that's 'let it all hang out'

He knew that letting things come out into the open for air is a good thing, and that there's no real down-side to honesty - not once you get past the uncomfortable feeling that you've allowed to world to see a part of you of which you may not be particularly proud, and which doesn't necessarily show you or your loved ones in the best light.

That's just plain wrong; you'd think someone who's always crowing about perceived "injustice" would recognize the difference between performance-enhancing and destructive, debilitating drugs that can only be called "recreational" in the most ironic way. That's why I was so happy this morning to see the Andy Murray item on the BBC website. Is it pure coincidence that Murray is Scottish, and council-housing blocks in his own nation have been notorious for the ghastly toll taken there by heroin addiction?

- Two of the best essence of life -

Loved it as always, perceptive and insightful

Annie:

I have no idea how this controversy will affect Andre Agassi's chances of being inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame.

I don't have a vote in the matter, but I believe Agassi belongs in that HOF.

Agassi has often struck me as being a bit of a phony. That said, I believe that his intentions for divulging this drug use information at this point in time were generally good and not based on increasing wealth due to increased notoriety.

Altho I don't claim to have any idea regarding the persons of Steffi Graf and Agassi, I get the sense that he was extremely lucky that she agreed to marry him. I hope that the uproar over his book doesn't create unnecessary strains in their marriage.

Annie I said the same thing on Steve's thread yesterday about crystal meth giving the user loads of energy.

MSF I would like to think that AA and Stefanie would of discussed the material of the book beforehand and I think she would stand by him. Doesn't he have kids who go to school? I wonder if this will affect them.

Good morning,

I see that nobody has posted this link yet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/8339211.stm

"Annie I said the same thing on Steve's thread yesterday about crystal meth giving the user loads of energy."

Most commentators seemed to have ignored this aspect of crystal meth and several other recreational drugs. This is what these drugs are designed to do and used judiciously can help tired and aching muscles
through a match or a tournament. These drugs are popular among night clubbers because it helps them to party all night and sometimes for days on end without feeling tired. Also, I personally know of people who use certain recreational drugs to help them pull all-nighters when they need to meet a deadline at their jobs.

The unravelling of this story has been at least interesting. I personally don’t judge Agassi for using drugs, he is an adult and he can choose to live his private life as he pleases. Each one of us anyway, somehow, somewhere, sooner of later, will mess up. So, there is no point on focusing on that.
The weird thing to observe though is how people go to war to try to justify his behavior and try to convince other people of how good of a soul he is because he had the guts to come out with these revelations. He is a dude, as many other ones out there. I don’t think of him as a particular good one, nor a bad one. Yeah, yeah... all the charity thing and the reputation: sure, good, but not unreal, considering that he has a chunk of millions hanging in his wallet. I know people that barely can get to the end of the month and still will give away half of their last ten dollars bill to a homeless just because they feel that it is not fair for them to have it all. Or other ones that had a far more miserable growing up experience and they literally had to scrape food out of a garbage can to stay alive. They don’t go around broadcasting that, they just move on and keep trying their best. That is pretty much all we can do. So, all of his tribulations, big deal. Still does not justify in my books the point that, at the end of the day, he broke the law, the law knew it and he simply walked away, like if nothing would have happened.

Some of the facts:
a) He was (still is) a successful millionaire married to one of the most beautiful woman on earth. He had fame, recognition and any other sort of perks coming from his status. If his life was that miserable how about going working in a mine for a few years with a paycheck of 1/500 of what he was getting for a change?

b) If you break the law you pay. That is why we have laws. He broke the law, the relevant authorities knew it and he got away with that. How about those Italian players #4235 in the ATP charts that got disqualified because they bet 5 bucks on some tennis matches? Law should be equal for everybody, no matter if you are the prime minister: if you mess up you pay. We may be completely entitled to mess up but if we do, the authorities are completely entitled to lock us up. End of the story.

c) The ATP (or whomever was the competent authority at the time) made him a favor (actually, wait...made themselves a favor....), bailed him out and a good chunk of years later, just right after the terms for prosecuting any of that expired, and just one week before the book comes out, all of this soul purging occurs. So, to a lot of you out there this is a sign of honesty and character? Are you guys serious? And beyond that, explain me how all of this really helps tennis as a sport anyway? How about a little bit of thinking and respect for what fed you for so many years? In my home country we say: you don’t spit in the plate where you eat from. Again, if he was that miserable and hated tennis and he feels entitled to unleash all of this now, he should have had the guts to either do it a few years ago, when he was still playing, or leave and go doing something else. That would have been character.
d) Is there anybody out there that truly believes that any of the high level sports are 100% clean? When there is so much money involved you will always have cheaters. Does not mean that all are, but you will always have a good chunk of people that will try to get away with it. If you don’t believe that, or choose not to believe it, you simply live in fantasy land.
e) Martina Navratilova should shut up. You know how it goes with the karma. Judging from her “athleticism” I would not be that sure that she did not get a little “lift” along her career too.

f) The fake hair part: gosh...The kid needs a big hug. If this guy is a role model we are definitely in need of new candidates. Would you look at your kid in the eyes and tell him: go on son, be like him. He is as human as all of us are, he simply had/has incredible talents, that unfortunately not all of us have (including me), and he is simply living his life, good and bad, exploiting his talent how he can. The bottom line though is that he cheated and broke the law and he didn’t pay for that. Let’s leave all the honesty-role model-character crap for the romantic novels.

