Unfortunately, the Agassi saga is not over yet as WADA wants the ATP to do some investigation on his 1997 claim where he lied to cover a positive result. If one event could have upstaged the Sony Ericsson Championships last week, Agassi admission qualifies as he became a beloved figure after beginning as a "rebel" during his tennis career.

"suggesting that Agassi confessed his experiment with meth because he wanted to sell more books. It's a theme repeated over and over at blogs"

'More cynical than thou' is the hot new stance sweeping the world, probably because it allows a person to express an opinion that many people will agree with without actually having to put any thought into that opinion.

Stefanie? Oh, sorry, i had forgotten:)
Anyway, i guess you are the one that knows more about biographys and their motivations of all the people that are gonna post about this here, so i'll gladly accept your view. Besides, i doubt that a guy with the amount of money Agassi has earned would subject himself to the public judgement just for some more money.
I guess it's true that the books reflect in some way the personalities of the person. I would expect Sampras to be nothimg else than a Tell-None, as you said, and it's not surprisng that Agassi is more open about his issues.
About the drug issue itself, i cant say i was surprised about Agassi's revelations. He looked pretty conflicted back then, and i guess he fell in that kind of thing. I'm certainly not a very religious person, but i think there's something in the Bible about not throwing the first stone unless you are free of guilt, or something along those lines, so i wont attack Agassi for what he did, and it's good that he was able to get away from that and find happiness.
Now, i have to question the ATP for hiding a positive result in a doping test, since i believe it makes the sport as a whole look bad, and questions its credibility.

Pete,

It is nice to see you back ... hope that you had a great vacation.

I commend you for writing this article. There is no hypocrisy, no drama and no hysteria, it is just straight from the heart. I really appreciate it. So refreshing, thanks, once again.

I agree absolutely with Pete. The new prudishness is becoming more and more hypocritical, and more and more scary. (Which adjective should I put first in that sentence: hypocritical or scary?)

I would say that Andre does seem a little weird to me, if only because he's so out of step with this new puritanism. Maybe that's a privilege of being so successful; or maybe it's a privilege of being so hard-working. Whichever, it's pretty admirable.

Now playing: The Fall - New Puritan!!

I loved what you wrote, Pete. And I whole-heartedly agree.

I think many were too harsh on Andre (whom I never suspected that he did it for the money - he's a millioner and married to one, he doesn't need it, and could stand to lose so much more), I think it had a lot to do with the personal affection for the man, Roddick went easy on him, so did Roger, whom I'm sure would get to answer many more questions about it.

Rafa was harsh (on Andre - but not on Gasquet, interestingly enough), Martina was harsher - I wish they didn't come down so hard on him, but I can somewhat understand their stand.

I think Rafa doesn't realize his motivation, maybe because he doesn't carry so many dark secrets he feels he has to cleanse himself from, maybe he's too young.

Martina should have known better, but she's always been a black/white kind of woman, no?

Has Pete Sampras made any comment on AA's 'confession?' I have seen comments from Fed and Rafa and Roddick and now Andy Murray, but they all played pretty much at the tail end of Andre's career. I would be curious to hear what his true contemporaries... Pete, Guga, Edberg, Courier, Chang, Becker, Kafelnikov, etc., had to say.

Wertheim is reporting the POSSIBILITY that Andre is clearing the skeleton's out of the closet, in part, because he is considering a run in politics. ???

The parts of the excerpts I have read that I have found the most affecting were, (Mrs. Santa, avert your eyes.), his horrific relationship with his father. IF its all true, I am surprised he didn't do more and worse in the way of drugs.

Talk about completely missing the point. The point here isn't about lecturing us on what the difference is between a "tell none" and a "tell all" is and how we can benefit from them. The point is the guy lied to authorities and then proceeded to go on taking money and winning grand slams at the expense of his peers....full stop. It makes me puke when people go with this "give him credit" angle because he's "coming clean now" and whitewash the fact that the guy committed crimes and then comes out with this years later, coincidentally when it can't harm him in any material way. Really disappointed that this is the first thing you have to offer on this subject.

The issue is not him taking drugs. The issue is him lying about it and the ATP covering it.

Andre appears to be quite uninhibited and happy to share. It always seems like it was this way as his interviews were fairly open affairs also (unlike say Justine Henins). My only difficulty really was that he stuck his name on too many endorsements and it made him a little bit of a shill at times.

I wonder what Stefanie thinks of the revelations. She surely knew before the book was written and I'd imagine they had lots of long discussions about what to include in the book. Her natural reaction seems to be one of caution so I'd imagine she has concerns about the public reaction to this.

Martina's reaction is a little harsh. Its unlikely this helped Agassis results (or his back condition). Hopefully she rethinks some of this and walks it back.

I also wonder about Andres family's reaction to the book. Mike seems to have been quite the colorful character to say the least.

"I'll leave consideration of the failed drug test, Agassi's letter, and the ATP's subsequent actions for another time."

Why, hello sentence that some people are having trouble noticing! How are you today?

I think I would call Agassi's father a little more than colorful ... I would call him cruel and an absolute tyrant.

Pete,

Thank you! Your post on Agassi is just the kind of sanity that needs to be injected into such a debate/situation.

This is beautifully written: "debilitating drugs that can only be called "recreational" in the most ironic way". And it does seem a lot of people react self-righteously to revelations like this. Stardom is not the blessing most, including stars themselves, believe and take it to be. i don't think most people could conceive of the unimaginable pressure that someone in Agassi's position can feel. As human beings all of us, at some level, feel tremendous loneliness and alienation. This loneliness and feelings of alienation are exacerbated and magnified by being world-famous and recognizable.

i also just don't get how "recreational drugs" are equated with "performance enchancing" in the sports world. They are NOT the same... not in their emotional, psychological or physiological impact. Just nothing alike.

