Meanwhile, we're trying to get our web-and-video related French Open preview elements sorted out. And while this is not a great time to deal with heavy or potentially bummer issues, on Tuesday I happened to pick up a New York Times sports section that someone had left lying in our conference room, and read a story related to tennis's gambling controversy (I'm linking to the story further down, for reasons that will be clear momentarily).
Sometimes, it's a good idea to set aside your passion and advocacy for tennis, as well as your player of choice, and try - really try - to see tennis through the eyes of someone with no vested interest in the game, emotional or otherwise. This is one of those times, so try it as you read this story . It's written by a sports reporter with no overpowering interest in, or knowledge of, tennis. Like most NYT stories, it is very thoroughly reported and fact-checked. So my question to you is, if you knew very little about tennis, what signal would this send about the sport, and some of the players who are so often the center of attention at this website?
Personally, I think this article is very damaging as well as somewhat comforting. Damaging, because that bit about the Davydenko crew withholding its cell phone records just leaps off the page. Worse yet, the implication I take away from the material that follows suggests that the Lords of Tennis wish this case went away - and who could blame them? It's the only gambling controversy involving a top player. It also looks like the ATP is taking the "innocent until proven guilty" sensibility to the next level with its overt embrace of Davydenko. Is that a potential hedge against a legal action, should the the case against Davydenko case fall apart? Is there even such a case, in any meaningful sense, anymore?
The good news is that 45 matches with suspicious betting patterns over five years is, literally, a tiny drop in the very big bucket of tennis - a sport that for a variety of reasons is vulnerable to gambling related hanky-panky. Take Davydenko out of the equation, and you have a saga similar to that of prizefighting. Historically, fixed matches have been a routine part of the fight game in its most murky, off-the-radar depths. It's something that couldn't be helped, and trying to fix it (NPI) has always been a wild-eyed, unrealistic dream. There are many similarities between tennis and boxing, and this is another one: tennis should do all it can to safeguard the integrity of the game, but also be prepared to deal with allegations of match-fixing among the have-nots of the game as part of the cost of doing business.
The Lords seem to be in a tough position now vis a vis the case against Davydenko. Like most of the readers here, they reacted with a great hue and cry when the allegations were made public, but somehow the issue has never been resolved. The case is still open. Or is it?