Backhandlob

My post from Steve's thread.

"From what I’ve learned this week, crystal meth is mainly pseuodephrine, iodine, and red phosphorus. It causes, as Agassi, said, a euphoric energy rush".

Don't you need energy to play tennis at the pro level, so in my mind this is performance enhancing as it is providing the player with extra energy.

Hey, everyone. :)

Welcome back, Pete, I hope you had a good time. :)

"Can you conceive of someone writing his or her autobiography under the premis that he wants to be utterly honest about himself and his life? Is that such a hard idea to swallow?"

The trouble I have with this is that how do I know he is being utterly honest? I haven't read the whole book, but I've read intimations that some of the episodes in the book are not accurate representations of what happened. That doesn't mean Agassi is being dishonest - just that he is telling his version of his life in his own way - but it does make me wonder.

Also, I can get behind the idea that a complicated man who seems to have built on awful lot of his image on various kinds of lies and representations and misrepresentations might want to put the record straight once and for all. But I have a bit of difficulty in trusting to that, and that is Agassi's own responsibility. How do I know that this isn't just another story, however sincerely told?

It's hard to see what real gain Agassi gets from it all, though - he's already plenty rich, it can't just be about the money - and in some ways he's deliberately destroyed his own image as a solid nice guy, perhaps one he felt trapped behind? It's hard to look at him as a winner in this when one reads the sheer amount of condemnation and smear-y type pieces the extracts from the book have generated.

I'm kind of surprised that more hasn't been made of the circumstances of Agassi's life which to me seem to deserve more understanding than condemnation, but then I think most people are looking at it from the "does this damage tennis as a sport?" angle.

(I am a bit stuck on the thought of the man whose hair became so much part of his image and identity that when it started to fall out - I assume due to stress? - he went on court wearing a hairpiece. And how liberated he felt when he realised he could change his hairstyle. And I am struck by the amount of joking and ribbing there's been about that.)

I thought all the players' comments said as much about themselves as anything, too. Liked Murray's comments, although I'm not entirely convinced that he was brought up in the stairwell of a 1960s concrete tower block, LOL. But I do agree he probably has more experience of complicated life than, say, Rafa.

as for Martina N - well, people aren't always consistent, and someone who has liberal views on one thing may not have them on another issue.

I am mildly surprised at your condemnation of the cynical, Pete - remembering recent pieces on Kim Clijsters and some slightly older pieces about Roger Federer, where I thought you treated their actions and sayings and reasons in an unwarrantedly cynical way.

Regarding the timing - well, perhaps now is the time he's worked things out enough with himself so that he *can* tell that story. It doesn't necessarily have to be that he's gone over the time limit for punishment.

Kind of amused by the Fedal sparring in the comments. :)

Personally I don't think it has anything to do with money (maybe he could give the money to a drug charity). I think he just wanted to clear his conscious and tell his story. I would rather read a warts and all bio than some washed over bio.

Angel of the Surf

You most definitely need energy for tennis, and even though the effect doesn't last very long a player can always administer a small dose of the drug through his/her drinks bottle during a match. And also the bad side-effects that go together with recreational drugs, do not affect everybody in the same way. There are plenty of people who use drugs like cocaine and cannabis regularly for years and they are still able maintain a normal happy life and perform their jobs competently. Therefore, I believe a person can reap the benefits of using recreational drugs like crystal meth without suffering the consequences.

Well done Pete - a fair and thoughtful piece and interesting about autobiographies. I have read your Pete Sampras collaboration and was disappointed at the impersonal nature of the book, but thought then and you have confirmed it that Pete's personality is that of a very private man. I was surprised at the crystal meth admission and at the "speed" revelation. As long as a drug is not performance enhancing I don't see how it can be relevant to his career in any way. Therefore I would be against mandatory penalties. I can understand the tennis authorities not wishing to be seen to condone recreational drugs on an example basis and for health reasons, but frankly the Gasquet and Hingis affairs were unjust. Agassi was forced to lie to save his career he tacitly claims. I wonder how true that is. What was the penalty in force at the time, two months or so I think. It was the massive sponsorship deals that he was more worried about.

Agassi's admission to speed is more interesting, as it shows a willingness to win at all costs or put another way to cheat. Again, I would not punish a junior player clearly under the influence of domineering parents too harshly, but they should be rigorously tested for the rest of their careers. Pat Cash has suggested that Agassi used performance enhancing drugs later in his career. If not true Agassi should sue for libel but I am guessing he won't. I have no idea if he did take them or not but unfortunately he side effect of his book is to cast doubt on every tennis pro, as the ATP testing regime appeared to be ridiculously lax. Looking at the pros of that era their general physical appearance indicates that they were not on performance enhancing drugs, the build is lean and not as muscular as today, even Becker who was considered almost freakish at the time looks by today's standards almost puny.

I have every sympathy for Andre's troubled background, but of course Nadal and Federer, who represent the current players, have to be concerned about what his revelations do for tennis' reputation and therefore, the image of current players.