Anyway, Pete, thanks for this post!

I agree with others above. The issue isn't about judging Agassi, it's about the tennis authorities covering up for their star money maker. The question then becomes, since they're obviously weak and corrupt, how often has this happened with other stars?

I agree with Jason. I don't think the public are that upset that Agassi took crystal meth. (Pat Cash took cocaine and smoked marijuana when he was playing, as he says in his book!) It's the fact that he lied to the ATP and got away with it that makes most people angry.

I kinda feel that Pete's missed the point on this one and has spent his article on an issue most people aren't bothered about, but has put one sentence "I'll leave consideration of the failed drug test, Agassi's letter, and the ATP's subsequent actions for another time" about the area of this tennis fans are angry about.

Everyone on this website it passionate about the sport and wants to see it do well and become more populat. But when the ATP is seen to sweep a positive drugs test under the carpet because it belongs to a star name, it undermines the sport we love and portrays it in a bad light. That is what I'm angry about, not the fact he took crystal meth and felt so energised he cleaned his house from top to bottom.

"(I guess "student" is the operative word)"

Oh.

I'm a fan of Andre's - always have been and still am. Obviously I was surprised when I heard about the meth deal, and I was disappointed to hear that he lied about it to avoid a 60-day suspension. But honestly, who wouldn't lie when it comes to self-preservation? We've had a ton of examples of athletes who lied until they were caught and forced to tell the truth. We all want to believe that we would do the right thing, but would we? Really?

All of us on our perfect pedestals believe we would never, ever lie if we did something incredibly stupid and then out of self-preservation lied to avoid getting into trouble. We perfect people, would never do that, would we?

Despite thinking there should be general moratorium on quoting that Jack line for REST OF TIME, I loved this piece, Pete. The idea that Andre came clean about these things just to sell books is crazy. We're not talking about some former intern or nanny low on cash with stuff to spill about a celebrity/politician/etc. here.

The excepts I've read so far in SI have been very interesting and I can't wait for the book. Saddest thing by far is the wig...

Grant - I think you'll find that little sentence under a Streetcar Named "I Already Know What I Think and I Am Only Reading This to Validate What I Think AND/OR Provide A Mounting Block for My High Horse." (Its a very BIG Steetcar.)

Another thing I don't understand is why posters keep saying things like "the ATP swept this under the rug to protect its star", etc.

Hasn't it been shown that the ATP did no such thing. Hasn't it been stated quite a few times that the governing board who looked at Agassi's failed test had no ATP people on it? It had people like ex-judges and such on it. No ATP members. Granted, they probably shouldn't have just taken Agassi's word for it in a letter, but then... the current board today let Gasquet (in person) use a kissing excuse. Boy... we've come soooo far, ha!

"Saddest thing by far is the wig..."

EXACTLY!! That's the part that most troubles me.

Right, well honesty is to be commended most of the time, but this was not one of those times.

"I kinda feel that Pete's missed the point on this one and has spent his article on an issue most people aren't bothered about,"

While there's certainly a lot more to talk about here, as somebody who has read or heard 'he's just admitting to this now to sell books' approximately eleventy billion times in the last week, I guess I'm part of the bothered minority.

Another thing I don't understand is why posters keep saying things like "the ATP swept this under the rug to protect its star", etc.

Exactly! (This and the he must have done it for money are equally befalling). They (although it wasn't the ATP - it was an independent tribunal) didn't - they accepted his explanation.
That isn't at all the same. They've accepted lots of people's explanations since - some equally unlikely. Offhand besides the Gasquet kissing one which strikes me as so ridiculous it's laughable that it was accepted, and also without producing the other party - looks exactly like Agassi to me and that was this year despite all the talk about the procedures being so much tigher. I can also recall the "I drank from my wife's glass after she used an astma inhaler," the numerous "I took something innocently and never knew it had anything in it" etc. I have to say that of course Agassi should have not lied at the time and (finally) he's obviously the first to agree with that BUT it's so refreshing to have someone even belated say yes I did rather than these endless pathetic denials - and it was not for a performance enhancer either.

One last thing that baffles me, Pete - all these people saying he was bad to tell a lie about the positive test (yes indeed) but he shouldn't say anything now. What? Better to take that lie with him to the grave? I'm finding that very strange and like you thnk we should give him some credit for fessing up however bealtedly and perhaps at great personal cost - time will tell on the latter.

Hi Pete,

Dont you think the timing of this tell all book is a little too well calculated?

right after the statute of limitations has expired etc. Would Agassi have been willing to do this a few years back, when he could have been punished in some way???

I agree, there is a lot of jumping on the bandwagon going on here, but there seems to be a lot of calculativeness here on Agassi's part as well...it doesnt seem to be all natural and pure from the heart stuff either.

Other disturbing aspects:

1. Jon Wert's speculation he might enter politics.
2. He also mentions that the drug test that Agassi failed was not meth...
3. Did Agassi ever use other perf enhancing drugs? Pat cash has some doubts (AO 2002 withdrawal). It seems a little too comfortable to fess up only on a recreational drug, which can supposedly evoke sympathy (oh, poor guy, he was at the bottom of his life/career etc.) as opossed to if he had fessed up on any perf enhancing drug (then all his peers would have been disgusted with him and his career renaissance as a fitness guy)

Btw, the ATP letter lie underscores the fact that, NO matter what, you dont want to give anybody any kind of preferential treatment ever, else one thing will lead to another like this.

A few years ago, Agassi threw a temper tantrum towards the end of his career, against a journeyman type of guy, and refused to play with some drizzles, to collect himself and break the other guys' momentum. He got what he wanted because he was AA (there are quite a few other incidences like this with him as well).

You wrote here that you are not going to criticize him and give him a pass bcos he is AA and all that he has done to the sport etc.

You see how this goes?

