Tennis Club | All things Tennis, All the time

Posts Tagged ‘lining’

Filed under: U.S. Open

This is when a suspension is not a suspension, a major fine is not a major fine.

It took months to figure this out, how to word it perfectly, but on Monday, the International Tennis Federation did it.

It gave Serena Williams a punishment that wasn't a punishment.

The $175,000 fine and three-year suspended ban from the U.S. Open and probationary period for her f-bomb laced, threatening tirade at a tiny U.S. Open line judge do sound like big words, don't they?

They aren't. Break it down, and Williams will end up paying just $82,500. She recently referred to $50,000 as the furniture budget in her home remodeling.

If she doesn't have another major outburst, the fine is cut to that number, and the suspension thrown out. She will not miss a tournament. Her debt will be paid.

Look, the fine means nothing to Williams. She won't feel it. But the ITF can say that it's a record size.

OK, Serena? Is this OK with you?

I can only imagine ITF officials pleading with her to please, please let them appear to be an actual governing body.

You remember what happened. The line judge called footfault on Williams, who then waved her racquet in the judge's face and threatened to take the ``(f-ing) ball'' and shove it down her "(f-ing) throat.''

That led to a point penalty on match point. So the match was over.

Let's be honest: Race is an issue. It always is with tennis and the Williams sisters. Some people will think Williams was given a record fine because she's black. Others will think she was given a pass because she's black.

Some people think she was the bully, some think she was victim of a bad call.

The ITF doesn't really care what's right. That was never an issue. The only issue was this: How do you give a penalty that looks big but isn't?

The point isn't that she was punished too much or too little, but rather that it was a non-justice based on non-truths, when true leadership was crying out because people's real feelings were involved about the game, Williams, race, and sportsmanship.

The feelings are so real that some people insist the video evidence proves she never footfaulted. Others demand the video evidence proved she did.

Here's the truth: There is no camera shot, video or still, that can determine anything.

There are lots of truths missing here, a mess that has made tennis look uglier than ever. Williams' smokescreen reasons for her tantrum, her ``punishment,'' the ITF's naked self-interest, John McEnroe's irresponsibility.

The ITF let this thing drag on so long that hard feelings only grew. It became a social debate lining up mostly along racial lines.

So the ITF points out that this is the biggest fine ever at a major. Jeff Tarango got about half as much for storming off at Wimbledon and calling a chair ump corrupt. His wife later slapped the judge, too.

Of course, the ITF doesn't mention that Tarango was also banned from two majors. McEnroe was once suspended for two months.

But McEnroe had been a brat for years, and that could have been a career-achievement punishment. Serena has not behaved bad nearly as often, though she did threaten a player who cheated her at this year's French Open. In fact, one tennis official told the New York Times, "We're not talking about a John McEnroe type character here."

Here was the telling quote, a bit of truth, from ITF president Francesco Ricci Bitti a few weeks ago:

"I don't think (an Australian Open ban) would make much sense, because it would penalize the people handing out the punishment. For the grand slam committee to exclude her from a grand slam doesn't seem likely.

"A significant financial penalty makes more sense. But it has to be significant enough for the fans.''

They didn't want to kick her out of a major tournament because that would hurt the tournament. How is that's a concern to a governing body?

And they wanted a fine big enough to look like justice, not to serve it.

Let's go back over what really happened, over the truth.

Williams was in the semifinals of the U.S. Open playing Kim Clijsters in a tight match. Williams had been spouting off all year about how she was the real No. 1, not No. 1 ranked Dinara Safina. That had racial overtones. So did the sudden popularity of teenager Melanie Oudin, a white girl from the South, at the Open. How much of her appeal was that she was the great white hope?

So that was the setting. And Clijsters, just back from a 2 1/2-year break, was beating Williams. Williams was two points from losing when she was called for footfault on her second serve.

Did she footfault? Yes. Absolutely.

I was sitting just behind the line judge, several rows back. Other media members were sitting there too. She clearly stepped way out onto the thick baseline.

But that's not really the point. With several chances, Williams could not bring herself to play the final point. Why?

Because to her, that was less embarrassing than losing to a woman just back from maternity leave.
Williams quit this match, not planning to get thrown out, but knowing at some level that she would.

Meanwhile, McEnroe, still the face of the game in many ways, was on TV ripping the line judge, saying he didn't see a footfault and that a judge doesn't make calls like that such in a crucial situation. Juan Martin del Potro, by the way, was called for a footfault in a crucial third-set tiebreaker last week during the ATP Finals.

But whatever, McEnroe, famous for being a jerk to officials, was irresponsibly and unwittingly fueling a racial debate even though there was this truth:

From where he was sitting, he could not have seen whether Williams had actually foot-faulted.

The next day, Williams issued a statement calling it an "unfair line call.'' The day after that, with endorsers presumably upset, she issued a real apology.

She went on to win the tour championship, reclaim the No. 1 ranking, appear nude on the cover of ESPN the Magazine, pitch her new book, appear on Leno and every other show.