I think both Nadal and Federer said the approriate things. In Fed's case, Andre was one of his idols, so of course he's disappointed in him, even though he expressed appreciation of him as a player and a person. Nadal was perfectly consistent in expressing in his views on Agassi and Gasquet. Rightly or wrongly, he obviously believes Richard is innocent, which makes it quite different.

The poster who said Fed was condescending because he was "disappointed" in Agassi, and then proceeded with snide, condescending remarks about Fed dyeing his hair and Nadal playing with toy cars wins the prize for double standards - or maybe projection of one's own failings.

Andre's revelations have definitely damaged the sport of tennis - there have already been harsh comments from general sports writers on its corruption.

I must be getting older or something. I have, several times, come down hard on Andre, especially about his divorce. There's no two ways about it, the man's life was out there affecting our experience of his tennis. That was never the case with Sampras (until he married), so for Andre's history to still be challenging us is completely consistent.

I couldn't form an opinion on the crystal meth or the revelation of the same until I read portions of the book. I'm intimately familiar with one friend's addiction, and I can't pretend any more that addiction is evil. What it does is evil, but how it happens is life. What it does to a man or woman is beyond describing. The phrase, "soul rape," doesn't even touch the awful thing a drug does to the person you knew.

Andre's revelation is honest. That he escaped the clutches of crystal meth is unfathomable to anyone who's ever tried it. I'm astounded for him, and I'll almost certainly buy and read the book just to see what enabled him to push through the crazy lust the stuff creates. The portion I read was convincing, but I'll want to read it again. I suspect he's not a deeply addictive personality, and the control he formed to survive his childhood gave him some valuable resources. Andre's honesty is pitch-perfect, and I'm impressed.

As for his motivation, I've not read the comments, but I'm really surprised at the punditry. The guy is working with kids now, kids who have to survive in a world crawling with free drugs (that first hit of anything is always free - remember that when you're talking to your kids. Crack, heroin, meth, it's all free to cherries.) If I were working with those kids, and if I could connect to them honestly through my past, and if I'd been a famous somebody, I cannot imagine a better, safer, more constructive way to get it on the table than exactly the method Andre's chosen.

We're talking about a life here, a deeply damaged one just like yours and mine.

I always disdained Agassi as a player. He's completely won me over as a man.

from corrie:
"The poster who said Fed was condescending because he was "disappointed" in Agassi, and then proceeded with snide, condescending remarks about Fed dyeing his hair and Nadal playing with toy cars wins the prize for double standards - or maybe projection of one's own failings."

yep.

and the other poster who seconded the motion sometimes makes snide remarks on another tennis blog, famed for its so cute and unfettered use of profanity (or at least the blogger thinks it's cute and hip), that are very anti-federer.

to think that saying this was 'disappointing' was so horribly condescending of federer deserves derisive laughter only.

Great piece Pete - IMO it's one of the best you've put up since I've been reading and it's generated some very thoughtful debate.

I am an unabashed Andre fan (before, during & after) and don't find the news of his drug use or current revelations surprising. I also don't find it surprising that the powers that be knew and swept it under the rug. Like all professional sports tennis is a business - period.

What happened during the period of time that Agassi wrote about is consistent with what happened with drugs in sports across the board. The decade of decadence was just that cars, mcmansions, toys, drugs, etc... it was a period of free spending and free wheeling. We are all paying for it now with an economy in shambles and a professional sports industry that is waiting for the next shoe to drop on who used what & when.

What happened in tennis was a drop in the bucket compared to what occurred in Major League Baseball.

The Andre bashers can have a party with this one but for those of us who watched him morph from the "wild teen" to the proud papa and do gooder we can take comfort in knowing the player we enjoyed watching took a ride on a very dangerous roller coaster and managed to get his act together before he rode ride off the track. Post tennis I don't think anyone can argue that Andre is a man we can all appreciate and respect.

As a fan of the game I'm glad he chose to tell all (or most I suspect) as I think it provides a good life lesson for aspiring young athletes.

susan - Damn. You got me. I hate Fed with the fire of ten thousand suns. So much so that any statement I make about Fed must be viewed through the prism of this blinding irrational hate. Oh yeah, I also go around littering the internets with anti-Fed vitriol, including that profane "anti-Federer" site where *newsflash* nothing and no one tennis-related is spared the snark.

Nah. I've made no bones about the fact that I'm not (and will never be) a Fed fan, per se. I respect his game, achievements, chuckle at his adorkable-ness in unscripted moments, give him props for cleaning up well and looking damn good in a suit (even shiny ones!), and ADORE his wife. But --as I've said before-- I find his dominance (and the attendant years of media fawning) boring and the gold-plated persona affected and off-putting. I won't back down or apologize for anything I've said about that here or on that evil "anti-Federer" site.

Now, go out and enjoy what remains of your day.

*sigh*

For the folks who are actually talking about Agassi, drug use, etc. -- Apologies for the slight hijack that was my previous post. :/

sbilly - wow i pushed some buttons.

Btw, I was also one of those people (in an earlier post) who were "actually talking about Agassi, drug use, etc."

