*!95584687
*
by Pete Bodo
Howdy. Count me among those who think that the Tiger Woods/Nike television spot was creepy. But in terms of the dynamics, I vacillate between manipulative and shameless and give the latter adjective the nod, by a hair. I guess they could have put a puppy in his arms, too, but some storyboarder probably had the decency (or intelligence) to say, We'll never get away with this. . .
Mostly, I'm surprised that Tiger went along with this, although I don't suppose he's negotiating from a position of strength these days. . . But we're here to talk about a sport, not a game, right?
Unfortunately, there's still plenty of reason to walk on the unsavory side, even if it isn't the most agreeable way to spend our time. The Houston tournament certainly has as much controversy as any tournament can hope to avoid (or convert into exposure), what with Wayne Odesnik in the draw. If I were a cynic I'd be moved to ask, wonder if Wayne got a guarantee?
As promised, I contacted the ITF on the Odesnik affair and received a pretty prompt reply from Barbara Travers. Here's the relevant bit:
I've known Barbara for a long time, and she's a "company (wo)man" in the classic sense, which is fair enough - the ITF is like many larger corporations, and subject to the same bureaucratic shortcomings. That's a pity, because it diminishes the apparent value of what the ITF mostly does, which is bring the game to legions of people who might otherwise never experience it, or have an infrastructure that not only provides official opportunities to compete, but also creates and sustains a kind of world family of tennis. But that's a subject for another time.
Barbara's note basically repeats what we already know; now you have it directly from the horse's mouth. This clearly is a judgment call; either you believe that Odesnik's confession in all its details is tantamount to an admission of guilt, and are willing to act on it, or you take a far more prudent approach - like the course the ITF has taken. Does anyone else think that the ITF is more concerned with looking over its back (which is where so many lawsuits sneak up on you) than in taking swift action in a case that appears, by definition, to be open and shut? The Australian customs people clearly think it is.
But let's say that Odesnik ends up claiming that he was carrying the HGH for a sick relative in Australia (why wouldn't he have rolled that out for the Aussies?). It doesn't change the fact that he violated Australian law as well as ATP (and, I presume, WADA) protocols by doing that. And if there were some startling circumstances of that kind, wouldn't Odesnik have consulted tennis and Australian officials to get clearance for breaking the law as well as the ATP rules?
Of course, there may be details here that haven't been released. Having been busted, perhaps Odesnik huddled with lawyers and they made the determination that they can successfully make a case that renders a suspension inappropriate. I can't see it, though.
The key phrase in Barbara's note may be: The player is entitled to put forward a defense and this can take some time and he has elected not to take a provisional suspension. I certainly don't want to deny Odesnik due process, but why would he be offered this option, and why wouldn't the same option be available to those who merely tested positive for cocaine or a performance-enhancing drug? Isn't pleading guilty to a crime in a court of law as definitive as testing positive? This is a little like asking a confessed felon if he'd like to spend the time before his trial in jail, or free. Duh!
It all seems like such a no-brainer that I'm really curious to see how it all shakes out. For you know that if Odesnik does end up suspended - and it's impossible to imagine he will not - he'll have to forfeit the prize-money and ranking points he's earned during the period of investigation (meaning, I presume, now). And that means Odesnik will have spent a lot of the money he's unlikely to have in the first place traveling around, playing tennis, for no material or professional gain.
But he must know that, too, right? So what we have here is a real head-scratcher.
Unless, of course, Odesnik is simply existing in an extreme state of denial, or decided that since he looks to be going down, for good, he's going to play pro tennis as long as he can and cherish every moment and every small triumph until he's frog-marched to the equivalent of the gallows.
Strange, indeed.
And how about the stunt Eduardo Schwank pulled in Houston yesterday? It's funny, but just the other day I felt compelled to post a comment suggesting that no player in his right mind would ever play a match while badly hurt simply to avoid disappointing a crowd. I see Schwank's claim that he'd rather play out than forfeit a match in which he was suffering from a back injury was hard to swallow (just to be clear, though, Schwank never said he continued to play while crippled because he wanted to please the crowd - in fact, the crowd booed him when he lost match point on a foot fault). Either the guy is really dumb, or there was something else going on there, in which case he was even dumber.
But that reminds me of another bad-back incident, which remains one of the most sporting gestures in the history of the game. At the year-end championships in Barcelona in 1972, American pro Tom Gorman (a solid Top 10 player who went on to earn distinction as a Davis Cup captain) defaulted while leading Stan Smith in the semifinals, 7-6, 6-7, 7-5, 5-4, 40-30. . .
At match point, Gorman called Smith to the net and said that he was quitting. He was certain that he wouldn't be able to play the final, and didn't want to ruin the tournament. Astonished, Smith accepted the win, although the storybook ending was somewhat ruined when Smith lost the championship match to Ilie Nastase. The third-place match was canceled, of course, because Gorman was unable to play.
I'm glad I could end this post on a positive note; carry on talking about the events of the day.