Did she get away with this? Obviously.

But was justice served? Well, that was never a consideration.

Email me at gregcouch09@aol.com

Tennis Deserves Fault for Serena's Flawed Justice originally appeared on Tennis FanHouse on Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:00:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Filed under: U.S. Open, WTA

It's amazing how much "no comment" can say. I've made a pet project of the curious case of Yanina Wickmayer, the young tennis player banned for a year from the tour for a doping offense even though she never missed a doping test and never failed one.

Wickmayer is being punished for Andre Agassi's sins. That's how tennis is trying to save face, by crushing a 20-year old budding star who seems to have committed, at worst, a tiny infraction.

I've spent the past few weeks calling and emailing the doping agencies and governing bodies involved. You name the initials, VDT, WADA, WTA, ITF.

Most of them are B.S. In the end, this isn't even about Wickmayer anymore. It's about doping tests and steroids in sports in general. We need watchers to keep an eye on the cheating athletes.

But who is watching the watchers?

Here's what Koen Umans, spokesman for the Flemish anti-doping council (VDT) in Belgium that banned Wickmayer, wrote in an email response to a request for details of her case and a copy of the 20-page report on it:

"As for reason the procedure is not yet finalized at all (appeals are introduced at different levels), it shouldn't be correct to comment on the factuals as a spokesman of the court involved."

A spokesperson for the World Anti-Doping Agency said, "WADA must refrain from commenting on pending cases in order to protect the integrity of this review."

Integrity. Interesting. The thing is, agencies have already commented. VDT banned Wickmayer and said the punishment was just. Those are such strong comments that a young woman who just had her breakthrough, reaching the U.S. Open semis, had to pack up and leave a tournament. Imagine the humiliation.

Her agents had been close to lining up endorsements, too.

Those talks are on hold now.

Why didn't she inform the doping-testers where she would be, as rules require? That sounds bad.

She has an answer. She blames the Flemish anti-doping agency, and now, no comment from the agency.

We've heard so many ridiculous excuses for failed tests that no one believes athletes anymore. At the Turin Olympics, members of the Austrian ski team fled the country in fear of WADA testers and the law.

One official was thrown into an insane asylum. How great watching cheats running.

Wickmayer's name was smeared, her career seriously damaged and her reputation assaulted. And now the agencies won't explain? I've always been a fan of WADA. But Wickmayer's story passes the smell test. And WADA's and Flemish agency's silence casts the suspicion on them.

I'm starting to feel bad for the guy in the insane asylum.

Wickmayer's name was smeared, her career seriously damaged and her reputation assaulted. And now the agencies won't explain?

Look, if an agency is going to serve as judge and jury, then it has to be accountable for its paper trail. Open. Transparent.

"All the letters that I had to sign for upon receipt," Wickmayer said, "were sent back to the Flemish Anti-Doping Agency, meaning that they did know that I had never received them."

This is Wickmayer's case. She didn't report her whereabouts three times in 18 months.

Under WADA rules, the top 50 players have to tell testers where they'll be for an hour each day. Wickmayer wasn't in the top 50 yet, but countries can toughen-up those standards. The Flemish agency decided the top 50 wasn't enough.

So Wickmayer, from Belgium, had to account for her whereabouts. But someone needed to tell Wickmayer.

Here's her claim: She never reported her whereabouts because she didn't know she was supposed to. The Flemish agency sent her a letter in November or December of 2008 to inform her of her requirements, but she was training in Switzerland. The letter was sent via certified mail, meaning it wasn't delivered because no one was there to sign for it.

So it went back to VDT.

In February of 2009, she said, other players mentioned the whereabouts rule to her, so she wrote to the VDT to ask about it.

"I received an email back, which included a login and did not include any information about the one failed update I had already missed, without knowing that this system even exists ..." she said.

Strike one.

The password the agency gave her never worked, she said. And after coming back from the U.S. seven weeks later, she called officials, who said they had to reset her password. What they didn't tell her: strike two.

For strike three, she misunderstood the form online and filled it in wrong.

So she has some blame here. For one, why did she wait seven weeks to mention that her password wasn't working?

One official said that when an athlete gives an address to a sports federation, that athlete is responsible for finding a way to receive mail sent to that address.

But when the agency got the letter back, couldn't it have called Wickmayer? Sent an email? Called an agent?

Umans said there would be a press conference in Brussels this week, and I asked if it would include details on how Wickmayer was informed.

Also, where can I get the 20-page report?

"We won't comment on particular cases," Umans wrote back. And, "We are not allowed and will not publish the verdict. I repeat it has been handed only to the parties involved."

Here's a timeline: A prosecutor in the case suggested that Wickmayer get a stern warning. Then Agassi humiliated tennis by admitting he lied his way out of a failed crystal meth test. Then Wickmayer was banned for a year.

Everything she says would be so easy to check. The Flemish agency must know whether its letters were signed for. Records could show whether officials called Wickmayer or sent emails.