In my first post I addressed Agassi's revelations and what I thought about them. (I think it was courageous, as I said.)

sbilly - wow i pushed some buttons.

Btw, I was also one of those people (in an earlier post) who were "actually talking about Agassi, drug use, etc."

In my first post I addressed Agassi's revelations and what I thought about them. (I think it was courageous, as I said.)

And it's night where I am right now, not day, and the evening's going quite well, thank you.

And if you read my sentence carefully, you will see that i never called a website anti-federer, but only someone's remarks. 'remarks on another tennis blog, xxx, that are anti-federer.

'that are anti-federer' referred to the word 'remarks' (not to the blog). (and did i say 'evil'? of course not. goodness...)

I enjoyed this piece Pete. People who are claiming Andre used meth as a performance enhancer simply don't understand recreational drugs, especially meth. I can understand how Andre might have wanted to escape his reality, at the time, by using meth, which would give him a high for a day or two and he didn't have to think about tennis. You are right, more professionals should have come out to say "wow, he had this problem, and I'm glad he kicked it."

I do believe, however, there should be some sanctions since he lied about the positive test. I'm not sure what they should be, but I don't like people waiting until they're retired to say they lied about taking drugs, while they were playing sports. So, something does need to happen.

That being said. Agassi is human and made some mistakes. He corrected the problem and moved on with his life. Ultimately, wining the battle over meth was a much greater victory in his life than winning any grand slam. Maybe he realizes this and that's why he told the truth.

Enough about the drug usage. Let's bring this conversation around to the truly interesting stuff. Let's discuss the French Open hair weave.

Pete says, "Can you conceive of someone writing his or her autobiography under the premis that he wants to be utterly honest about himself and his life?"

It's a fair question to ask IF the autobiography truly fits the bill of being utterly honest. In this case, I feel that Agassi hasn't been as open as the title of his work suggests. He split up, rather publicly, with Perry Rogers, his childhood friend and manager for many years, and there's apparently no mention of it in his book. Surely that must have been a significant event in his life?

If the criterion of "significant impact" is selectively applied, then it's fair to criticize Agassi for being open about the more salacious details (e.g., the drug usage, the lying to the ATP, and the overbearing father), while keeping other, less sensational chapters in his life closed from view.

Agassi crossed another rubicon with his decision to write about the "bad" things and decisions in his life. It must have tormented him no end, to decide to divulge parts that might incriminate others (as in the ATP or his Dad).

He was strong enough to get over meth which was a very private, hidden trial. For this one, he and his family must have forearmed themselves for a public flogging. This is a serious memoir skillfully written and I am thinking, has a serious goal. Not just to "sell books".

ACS, you laugh about the hair, but premature thinning is someting men worry about.

It is heart-tugging to read how violent and obsessed Andre's dad was in bringing him up. Some of his descriptions were a bit graphic for a reason. He was at the mercy of his father.

crystal meth makes you play better tennis, by giving you 'euphoric' energy? yeah, and im sure it really helps you concentrate, finesse that drop shot over on break point and keep a clear head regarding strategy too in front of thousands of fans, right?

ive read some wacky things before but this might take the cake!

I find the Agassi confession disturbing on a number of levels, but I also find it refreeshingly like Agassi to reveal himself so completely to the adoring public. His self-termed love-hate relationship with tennis may have misshaped his psyche, biut one thing is certain: he came to adore his fans and to perform long past his prime with courage and humility. Is it just possible that his detour into drug use (and the ultimate form of self-destructive behavior) brought him to seeing his talents as a gift not to be neglected? Is it possble that this led him to seek out the advice and counsel and mentorship of Gil Reyes? bThese are questions that only he can answer.

What disturbs me most, though, is that he chose to use crystal methamphetamine--one of the most addictive and damaging of all the so-called recreational drugs. Had he smoked grass, or done a few lines of cocaine, or chewed on psychotropic mushrooms--these could have been considered recreational choices at their core. But crystal meth is serious sh*t. My cousin was a user, and by the age of 38 or 40 had lost most of her long, blonde hair, most of her teeth, and had taken on the appearance of a monster. It was so sad to see her in that condition. And she had been an equestrienne and horse trainer of some note, but her drug use, while allowing her to work tirelessly for hours on end, also sapped her of her inner peace, strength, focus and resilience.

It is Agassi's life story to mtell, not mine or yours or anyone else's. How (and when) he chooses to tell it is completely up to him. I doubt that he took this leap into truth-telling without first considering the backlash, the legions of fans who would turn their backs on him, the accusations of greed being at the heart of his confession. Still, it is difficult not to fault him some. But one thing I can say with a fair amount of certainty -- and this applies to Hingis, too -- Andre's csytal meth use could never be seen as an attempt to enhance his performance. It resembles more closely an attempt to destroy the very career and talent that he had worked so hard and sacrificed so much for.

It must have been a profoundly sad time in his life, and that is something most of us can empathize with.

hey pete - any link to your graf article? would like to read it.. thanks

"crystal meth makes you play better tennis, by giving you 'euphoric' energy? yeah, and im sure it really helps you concentrate, finesse that drop shot over on break point and keep a clear head regarding strategy too in front of thousands of fans, right?
ive read some wacky things before but this might take the cake!"