I come from the cold Scandinavian climes of the Great Lakes area, where, from birth, children are taught not to commit the "sin" of pride... so I guess I will never understand the desire people have to reveal all about their personal lives in books, on TV, etc.

I suppose there is some wisdom in doing so to clear up falsehoods written about you or if you want to get a jump on anyone who may write a biography, etc. in the future.

But otherwise there are very few autobiographies I don't look at and think "drama queen", "narcissist", "equivocator", etc. Why else would you want millions of complete strangers to know all about your private life? Isn't life tricky and complicated and weird enough?! Earning money is certainly a motivator to publish these books, but sometimes I wonder if some of these authors just plain like being the center of attention.

But then again, who am I to judge --- maybe NOT being willing to share intimate details of your life is just the other side of the narcassistic coin...maybe if I actually had a life worth writing a book about (!) I would have a better understanding.

In any case, I don't blame other athletes at all for being silent about Agassi's revelations - many may be pulling him aside and speaking to him privately. Or maybe they just feel its not their bloody business to be commenting on something they really know nothing about except for the few paragraphs in Agassi's book...

Or,

Didn't Fed say that he was "disappointed" in Agassi? Perhaps that wasn't the harshest of responses, but it struck this reader as unbearably condescending.

A few other thoughts on this tedious "controversy":

1. I know that many of you have strong opinions about this yawner of a 'controversy," but my initial reaction was to wonder why on earth anyone would want to share such private details with a rude, prying, and judgmental public. This is probably a matter of temperament, but I tend to avoid autobiographies because I believe in the right to private life. They're usually bad news, autobiographies are, and I cannot even begin to tell you how many times I've sat in a class and heard professors and students explain, say, a passage of Faulkner by probing the details of his relationship with his parakeet. Frankly, these garbage scavengers appall me, and I doubt I'll understand THE SOUND AND THE FURY better if I happen to know that Faulkner may have had homoerotic fantasies. For shame . . .

2. Crystal meth is a terrible drug, and while I hardly think that Agassi's use is any of our business, I applaud him for overcoming his addiction. I know several individuals whose lives were ruined by this drug, and we should never--ever!--blithely dismiss whatever it is (pain and sorrow, probably) that triggers addiction. Those of you who feel otherwise should get off your high horses and look up the definition of compassion. Again. for shame . . .

--Liron

hi pete !

i had the feeling after reading about andre agassi using meth, and then the fake wig -one of the most silly things done by a sportman ever, btw - that agassi wanted to get rid of everything he was or became during certain years that didn't look like the man he wanted to be.
he turn out he became probably the man he wanted to be, and it took a lot of efforts and a lot of mistakes in the process.
if he wanted to be accepted as one of the glorious sportsman of his sport he had to tell the truth.

honestly i would be more schocked if todd martin would make the same kind of confession, but agassi ? nahhh... what he did is truly reprehensible, but after 12 years he should get away with it, trying to prosecute him would be beyond ridiculous now.
because the only one to blame for doing nothing is the ATP.
atp has changed, the wada exists, move on. it would damage the sport to do it now...

one more thing, i'm sure the polemic will start very soon : should agassi would be worth to be inducted into the hall of fame ?
if you admit that legends of the sport are nothing more than normal human being with exceptionals gifts for their sport, i'll vote for andre.

i think the most you come to adulate, the most unwilling to give a pass you can become.

Ozone- Where did you see that the failed test was NOT for meth? In the excepts, AA specifically says he explained it by saying that he drank from a meth-spiked soda. Did he fail other tests?

Yeah Andre Agassi!

I've found in my own life, when I reveal to people that I had a drug problem in the past, and now I'm clean/sober, many people open up about themselves, their families, their friends who have struggled with similar issues-- we share a similar pain, and sometimes we can also share hope and encouragement.

But more times that not, people with addictions have stunted lives, lose their families and friends, and/or die or commit suicide. The statistics are heavily skewed towards the darkness rather than the light in these matters...

Thankfully Agassi decided that "to thine ownself be true" was they way he would deal with this area of his life-- even with all the critics, if the honesty of his story helps just 1 person identify and relate, who's struggling with an addiction themselves, then that's 1 person maybe given a new chance at life... In this way, even if Agassi wants to sell more books and that's why he revealed all this, it's still a good thing that he did

LRubin, Fed did say he was 'disappointed' in the revelation of the drug use and the lying, but he praised Agassi for all he did for tennis on and off the court. Roddick and Murray have both voiced support for Agassi. Rafa and Martina Navratilova were by far the most condemning.

Jon Wertheims columns in SI:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/jon_wertheim/11/02/agassi/index.html

The line itself:

Once the ATP learned of a positive test result -- it was for a stimulant, I was told, not for crystal meth per se, as Agassi alleges -- the matter went before an independent panel.

Another not so charitable statement by Jon:

I was also surprised that, for an allegation so explosive and damning, his account was ambiguous at best.

This article also has Jon saying that, based on a source close to Agassi, he is planning a foray in to Politics...

The "he cant be punished now" part troubles me and portrays Andre as a smart/shrewd guy...not just an honest and penitent (for what he did) man...

This doesnt take away the fact that, he chose to come out of the addiction and do a lot of good things. That has to be commendable of course.

Here's what Weirthem actually said:

Once the ATP learned of a positive test result -- it was for a stimulant, I was told, not for crystal meth per se, as Agassi alleges -- the matter went before an independent panel. (The panel consisted of retired federal judges and other disinterested parties with no tennis background; there were no former players, ATP execs, etc.) Agassi did not testify in person, I was told, but plead his case through his letter and through his representatives. The panel "bought" Agassi's explanation, which we now know was a fraud.

That doesn't mean it wasn't for meth - but the test identified a general category "stimulant" that Agassi knew to be crystal meth.

Pat Cash is a totally unreliable source and has plenty of flaws (including drugs)in his own record. Nadal withdrew late from Wimbl;edon this year too as the defending champion - do you think that means he had a positive test?

Terrible rumor mongering all around, including in the media...

I don't know if he just wanted to get it off his chest and not go on with the lie - that seems credible to me as he seems to be getting everything off his chest. I do think we have recent examples of putting bad news on the table to clear the table as it were by some very successful people eg our current President' admission that he used cocaine (in his memoir) and our previous President's alcoholism. I've no idea if Agassi is interested even in politics but obviously some people did know in his team, at the ATP and maybe others - rather amazing the news didn't come out before I think and maybe he just eventually decided he'd rather he said it than wake up one morning and find someone else had.

One more question Pete - Steffi Graf's role here. Does the book clarify what she knew and when she knew it? He obviously adores her, they seem very happy together, it seems a wild understatement at this point to say she straightened him out, and all this apparently happened before her arrival in the Agassi camp which was ten years ago I think (at least judging from the excerpts - very little of which has been about after 1999 - I guess the SI one ends more or less with her arrival and the beach date). But it's an amazing thing for her to be caught up in too given her record and stature. Now that would be one red hot interview. I'm guessing we're going to wait a long time for it though...

I'm with you ozone. I love Agassi, always have, always will. But anyone taking this book and its revelations as portraying Agassi as all-good (how wonderful that he is telling the truth) or all-bad (what a creep to lie about taking drugs and tell all now that he can't be punished and to sell his book) is missing the point.

Andre obviously wanted to come clean - but he also made sure that he did it in such a way as to not damage himself too much - and certainly not damage the reputation he has built up in his post-tennis life. He's not stupid.

In this instance, I think there were more downsides to honesty than upsides. Now Agassi has (rightly or wrongly) cast a shadow on the entire sport and the perception of its "rigorous" drug-testing policies. This undermines the current stock of clean players who are working their butts off to retain integrity for the sport, hence the strong reactions from Nadal & Federer. In the very hot-button issue of drugs & professional sports, Agassi had to know this story would be a bombshell. Despite the sport's drug-testing being different than 12 years ago, the big takeaway is "biggest tennis star cheats drug-testing system."

Like others, I'm way more interested in what did (or didn't) happen after the positive drug test than the details of the drug use.

That said, I was surprised that Andre's drug of choice was meth, though that's probably due to my vivid memories of the Whitney Houston/Baba Wawa "crack is whack" drug hierarchy interview.

Also, if Andre was using meth over an extended period of time, it's pretty amazing that he was able to get his life -- let alone his career -- back on track. From what I know of meth, it's not the kind of drug one just uses casually for a while before waking up one morning and deciding to quit and get on with life as usual.

L.Rubin - I hadn't seen that quote, but I agree completely re: the use of "disappointed in." :)

L.Rubin -

Condecending? To say it was disappointing?

I didn't think so. Not when you're the world number 1, representative of tennis, etc. He couldn't brush it under the rug like it was meaningless. I bet it *IS* disappointing to Roger, who played against Agassi in a Slam finals, in major matches, etc.

But he also went on to talk about what Andre did to the sport, etc. He definitly took the merciful approach with him, taking his entire career in context.

I thought his approach was just right.

Perceptive, as always, Pete.

I'm an Agassi fan, so not inclined to harp on anything but, perhaps, his poor judgement in his admission of drug use. As someone who doesn't have personal knowledge of his character and can only form perceptions from what I read in the press, I can't say that I'm inclined to view his confessions as a cynical ploy to sell books, but I've often been wrong about public figures.

I am irritated by Navratilova's judgemental reaction, however, given her scandal rap sheet, but perhaps that's because I find her match analysis on the Tennis Channel so irritatingly self-referential. We are all very subjective in our reactions to celebrities. Perhaps she resents the obvious popularity with the public that Andre has always enjoyed. Whereas the public was much more leery of her until the end of her career, when she became a role model for middle-aged athletes trying to stay active and fit.

I think what some players, like Rafa and Roger, are concerned about, is the perception that the governing body for tennis may have covered up for a top player. This does present a problem, but I do think the drugs-testing program should be more concerned with performance enhancing drugs rather than recreational drug use.

Andre has been exemplar in many other areas of his public behavior, so I hope people will forgive him for this private lapse. I suppose Pete is just trying to explain why he even brought it up in the first place.

Also - Muzz's response isn't at all surprising to me, both because he seems like that kind of guy and because, having also spent lots of QT with Brad Gilbert, he can understand better than most why Andre may have felt the need to escape reality.

"I'll leave consideration of the failed drug test, Agassi's letter, and the ATP's subsequent actions for another time.

Why, hello sentence that some people are having trouble noticing! How are you today?"

LOL Grant.

Maybe Pete just likes elephants in his room.

Liron: did Andre become addicted to meth? i haven't read that anywhere. I thought this was a one-time thing. For how long was he addicted?

Okay, before anyone correct me. Disappointed IN Agassi, not disappointed from the actions.

Basically the same thing, IMHO. Roger talked on and on about how special it was that it was Agassi who gave him his FO trophy this year, having completed the career Slam in 1999, Roger had tons of respect for him, it's okay to be disappointed in a guy whom you considered a great champion and a worthy rival, that's a legitimate response, but he took it in perspective, and that what mattered to me.

Canseco's tell-all opened the floodgates on the steroid problem in baseball. Do these guys stop and think about what they're gonna unleash when they decide to reveal some of their secrets? But Andre was talking about HIS life.

Pat Cash wrote a piece for the TimesOnline that was posted yesterday. He was very harsh on Andre and not just for the drugs.

Also - Has Mike Agassi responded to the book excerpts yet? Curious as to whether he seems self-aware or regretful or is taking the "mistakes were made" approach.

