THE UPROAR over Andre Agassi’s crystal meth-use admissions in ‘Open’ his new book, is yet to die down, but even when it does, the lasting impact on sports in general, and especially tennis could be significant. Agassi is unlikely to be liable for any penalty or punishment due to his confession of sorts, but there is no escaping the possibility of asterisks that are likely to follow the achievements of numerous athletes whose endurance, speed, stamina and strength invoked wonderment, but yet their names never cropped up as potential substance users (or abusers). Keep in mind that Agassi was able to avoid the wrath of the authorities by explaining away the meth use on ignorance, and that he is likely to have escaped any liability since the statute of limitations for this particular illegality is said to be eight years (that have since elapsed).
The burning questions would be to what extent associations are willing to accept questionable explanations for egressions on the part of their star athletes without further queries or probes, and more importantly and worryingly, the extent to which associations are likely to gloss over warning signals from certain star athletes who more likely than not could have used performance enhancers or cosmetic drugs during their careers.
Doping has been a hot topic in 2009 due in large part to the Wada ‘whereabouts’ clause, but beyond Wada and the Olympics scandals that invariably crop up, there has been a far more systematic and probative ‘witch-hunt’ so to speak in the United States for the last few years, with the Senate and Judiciary getting into the thick of things while trying to exorcise the sports of Baseball and American Football of their respective drug demons. Many of the baseball legends have been reduced to ashes, and their careers have gone up in smoke. Perjury, which has also been recommended as a cause of action against Agassi, has been the source of numerous Grand Jury indictments, and the McGwires, Sosas, Bonds, and Clemens of Baseball folklore face the frightening prospect of decades in jail if found guilty. At the very least, the treatment being meted out to them has been humiliating, and has led to an across the board reduction in drug use in Baseball, accompanied by far more stringent testing, and heightened 2-3 strike rule penalties, where repeat offenders likely could be banned for life. Similarly, the NFL has clamped down on drug users; even those caught using cosmetic drugs.
Legend-slaying has become part and parcel of the fight against drugs in the professional leagues in the U.S. But, individual sports as well as other global sports have traditionally been somewhat less keen to drape the drug inhibitor noose too tightly around the necks of their various stars, and there are valid reasons for this. Logistics, financial reasons, and most importantly, perception and viability of the associations/leagues make this a very tricky proposition.
Many sports such as tennis, golf, F-1, and swimming among others, are riding on the backs of their superstars. For the most part they would flounder in the absence of their stars or in a situation where the stars’ abilities and achievements have been tainted by the stigma of drug use. To expect the sports’ associations to come out openly without clearly conclusive evidence of a stars’ repeated performance-enhancing drug use would be like asking them to whistle-blow merely on the suspicion of a person’s use, while putting the entire sport at risk. This is why the Agassi episode and the acceptance of his explanation need to be taken with a grain of salt before unloading one’s ire on how this could have transpired. First of all, the drug Agassi had been found to have used was in all likelihood a performance-dampener with effects similar to cocaine, and not a steroid or creatine that would have improved his chances of success. Accepting his explanation at that point as a one-time offender may not have been the most risky decision the ATP would have had to take at that time, although now the stakes have significantly been raised, and if any other such example does come to the fore, the ATP will have to withstand a maelstrom of controversy and criticism. It seems however that in the years following Agassi’s admission to the ATP, the latter has been more strict on crackdowns, with Hingis, Puerta, and even Gasquet’s cocaine-laden kiss in the bar being subjected to penalties and suspension over the last few years.
Whether or not sports like tennis, cricket, golf and soccer are victims to drug infestation to such an extent is up for debate, but the fact remains that the Agassi episode is likely to provide a much-needed boost to Wada’s whereabouts clause, and this is a good thing. It takes the blame off the shoulders of the associations, and anyone who now argues against the clause, should look at the fallout from the Agassi debacle. In a year that also included two of the greatest comeback stories, with Federer’s 15th, and Clijsters’ U.S. Open dream run, Agassi is likely to emerge as the headliner, with the latter two merely becoming footnotes. This is exactly why the whereabouts clause needs to be invoked and soon, because as other such episodes come to light in books, interviews, movies, or other such public forums, the associations need to be able to prove that they have taken solid measures, and that the drug stories are from the past, and anyone who today is a substance user, has clearly flouted the rules, and is not a part of the associations’ larger plans.
While the purist might claim this to be unfortunate, the fact remains that episodes such as Agassi’s might just be the big boost that Wada needed to help standardise anti-doping provisions across professional leagues/associations. Perhaps the associations might even look at invoking regulations within their bylaws, where any athlete who is found to have used drugs of any nature during his or her playing career shall be stripped of all titles and other plaudits, even if the prevailing law ensures immunity from penalties and sanctions (such as the 8 year statute of limitations in the U.S.) By removing sunset options on its athletes, an association can curb the extent to which athletes ‘confess’ once they are immune from penalties.
‘Open’ has changed the way the Game is likely to be played, and players such as Nadal and Safin are justifiably aggrieved. Whether or not the taint is likely to stain present athletes across sports isn’t certain, but the associations are now likely to be on attention mode, with the Xavier Malisse and Yanina Wickmayer suspensions by the Belgium Tennis Federation being the first such examples.
One can only hope that in this ‘drug-cleansing’ phase, the associations and leagues don’t end up burning too many innocents at the stakes. Whatever else happens, one needs to deal with this in a systematic, dispassionate manner, and put in systems that will work in the long run. And above all, leave McCarthyism out of this.