+1million....this has really gotten out of hand.I'm with Murray and Roddick.Nice peice Pete,cant wait until the next installment;)

Is it OK to understand and forgive AA as a fellow human being and commend him on his honesty and strength YET condemn his sin of lying to avoid negative repercussions?

If your employer had a clear policy that stated no recreational drug use and you lied about it, that's wrong, no matter what your take on drugs. You should have found another place that does not care about their employee's drug use.

Same goes for AA. Its besides the point that meth did not help him in the arena. Sportspeople are certainly held to a different standard than Hollywood actors and rock stars and rightly so. If for no other reason than the fact that a sports person who imbibes a substance to get high casts doubt on their claim that they would never take something to artificially increase their performance.

If you show a weakness for getting a high, can you really claim that you're strong enough to resist pill-popping or injecting yourself to recover better/get stronger/feel physically better as a sportsperson? (if of course you had access to such substances and you felt you could get away with it)

Actors and musicians are different. We don't care if their performance is enhanced/debilitated by their lifestyles. Their work is subjective. If you like their work, you wouldn't care if they were stoned 24 hrs of the day. Sports is different. A sportsperson's performance is evaluated very objectively in terms of a score. The score comes at the expense of an immediate opponent, against the history of scores and fulfills an expectation of the viewer - that it reflects a fair contest. That is what is sacrosanct in sports, not individual morality.

That's my 2 cents. Thanks for reading.

Just my 2 cents.

nikdom,

You make several salient points. It is of course true that sport is supposed to be the ultimate meritocracy, and that meritocracy is dependent on there being a fair and level playing field applied to all contestants. From that perspective, the ingestion of ANY substance that may enhance a contestant's performance must be opposed and punished.

It is also valid, I think, that Agassi's admission of taking a banned substance of one kind might be used to call into question his veracity regarding the taking of other bannned substances (i.e., performance-enhancing drugs). But, at least as of today, no evidence has been brought into the light to suggest that his blood tests ever revealed the use of PEDs. Perhaps all of this will come out in whatever investigation may ensue.

Slice-n-Dice,
I'm not saying because he did recreational drugs, he must surely have done PEDs. I'm justifying the standards of the ATP in saying that recreational drugs are banned - for the reason I mentioned above.

Pete Bodo and Jon Wertheim have been lenient with Gasquet and Agassi's (and even Hingis' case - which is slightly different bcos of the concentration found in her hair) and it makes sense from a human perspective. But I also agree that rules are rules. If you knew them before joining the club, then you can't question their merit in hindsight.

The fact remains that if Agassi had been found guilty and punished in 97, his career trajectory would have been different and perhaps of his competitors.

I'm very curious to know what Sampras thinks of this. I mean he was the biggest rival AA had.

Amen, Pete. What do you know, Agassi wrote a real history of his life, not a tale based on his life, as most do.

As for the retrospective review of Agassi's "lie", I say- weeeelllll, then the ATP has to come clean on their "lies". As I understand it from some pretty good sources, Agassi (who did not use a performance enhancing drug, but a "recreational" drug), some very very BIG star(s) have had some "injuries" rather than be called out for use of performance enhancing drugs, which would have greatly impacted the bottom line ATP-wise. In other words, BIG star, suspension and loss of revenue. Best to teach them a lesson with a compromise and a wink.

It's a two-way street.

"There's no real down-side to honesty"...once you're beyond the statute of limitations.

"Nearly every person who has any form of a drug habit lies about it - as much to themselves as to others."

The most important point I've read on this subject - and wow, when I read Pete's ESPN blog and the comments, I was shocked at how the revelation has been perceived.

Another factor is that during this period his ranking really dropped, right? Would he be the first person to want to escape "career problems" though drugs or alcohol?

"crystal meth makes you play better tennis, by giving you 'euphoric' energy? yeah, and im sure it really helps you concentrate, finesse that drop shot over on break point and keep a clear head regarding strategy too in front of thousands of fans, right?"

Blurred vision, paranoia and insomnia: the path to athletic glory.

I have only two comments:

1. What would our judgment be if we for example it was not Agassi but Kafelnikov who first took the drugs, then denied it to ATP, and eventually released this before his book was out? I wonder, what would Pete's response be in this case? Just play with that idea for a while and then look at what he's written - there's something more in that article. Would Pete write about this issue in the same way? Actually the question is, why should he not, right?

2. I am not here to question Agassi's ethical standards...but I do question Pete's and all the others who call themselves journalists. The story with Graf was a telling example - was Pete pushing for the publication of Graf's interview for the sake of truth, for the sake of a "moral right to inform the world" or for the reason that the "piece was so good"? Or was he doing it for Graf herself? I know many people will say, he did just his job - my guess here is, he was doing his job "as best as he could"- i.e. no matter what, now matter who. And this has very little to do with his quest for the truth. Rather, it's about readership (i.e. those who read him) and eventually about himself - not Steffi Graf. That's exactly why I have a problem with the Graf story and why I have a problem with journalistic profession in general - the market logic has become an ethical standard in itself and justfies whatever "ego" one might have (btw. looking at the way legal profession goes about its business, it's exactly the same...how often do you here: I am just doing my job line).

Nikdom 11/03/2009 @ 11:28 AM

"The fact remains that if Agassi had been found guilty and punished in 97, his career trajectory would have been different and perhaps of his competitors.

I'm very curious to know what Sampras thinks of this. I mean he was the biggest rival AA had."

I could not agree with you more on this.
I am not naive and believe that there are many more people out there who broke or bended the rules of ATP and tennis in general in equally serious manner. But I don't think I am so naive as to say that there are many athletes who have not done so in their career. Agassi's victory and success must have come at the expense of other players - that's just a simple rule of tennis and elimination. And the fact that he was allowed to play definitely did affect the careers of others.
Personally I love Andre's game and I always enjoyed watching him. And this case of his will not make me not review some of his matches..I will still be fond of his game. But his "greatness" has been in my eyes hugely reduced. And this would happen to me with everyone..be it Federer, Nadal, Navratilova, Sampras, Edberg..if something leaks out in the way of Agassi, it will diminish them in my opinion.

Ivo, man, you're totally right about Bodo. Were it Kafelnikov, Bodo would be the first one to condemn him as a typical Soviet athlete. His article is total bogus. I also agree with you on the Graf issue.

sblily: May I borrow AM's much used un-PC phrase to say belatedly about your 8:36 am comment...Me likey! :)

nikdom: The answer to the question that starts your 10:58am is, of course, YES. But here at TW, we often find it much more "fun" to line up on separate sides and hurl accusations --blatant or implied -- of self-righteousness, ignorance of the world, cynicism, moral laxity and so and so and so on at each other.
But it's not always this way, so don't despair. :)

For the information of those who find it difficult to believe that, for SOME athletes' the use of drugs that may be considered "merely" recreational can actually be PED, here's something that'll curl yur hair -- if you don't already know it: some of the most skillful surgeons have been known to use some of those same drugs deliberately and regularly before performing several quite successful surgeries!!!!!!

I agree with TS Ramesh.... if this autobiography is so "open", how come Agassi doesn't mention his break up with longtime friend and manager Perry Rogers?

I don't think that a three-month suspension for drug use in 1997 would have had a major effect on Agassi's game or on the eventual trajectory of his tennis career, but it would have brought about a HUGE negative reaction from all of his sponsors -- major and minor -- and many of his fans.

I am really curious to hear what Steve T. will have to say about this. I am sure that it'll be much less biased and more reveling that this piece.

These Agassi sycophants are unreal

Ruth:
I am not sure that a three-month suspension for druge use in 1997 would have only a minor effect(disregarding here the issue with sponsors). At that time Agassi was really struggling and such a suspension could have been actually further exacerbated his slump....plus the issue with fans and his imagine cannot be discounted either. Having a huge support base and respect on the tour nor not having it can have a great impact on how you play. You saw how Agassi was flourising in his later career propelled to excellence many times by fans. He was definitely playing for the crowds as he was playing for himself.
Again, it's all speculations....and it would have been better if we did not have to speculate about it now. It's Andre's fault that we do. And I do think that this will put a question mark on his career. As I said before, it would happen with anyone on the top> Federer or Nadal.

Cronin's piece where he hammers Agassi on lying.

http://msn.foxsports.com/tennis/story/10299990/In-his-new-book,-Agassi-on-journey-to-find-himself

I'd like to think that what's past is past So it must be for Agassi for having written this book. The same for his dad, the tennis authorities.

To weigh in, late as usual, part of the [big] problem with this story is that it was leaked by the publisher as a teaser to sell books, so we're not getting context. We're not getting the arc of Agassi kicking drugs, repenting at length, telling kids not to do drugs, etc. We're not getting any strong discussion of how he feels about the fact that he got away with it and Gasquet didn't (or anything similar). For that matter, people seem to have forgotten that other big names have admitted to using recreational drugs before now. I don't know what reactions to those admissions were like.

Pete's personal acquaintance with him gives him some more assurance that this is part of Agassi's real personality and not a gimmick, like the story he tells about Steffi's interview. That's great. But Agassi was never a big hero of mine, so I don't either want to throw stones at him or stand up for him as a great human who's overcome his own demons, etc. I want to discuss the stuff Pete is leaving "for another time."

p.s. Hey Ruth! I would agree with you except that losing his sponsors would surely have affected Agassi's career quite a bit, don't you think?

It was posted on the other thread that Murray has signed with Addidas. I'm waiting for all the "no wonder Murray supported Agassi after his book revelations - they are both with Addidas!" arguments.

Based on waht I know about meth, AA's game would be hurt by using it, far from helped... and this was his worst year, right?

You're probably right, Heidi. But I think that Agassi, who had accumulated quite a bit of cash by 1997, would have toughed it out and continued to work on his game through his suspension. (I always loved to hear the stories of his arriving at Challenger events in his private plane and sharing his good fortune with the less wealthy other low-ranked players at those events.)

Then, there would have been the usual swift (and justifiable IMO) forgiveness by the sponsors of someone who has accepted and served his punishment. Haven't we seen athletes who have been involved in worse offenses than drug abuse re-embraced by their sponsors after a reasonable time has passed?