One of Wickmayer's people told me the report says she's not suspected of doping or hiding from tests, but instead of technical errors.

Usually, it's the people with something to hide who say "No comment."

Email me at gregcouch09@aol.com

Wickmayer Suspended for Agassi's Sins originally appeared on Tennis FanHouse on Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:00:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Filed under: U.S. Open, WTA

NEW YORK -- So now John McEnroe has become the judge and jury over the debate about Serena Williams and the line judge who had the nerve to call foot fault.

Think about that. John McEnroe's trademark, equal to his great tennis, is that he spent his career being a jerk to linespeople. Next up, you can go to Michael Vick for advice on proper pet care or Brett Favre on the right time to retire.

This is the absurd, but it isn't funny. McEnroe is fueling a debate that has grown to something much bigger than tennis, tantrums and foot faults. This thing has exploded into a social fight that's lining up in large part, but not entirely, along racial lines.

---

---

And I wonder if McEnroe realizes how important he is in this debate, and how irresponsible he's being. Or maybe he just doesn't care.

"In my opinion, you can't call a foot fault there," McEnroe said to ESPN.com. "Just out of the question. Can't do it. It was so close, not as if it was an obvious foot fault. It was miniscule.

"I've seen Serena come back from that position a dozen times against top-flight opponents. The match was not over."

These are the statements the Serena-was-screwed people are using as evidence.

Close? Not obvious? Miniscule? Let me say this:

John McEnroe has no idea whether Serena Williams foot faulted. None.

The TV booth, where announcers sit, is behind the court. You couldn't see it from there. And the camera angle we have gotten from CBS is from behind Serena, low and on her right. McEnroe knows as well as anyone that you can't see from that angle whether the left side of Serena's left foot had crossed onto the line.

Yet he seems to have no problem validating Williams' anger.

And his irresponsibility is bleeding out of his sport and into a societal argument that so often accompanies the subject of the Williams sisters. He is spurring on hard feelings based on what he observed from angles he knows were impossible.

In his role as commentator for ESPN and for CBS, he keeps saying that he cannot defend the indefensible. Presumably, he's talking about Williams telling the linesperson she would take the (bleeping) ball and stuff it down her (bleeping) throat.

But think about this. Why is McEnroe even on TV? Because he is The Show. It's a smart move, and he's usually good. But he became The Show by mistreating linespeople.

He has been celebrated for it, treated like a folk hero for it, and now is being paid for it, rewarded for it. And he is in the position on TV, where most people turn for their tennis coverage.

So if McEnroe is paid for it, then why should Williams be heavily penalized for it?

Come to think of it, my examples of Favre and Vick are wrong. They aren't looked to for their expertise on animals and retirement. McEnroe is for his opinions on anything tennis.

His presence itself, elevated to spokesman for the game, is defense of Williams' actions, and his suggestion that she didn't foot fault at all is defense of her anger.

Here is the truth, by the way. Williams foot faulted. It was not close. I was sitting just behind the line judge, maybe 10 rows up, right on the line. During the match, the guy next to me and I were actually talking about why Kim Clijsters and Williams get so close to the line to serve. Weren't they worried about foot-faulting?

So I started watching the line and the feet on every serve. When Williams moved that left foot forward, and at least an inch onto that thick baseline, I pointed, and so did the guy next to me, before the call was made.

Well, McEnroe seems to say that you can't make that call anyway, even if Williams did foot fault. I keep hearing this argument, comparing tennis and basketball.

But in basketball, there are fouls on every play. Officials can't stop it, so they try to judge which fouls are affecting play.

That's subjective. Tennis is objective. There's a line and a foot. If the foot is on the line, it's a fault. Simple.

If Kobe Bryant put his feet over the free throw line at the end of a tight game, would that be OK? How about bowling? If it comes down to the final frame of a major championship, and one bowler needs a strike, if he slides over the line an inch and knocks down all 10 pins, would we argue just to give it to him? No big deal?

Just because John McEnroe has decided to re-up his career being a jerk to linespeople, and maybe to try in some odd way to defend his own actions from years ago, that's no reason to ignore the rules.

McEnroe, though, from his impossible-to-see position and impossible-to-conclude TV camera angle, has decided that the line judge sitting there on the line with one function and only one, was wrong.

And he was right.

Now, Williams did come back Monday, with an apology, finally. She amended her statement from a day earlier when she kept fighting, saying she had been overly passionate over an "unfair line call."

Still, she said Monday that the call was wrong, and disingenuously said that she'd like to give the line judge a "big ol' hug."

Her tantrum was the worst I've seen in tennis, and you can't just let threats to officials go. But we've seen athletes drop f-bombs, seen plenty of tennis players berate lines people. So let's not go overboard with the punishment.

Of course, no one defends her actions. Luckily for the Serena-was-screwed people, they have McEnroe, the cool-headed arbiter, there building a case.

Email me at gregcouch09@aol.com

McEnroe's Defense Out of Bounds originally appeared on Tennis FanHouse on Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:02:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments