Paris Indoors CC: Karmic Krises

Okay, everyone, so how crazy has this week been?

First, we have an Andy Murray fender-bender, as if The Toothy One hasn't experience enough injury and fitness issues already. And just think, his career is just beginning. At the rate he's going, by the time he turns 25, and approaches his physical peak, he'll be hobbling around on a peg-leg, and dragging an iron-lung around the court, the way inveterate gambler Bobby Riggs used to play with a chair tied to his leg. Whoops - did I say "gambler?" It's been that kind of week. . .

Then we had Fabrice Santoro bombing Novak Djokovic out of Bercy.

And at about the same time that Roger Federer was losing to David Nalbandian for the second time in fewer than two weeks, we had Martina Hingis declaring herself retired for the second time in her career, this time because a drug test administered at Wimbledon returned positive (A and B samples, too) for cocaine.

My afterthoughts on yesterday's bombshell announcement by Hingis are now up at ESPN. There appear  to be no documented inconsistencies (thus far) in the drug-testing protocol: both of the Hingis samples returned positive. Once again, the accuracy and reliability of the drug-testing regimen is under scrutiny and/or fire. Once again, I have to say: This is the best system we have; the alternative (abandoning it, or taking at face value the accused abuser's protestations and explanations, no matter how baroque) is worse than having to live with the possibility that an injustice has been or will be done. And yes, I know it's easy for me to say. . .

At the end of the day, the most likely scenario to me is that Hingis goofed. And now her entire career and legacy is under threat, and that's a real shame. I'm not going to defend the use of recreational drugs by highly-paid athletes who also inadvertently happen to be role models, but I am also unable to get too bent out of shape about the idea that Hingis, a wealthy, socially active, smart, disciplined 27-year old might have used a party drug.

In fact, my reaction is about the same as I believe Hingis's has been: I wish the whole danged incident would just go away, or at least stay within a context that is reasonable by the social norms and standards of the day. That is not likely to happen, and it highlights a cardinal fact of the public life that Hingis leads: Everyone is watching, and hungry to feed the media beast. Unless you truly walk the straight and narrow all the time - and many, many athletes do, with admirable fidelity - you are at risk.

But the most bizarre fate of all is the one that befell Nikolay Davydenko, whose life seems to be getting weirder and weirder by the moment. The latest episode was that bizarre exchange Kolya had at Bercy with Cedric Mourier, in the midst of a stretch during which Kolya simply forgot how to serve a tennis ball. The BBC story I link doesn't really do justice to the surreality of that incident. I think Mourier's conduct was unprofessional in the extreme, but at the same time his suggestion that Kolya serve like he does was, if not exactly charming, then arrestingly "human." Once again, we see the potential conflict between ordinary, spontaneous interactions and cold, perhaps even de-humanized professionalism (You are a tennis player. I am a chair umpire. We do not speak unless necessary. We do not joke. We do not depart from the script that calls upon us to simulate machines designed and programmed to operate under severely limited terms of engagement).

This isn't particularly a defense of Mourier's remarks, or the way he handled the situation. Or if it is, it is just as much of a defense of Davydenko's actions in his St. Petersburg fiasco last week (you'll remember he was fined by the ATP for "lack of effort" in his match with Marin Cilic). While there must be some mechanism for ensuring that players put forth their best effort, there must also be some understanding of the inability of players at certain times to produce their best effort.

Over a year ago, Mary Carillo triggered a brouhaha by suggesting that Roger Federer tanked his match against Andy Murray in Cincinnati. I disagreed with Carillo, because I think there's a critical difference between tanking a match (intentionally putting forth less than one's best effort) and being unable to put forth one's best effort. Tennis players sometimes are subject to competitive impotence, and if they could will themselves out of that awful condition, they would. I see the fine levied against Davydenko for lack of effort as a Draconian measure intended to send a message about the integrity of the game at a time when it is under fire. It was defensible, but neither wise nor noble.

So we have to ask ourselves: do we really crave athletic amusement and entertainment enough to demand that our athlete-heroes function as mechanically as race cars? Is our ultimate tennis player nothing more (or is it less?) than a man or woman who strikes the ball beautifully and puts winning above all else, sort of like an ultimate court jester who has no purpose but to please and entertain the court? Is it really the experience of tennis brilliantly played that we're after, or is there more to it than that? I wonder, would we be as bent out of shape about the kinds of incidents we're discussing here if the individuals involved were ballet dancers? Snowboarders? Mimes?

Forget the degree to which we care (or don't) about those occupations. At what point do we acknowledge a human factor in the behavior of those who perform physical activities for our amusement? Most of the time, professional athletes pay a price for indulging in activities or habits that undermine their ability to perform. It always seemed to me that one of the great things about tennis is that the books always balance out, and on the rare occasions when they don't, we're lucky to be reminded that even in sports, things don't always end up looking "fair" or "just." Who can't take some measure of comfort, and experience some feeling of kinship, when a tennis player gets robbed of a win by a bad call or a lucky shot by his opponent? Those instances give us all the more reason to cherish the far more frequent times when justice appears to be served - which is almost always.

It's pretty clear to me that Davydenko is in the midst of some kind of karmic krisis. I have no firm convictions about the nature of that crisis, but there is something definitely going awry in that little dude's life. When I mull over his recent adventures, the guy I think of is Guillermo Coria. A terrible thing is unfolding, right before our eyes.

This will be your Bercy crisis center for today, you can go off topic to your heart's content at Heidi's most recent Deuce Club post (below). We will be open for business over the weekend so you can call the matches and discuss the final important regular tournament results of the year.

Have a good weekend, everyone!