair it seems on the surface, I still cannot understand how this would exonerate Greg R from the existence of a performance-enhancing steroid in his body. It would still be his responsibility what he puts into his body. There have been many examples in the past of National sports federations supplying steroids to 'their' athletes'. They have never been allowed to claim innocence because their drug supplier was an official body "simply trying to improve the quality and level of their sport" rather than some criminal lurking in an alleyway.
There is plenty of material available to all professional athletes about what they should and should not take. The ATP also appears to have made its findings about the supplement in question available to all professional players. It seems that the tribunal was critical of the ATP for not 'personally' advising players. I'm not sure of exactly what this means and what they did or did not do but I cannot escape the conclusion that Greg R is ultimately responsible for anything and everything that he willingly takes (knowingly should be irrelevant).
And I am left with a considerable sense of dissatisfaction over the tribunal's verdict. The world Anti-Doping Agency is also reported to be "deeply disturbed" by the ruling. You can read their comments at http://www.wada-ama.org/en/t1.asp?p=41275&x=1&a=90903.
Strangely (?), the ATP has no comment on the case on its web site...
I support an accused person's right to a fair 'trial' without allegations being aired and 'tried' in the media prior to the hearing. Now that Greg has had his trial and verdict, I hope that the real investigation will now begin and we will finally get to hear the full and true facts that could explain such a strange case and an apparently even stranger verdict. The WADA says that it has reached an agreement with the ATP to review the facts and will be issuing a report. Greg R says he has not decided if he will sue the ATP....! Stay tuned - this matter is far from over....