I know that I'm hoping for that to happen in the case of one M. Vick of the Phila Eagles! :)

I am amazed at people who think that Andre's revelations about his personal demons tarnish the tennis world in any way. That is so ridiculous. I am disappointed in Roger and Rafa for being so self righteous - even though I don't care for Roger I thought he was a better man. Rafa I know is young and goes along to get along - but now being a father Roger still needs to learn about humanity. Andre is a human being - and unlike all the perfect people on this board - Andre is not and has not been perfect. I wonder if any of the "punish him" people here could stand up to a "tell-all" scrutiny?

WADA is way too late on this subject and should just leave the issue alone - use their time for more necessary concerns. The sensationalists are leading this war - it's just fodder for tabloid journalism. There should be enough smart and sensible people in the fanatic tennis world to understand this is just another "glam" moment for the press.

Andre is and always will be a great human being - albeit a little flawed like every other human being. The simple mind tends to want great achievers to be immortal - but sorry, that is just not the case.

Should have addressed my 4:00 comment to both Heidi and Ivo.

Pete:

The following is my issue with Agassi's Crystal Meth issue

I may be wrong about this - I'm yet to see a player (except Capriati, and it took her years) to get suspended for drugs and come back to win multiple slams. The bad media along with the image beating you take takes away the positive energy to recoup. While other players who got suspended went through tough road, Agassi was glorified as an icon, which he gladly accepted until when he wanted to open up in a book he wanted to sell. Somehow this does not sit well, I love Agassi and Sampras and their rivalry, I'm not an Agassi beater.

I'm not sure if he would have won all those slams if he was indeed punished and suspended for whatever period of time.

I'm sure people like Coria, Gasquet, many others will feel totally betrayed and treated unfairly. They are not wrong, but at the same time, it is not entirely Agassi's fault, ATP or whoever that was responsible should have been unbiased towards Agassi. I'm sure even today such a thing coming out on Federer versus Soderling would be dealt differently due to the image and that ATP should be above this image BS, and preconceived notions based on fame, nationality etc.

Kaygee, I love Agassi too and don't really have a problem with his tell-almost-all book. I don't think it makes him any less good or bad. But I hardly find Rafa or Roger "self-righteous". I would absolutely expect the two main stars of this sport to be 'disappointed' in hearing that Agassi not only used drugs, but then lied to the governing board to get out of a suspension. Everyone knows Federer (especially) has been very vocal about drugs and sports.

As the top two players in tennis AND as the president and vice-president of the Players Council, Fed and Nadal had to at least voice their "disappointment' at the news. But I don't think either one of them denies what Agassi did for tennis and what he does now for charity - Fed said as much.

I also do see a lot of sympathy based on what Agassi endured with his father. While I sympathise, it cannot be an out. So many players, especially on womens tour have had controlling parents and issues as a result of that.

How would the tennis fans react if Williams sisters said they took drugs and were abused by her Dad 10 years from now. While we should be sympathetic, cant have that as a reason.

Anyone can have a story of bad childhood then as a reason for their actions.

Kumar: Sorry to tell you - but bad childhood has been the reason for the reality of many serial killers and other violent criminals - just an enlightenment. Hope you are not a parent - because the fundamental psychological makeup of a person seems to stem from their childhood experiences. The ones with the bad experiences tend to lash out at an alarming degree - some are self-destructive - still, a very minute few overcome after long suffering.

Kaygee: I am a parent, I do understand. I'm not unsympathetic at all. I do admire how Agassi has achieved in the midst of this and turned out to be someone who is making a serious change to teh world. But are you saying these reasons should mean for those who have had these we should have a different doping rule? If your kid is someone who is not as famous with a lot of talent and got punished for the same offense and you find out someone else was let go, how will you feel as a parent, no matter what.

Alexis: I have to agree with you about Roger's statement about the Agassi affair. Federer has always been outspoken about his support for and insistence on having tennis be a clean sport; and he would have looked like a hypocrite if, after what he'd said in the past (when other players were charged), he went all "no comment" on Agassi.

The poor guy probably thought that he was using the best (kindest?) word by saying that he was "disappointed," only to find himself being accused of self-righteousness and other offenses.

Kaygee, do you seriously expect the two top players, who represent all players on the Players Council, to say yes, Andre, whatever drugs you took is ok - in the current climate of trying to crackdown on drugs in all sports?

It's fatal to let personal likes and dislikes to get into the issue. You think Agassi is a "great man" and don't care too much Federer. That's irrelevant. I liked Andre and admired his charity work, but he sure had millions to spare for it - "great man" should mean something more than that.

But even if he was the Dalai Llama et al, his actions have still damaged tennis - I see it in the scathing articles written about the corruption of its administrators and wondering which other players got away with things.

Ivo was right, substitute Agassi for someone like Kafelnikov, and far less leniency and excuses would show up. Double standards all over the place.

"If your kid is someone who is not as famous with a lot of talent and got punished for the same offense and you find out someone else was let go, how will you feel as a parent, no matter what."

Kumar: The statement is at the root of all this - if I can't get away with it then you shouldn't - is that sympathetic? On the other hand, if the person's actions were the result of mental/psychological issues resulting from bad childhood experiences, wouldn't you want the circumstances to be considered? [Bear in mind also that the person could have reached adulthood without exhibiting the wounds until a much later date.] Then there are cases of over-indulged children who exhibit the same actions because of their "I do what I want" rebelious attitude that should be handled in a different way.

I understand "rules" have to be made for the mainstream - but I think you realize that "rules" are not made to govern every single instant - there has to be grey areas or then we would be living under despotic regimes. Even judges in court understand that the law is the law - but certain cirumstances have to be considered and not everyone belongs in jail or should be punished the same way.

Players and commentators should follow Federer's dictum: no individual player is greater than or above tennis itself.

No matter how lousy their youth, or how abusive their parents, no matter what their star power is, no matter how good a player and how much adored. The good of the sport has to come first and the right of all players, including the lowly ones, to play in a non corrupt sport. That at least should be aimed for and excuses not made when it's not reached.

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

What?! Why? This is the ONLY relevant point of contention for the sport!!!
All else is just navel gazing. Very disappointed.

Kaygee:

You do make a valid point, I just hope such levels of consideration of what might have caused such behavior is extended to all.

"The good of the sport has to come first" - why?

I'm baffled by that.

Also by the idea that some good for the ATP won't come out of this in revealing how the "independent tribunals" that hear ATP cases bend over backwards to explain positive tests (something that hasn't changed apprently in 12 years - see Gasquet. Where or not he as telling the truth, they made no real effrot to verify his story). Or that people (Nadal and Murray) will stop complaining about how stringent the current regulations are - Murray least had the wit to follow that up with an empathetic remark about Agassi although Nadal's position (sympathy for Gasquet, complaints about how the testing is too tight and highly critical position on Agassi) seems contradictory.

i still marvel at some of these posts...if anyone out there thinks crystal meth can help you play better tennis, well, plug in your brains, thats just arsinine! feeling empowered and energetic is great, but when your brain in non functional and you cant think and you have the attention span of a flea, then you tell me how that can help anyone perform as an athlete in a sport that requires pin point concentration and mental focus...

honestly, common sense alert! this whole thing still rankled me more because Hingis got so screwed over...

Ruth
glad to see that you agree the accusations were off-base. (although you rose to the defense of one of the accusers. But that seems to stem from something that occurred months ago, rather than the issue at hand).

"Alexis: The poor guy probably thought that he was using the best (kindest?) word by saying that he was "disappointed," only to find himself being accused of self-righteousness and other offenses.

"I have to agree with you about Roger's statement about the Agassi affair. Federer has always been outspoken about his support for and insistence on having tennis be a clean sport; and he would have looked like a hypocrite if, after what he'd said in the past (when other players were charged), he went all "no comment" on Agassi.

"The poor guy probably thought that he was using the best (kindest?) word by saying that he was "disappointed," only to find himself being accused of self-righteousness and other offenses."

my 12:20 am post

From agassi's book. He's talking about the 2006 US Open:

*And then somehow I beat him, in five furious, agonising sets. Afterwards I’m barely able to stagger up the tunnel and into the locker room before my back gives out. Darren and Gil lift me onto the training table, while Baghdatis’s people hoist him onto the table beside me. He’s cramping badly. A trainer says the doctors are on the way. He turns on the TV above the table and everyone clears out, leaving just me and Baghdatis, both of us writhing and groaning in pain.*

And he goes on to describe his unexpected meeting with his father at his hotel in NYC, who tells him to quit.

I found this stuff fascinating. It told me far more about the demands of the sport than his use of the recreational drug crystal meth, which is not performance-enhancing. (that seems to have more to do with agassi's personal life and possibly his own physiological make-up that may, just may, include a propensity toward addiction--and that's nothing to sneer at). From what I know, and I haven't read the entire book, of course, I think it's courageous he spoke out about this.

As for the comment from Liron and sbilly about Federer's reaction (his use of the word disappointed was so condescending, they said): YAWN. TEDIOUS. And then being disingenuous about other people starting the so-called fedal wars after posting the comment that helped start it!! Please..It's clear from reading another blog that at least one of the two has a deep dislike of Federer.

I thought Federer's full remarks were reasonable and fair, and he praised Agassi as well at length. It IS disappointing to hear. Federer is president of the players' council; sports in general has a problem with doping; he must be politic in his response. He can't just let it hang out like Safin (who was not sympathetic to Agassi's revealing all of this now).

Federer's full reply to Agassi's drug use.

"It was a shock when I heard the news. I am disappointed and I hope there are no more such cases in future," Federer said at a "sponsors meeting" at Kilchberg near Zurich.
But Federer also noted that Agassi "has done a lot for tennis, both as a player and as a human being".
"Today, he raises millions of dollars for his foundation for disadvantaged children," the Swiss ace commented"

Perhaps if lazy journalists cared to write the whole story from an interview and not isolated "snippets" then we might not be attacking Federer or anyone else for being forced to respond to something that Agassi instigated.

codepoke:

Thanks for your view.

Keep Smiling

Annie, I don't think thats meth that does that, is it? I thought meth made people...umm, well lets just say passive. Maybe he was affected differently? It may have made him more focused in that he really was into the match, but it wouldn't make him a better player, I don't think.