I have to say, I got the impression Rafa was madder than he revelaed it than in the actual drug use.

BTW, what really tugged at my heartstrings was the wig story. How insecure must he have been to go out and try to play a Slam final like that.

Again, the issue is not his lying per se (as an immoral act), but his lying in combination with the officials sweeping it under the carpet. And yes, they chose not to put it in public, unlike in Gasquet's case, which was aired in public, with all the blame and shame that procedure brings, regardless of the outcome.

And now he chose to thumb his nose at those who gave him a free pass and spared him the humiliation at the time. A bit like those courtroom TV shows where a client triumphantly comes clean to his attorney about actually being a killer only after the successful defence.

These officials at the time probably reasoned it's OK to help out a troubled big star on rec drugs. Probably the same reasoning when they helped out a troubled young star, Richie. They will think twice now and will become unduly severe even with the smallest things.

Not to mention the enormous cloud of suspicion thrown over the sport about other possible more serious coverups.

And all that in order to write a tell-all. But, how do we know this IS a tell-all?

Do people really believe that this confession came out without a lot of consultations with his PR team? Without appropriate strategy?

Ups :-)

Or: is there an excerpt posted somewhere? i've got to read this wig story. It's like seeing hulk hogan on larry king the other night. Dude you are bald. embrace it. take the bandana off your head. does he wearing that thing in bed?

Ozone wrote: A few years ago, Agassi threw a temper tantrum towards the end of his career, against a journeyman type of guy, and refused to play with some drizzles, to collect himself and break the other guys' momentum. He got what he wanted because he was AA (there are quite a few other incidences like this with him as well).

I was at this match. Andre was playing Paul Goldstein (sp?). It was not a nice day, quite chilly in fact. There were a few rain drops in the air. Andre wasn't playing well. He didn't want to play on. Then during one point Andre's opponent slipped. It was not because of the rain, and he even indicated he wanted to play on. Andre refused and went and sat down. Some in the crowd actually booed him because he was acting like such a baby. Did not make him look good at all.

Ozone wrote: A few years ago, Agassi threw a temper tantrum towards the end of his career, against a journeyman type of guy, and refused to play with some drizzles, to collect himself and break the other guys' momentum. He got what he wanted because he was AA (there are quite a few other incidences like this with him as well).

I was at this match. Andre was playing Paul Goldstein (sp?). It was not a nice day, quite chilly in fact. There were a few rain drops in the air. Andre wasn't playing well. He didn't want to play on. Then during one point Andre's opponent slipped. It was not because of the rain, and he even indicated he wanted to play on. Andre refused and went and sat down. Some in the crowd actually booed him because he was acting like such a baby. Did not make him look good at all.

Ozone wrote: A few years ago, Agassi threw a temper tantrum towards the end of his career, against a journeyman type of guy, and refused to play with some drizzles, to collect himself and break the other guys' momentum. He got what he wanted because he was AA (there are quite a few other incidences like this with him as well).

I was at this match. Andre was playing Paul Goldstein (sp?). It was not a nice day, quite chilly in fact. There were a few rain drops in the air. Andre wasn't playing well. He didn't want to play on. Then during one point Andre's opponent slipped. It was not because of the rain, and he even indicated he wanted to play on. Andre refused and went and sat down. Some in the crowd actually booed him because he was acting like such a baby. Did not make him look good at all.

Or - I too found it a little confusing that Rafa was critical of Andre but not of Gasquet.

But not only did Rafa and Gasguet grow up on the circuit together and are friends, you may recall that Andre made less-than-supportive/flattering remarks about Rafa and Roger a couple of weeks ago, saying it was the end of their era, that Rafa was basically screwed because of his knees, and that up-and-comers Murray, Del Potro and Djokovic would be taking over. He singled out Murray as the one who would probably become the multiple slam winner (?!)

So last week was not a good time to ask Rafa about anything concerning Andre...

It is the sort of book I would expect from AA - It is not like the tennis players of old did not feature significant "substance abuse" = how about the drinking in the old days, the virtual snow storm of the 80's and all sorts of wild days when tennis players were more rock star than athlete -- not much was hidden.

For me it does more to explain the depths of AA's life in a pretty dark period -- failed marriage, career on the rocks, dealing squarely with a pretty dysfunctional childhood -- seems to be fertile ground for making some pretty poor decision - and / or years of analysis.

I find it interesting people are more focused on the fall than the rise - a rise that has led to a generous, open person who learned to appreciate the blessings of life and give back plenty. Frankly I could care less if he makes money off the book - he seems to use quite a bit of it to help other people anyway.

Part of what I always liked about AA was the sheer humanity one felt along the way - in good and bad times - and my guess was it was always going to be no book or a pretty frank one.

My main question is how much BG knew about the scope of the problems when he took over and how that dynamic worked - how his very close, long term team dealt with the pretty serious problems.

Or, seems to me if you didn't admire/respect someone you'd have no reason to be disappointed in them. We all know Roger has ZERO tolerance for drug use so I'm sure Andre's confession did bother him.

I think Rafa's response was centred on the negative impact that a perceived coverup would have on the sport, rather than Agassi's use of a recreational drug. That to me is the difference in his having been supportive of both Phelps and Reeshie (who he believes didn't use cocaine).

Fed, MAndy and RAndy seemed to focus more on Agassi the person/player. In an excerpt Zenggi posted on the Watercooler thread, Fed does also say it's damaging to tennis' image:

"Roger says in an article on "Blick" today when asked what he thinks about Agassi's confession:

"I am very disappointed. This is not a joke and if this happens to a current player he must pay for it. It's also damaging for the image of sport and for Agassi's. It is important to know that a lot has changed in the last 15 years. I don't see how a top-player could conceal today something like that"."

"But, how do we know this IS a tell-all? "

Oh, my.
I'd say this is pretty much as bad as it could be for a well-respected athlete, unless you're looking for admissions of abusing children or axe-murdering...
I like to think that his closet is empty of skeletons at this point.

MY - Yeah, I agree with that. I wasn't agreeing with Liron who said it was a condecending remark, I thought it was just right, and what I expected from Roger.

It was strong enough to show that Roger has no tolerance for drugs in tennis, but at the same time taking into account that we're talking about an already retired multi-GS champion who managed to get over the bad patch and move on to play some fantastic tennis and give a lot to the game.

And Nadal's response:

"To me it seems terrible," Nadal said on Thursday. "Why is he saying this now that he has retired? It's a way of damaging the sport that makes no sense. I believe our sport is clean and I am the first one that wants that. Cheaters must be punished and if Agassi was a cheater during his career he should have been punished."

Mr. Rick

Rafa's priority seems to be that tennis' reputation should not be tarnished.
I think he's mainly upset because Andre's confession puts the sport in a bad light.

Supporting Gasquet's protests of innocence is very consistent when viewed this way.

My view is Andre did what he did, the question is how did it benefit his tennis matches or was it detrimental? If it was benefecial than his opponents have a genuine grievance. Seems to me crtystal meth takes you down and not up in a tennis situation

I can't wait to read the book. Andre has always fascinated me. The arc of his adult life is something I want to read about.

On the meth issue...I like what it says to the at risk students at his school. It says you can mess up. Mess up really really bad. And that its not the mistakes you make, but how they change you, and how you recover from them.
Andre's meth use and lying to cover it up is a life lesson.

I admire his guts to be honest. I admire that he is willing to bust the whole "image is everything" moniker.

Thanks Pete, for your insight.

Rafa can't have it all. He can't complain about 6 AM tests and the frequency of them + support Gasquet + condamn Agassi for talking (more then actually taking drugs).

Agassi's explanation is exactly of the same variety as Gasquet. The only difference between them is that Agassi now confessed his was a lie, while we don't have a clue about Gasquet. (who I am in no hurry to condamn and ban even if he snorted something he shouldn't have in a party)

vetmama - yes, I can see what you are saying - it must seem to Rafa a little selfish of Andre to make these admissions knowing the aspersion it would then cast on the ATP and the sport of tennis, while he himself would not have to suffer any consequences. Note to self: you should only air your own dirty laundry as long as you don't get anyone else's laundry dirty.

I don't really buy into the whole honesty and coming clean aspect of this story. I don't think it is a 'tell all' so much as it is a 'tell something else'. It is very difficult to be asked by Andre to believe that he loves the game, and revers the sport when he lied for all those years: his confessional is premised on the fact that he hated the game of tennis, tanked some of his matches, and spent most of his time lying to the press and to his fans. I don't necessarily mean about the drugs, but he also lied about that. Not just the old-rebel Andre, but the post No 141 wise and humble version of Andre was a concoction and frankly always seemed to me to be a self-serious act of a false personnae. I will continue to marvel at his talent, but excuse me for not jumping on the 'tortured champion's soul-baring expose' wagon. Everyone is allowed there mistakes and demons, but I am not going to be grateful that trancendental athlete and humanitarian turns out out to be cynical liar and phoney.

Sorry for lots of typo's, and not meant in any way to insult Andre's still loyal fans. But entitled to my own opinion, I hope.

Well, its at least somewhat of a relief to know that drug tests that have been coming up positive in tennis have been for recreational drugs, and not for performance enhancement drugs - and I don't think Martina's comparison of Andre to Roger Clemmons was at all fair.

Did anyone see that Soderling MISSED a drug test at the FO, says Mr. Rick stirring the pot and walking away...

Or, I do agree with you about the complaints about testing.

Since Rafa gets so many accusing fingers pointed his way regarding steroids, he should be there with Roger, welcoming testing that is accurate and often. The more negative tests he has, the better.

(I'm not saying I suspect he does steroids, BTW)

I have not been as critical of Agassi doing crystal meth as I am aware of the dangers of any addiction having tried to help people beat alcohol, gambling and other addictions and having suffered as a child with a father who battled the addictions of gambling and alcoholism for most of my childhood. What I am unhappy with is the fact that whilst Agassi's revelation may be a coming clean and an opening up for himself to provide some form of therapy, he has, unwittingly damaged the sport of tennis, a sport that if the published excerpts are to be believed, he hated. When you are a star of the sport, and I dont care whether he was playing challenger events, this is Agassi, after all, he had a responsibility not to lie to his governing body about how drugs got into his system. OK so moving on he lies, but the implication is now there that as a result of that lie his positive test result was swept under the carpet. Many years later every tennis player is being painted with the same brush and conspiracy will now surround the sport as to whether certain stars are being protected by the powers that be regarding tests for banned substances. It does cast a poor light on the whole tour, perhaps maybe not for this generation of players, but certainly for most of those who played Agassi during that time.

Pete: As NP reminded us, you said that you'd be discussing the ATP reaction, Agassi's lying to them etc later. I hope that you'll point out, then, that Navratilova's comment re: the Agassi and Clemens comparison had to do with Andre's lying to the relevant authorities. I don't have a transcript of her comments in front of me, but I didn't get the impression that she was focussed at all on (or cared that much about) whether a PED or a "recreational" drug was involved.

Now, if we can prove that she also lied about something to some tennis or other authorities, we'd have a good case for castigating her or being surprised at her comments. If not, we don't.

Also, Andre admitted using methamphetamine for a YEAR. Not one time. He discribed taking it for days, and going through withdrawal, and taking it again. This isn't recreational use. This is addiction. And this drug as know generally known as SPEED. Various forms of speed-drugs are exactly what althletes try to enhance their performance. It isn't like somehow in 1997, Andre thought, "Oh, I'll do this "recreational drug instead of a performance-enhancing drug". He got caught, he lied, and framed some aonymous person called Slim, who he won't identify, and maybe just made up for convenience. I don't believe a word he says now. Again, not because he lied about drugs, but because he admits he pretty much lied about everything for his entire career.

Oh yes, on a less serious note, Hi Twibers from Fangorina!

I meant Grant, not NP, in m comment at 6:19.

Incidentally, I'd be lying if I didn't say that I'm often suspicious of people who insist that they don't care about the crime/misbehavior/whatever, just the LYING about it. (See my dear Bill Clinton and the vultures during Monicagate.)

Hi Fangorina, have not seen you around in a while. This is Cayman Karen now Jamaica Karen

"I'll leave consideration of the failed drug test, Agassi's letter, and the ATP's subsequent actions for another time."

We have to wait for the most important part then, Pete.

Crystal meth is different to methamphetine/speed - the latter as far as I can gather is what his father gave him as a junior, the former (far more dangerous) in 1997. Speed might be a performance enhancer but crystal meth most certainly is not.

Texastennis - That's my understanding as well (re: 'regular' speed and crystal meth being different animals).

Hey Fangorina!

I find it strange how many people(players/media/ATP/USTA/coaches/insiders) are all shocked by the early revelations from the Agassi.........selective memory or just blind or never in the loop??? Where was Tennis the publication?

Gilbert his coach during that period who lived with the guy was totally in the dark.......he claims??

Now we must wonder when Agassi made his last comeback was the new Agassi with the "pumped up" body his or like Barry Bonds blimp up??

I can totally understand why Rafa and Roger don't have supportive statements about Agassi.

Its one thing to confess that you took drugs(which does demand our sympathy) but its another thing to confess that you got away with it because you were a star. Why should we expect them to be sympathetic to that?

Rafa and Roger serve on the council..they are supposed to represent the players who are ranked below them for concerns about the tour and grievances. Its pretty obvious why Murray and Roddick can afford to be sympathetic while Rafa and Roger cannot.

Not implying any additional skeletons in Agassi's closet. Already too many information about his closet contents as it is. Merely pointing out that he wrote something relevant for tennis on a legal pad 12 years ago and now he writes that it was a lie skilfully interlaced with bits of truth.

Are we to believe that this time around it is a complete truth? The writing style is highly elliptical, like flashes of strobolight, conveniently so. Skipping over the ocean like a stone, as the song goes. Slim dumped powder, I wrote letter. Such things simply cannot be dealt with in such a flippant, impressionistic manner, there are too many serious questions to be answered on the same page where meth was first mentioned. Has he ever tested positive to anything else? (This needs to be explicitly written.) What was the substance he tested positive to? How long was he using meth and how many times was he tested in that period? Did he consult lawyers about his letter? Who phoned him about the test? Who was in the panel? Who is Slim? etc. etc. Either explain in detail or don't even bother mentioning.

This is definitely not a tell-all. It's a tell-titillatingly-little.

To me the only thing surprising about the Agassi incident is that people express surprise that he would lie about using drugs, or that a top athlete would use drugs for recreational purpose. This isn't the first time we heard this type of story. It's an all too human story. Frankly, Martina N and Rafa being judgemental bothers me more than what Agassi did 10-15 years ago. Also, not surprise he would reveal all this personal stuff, hey the more shocking, the more it sells. Go Caro, Scandinavia's#1!

I don't see why Rafa can't complain about the manner in which the durg testing is conducted -- he's been clear that he wants testing and a clean sport, but that he dislikes some aspects of the current methods that are in place. I fail to see what's inconsistent about that. For instance, I was just surveyed about the state of the Sociology Department at UNC. And, I support certain initiatives, but think they are not currently being implemented in a very sensible manner so I offered suggestions for how to improve the current system. But, I guess I can't do that since if I support something, I can't criticize it?

And, I don't think he is holding a different opinion with regard to Andre and Richard's actions. First of all, Andre did NOT drink from a spiked drink and did NOT inadvertently ingest meth. He lied and used that defense, but that is not in fact what happened. Richard has maintained throughout this process that he unknowingly ingested cocaine and the amount of the drug in his system seems to support that notion. My impression has been that Rafa is not judging Andre for using crystal myth, but he is bothered by the impression that this drug admission is creating -- that the ATP covers-up for a star player. His further statements in Spanish elaborated upon that point -- he wanted to know if other players tested positive to the same substance and were suspended. And, if they were, he thinks it shows great disrespect that others were punished while Andre was not.

I, for one, do not judge Andre (who by the way was the reason I first became a major fanatic of tennis) for using crystal meth, and I think his ability to overcome his addiction should be applauded. I am, however, disappointed by the fact that he initially lied about his actions. And, since the ATP isn't commenting upon the matter, it's leaving an impression that there's been a cover-up, which makes me very sad because I do think the ATP is looking rather ridiculous in this whole process.

Philosophy students aren't allowed to be cynical? Tell that to Sartre.

Andre made a mistake in taking the drug over such a long period and then again in lying about it to the ATP, including lying to the lawyers who defended him. Neither act is acceptable, but then being forced to hit 2,500 balls a day is not acceptable either. And having your 9-yr-old son play a tennis match for your life savings is not acceptable. Mistakes were made.

I agree with you about showing admiration for his ability to quit. My understanding of the drug is that it is extraordinarily addictive. I'll be curious if he addresses how he quit, or if he simply decided after testing positive to go cold turkey.

Frankly all the good Andre has done with his school and charities, far surpasses any drug use. His drug use only hurt one person while his charities have helped many. Not sure I buy into the need for Andre to be punish. For what? Hurting himself.

Frankly all the good Andre has done with his school and charities, far surpasses any drug use. His drug use only hurt one person while his charities have helped many. Not sure I buy into the need for Andre to be punish. For what? Hurting himself.

Or,

Sorry for the delay, but things always manage to sidetrack me whenever we're engaged in a particularly interesting discussion.

So let me add this: I am not persuaded. Your comments about Rafa's sanctimonious comments are spot-on, but I also take issue with Fed's. Call it an issue of temperament, but I always cringe when I hear people express disappointment with others for actions that hardly deserve such a response (Fed isn't Agassi's mom, after all). Disappointed? In what, exactly? Agassi's lapses have nothing to do with Fed or Rafa, and I think that it is, in fact, condescending of Fed an Co to express "disappointment with" a person whose peccadilloes occurred when TMF was busy dying his hair in Basel (Rafa was probably still playing with toy cars).

That said, the bulk of my post was about my reservations regarding the autobiographical genre and my disgust with the pious among us. The comment about TMF was a bit of a footnote, and I fail to understand why we're engaged in yet another round of Rafa vs. Roger.

--Liron

Pete (for the next installment) and everyone commenting,

here's the first confirmation I've seen that the WADA guy is full of hot air about pursuing this. ITF statement today seems to close that door. (I notice it isn't being circulated on the net nearly as widely as the lurid WADA claims...)

http://www.dnaindia.com/sport/report_difficult-to-take-action-against-agassi-itf_1306440

I have to say that although I couldn't stand the pre 1999 Agassi, I've been converted since. I agree with Pete he wanted to tell the truth finally for whatever reason (and I can think of various reasons, but I do think just being honest about it and his career finally is probably primary). But I do wonder if the timing is related to his staff taking a close look at when he could fess up safely as it were. That's ok with me too in the sense that what would have been a three month suspension 12 years ago seems like it's being equalised by the current media trial - I bet he's wishing he'd gone with the three month suspension in 1997...

"I always cringe when I hear people express disappointment with others for actions that hardly deserve such a response (Fed isn't Agassi's mom, after all)."

Disappointment is perhaps more appropriately experienced with family, but expressing disappointment in your idols is pretty common.

From what I gather from the very FEW snipits that have come to light from Andre's autobio - he hated tennis for most of his formative years - then learned to love the game after he began to come to terms with his conflicted sense of self and his tempestuous relationship with his nutso father.

I think EVERYone should take a breather on all the topics touched on here and in the press - and wait until the book is released so that the book and all its' revelations can be taken in total - it is impossible to put forth any sound opinions and reflections when you are stuck with a few tastey sound bites which have been bandied about to garner headlines.

I don't think anybody is calling for Andre to be punished.

The real issue is that he got away with something just because he was a star. Its not even that he got away...*they* helped him get away. And we have no idea who *they* are.

Frankly, at this time it dosen't matter how the case was handled.But it does matter to the current players. Murray says he believes the sport is clean. And WADA will take him on his word now?

"Disappointment is perhaps more appropriately experienced with family, but expressing disappointment in your idols is pretty common."

Fair enough, Grant, but those who experience disappointment when they discover that their idols are not plaster saints are usually silly creatures who know little about human beings and their many imperfections.

--Liron

Liron,

Regarding Rafa and Roger..

They represent lower ranked players on the council..how do you think it would sound if they said "We sympathize with Agassi even though he got away with something by just being a star which a lower ranked player would not have got away with"?

Instead they both are emphasizing that a current player would not have got out of a failed drug test now. They are merely trying to uphold the integrity of the sport (as the top ranked players) and making statements to that effect.

I really don't see anything so surpriing about both Roger and Rafa's being concerned abot a story that indicates that the tennis honchos protected a star while throwing others to the wolves. R and R are the current "stars," and they don't like the idea of ammunition (even 12-year-old ammunition) being given to those who claim that favoritism can exist whether in drug testing or even in less important matters (like scheduling matches??? etc).

"Fair enough, Grant, but those who experience disappointment when they discover that their idols are not plaster saints are usually silly creatures who know little about human beings and their many imperfections."

We're all silly creatures, Liron. It's the universal human imperfection.

Ladyjulia,

The fact that TMF and Rafa sit on the council does not necessarily mean that they have the interests of lower-ranked players in mind. If that were indeed the case, Rafa would have never bi---ed about the fall tournaments-- tournaments that provide a great many of said lower-ranked players with their bacon.

Catch y'all later. Must go do something productive . . .

--Liron

"Didn't Fed say that he was "disappointed" in Agassi? Perhaps that wasn't the harshest of responses, but it struck this reader as unbearably condescending."

"Those of you who feel otherwise should get off your high horses and look up the definition of compassion. Again. for shame . . ."

Irony.

Liron,

"The fact that TMF and Rafa sit on the council does not necessarily mean that they have the interests of lower-ranked players in mind."

That is true...however, i am pretty sure that they need to convince others from time to time that they do. Especially in times of public disclosure of how a player with star billing got away with something.

Am I being way cynical when I find it "amusing" in the blackest sense to read Brad Gilbert's claims of total astonishment that his charge; who he spent untold hours with for years, who he has often stated he was very close to, who I am sure he tried to mico manage as Brad is quite the coaching control and fitness freak; took drugs???

Brad - you silly rabbit!

Such Trix are not for this kid.......

oh the irony, i totally agree with pete start to finish on this one, totally agree!

amazing how different we can be on different topics, and I just read this and nodded throughout, even the part about Fed which in a way 'is' to me a tad condescending.. this on the same day i had a shouting match with a Republican friend on health care...

to quote the Doors, people are strange, and we agreee and disagree on the most unexpected things sometimes...

Some posters have expressed feelings of being disturbed by the fact that Agassi lied and got away with.

I have to wonder, were they not disturbed by the treatment of a young child by his father? Easy to look the other way, isnt it?

I'm amazed at the drugs not being put more in the context of the father... and the lying with the crystal meth (was there ever anyone on crystal myth who was truthful?).